• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Military Action in Syria vs. Iraq

Is opposing action in Syria but initially supporting it in Iraq hypocrisy?


  • Total voters
    11

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
53,716
Reaction score
39,749
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Is it hypocritical for Americans who supported Bush II's invasion of Iraq to oppose military action against Syria?
 

Diogenes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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. It was the "nation building" part that broke down, and it seems to be an intractable problem in the ME. I think the UN should seriously consider returning Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to the Turks. And then look the other way for a few years until the Turks get the place organized.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,268
Reaction score
17,614
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Is it hypocritical for Americans who supported Bush II's invasion of Iraq to oppose military action against Syria?

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.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
87,204
Reaction score
57,558
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
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.

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.
 

CycloneWanderer

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
584
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
A lot of time has passed since we got into Iraq. People can change their mind and I wouldn't call that hypocrisy.
 

mak2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
12,050
Reaction score
5,716
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Live and learn. I have.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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. ;)
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is it hypocritical for Americans who supported Bush II's invasion of Iraq to oppose military action against Syria?
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.

Syria is a war for oil, make no mistake about that. Going to war over energy is a right and good thing.

What is objectionable is not that the President lies, but that We The People force him to have to lie. He cannot tell us the truth because we wouldn't give him political support if he did.

We are in the wrong for not supporting non-defensive warfare for oil, not the President for lying to us about it.
 

Opteron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
629
Reaction score
136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.
 

Diogenes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.

The answer to your question is in the part of my post that you omitted.
 
Top Bottom