No outrage at Obama's war mongering

[redrumloa]

Syria says chemical scare "pretext for intervention"

U.S. President Barack Obama and other NATO leaders have warned that using chemical weapons would cross a red line and "there would be consequences". Assad would probably lose vital diplomatic support from Russia and China that has blocked military intervention in the 20-month-old uprising that has claimed more than 40,000 lives.

Maqdad said Western reports that the Syrian military was preparing chemical weapons for use against rebel forces trying to close in on the capital Damascus were simply "theatre".

"In fact, we fear a conspiracy ... by the United States and some European states, which might have supplied such weapons to terrorist organizations in Syria, in order to claim later that Syria is the one that used these weapons," he said on Lebanon's Al Manar television, the voice of Hezbollah.

Where is the liberal media on this? Where is the MSNBC round the clock coverage of protesters outside the white house? Where are the protesters? Oh, right.. Obama is a black democrat, so it is well established that anyone speaking ill of him makes them a racist.

Bravo lefties.

 

[Glaucus]

Personally, I think Syria already crossed the line where intervention would be justified. Not sure why NATO has set the "red line" so high.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Personally, I think Syria already crossed the line where intervention would be justified. Not sure why NATO has set the "red line" so high.

Really? Who has Syria invaded?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Where is the liberal media on this?

The liberal media is only really available on the internet.

 

[redrumloa]

Personally, I think Syria already crossed the line where intervention would be justified. Not sure why NATO has set the "red line" so high.

Treat Syria like North Korea and put sanctions on the country. Why is Syria so much more important than North Korea?

The USA needs to stop being the world's police. If NATO feels they MUST do something, they can do it without the USA.

 

[faethor]

The USA has been killing or been being killing somewhere in the world for the last 71 years. If the frustration was worth anything, sure.

 

[redrumloa]

The USA has been killing or been being killing somewhere in the world for the last 71 years. If the frustration was worth anything, sure.

Call up your local Code Pink and heat out to protest on the White House lawn.

 

[Glaucus]

Really? Who has Syria invaded?

They don't need to. An invasion of a NATO nation would trigger an automatic response, but that's not what I'm talking about.

To be honest, there is no world police force as Red thinks there is, but there probably should be. Assholes like Assad should be taken down.

 

[cecilia]

 

[faethor]

Call up your local Code Pink and heat out to protest on the White House lawn.

I applaud their ability to exercise their First Amendment Rights.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Treat Syria like North Korea and put sanctions on the country. Why is Syria so much more important than North Korea?

Why? Who is Syria invading? Which countries are they attacking?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

To be honest, there is no world police force as Red thinks there is, but there probably should be. Assholes like Assad should be taken down.

On what legal justification? We can't just shoot people because we don't like them. If it is legal to overthrow Assad because he is oppressive then it is OK for any government to overthrow any other because they think that such and such a country's people should have the freedom to whatever...

This is the "new" legal theory that WE (and only we) can overthrow other people's governments if they do stuff to their people that we don't think is right (unless their government is cooperating in which case we'll look the other way). This is just more of the same - attempting to legalize western aggression.

Now, the irony is tat we are causing te people of Syria more pain than Assad on his own did, just as in Iraq. When you pay terrorists to bust up someone's country (or use the armed forces) it causes death and suffering. Iraq is still a mess a decade later, so is Afghanistan and Libya is a crap hole since the "allies" busted up the local civilian infrastructure.

This has nothing to do with Assad other than the fact that he leans more toward Russia and China than to the western powers. Because of that his people will have to pay.

 

[Glaucus]

You do a good job of twisting things all over the place. No one here is advocating shooting unpopular people. We're talking about intervening between two fighting groups. Perhaps you think it's ok to just watch two people fight. Perhaps when the fight is a fair one, more people are likely to stay back, but this isn't a fair fight. Assad is the big bully who has siphoned of all the money from his people and in turn sold them out to foreign interests in Iran, Russia and maybe China. Assad is the very kind of person I would expect someone like you would typically hate but for some reason you're no rushing to his defense.

Oppressive regimes are bad, and if someone said we should make a list of all of them and take them all out, I'd actually have to consider that. The big problem with Iraq was that it was obvious that Iraq wasn't targeted for humanitarian reasons, so the end result wasn't likely be a good for humanity (as it turned out to be). However, Iraq doesn't prove that humanitarian intervention doesn't work. Ultimately it comes down to intentions and I guess that's where we really disagree.

