"TEA Party" and "Progressives" both oppose attacking Syria? (Iraq, illegal)

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus

It appears the racist 'baggers aren't quite as racist as we thought - they oppose killing innocent Arabs in Syria, which is more than we can say for Obama and company. Who's the racist now?

I don't see what race has to do with it. Syrians are white, and TP is mostly white. The problem is that doing nothing will kill way more people than doing something. The TP position is one of indifference, because they are saying it is none of our business, which means they don't care how many people die, or do not die. That is why it is a tough call. Can we allow evil to continue even when we are in position to stop it? Many say it is none of our business, but historically US has tried to help.

[jazzarama]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

You defeat evil by having breakfast with your kids? Thats interesting.

Partisan politicians from both sides "evolve" their opinion based on how they are told to vote.

Didn't Obama's opinion on gay marriage 'evolve' while talking to his kids over breakfast ? Or was it dinner ?

Who exactly will tell rank and file House R's how to vote on attacking Syria ? Boehner ? A lot more D's than R's will be told how to vote.

You can join Obama with the red line stuff. Even if you accept it was Assad who used the chemical weapons, this is a crazy way to assure they won't be used in the future. If Russia and others are right and it was the opposition, rebels, whatever they are, who used chemicals, I suppose Russia would be defeating evil by bombing them.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by jazzarama

Didn't Obama's opinion on gay marriage 'evolve' while talking to his kids over breakfast ? Or was it dinner ?

So, you do it because Obama did it.....? You don't have to do everything he does. You are idolizing him.

[LauraC]

Foreign Policy is not in the objectives of the bigger tea parties. However, which of the two groups do you think are more likely to have sons or daughters in the military. The Mount Olympus Liberals or the Middle Class Tea Partiers?

[Goinback2011]

OK...so can someone explain just WHY many "mainstream" Dems as well as neo-con Rs are pushing for yet another war? One that in no way benefits US interests

It's a temporary confluence of support for a middle eastern war by two factions of billionaires who own these politicians.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by LauraC

Foreign Policy is not in the objectives of the bigger tea parties.

Who knows about the TP, but massive reduction of US military presence is an objective of libertarians.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

I don't see what race has to do with it. Syrians are white, and TP is mostly white. The problem is that doing nothing will kill way more people than doing something. The TP position is one of indifference, because they are saying it is none of our business, which means they don't care how many people die, or do not die. That is why it is a tough call. Can we allow evil to continue even when we are in position to stop it? Many say it is none of our business, but historically US has tried to help.

Who cares if they're purple --- race has nothing to do with it. We have no "friends" in Syria. The side Obama claims to be on cuts out hearts and organs of the victims they slaughter and eats them raw.

Obama has no end plan. He's claiming that we'll just bomb them for 60 days. But then what?

If he were to hit Assad with a bomb, then the government falls. Then what? Anarchy isn't going to be so great. The organ-eaters aren't going to be great rulers either.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by malamute

Who cares if they're purple --- race has nothing to do with it.

That's what I said

If he were to hit Assad with a bomb, then the government falls. Then what? Anarchy isn't going to be so great.

Well, we have CIA on the ground helping the moderate rebels, and we have US military in Jordan training commandos in case they need to get involved in opposing radical elements. Hopefully with those efforts the moderate rebels will take control and establish new government. I think your comments place you on the Iranian and Russian side of the conflict, but I think you'd probably want to be neutral.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by bUU

Leftists oppose attacking Syria because they care about the people of Syria.

Tea Party folks oppose attacking Syria because they care about how the cost could affect their own comfort and luxury.

Even if true, I care less the reason if it's the right thing. Right reason or wrong reason for doing the right thing always trumps doing the wrong thing.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by mb1547

Actually, it looks like it's breaking out more on ideology. The far right and far left oppose the war based on ideology--they hate everything the president does and/or they're libertarian isolationists, or they're liberals always against military conflict of any kind, blah blah blah. In contrast, the center left and center right, who really don't care about ideology, are more concerned about being practical and dealing with the facts at hand. They're the group most likely to support this, because something has to be done.

WHY? More importantly, why do WE have to do it?