Is it hypocritical for Americans who supported Bush II's invasion of Iraq to oppose military action against Syria?
Lean no. While much of the hysteria is similar - "proof positive" of WMDs - my objection to action in Syria is the total lack of leadership in the Obama administration. At least Bush had clearly stated objectives and a strategy for achieving them.
Those WMD's are now in Syria apparently.I say no.Saddam used WMDs at least 16-20 times. According to some sources Saddam murdered at least a million of his own people. Even before Bush was in office practically everybody was claiming Saddam had WMDs. Saddam made everyone think he still had WMDs. Saddam was like a repeat convicted murderer who made everyone think he murdered another person.Saddam overall was a inhuman monster. Plus 9-11 was still fresh in everyone's minds and we didn't want another middle easterner to be a threat to us.
Those WMD's are now in Syria apparently.
Yes, it is hypocrisy. In both cases we allowed and even supported the local tyrant until they got in the way of our oil. In Iraq's case Sodom tried to base his oil on the Euro instead of the US Dollar. In Syria's case it's a pipeline we want put through there to drastically improve shipping in a number of ways, and the stability of the oil fields in general is now at risk. In both cases we couldn't act until something major occurred. In both cases what occurred was the use of a WMD.Is it hypocritical for Americans who supported Bush II's invasion of Iraq to oppose military action against Syria?
If you supported war in Iraq, to not be hypocritical you should support action in Syria as well. However, its not hypocritical to be against the invasion of Iraq while still supporting action in Syria because one is a more critical situation.Is it hypocritical for Americans who supported Bush II's invasion of Iraq to oppose military action against Syria?
Really? Is that why we've been there for over a decade? Bush nor Obama have a plan here other than to entrench us in perpetual warfare.