Syria vs. Iraq

[MadLib]

I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.

 

[DaveFagan]

I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.

Hindsight says that Iraq was definitely wrong. Foresight says that Syria is wrong. You help no one by bringing death, destruction, chaos, and mayhem to their Nation. Try telling that to a war hawk.

 

[MadLib]

Hindsight says that Iraq was definitely wrong. Foresight says that Syria is wrong. You help no one by bringing death, destruction, chaos, and mayhem to their Nation. Try telling that to a war hawk.

Death, destruction, chaos and mayhem are already at their nation. We're helping potential victims (and the rebels) be safe from a chemical attack.

 

[aberrant85]

I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.

How's it ideologically inconsistent? I was opposed to invading Iraq because it was basically a manufactured crisis, Saddam had been tamed for years and was not a pressing threat, and it was forced on the US, the UK, and the world based on cherry-picked and unreliable information pushed by Neoconservative extremists.

I support responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons because it's a real, present, and ongoing threat, he provoked us to respond after we warned him not to, and the information seems to be vetted reliably from multiple sources.

I'm an interventionist when there's humanitarian issues at stake, the threat of not responding to aggression is worse than responding rationally to it, and there is a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. I'm convinced on the first two points, not sure one way or the other on the last point.

Feel free to press me on my stance.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Give me some feathers and call me a hawk, I supported intervention in both cases.

 

[Ikari]

I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.

Same ****, another day. Another Republocrat trying to bog us down in a decade war to make his corporate buddies rich off of American blood. Nothing new.

 

[Ikari]

How's it ideologically inconsistent? I was opposed to invading Iraq because it was basically a manufactured crisis, Saddam had been tamed for years and was not a pressing threat, and it was forced on the US, the UK, and the world based on cherry-picked and unreliable information pushed by Neoconservative extremists.

I support responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons because it's a real, present, and ongoing threat, he provoked us to respond after we warned him not to, and the information seems to be vetted reliably from multiple sources.

I'm an interventionist when there's humanitarian issues at stake, the threat of not responding to aggression is worse than responding rationally to it, and there is a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. I'm convinced on the first two points, not sure one way or the other on the last point.

Feel free to press me on my stance.

Until we go in there and after 6 years of fighting figure out that it wasn't Assad who used the chemical weapons. Seriously, our "intelligence" was flawed in Iraq....like it's gotten better? Government just making excuses for more power, more control, the God State. Fascism is easier to install with an infinity war and fear propaganda.

 

[Ikari]

Death, destruction, chaos and mayhem are already at their nation. We're helping potential victims (and the rebels) be safe from a chemical attack.

Are we?


Are we?

 

[CanadaJohn]

How's it ideologically inconsistent? I was opposed to invading Iraq because it was basically a manufactured crisis, Saddam had been tamed for years and was not a pressing threat, and it was forced on the US, the UK, and the world based on cherry-picked and unreliable information pushed by Neoconservative extremists.

I support responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons because it's a real, present, and ongoing threat, he provoked us to respond after we warned him not to, and the information seems to be vetted reliably from multiple sources.

I'm an interventionist when there's humanitarian issues at stake, the threat of not responding to aggression is worse than responding rationally to it, and there is a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. I'm convinced on the first two points, not sure one way or the other on the last point.

Feel free to press me on my stance.

I'm curious - have you advocated US intervention in any number of African states practicing genocide amongst their own peoples? How about in North Korea?

Why is Syria special in regard to humanitarian need?

 

[aberrant85]

War with Syria is the last thing the Obama administration wanted. War with Iraq was the first thing the Bush administration wanted. That right there should trigger what degree of skepticism to use.

And no, I don't have security clearance to see the intelligence in either case. Only my BS detector was off the charts back then, and only slightly registering now.

 

[MadLib]

I'm curious - have you advocated US intervention in any number of African states practicing genocide amongst their own peoples? How about in North Korea?

Why is Syria special in regard to humanitarian need?

