Syria .. Why The Concern? (Hypocrites!)

[MrClose]

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

Ramblings from the Far Side.

And avoidance from the usual suspects!

When you can't answer the question 'pretend' that one wasn't asked!

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Rggr

It's an interesting decision point. I agree that chemical weapons are nasty and peope should pay a price for using them. The interesting point is that it's hands off while 100,000 people get killed through conventional means, but you have to attack when 200 get killed from the wrong weapon.

200? Try 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children.

[softblueyz]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

200? Try 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children.

Those numbers were released yesterday during Kerry's plea. Before Kerry announced that number, which was provided by the UN investigators yesterday, I recall reports that is was around 350 that died with well over 1,000 injured.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by carterstamp

Biiiig difference here, well besides the usual anti-librul screed.

Bush lied to get us into Iraq.

Bush put boots on the ground in Iraq.

You guys can't seem to make up your confused little minds on whether to call Obama a warmonger or a wimp. It really must suck to be so confused and pissed off all the time. That comforting little bubble the RWNJs live in is getting kind of stinky, what with all the bull****.

So let me get this straight.

In 2008, Obama proudly ran as the only candidate who consistently opposed the Iraq War, gave a bunch of speeches about America sticking its nose in other people's business (see apology tour) and even won a Nobel Peace Prize for what the prize committee expected him to do based on his anti-war rhetoric.

At the same time, liberals reminded us that we had no business in Iraq or any other nation that hasn't attacked us and that Bush was a war criminal unable to justify his "rush to war".


Well carterstamp, since I seem to be one of those confused right-wing nut jobs living in a bull **** bubble, perhaps you could help me make sense of the current situation by explaining to me how Syria has attacked or even threatened the US such that we should attack them back.

While you're at it, explain to me how it is we know Bush lied about chemical weapons in Iraq and also know Obama is not lying about chemical weapons being used by Assad in Syria.

Also, please explain the purpose of the proposed missile attacks.

Will Assad be driven from power?

Will his ability to launch future chemical attacks be destroyed?

If Assad is the bad guy, who is the good guy?

If saving the children of Syria (Libya too) from a brutal dictator is moral justification for military action by the US, why didn't children in Iraq deserve the same consideration?


If Sarah Palin couldn't explain the "Bush doctrine" to the satisfaction of those on the left, perhaps someone on the left could explain to me what the Obama doctrine is.

[MrClose]

Originally Posted by momonkey

So let me get this straight.

In 2008, Obama proudly ran as the only candidate who consistently opposed the Iraq War, gave a bunch of speeches about America sticking its nose in other people's business (see apology tour) and even won a Nobel Peace Prize for what the prize committee expected him to do based on his anti-war rhetoric.

At the same time, liberals reminded us that we had no business in Iraq or any other nation that hasn't attacked us and that Bush was a war criminal unable to justify his "rush to war".


Well carterstamp, since I seem to be one of those confused right-wing nut jobs living in a bull **** bubble, perhaps you could help me make sense of the current situation by explaining to me how Syria has attacked or even threatened the US such that we should attack them back.

While you're at it, explain to me how it is we know Bush lied about chemical weapons in Iraq and also know Obama is not lying about chemical weapons being used by Assad in Syria.

Also, please explain the purpose of the proposed missile attacks.

Will Assad be driven from power?

Will his ability to launch future chemical attacks be destroyed?

If Assad is the bad guy, who is the good guy?

If saving the children of Syria (Libya too) from a brutal dictator is moral justification for military action by the US, why didn't children in Iraq deserve the same consideration?


If Sarah Palin couldn't explain the "Bush doctrine" to the satisfaction of those on the left, perhaps someone on the left could explain to me what the Obama doctrine is.

JUST 'STOP IT'!

You're logic is irrefutable and you've now chased off all the Obama sycophants!

(I like big words)