Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Asked in other threads is "Why is Obama even considering targeted strikes?" And, "What is the purpose of lobbing a few missiles?"
Well, I have a theory. This theory is backed by observation of liberal politics for a few decades... Liberals have a belief that they can (and should) by use of punishment for failing to comply - use government to force people to do what they want them to do.
The tax code has literally thousands of "do this and we'll reward you, do that and we'll punish you" situations. Obamacare's biggest controversy is over "spend your money this way or we punish you by taking your money away from you".
Basically, liberalism (and Obama's a liberal, never doubt it) as a personal philosophy, presents itself as a firm belief in an entitlement to force others to do as you think they should.
The "we're going to punish you for not fighting the way want you to fight (that being without chemical weapons) by blowing up some stuff" policy is what Obama is pursuing.
So, Obama's doing what comes naturally... Attempting to control other's behaviors. Seriously, he should not be so foolhardy as to think he can "adjust" Assad's behavior to be less unacceptable. Clinton and Bush made the same mistakes. And, it seems to nearly universal to modern liberals - and it goes all the way back to the North / South Korea conflict, which we lost because it was a "use a big stick to cajole the behavior we want" and yet it failed utterly.
The OP has a great "theory" except that I'm channel flipping in my office this morning, and I just saw Rep. Allen Grayson (about as liberal as it gets) come unglued over our taking any action in Syria. This isn't a liberal or conservative thing--we have people in agreement or disagreement on both sides of the aisle. Boehner is on the news as I speak endorsing action in Syria. Amazing how people change their stand on issues once they actually see the facts vs. going on a partisan rant. Pelosi, Boehner and Obama are all on the same side now. I guess Boehner is a liberal now too. Oh wait. If you're a teavangelical--I'm sure you DO believe that.
So George W. Bush was a liberal for demanding -- and then achieving-- the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Everyone who wants to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons is a liberal?
Gosh.
And how was the Korean War an "utter failure"? South Korea is free.
North Korea is not. THAT is why it's a failure.
So, your purpose is posting is just to muddy the water, to prevent discussion of the idea itself? Why can't you honestly reply to the idea and discuss it?
That's a great "theory" except that I'm channel flipping in my office this morning, and I just saw Rep. Allen Grayson (about as liberal as it gets) come unglued over our taking any action in Syria. This isn't a liberal or conservative thing--we have people in agreement or disagreement on both sides of the aisle. Boehner is on the news as I speak endorsing action in Syria. Amazing how people change their stand on issues once people actually see the facts vs. going on a partisan rant. Pelosi, Boehner and Obama are all on the same side now.
LOL, you're pretending that they didn't read the tea leaves and suddenly change their public stances.
You forget that until public pressure came to bear, the libs were all for it.
Yet, this still fails to address the argument. Obama intended to bomb Syria initially, because he simply believes himself entitled to force everyone else to do as he thinks. Just as all liberals do.
So, your purpose is posting is just to muddy the water, to prevent discussion of the idea itself? Why can't you honestly reply to the idea and discuss it?
The OP said "an UTTER failure." An utter failure would have allowed the Communists to retain control over the entire peninsula.
LOL, you're pretending that they didn't read the tea leaves and suddenly change their public stances.
You forget that until public pressure came to bear, the libs were all for it.
Yet, this still fails to address the argument. Obama intended to bomb Syria initially, because he simply believes himself entitled to force everyone else to do as he thinks. Just as all liberals do.
What on EARTH are you babbling about? Recent polling shows that most Americans don't support the strikes at this time--there has been no "public pressure" for the strikes. That's why the administration is trying to make a case to the American people NOW. The liberals ARE for the strikes, or at least the leadership and the House and Senate are. After the intelligence briefings over the weekend, Boehner is on board now too. Pelosi and Boehner just gave a press conference in the last 15 minutes coming out in support of the strikes, and Boehner most likely has enough non-teavangelical R's in the House to get it passed when you combine those votes with the D's.
Alan Grayson is a nut, just like the teavangelical nuts in the House. Fortunately for the Democrats, they have way less of them than the R's at this point in time.
LOL, you're pretending that they didn't read the tea leaves and suddenly change their public stances.
You forget that until public pressure came to bear, the libs were all for it.
Yet, this still fails to address the argument. Obama intended to bomb Syria initially, because he simply believes himself entitled to force everyone else to do as he thinks. Just as all liberals do.
And again: by your very own definition, both Presidents Bush are "liberals" too, because they both favor an interventionist foreign policy.
You're basically redefining the term "liberal" into meaninglessness.
So George W. Bush was a liberal for demanding -- and then achieving-- the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Everyone who wants to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons is a liberal?
Gosh.
And how was the Korean War an "utter failure"? South Korea is free.
South Korea is still technically at war, they just have a cease fire. As for failure, you might ask North Korea how "free" they feel. It's amazing to me that we'll get involved in Syria, when a few hundred innocent citizens are killed. But North Korea has been imprisoning and killing millions of their citizens for decades, but we don't do a thing.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013
The OP said "an UTTER failure." An utter failure would have allowed the Communists to retain control over the entire peninsula.
And NOTHING would have changed with life in the US.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This isn't a liberal or conservative thing--we have people in agreement or disagreement on both sides of the aisle. Boehner is on the news as I speak endorsing action in Syria. Amazing how people change their stand on issues once they actually see the facts vs. going on a partisan rant. Pelosi, Boehner and Obama are all on the same side now. 
I guess Boehner is a liberal now too. Oh wait. If you're a teavangelical--I'm sure you DO believe that. 
