War threads

[poweRob]

Soooo many war threads started by right-wingers decrying left winger hypocrisy for those who back Obama's Syria moves (which I don't).

I want an honest show of conservatives that were opposed to Bush's foreign war policies as that march to stupidity was happening.

Just give me one.

 

[X Factor]

Soooo many war threads started by right-wingers decrying left winger hypocrisy for those who back Obama's Syria moves (which I don't).

I want an honest show of conservatives that were opposed to Bush's foreign war policies as that march to stupidity was happening.

Just give me one.

I wasn't but neither am I bashing Obama for Syria. It's a tough situation. One that makes me glad I'm not president.

 

[poweRob]

I see a fracture in both parties.

On the left you have:

1) those who are steadily not for war and
2) those who back Obama's moves for war.​

On the right you have a three-fold split:

1) Those who think Obama is moving too slow and should've been bombing Syria two years ago.
2) Those who don't think we should go into the Syria conflict simply because Obama said we should.
3) True libertarians who are practically always opposed to foreign interventions​

Where are the #3's here? I'm not seeing them that much.

 

[poweRob]

I wasn't but neither am I bashing Obama for Syria. It's a tough situation. One that makes me glad I'm not president.

Kudos for honesty and consistency!

 

[iacardsfan]

Foreign intervention is something that the United States does too often. I will give President Obama limited credit in this one by sending it to Congress to decide. (Don't take this as praise, I am simply acknowledging he is doing the right thing that in the past his predecessor and himself has not always done) That said, there is no direct threat to the United States, and at the same time I believe a strike will put the United States in more danger. We need to sit this one out....and every other conflict in the middle east.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I see a fracture in both parties.

On the left you have:

1) those who are steadily not for war and
2) those who back Obama's moves for war.​

On the right you have a three-fold split:

1) Those who think Obama is moving too slow and should've been bombing Syria two years ago.
2) Those who don't think we should go into the Syria conflict simply because Obama said we should.
3) True libertarians who are practically always opposed to foreign interventions​

Where are the #3's here? I'm not seeing them that much.

You forgot the true one, #4, that this major dumb donkey drew a red line and now, cause he either doesn't get good foreign policy advice [ plausible ] or he just ignores it [ very plausible ]...and now we have to do something as the world is watching, if we do nothing in this stupidly created situation, our enemies will take that as open season for three more years of an already acknowledged weak, feeble American presidency...and what message does that send to our allies? My god, where is there any coherence to this foreign policy?

And if this guy commits two acts of war on his own, Libya and then this one in Syria, and he stupidly escalated the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan [ to what good result??]... should he have to give back that peace prize? Just wondering how all that works....:lamo

 

[poweRob]

You forgot the true one, #4, that this major dumb donkey drew a red line and now, cause he either doesn't get good foreign policy advice [ plausible ] or he just ignores it [ very plausible ]...and now we have to do something as the world is watching, if we do nothing in this stupidly created situation, our enemies will take that as open season for three more years of an already acknowledged weak, feeble American presidency...and what message does that send to our allies? My god, where is there any coherence to this foreign policy?

And if this guy commits two acts of war on his own, Libya and then this one in Syria, and he stupidly escalated the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan [ to what good result??]... should he have to give back that peace prize? Just wondering how all that works....:lamo

meh... that's all just whiny excuses as to why someone is a conservative #2. Because these guys in what you described were busy sucking Rumsfeld's dick when he did the whole "known unknows" speech.

 

[aberrant85]

You forgot the true one, #4, that this major dumb donkey drew a red line and now, cause he either doesn't get good foreign policy advice [ plausible ] or he just ignores it [ very plausible ]...and now we have to do something as the world is watching, if we do nothing in this stupidly created situation, our enemies will take that as open season for three more years of an already acknowledged weak, feeble American presidency...and what message does that send to our allies? My god, where is there any coherence to this foreign policy?

And if this guy commits two acts of war on his own, Libya and then this one in Syria, and he stupidly escalated the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan [ to what good result??]... should he have to give back that peace prize? Just wondering how all that works....:lamo

So dumb that he managed to be elected to the highest office twice in a country that has a history of suppressing black people?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

meh... that's all just whiny excuses as to why someone is a conservative #2. Because these guys in what you described were busy sucking Rumsfeld's dick when he did the whole "known unknows" speech.

Wow that guy sure musta been getting a lotta action, huh? Your side of aisle types were standing in line trying screw him from behind the entire time...

And no, I mean just because the #2 reason corroborates accurately with #4 does not mean they are the same. Of course zer0 is usually wrong, so its usually a lazy, but pretty precise way of predicting the correct way to go. However, we have the proof here, not just a much higher than rock scissors paper way of determining which decision to go against, this super dumb donkey drew a dumb donkey line in the sand...painted himself, and us, into a corner from which there is no good way to remove ourselves... dumb donkey does not adequately describe just how bad this/he is...