I know that this is directed towards aberrant, but as I advocate intervention (in both cases) I think that I should respond as well.

If there's genocide anywhere I advocate at least some form of pressure or assistance required to end the genocide. North Korea is too close with China for me to advocate a direct military intervention, though.

Syria occupies a choke-point in the world economy, too important to be left to fascistic dictators. Our enemies in Tehran and our rivals in Moscow and Beijing all have played their cards in regards to Syria. There's always the chance for Hezbollah, or worse, al-Qaeda, to get their hands on Assad's stash of chemical weapons. And Syria, as opposed to many places in Africa, has the chance to transform into a viable democracy after the civil war.

 

[Ikari]

I know that this is directed towards aberrant, but as I advocate intervention (in both cases) I think that I should respond as well.

If there's genocide anywhere I advocate at least some form of pressure or assistance required to end the genocide. North Korea is too close with China for me to advocate a direct military intervention, though.

Syria occupies a choke-point in the world economy, too important to be left to fascistic dictators. Our enemies in Tehran and our rivals in Moscow and Beijing all have played their cards in regards to Syria. There's always the chance for Hezbollah, or worse, al-Qaeda, to get their hands on Assad's stash of chemical weapons. And Syria, as opposed to many places in Africa, has the chance to transform into a viable democracy after the civil war.

...so who the hell elected us God then? We can't let it be left to fascistic dictators...as we turn America into a fascist state. We are not Syrian, we have not proper say in their government. End of story. Before running around playing god of the world, I think that we should take care of our own house.

 

[aberrant85]

I'm curious - have you advocated US intervention in any number of African states practicing genocide amongst their own peoples? How about in North Korea?

Why is Syria special in regard to humanitarian need?

Yes, I would support intervening as part of a multinational coalition in instances in Africa like Rwanda and Darfur. Unfortunately the world usually looks the other way when it comes to Africa.

North Korea? No. That violates the third point I made: a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. Even though their people are suffering, starting a war in North Korea would be reckless because of what they could do with their nukes, the risk to Seoul, and China's backing. I think it's China's responsibility to discipline its bratty child.

Why is Syria special in regard to humanitarian need? The number of deaths, displaced, and the prospect of a future where chemical weapons are used without restraint, and the fact that there is a reasonable chance of addressing this through intervention.

 

[specklebang]

Death, destruction, chaos and mayhem are already at their nation. We're helping potential victims (and the rebels) be safe from a chemical attack.

Sure. We'll kill them with a good, solid American missile which is much less painful than chemicals.

Of course, I may be wrong. Possibly all chemical weapons are in a lightly guarded warehouse far away from civilians and nobody will get hurt as our bunker buster slams into the building.

 

[TiredOfLife]

...so who the hell elected us God then? We can't let it be left to fascistic dictators...as we turn America into a fascist state. We are not Syrian, we have not proper say in their government. End of story. Before running around playing god of the world, I think that we should take care of our own house.

That would require actual work. This is just taking a stand and dropping bombs. America is good at that one.

 

[aberrant85]

I'm curious - have you advocated US intervention in any number of African states practicing genocide amongst their own peoples? How about in North Korea?

Why is Syria special in regard to humanitarian need?

Yes, I would support intervening as part of a multinational coalition in instances in Africa like Rwanda and Darfur. Unfortunately the world usually looks the other way when it comes to Africa.

North Korea? No. That violates the third point I made: a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. Even though their people are suffering, starting a war in North Korea would be reckless because of what they could do with their nukes, the risk to Seoul, and China's backing. I think it's China's responsibility to discipline its bratty child.

Why is Syria special in regard to humanitarian need? The number of deaths, displaced, and the prospect of a future where chemical weapons are used without restraint, and the fact that there is a reasonable chance of addressing this through intervention.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I know that this is directed towards aberrant, but as I advocate intervention (in both cases) I think that I should respond as well.

