Syria and political hypocrisy

Taichiliberal

Taichiliberal

Shaken, not stirred!
Yep, Obama is dead wrong on pushing for military action in Syria. Senator Alan Grayson pointed out that since Syria is NOT one of the international signatures on the banning of chem weapons, Obama would have to convene with the Haigue and other countries for a plan of action.

And let's not forget that this all about the Benjamins....or in this case the control of who supplies Europe with that black gold (oil):

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/13/1


The Brits let their Prime Minister know that they won't be fooled again.

And what's REALLY hysterical is how the neocon/teabagger noise machine is bending over backwards NOT to sound like LIBERALS in criticizing Obama....but at the same time trying to support and criticize him at the same time. Oh, and how they artfully dance around the 8 year Iraq debacle under the Shrub as a direct reference here is a thing of wonder.


And the band played on.
 
Just out of curiosity... when did conservatives ever endorse interfering in a civil war where neither side was friendly to American interests?

When did conservatives ever endorse toppling a leader who was not exporting terrorism around the world?

When did conservatives ever endorse siding with Al Qaeda?

Did Syria agree to a cease-fire in hostilities and agree to unfettered weapons inspections, then renege on that agreement?

No? If there's no similarity, there's no hypocrisy.
 
Taft2016 said:
Just out of curiosity... when did conservatives ever endorse interfering in a civil war where neither side was friendly to American interests?

Do your homework and look into our history with Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Vietnam, for starters.

When did conservatives ever endorse toppling a leader who was not exporting terrorism around the world?

See above response.

When did conservatives ever endorse siding with Al Qaeda?

We gave training to one of it's founders, Osama Bin Ladin...don't you remember?

Did Syria agree to a cease-fire in hostilities and agree to unfettered weapons inspections, then renege on that agreement?

Is Syria part of the international agreement not to use chemical weapons? No. And weren't the weapons inspectors temporarily halted due to heavy fighting in the areas they wanted to start? Yep!

No? If there's no similarity, there's no hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

See above responses, then read carefully and comprehensively the information in the link I provided. Hopefully you'll get the point.
 
why do you people want a delivery system and chemical weapons stock to be in the hands of the rebels when they take Ass sad out?
 
Do your homework and look into our history with Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Vietnam, for starters.
Click to expand...

Which civil war in Iran are you speaking of? We started the Iraqi civil war. And there were sides friendly to the US in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, and Vietnam. So WTF are you talking about?

We gave training to one of it's founders, Osama Bin Ladin...don't you remember?
Click to expand...

OBL was part of the Mujahudeen resistance at the time, not Al Qaeda. And was friendly to US interests at the time.

Is Syria part of the international agreement not to use chemical weapons? No.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs in Guam, but whatever...

And weren't the weapons inspectors temporarily halted due to heavy fighting in the areas they wanted to start? Yep!
Click to expand...

And the fighting started because the weapons inspections were a farce orchestrated by Saddam and the world agreed (unlike the Syrian proposal). Unrestricted weapons inspections would have prevented the invasion.
 
Tell me why you want this country to retain a delivery system for chemical weapons and chemical weapons no matter who wins the civil war?
 
Taft2016 said:
Which civil war in Iran are you speaking of? We started the Iraqi civil war. And there were sides friendly to the US in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, and Vietnam. So WTF are you talking about?



OBL was part of the Mujahudeen resistance at the time, not Al Qaeda. And was friendly to US interests at the time.



I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs in Guam, but whatever...



And the fighting started because the weapons inspections were a farce orchestrated by Saddam and the world agreed (unlike the Syrian proposal). Unrestricted weapons inspections would have prevented the invasion.
Click to expand...

We did not start the civil war in Iraq, the Sunnis and Shi'ites were only kept from fighting by the brutality of Saddams regime.
 
when Bush took the shit cork (sadam) out of the bottle of bees smart people who pay attention to facts told you it would lead to a Iraqi civil war.


one more thing I was right about
 
Rana said:
We did not start the civil war in Iraq, the Sunnis and Shi'ites were only kept from fighting by the brutality of Saddams regime.
Click to expand...

Really? You really want to debate that point? Really?

BS semantics? Come back when you have something real.
 
evince said:
when Bush took the shit cork (sadam) out of the bottle of bees smart people who pay attention to facts told you it would lead to a Iraqi civil war.


one more thing I was right about
Click to expand...

There were many of us who made that claim, not just you.
 
evince said:
when Bush took the shit cork (sadam) out of the bottle of bees smart people who pay attention to facts told you it would lead to a Iraqi civil war.


one more thing I was right about
Click to expand...

So was President GHW Bush. And the UN coalition. I tend to give their insights a tad more respect than yours.
 
evince said:
its fact you fucking clown
Click to expand...

Duhhhh, meathead. When did I say otherwise.

I say we started the Iraqi civil war. Rana said we didn't, that the exit of Saddam caused the Sunnis and Shiites to have at each other.

It's just semantics whether I say we started it, or our removal of Saddam started it.

Christ on a Cracker, I never seen a forum with liberals so devoid of intelligence.
 
Iraq NEVER wanted to be a country fool.

it was inevitable.


Now how is that OUR fault?

blame the UK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top