 

[Utility Man]

Wouldn't it be something if the grand plan was just taking longer than expected.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I said that Bush was a moron for his response to 9/11/2001. 9/11 consisted of 19 morons, from Saudi Arbia, Egypt and Yemen, "armed" with boxcutters being allowed to drive commercial aircraft into buildings - one of them remained in the air for two hours even though seriously outside of its flight plan. The rational response would have been letting the two arilines (and their insurance companies) get sued out of existance. Never should the U.S. gov't have paid out an average of $1.7 million to each of the victim's families or started a war in Afghanistan over that.

The govt action for 9/11 should have been limitted to having TSA mandate that the airlines lock the cockpit cabins and arm the crew, add more airport security and use periodic inspections to assure that this was being done. The FAA should have been flogged for allowing that plane to remain unreported as it deviated from its flight plan. Increased U.S. intellegence both here and abroad was added, but went a bit too far. Use of drones, intel and special ops to fight known terror organizations abroad may be warranted, yet that poses problems as well.

We should never fight a war without a clear objective and "nation building" is not a valid objective. If the most powerful military on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemate, in over a decade, against an enemy with no air force, no navy and a "rag tag", at best, army then we have a seriously flawed battle plan. Countries that have no method of effectively governing (controlling?) themselves should have their militaries and govt's wiped out, and the territory either permanently occupied (colonized?) or split up among neighboring contries.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

So dumb that he managed to be elected to the highest office twice in a country that has a history of suppressing black people?

Wow, pulling the race card that fast are ya? See, in real debate you should be using something besides that. Americans have shown, now at obvious great expense to ourselves with this choice, that we are not prejudiced, have not been for years and years... but with this divisive president growing further and further apart...

Why don't you defend this war like stance of the peace prize winner...what a joke. I know whats usually next, the ad homs...let 'em fly...ha ha ha ha ha :lamo

 

[azgreg]

Soooo many war threads started by right-wingers decrying left winger hypocrisy for those who back Obama's Syria moves (which I don't).

I want an honest show of conservatives that were opposed to Bush's foreign war policies as that march to stupidity was happening.

Just give me one.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I see a fracture in both parties.

On the left you have:

1) those who are steadily not for war and
2) those who back Obama's moves for war.​

On the right you have a three-fold split:

1) Those who think Obama is moving too slow and should've been bombing Syria two years ago.
2) Those who don't think we should go into the Syria conflict simply because Obama said we should.
3) True libertarians who are practically always opposed to foreign interventions​

Where are the #3's here? I'm not seeing them that much.

Really? You mean you've missed all of my posts in most "Syria Intervention" threads constantly arguing that we are NOT the "World's Policeman?"

Maybe I don't count because I am more a moderate than a conservative. You know: for gay rights and pro-choice, against gun control and government restriction on our individual liberties.

I was also FOR the first Gulf War because Saddam had invaded Kuwait, although pissed because we should have finished the job and kicked Saddam out back then. I was opposed to Bush Jr.'s second Iraq War because it was bogus.

 

[MMC]

Well I'm another.....I said Obama should wait. If it wasn't him and another. I would say the same. Let Syria split into the 3 regions it is. Then see who climbs to the top. This way we know who we are dealing with and who is behind who. Screw listening to what the Rebels say. Actions speak louder than words. We have more than enough with their shenanigans let alone Assads.

I don't care if it is Neo Con or Neo Lib.....both are wrong on just backing the Sunni in any and all Foreign Policy. That's a fact that has played out with either side dealing in the ME and all this Nation Building crap.

I look at it like this.....if it was our Civil War. We wouldn't want any others interfering in ours. We shouldn't be interfering in any others.

 

[sangha]

You forgot the true one, #4, that this major dumb donkey drew a red line and now, cause he either doesn't get good foreign policy advice [ plausible ] or he just ignores it [ very plausible ]...and now we have to do something as the world is watching, if we do nothing in this stupidly created situation, our enemies will take that as open season for three more years of an already acknowledged weak, feeble American presidency...and what message does that send to our allies? My god, where is there any coherence to this foreign policy?

And if this guy commits two acts of war on his own, Libya and then this one in Syria, and he stupidly escalated the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan [ to what good result??]... should he have to give back that peace prize? Just wondering how all that works....:lamo

that sounds like the typical right wing position - "forget about how our actions are (or are not) in the nations best interest. Just use it to bash Obama"

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

that sounds like the typical right wing position - "forget about how our actions are (or are not) in the nations best interest. Just use it to bash Obama"

Best suggestions? Better reading glasses or get someone to explain my real position.

Check back with me when you get a little closer to accurate. Ciao [ means good bye in this instance, so there is no confusion ].:mrgreen:

 

[X Factor]

Best suggestions? Better reading glasses or get someone to explain my real position.

Check back with me when you get a little closer to accurate. Ciao [ means good bye in this instance, so there is no confusion ].:mrgreen:

There is a ton of stuff I disagree with Sangha on but he's right on this one. This is a complex, constantly changing situation. There are solid arguments for intervention and for keeping the hell out of it. What it should not be is something that makes us giddy because Obama is drawing criticism and that, to me, looks like what you're doing with all the "dumb donkey" nonsense.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Really? You mean you've missed all of my posts in most "Syria Intervention" threads constantly arguing that we are NOT the "World's Policeman?"