If there's genocide anywhere I advocate at least some form of pressure or assistance required to end the genocide. North Korea is too close with China for me to advocate a direct military intervention, though.

Syria occupies a choke-point in the world economy, too important to be left to fascistic dictators. Our enemies in Tehran and our rivals in Moscow and Beijing all have played their cards in regards to Syria. There's always the chance for Hezbollah, or worse, al-Qaeda, to get their hands on Assad's stash of chemical weapons. And Syria, as opposed to many places in Africa, has the chance to transform into a viable democracy after the civil war.

I hope you're right about Syria - although, I do fail to understand how the US bombing of a few strategic facilities and weapons installations in Syria is going to bring an end to the civil war, leave alone bring a viable democracy.

It's taken a decade in Iraq, over $1 trillion in American currency, thousands of American lives, countless Iraqi lives, and even now Iraq has the most fragile of democracies and certainly lingering civil-war like tensions between factions. The Iraqi people, like Syrians, are well educated, intelligent, and generally sectarian in their outlook to government and governance, and still religious tensions spoil the mix for those who just want to survive and thrive. Clearly, Syria is far better poised to recover than Afghanistan ever will be, but still, I don't see any great improvement there for a couple of decades at best.

Are Americans prepared to own Syria for a couple of decades too?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Yes, I would support intervening as part of a multinational coalition in instances in Africa like Rwanda and Darfur. Unfortunately the world usually looks the other way when it comes to Africa.

North Korea? No. That violates the third point I made: a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. Even though their people are suffering, starting a war in North Korea would be reckless because of what they could do with their nukes, the risk to Seoul, and China's backing. I think it's China's responsibility to discipline its bratty child.

Why is Syria special in regard to humanitarian need? The number of deaths, displaced, and the prospect of a future where chemical weapons are used without restraint, and the fact that there is a reasonable chance of addressing this through intervention.

I can agree with your first two points - your last, related to Syria, however, still lacks any rationale for expecting a reasonable chance at successful intervention on the scale currently proposed by the President.

 

[Ikari]

That would require actual work. This is just taking a stand and dropping bombs. America is good at that one.

Oh, we can certainly kill the **** out of other humans, we are good at that....even killing our own. But we're not going to a better place, we're not making the Republic better; we're making it weaker. And in the end, the Republic is what matters.

 

[Coin]

I hope you're right about Syria - although, I do fail to understand how the US bombing of a few strategic facilities and weapons installations in Syria is going to bring an end to the civil war, leave alone bring a viable democracy.

It's taken a decade in Iraq, over $1 trillion in American currency, thousands of American lives, countless Iraqi lives, and even now Iraq has the most fragile of democracies and certainly lingering civil-war like tensions between factions. The Iraqi people, like Syrians, are well educated, intelligent, and generally sectarian in their outlook to government and governance, and still religious tensions spoil the mix for those who just want to survive and thrive. Clearly, Syria is far better poised to recover than Afghanistan ever will be, but still, I don't see any great improvement there for a couple of decades at best.

Are Americans prepared to own Syria for a couple of decades too?

It's impossible to impose the democracy there.
They do not want the democracy yet.
We don't like the way they treat the women but on a point each male there have a daughter and a wife. They chooses to live so.
To us it seems like they live in terrible rules or they mistreat the women but in their eyes is way too different.

 

[greengirl77]

How's it ideologically inconsistent? I was opposed to invading Iraq because it was basically a manufactured crisis, Saddam had been tamed for years and was not a pressing threat, and it was forced on the US, the UK, and the world based on cherry-picked and unreliable information pushed by Neoconservative extremists.

I support responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons because it's a real, present, and ongoing threat, he provoked us to respond after we warned him not to, and the information seems to be vetted reliably from multiple sources.

I'm an interventionist when there's humanitarian issues at stake, the threat of not responding to aggression is worse than responding rationally to it, and there is a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. I'm convinced on the first two points, not sure one way or the other on the last point.

Feel free to press me on my stance.

