Maybe you ought to re-read the question.....ie....when did CONSERVATIVES....etc....and brush up on your own history.
Syria and political hypocrisy
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
Maybe you ought to re-read the question.....ie....when did CONSERVATIVES....etc....and brush up on your own history.
The point being made is...there was NO CIVIL war before the Iraqi War.....
There was always underlying tensions, there was infighting before Saddam, and unrest was building during his rule, so that is not a true statement about Iraq.
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
You "Conservatives" forget very fast.
The best party about the Libertarian party is their foreign policy. The "Conservative" party doesn't even know what "Conservative" is. They openly celebrate kicking Bush Sr. out because he raised taxes when he went to war via Norquist. They basically think that if we cut taxes we can win votes and lay that debt onto the next guy. WEIRD how that catches up to you.
Iraq was based on a sold lie. Rebuilding Iraq was big money for the Federal Reserve, Halliburton, and Bush/Cheney. The angry families that followed the Iraq attack were deemed terrorists, so we write this off as "ok" as if none of us would attack a different country if our kids were killed based on a lie.
The war on Syria was in place since '07, the Government just had to find a way to make it socially acceptable. Even after providing arms to the rebels it seems Americans aren't convinced. CIA use to be so much better at Coup de tat's.
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
If you can't debate and reduce yourself to "I won't answer that" you lose. Basic fact.
Taft2016
Verified User
Why do you keep changing the subject every time you're spanked?
Can you please just try to organize your thoughts and stick to the subject?
evince
Truthmatters
because Sadam was the shit cork in the bottle of bees.
Yeah he was shit but he was a cork.
what you see in the middle east is the MESS you were warned about when you marched like so many smiling clones right into the Iraq war even while people like me warned that you were shaking up the bottle of bees and taking out the cork.
EVERYTHING you see happening in the middle east now Is the product of the BUSH lies to take us to war.
evince
Truthmatters
Oh just everything.
You on the right don't know the history and don't want to know things like history.
why did you take the shit cork out of the bottle after shaking it up and pissing off all the bees?
Taft2016
Verified User
Why do you keep arguing this point as if someone disagrees with it? Nobody disagrees with it.
The question was; when did the USA ever intervene in a civil war where neither side was friendly to American interests?
Try to stay focused.
Trying to have a rational discussion with you two is like chasing a frog all around a pond who keeps jumping from lily pad to lily pad.
Taft2016
Verified User
There's underlying tensions and unrest in every country. If you're going to apply such a broad definition, then there are civil wars all over the world.
Taft2016
Verified User
I already explained it, but I'll do so again...
Because Iraqi bees were worse than Syrian bees.
Iraqi bees were training international terrorists.
Iraqi bees were giving cash payments to suicide bombers in Israel (survivor family pensions)
Iraqi bees had invaded neighboring Kuwait and had agreed to United Nations weapons inspections, then reneged on the agreement, forfeiting the cease-fire agreement, and enabling a legal resumption of hostilities.
But please, share some more of your PhD caliber history with us.
maineman
Banned
who sez Iraqi bees were worse? you?
arab nationalist terrorists get trained all over the fucking place. NONE of the terrorists who attacked US, however, were from Iraq or were trained in Iraq.
other gulf states provided way more financial aid to the PLO than Iraq, yet, oddly enough, we didn't invade THEM.
Iraq had let weapons inspectors back INTO their country and they were doing their job until Dubya pulled them out before they could tell us what we eventually found out for ourselves: that Iraq did NOT have stockpiles of WMD's and therefore, the primary reason for our invasion (according to our president) was irrelevant.
Taft2016
Verified User
Yeah? Aside from our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, we've dropped bombs, launched missiles and drone attacks anywhere we've found terrorist training camps; Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.
However, none of those of nations agreed to cease fire terms that included unfettered United Nations weapons inspections, then reneged on the agreement, legalizing a resumption of hostilities.
maineman
Banned
it may have been "legal" in the strictest sense of the word, but it certainly was not smart, in any sense of the word. and there are training facilities all over northern africa that we've pretty much let alone. the fact of the matter is that there are terrorists training all over the world, yet few of them have as their mission, attacking the US. The ones training in Iraq certainly did not.
evince
Truthmatters
how we got hit on 911 was that we ignored a country giving harbor to people who clearly wanted to kill us on our own soil.
Thank Bush for that.
If you harbor AQ and asllow them to operate in your country what should this country do?
Taft2016
Verified User
It's not really "the strictest sense of the word." We agreed to allow Saddam to remain in power, he agreed to weapons inspections. He agreed to no-fly zones. That was how hostilities ended. He nullified the cease fire. He rolled the dice, he lost.
If the terrorist camps he was harboring in Iraq were never going to hurt America, who would Saddam have wished to harm more? Israel? Maybe, but that would only be striking back at the USA by proxy. On his hate list the USA had to be a close #2.
If not #1b.
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.
The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski.
The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.
In many respects, the directive, as described to NBC News, outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf,” Miklaszewski said.
The United States first would have sought to persuade other countries to cooperate in the campaign by sharing intelligence and using their law enforcement agencies to round up al-Qaida suspects.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4587368/ns/us_news-security/t/us-sought-attack-al-qaida/#.Uis4QfKBWSo