Maybe I don't count because I am more a moderate than a conservative. You know: for gay rights and pro-choice, against gun control and government restriction on our individual liberties.

I was also FOR the first Gulf War because Saddam had invaded Kuwait, although pissed because we should have finished the job and kicked Saddam out back then. I was opposed to Bush Jr.'s second Iraq War because it was bogus.

Sounds a little contradictory, wanted Saddam out but were against GW, Congress' and our, the American People's Iraq War... it was a Just War under Just War theory, was a success and, if someone besides a left leaning yet war stumbling buffoon like zer-0 had been elected, would still be a success [ in the W column, pun intended ] and potentially a force for good in a now super messed up region...

 

[Captain Adverse]

Sounds a little contradictory, wanted Saddam out but were against GW, Congress' and our, the American People's Iraq War... it was a Just War under Just War theory, was a success and, if someone besides a left leaning yet war stumbling buffoon like zer-0 had been elected, would still be a success and a force for good in a now super messed up region...

Did you miss the part where I said "moderate?" LOL

We had the opportunity to kick ass and take names in Gulf War I, when Saddam had clearly crossed the line by invading Kuwait with the purpose of conquest. Kuwait has always been our friend, and I support the defense of our friends. Instead of taking care of the problem once and for all though, we created "occupied zones" which would be returned if Saddam played nice-nice thereafter.

Bush Jr. decided that 9/11 gave him all the support he needed to invade Iraq, even though all evidence showed that Saddam had nothing to do with it. Yeah, I'd say the second war was pretty bogus and I did not support it.

 

[Arbo]

Soooo many war threads started by right-wingers decrying left winger hypocrisy for those who back Obama's Syria moves (which I don't).

I want an honest show of conservatives that were opposed to Bush's foreign war policies as that march to stupidity was happening.

Just give me one.

I have always said let those in the middle east kill each other, we don't need to send people there to die.

Once enough of the people have had enough of it, they will stand up on their own. That is the only way change will happen.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

There is a ton of stuff I disagree with Sangha on but he's right on this one. This is a complex, constantly changing situation. There are solid arguments for intervention and for keeping the hell out of it. What it should not be is something that makes us giddy because Obama is drawing criticism and that, to me, looks like what you're doing with all the "dumb donkey" nonsense.

The dumb donkey is underlying, its there no matter what the situation. Its just the truth.

You really think the big 0 didn't do the silly thing, paint himself and us into a corner with his red line statement?

I do not disagree that this is complex, that earlier there were some groups we actually could have backed against Assad, had we [ had the big zer-0 ] been decisive...now things are really messy, now since the president has said he will do something we have to do something...yet nothing we do will push things in a particularly good direction, we do not know who the "badder" guys are when there do not seem to be any good guys of any stature. What the big o will finally do will probably be, as an anonymous administration source put it, the new Obama Doctrine: military action “just muscular enough not to get mocked.” Wow. So what message does that send to Iran? What does that say to Assad, who will take the hit and say, hey, I took on American and won, think N. Korea will be worried? How about Moscow and Beijing? What about our allies, think they will be confident of three more years of this feckless leader here?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

There is a ton of stuff I disagree with Sangha on but he's right on this one. This is a complex, constantly changing situation. There are solid arguments for intervention and for keeping the hell out of it. What it should not be is something that makes us giddy because Obama is drawing criticism and that, to me, looks like what you're doing with all the "dumb donkey" nonsense.

The dumb donkey is underlying, its there no matter what the situation. Its just the truth.

You really think the big 0 didn't do the silly thing, paint himself and us into a corner with his red line statement?

I do not disagree that this is complex, that earlier there were some groups we actually could have backed against Assad, had we [ had the big zer-0 ] been decisive...now things are really messy, now since the president has said he will do something we have to do something...yet nothing we do will push things in a particularly good direction, we do not know who the "badder" guys are when there do not seem to be any good guys of any stature. What the big o will finally do will probably be, as an anonymous administration source put it, the new Obama Doctrine: military action “just muscular enough not to get mocked.” Wow. So what message does that send to Iran? What does that say to Assad, who will take the hit and say, hey, I took on American and won, think N. Korea will be worried? How about Moscow and Beijing? What about our allies, think they will be confident of three more years of this feckless leader here?

What the heck are you talking about with the giddy stuff...no offense, but pop psychology does not seem to be your bag.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Soooo many war threads started by right-wingers decrying left winger hypocrisy for those who back Obama's Syria moves (which I don't).

I want an honest show of conservatives that were opposed to Bush's foreign war policies as that march to stupidity was happening.

Just give me one.

I was in favor of the action/war in Afghanistan, against Iraq.

I'm also against military action in Syria.

 

[DVSentinel]

Wouldn't it be something if the grand plan was just taking longer than expected.

I love that video. It is great to see a Liberal prove himself to be the dumbest least informed combat commander in the history of the US.