Ummm when did he actuall attack the US. I do not recall?? No we should not be messing around in Syria unless you want another 1 trillion wasted and 10 years of war. This war is as stupid as Iraq, Nam, Korea! We have no right to attack Syria, let them solve the problem which will never happen

 

[aberrant85]

...so who the hell elected us God then? We can't let it be left to fascistic dictators...as we turn America into a fascist state. We are not Syrian, we have not proper say in their government. End of story. Before running around playing god of the world, I think that we should take care of our own house.

You want to know the truth? Both parties elected us God, or at least the sole superpower charged with maintaining world order. That's important.

We have a higher military budget than the next 10 countries combined. We don't need it, but neither party is willing to cut it back to a reasonable level, 'cause everyone loves being the strongest nation in the world.

But despite our enormous military, it wouldn't do us citizens a lick of good if a country decided to send a nuke our way. We have no missile defense and couldn't scramble a jet in time if we wanted to. We'd be dead, all we could hope for is to kill a bunch of them with us. So what good is our military? They'll say it's as a deterrent, to keep other countries from exerting their influence over parts of the world, and to deter our enemies from launching a war with us.

But the fact that we have such a huge military means that our allies don't need one themselves, nor do we want them to. That means that even if they wanted to step into to a conflict in their neighborhood, like Syria, that they wouldn't have the means to.

For better or worse, we have told the world not to arm themselves, because we've got it. Then a situation like Syria comes along and the whole country says we should stay out of it. But we refuse to cut back our military and make others pick up the slack, 'cause then we wouldn't be as powerful.

That's just a selfish, arrogant attitude. I'll abdicate our country's responsibility in these matters once we've give up some of our power, but then everyone will have to accept the risks of not always being the biggest kid on the playground.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Cameron]

I supported the invasion in Iraq. I was 16 at the time and didn't have very developed political opinions. There's also the faulty intelligence issue. By a year or two later I thought the whole thing was a giant mess.

I have strong feelings both ways on Syria. I'm mostly angry at the international community for not being serious about its prohibitions. Why is it the U.S.'s job to enforce these norms, making ourselves enemy #1 of the arab world while we're at it for our constant intervention? I feel these rules are important, so generally I don't oppose a strike, but it is beyond frustrating that we are going to have to largely do it alone, and who knows who we will ultimately be helping, and what if these chemical weapons get into the hands of terrorists (either because Assad gets angry and gives them some or those who take over get them)?

 

[Ikari]

You want to know the truth? Both parties elected us God, or at least the sole superpower charged with maintaining world order. That's important.

We have a higher military budget than the next 10 countries combined. We don't need it, but neither party is willing to cut it back to a reasonable level, 'cause everyone loves being the strongest nation in the world.

But despite our enormous military, it wouldn't do us citizens a lick of good if a country decided to send a nuke our way. We have no missile defense and couldn't scramble a jet in time if we wanted to. We'd be dead, all we could hope for is to kill a bunch of them with us. So what good is our military? They'll say it's as a deterrent, to keep other countries from exerting their influence over parts of the world, and to deter our enemies from launching a war with us.

But the fact that we have such a huge military means that our allies don't need one themselves, nor do we want them to. That means that even if they wanted to step into to a conflict in their neighborhood, like Syria, that they wouldn't have the means to.

For better or worse, we have told the world not to arm themselves, because we've got it. Then a situation like Syria comes along and the whole country says we should stay out of it. But we refuse to cut back our military and make others pick up the slack, 'cause then we wouldn't be as powerful.

That's just a selfish, arrogant attitude. I'll abdicate our country's responsibility in these matters once we've give up some of our power, but then everyone will have to accept the risks of not always being the biggest kid on the playground.

You can't have it both ways.

So kill more Americans for corporate greed, for the sake of our politicians, for 10+ more years of war. When can we be done? How much American blood is enough?

 

[Boo Radley]

I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.

While so far they are not the same, I oppose both.