"TEA Party" and "Progressives" both oppose attacking Syria? (middle east, weapons)

[Finn_Jarber]

It makes sense for the TP and liberals to find common ground in issues like this, because the TP is liberal with social issues and with foreign policy.

[NVplumber]

Each side opposes a strike for different reasons, but at least agree that such a strike IS a bad idea. I do not understand Obamas adamance in wanting to do this. It's sending up a flag. Iran wants us to hit. They are spoiling for a fight, and stand to gain a lot by it. I believe they are hoping for an Arab/Muslim alliance to come out of this, and are now trying to goad Obama into an executive ordered strike. They are fairly slobbering over the idea. Wake up Obama! Your playing by the enemies rules. Not a good position.

Unless we are prepared for a REAL war, it's time to let these children play. If we just leave it be, they will kill each other better than we can, doing the dirty work for us. What could be better?

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by NVplumber

Each side opposes a strike for different reasons, but at least agree that such a strike IS a bad idea. I do not understand Obamas adamance in wanting to do this. It's sending up a flag. Iran wants us to hit. They are spoiling for a fight, and stand to gain a lot by it. I believe they are hoping for an Arab/Muslim alliance to come out of this, and are now trying to goad Obama into an executive ordered strike. They are fairly slobbering over the idea. Wake up Obama! Your playing by the enemies rules. Not a good position.

Unless we are prepared for a REAL war, it's time to let these children play. If we just leave it be, they will kill each other better than we can, doing the dirty work for us. What could be better?

You got it completely upside down. Russia, China and Iran (and many Americans) are the the most vocal against the strike.

[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.

[Finn_Jarber]

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.

True. Too many Americans have tied their own hands with partisan politics and they cannot choose to support or oppose anything based on their own judgment.

It turns out the anti-war liberals are being more honest with this issue, because they oppose it because they have always opposed war. The anti-Obama Republicans however have NEVER before been heard opposing the use of force, but now they do, and they come across horribly dishonest. Rand Paul and few other Republicans are being honest because they have spoken against military interventions in the past. Pelosi is an example of a dishonest Dem, because she supports it now, after having opposed similar action in the past.

[tinman01]

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.

or
Some of us fail to see why it should always be the USA and US tax dollars paying for these missions. Who wants Canada or Russia to come into Chicago to clean up that mess?
Chemical weapons are a nasty business but at the end of the day dead is dead regardless of weapon of choice.
Syria is not our conflict (YET) and none of our business.

[jazzarama]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

True. Too many Americans have tied their own hands with partisan politics and they cannot choose to support or oppose anything based on their own judgment.

It turns out the anti-war liberals are being more honest with this issue, because they oppose it because they have always opposed war. The anti-Obama Republicans however have NEVER before been heard opposing the use of force, but now they do, and they come across horribly dishonest. Rand Paul and few other Republicans are being honest because they have spoken against military interventions in the past. Pelosi is an example of a dishonest Dem, because she supports it now, after having opposed similar action in the past.

Maybe those anti-Obama R's have 'evolved' on the use of military force to resolve civil conflict by talking to their children at the breakfast table.

If their votes against attacking Syria are dishonest, politically-motivated, fine by me. It's the correct decision, regardless of their motives.

[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?

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

It makes sense for the TP and liberals to find common ground in issues like this, because the TP is liberal with social issues and with foreign policy.

Exactly - that is the essence of the Tea Party and it is precisely that impulse of libertarianism that is sweeping the grassroots today; the current historic opposition to the push towards war is proof enough of that.

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.

I would submit that it is no longer practical for the United States to rule the world and mete out punishment to mere mortals like an angry god - the cost of world domination is driving a huge increase in the national debt and hence bringing us closer to bankruptcy, the blowback against American imperialism threatens the security of Americans at home and abroad, and perpetual war provides a ready-made justification for imposing a police state at home. Far from being stymied by ideology, the ideology of non-interventionism* is firmly rooted in facts and practicality, using these to derive principles that are consistently applied to provide the greatest benefit to America and the rest of the world.

*By the way, your use of the word "isolationist" is quite ignorant, since you and your ilk appear to believe the only way to interact and be engaged with the rest of the world is to bomb and kill everyone under the rubric of global domination. "Libertarian isolationists" are clear-headed enough to see the possibility and desirability of peaceful interaction with the rest of the world based on the principles of free trade and self-determination.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, world domination has hit a roadblock, since you have no allies of any count in Syria, and the United States government is acting like a rogue nation by eschewing the UN process, spying on the rest of the world in violation of the very principles they claim to stand for, and going against the overwhelming opposition of their own people on this issue.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by jazzarama

Maybe those anti-Obama R's have 'evolved' on the use of military force to resolve civil conflict by talking to their children at the breakfast table.

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.

[tinman01]

Another thing I consider. What if the US and others hadn't involved themselves in this civil war at the beginning by supplying aid to the rebels. How many lives might not have been lost? Would chemical weapons have ever been used? We will never know.