This has nothing to do with Assad other than the fact that he leans more toward Russia and China than to the western powers. Because of that his people will have to pay.

Assad is most certainly going to be replaced by a power that is loyal neither to the Western or the Eastern powers. And that is the main reason why NATO isn't bombing Syria already. However, I think that's the wrong reason to hold back.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

You do a good job of twisting things all over the place. No one here is advocating shooting unpopular people. We're talking about intervening between two fighting groups.

We're talking about ignoring sovereignty when we feel like it. We are talking about a continuing effort to break down international law. We are talking about deligitamizing regimes we don't like. Why aren't we talking about going in to Bahrain?

a) because the king of Bahrain is a "friend'.

That's it. Else we would be funding the protesters and giving weapons to criminal gangs in Bahrain and putting the whole thing on the news every night. The campaign against Syria is no more legitimate than the campaign against Libya was or the campaign against the former Yugoslavia. It is no more legitimate than the war on Iraq - it's just that the US has gone back to it's old ways of conducting these operations - by proxy.

The Democrats aren't in disagreement with the general foreign policy objectives that Bush had, they just don't like using the military to do it.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Assad is the big bully who has siphoned of all the money from his people and in turn sold them out to foreign interests in Iran, Russia and maybe China. Assad is the very kind of person I would expect someone like you would typically hate but for some reason you're no rushing to his defense.

Wait a minute. Harper has moved money from the commons to the wealthy and made us a lackey slave of the US and Israel. Perhaps that means that some other country should bomb us for our own good!!

It's not about Assad.

 

[Glaucus]

We're talking about ignoring sovereignty when we feel like it. We are talking about a continuing effort to break down international law. We are talking about deligitamizing regimes we don't like.

You're worried about international law? You're not worried about Assad's air force dropping bombs in populated areas? Oh yeah, forgot, it's only a war crime when the US does it.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

You're worried about international law? You're not worried about Assad's air force dropping bombs in populated areas? Oh yeah, forgot, it's only a war crime when the US does it.

Assad's bombing places and so are the rebels (just the rebels don't do it from planes). The 'rebels' are also blowing up hospitals and police stations and they are trying to get their hands on the WMD to use as well (because that would get the US in there). If we cared about civilians we wouldn't be funding and arming the rebels, because Assad wasn't dropping bombs before there were rebels to drop them on.

Furthermore, war crimes are between sovereigns. We shouldn't really want a world were one nation can intervene militarily against another based on internal disputes. Calling it "humanitarian" doesn't help. If the US was small and Canada didn't have that friend and Saudi Arabia was humongous, should they be able to invade Canada for "humanitarian" reasons if the Muslims here complained that they had no right to live under Sharia law here? It's not just slippery slope, it's who has the right to bomb countries based on how they treat their people? Should the countries of the Middle East be able to invade Israel on the same basis and overthrow the government of Israel? Because the Arabs are badly treated in Israel and Palestinian children are imprisoned and tortured and occasionally? If we have the right to bomb Syrians until we manage to kill Assad then Egypt has the right to bomb Israelis until they kill Bibi and the ruling classes of Israel in general.

You are letting the TV emotionally stampede you into supporting MORE killing. But the TV is not showing you the mosques that the rebels bomb (until they show up as mosques that "Assad's airforce bombed") and you are not seeing the rebels rounding up and massacring civilians - the rebels do it but the TV won't show it.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

You're worried about international law?

Let me remind you that you were a "Saddam lover" once, just because you were against the Iraq war. Everything you are saying about Assad, other's were telling you about how morally right and necessary it was get Saddam and screw international law.

Now you are stooping to the same rhetoric.

 

[metalman]

Treat Syria like North Korea and put sanctions on the country. Why is Syria so much more important than North Korea?

From the Wayback machine ...
Bashar Assad "at heart a reformer

In April of 2007 then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made an unofficial state visit to Syria to begin a dialogue

Its been Democratic Policy to embrace Assad because it was Bush policy to isolate Assad.

Assad was simply a Democratic attack point to the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East.

The Democrats can't admit they were wrong about Assad, without admitting Bush policy was right about Iraq, Iran and Syria

 

[metalman]

You're worried about international law?

​

Let me remind you that you were a "Saddam lover" once, just because you were against the Iraq war. Everything you are saying about Assad, other's were telling you about how morally right and necessary it was get Saddam and screw international law.

Now you are stooping to the same rhetoric.

Any argument against the Iraq war now applies to Syria.

Remember Assad is "at heart a reformer" that translates to he's the "teddy bear of evil dictators"