Let me get this straight. US to bomb Syria to protects "its citizens" = OK, Russia sends troops

[Purveyor]

into Ukraine to protect "its Russian brethren" = Bad.

OK...got it!

dripping in hypocrisy.

[cali]

1. Same shit. Different nation perpetrators.

[oldandhappy]

2. Syria has been bombed to pieces already.

[TwilightGardener]

3. There was no "civil war" in Ukraine until Russia invented it.

All the bloodshed in Ukraine is Pootie's doing...because he didn't get his way, and has to engineer things back to his liking.

[MohRokTah]

6. Ayup, but the Pootie brigade will never listen to the facts. eom

[TwilightGardener]

8. Nope. Facts don't enter into it. It's all about agenda and message.

[sabrina 1]

18. There was no Civil War in Syria or in Liby until we started supporting terrorists in those countries

All the bloodshed in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, all now failed states, is our doing, because of OIL.

As Hillary boasted, we 'fight wars by proxy now', she confirmed what many people had observed in Libya and Syria, the OUTSIDERS funded by US and our allies, killing civilians, terrorizing the people in order to take down Assad. But a funny thing happened, even Syrians who were not overly fond of Assad, were FAR LESS FOND of the brutal outsiders who were slaughtering them in their own country, and the plan backfired. Syrians decided to support their government, delaying the neocon plan for regime change in country #3 or was 4 on their list of countries to invade.

Looking at the state of those countries now, what a spectacular failure, not to mention human tragedy it all has been.

But we on the left are not surprised are we, since we opposed all of the neocon policies and predicted, correctly, the outcome.

[TwilightGardener]

30. Well, no. Your facts are wrong. Supporting uprisings that occur vs. inventing uprisings--

two different things. You can certainly argue that we shouldn't have supported/armed uprisings or helped effect regime change in any given country--that's always worthy of skepticism. But we aren't inventing rebellions (and supplying rebels from our own country!) out of whole cloth in order to have an excuse to invade and then keep territory. That's all Pootie-Poot. That's why most of the rest of the world kinda doesn't like him.

[sabrina 1]

34. No, I'm afraid it is you who is wrong. A few protesters is not a rebellion, it is a few

protesters. Having followed both those events in both countries pretty intensely I recall how they started, who was pushing for 'regime change' in both countries, how the original, actual protesters reacted when they saw all those 'foreigners' in their countries, pushing THEM to 'fight', giving them weapons and wondering who these outsiders were. Finally seeing the carnage, how they refused to join the invasion, and it was an invasion, in both countries.

But we don't put 'boots' on the ground. Well, not actually. Mercs eg, are not generally viewed as our 'boots on the ground' nor are 'proxy fighters' sent by some of our allies, Qutar and Bahrain eg, funded by the Saudis AND of course our tax dollars.

The world knows how involved we are in coups, going quite far back. The anniversary of one of those coups which happened on 9/11 back in the 'seventies, after Allende was murdered.

[TwilightGardener]

38. We can't keep track of who's fighting in Syria, we very obviously do not and have not

controlled that rebel-group situation beyond taking the anti-Assad side and making stabs at arming the ones we guessed to be moderate...so, no. It's a complicated clusterfuck with a lot of participants at cross-purposes.

[GeorgeGist]

40. So Pootie's bad makes US good ...

somehow.

[grahamhgreen]

4. yup

[MohRokTah]

5. The area of Syria that will be hit with air strikes is currently not under the control of Syria.

Really, the anti-every-last-thing-to-do-with-war stance has no place in reality.

[Purveyor]

10. LOL. There is a reason Obama doesn't want to get authorization from congress

for these attacks within Syria. He doesn't want to be limited to just hitting ISIS with the ultimate neocon/lib wet dream of taking out Assad.

Of course another clusterfuck will ensue when that vacuum is created, i.e. Iraq, Egypt, Libya, et. al.

[MohRokTah]

11. Uuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh.....................................no. eom

[Purveyor]

13. Hmmmmmmmmm..............................................we shall see. eom

[MohRokTah]

14. The reason he didn't want a vote is called "midterms"

No Democrat in Congress wants to vote on this before the election. Every last Democrat would come down hard on Obama for making them take a vote on this before an election.

Another example of how the ODS people are not in touch with reality.

[still_one]

15. actually neither party in Congress wants to do their job, and on the idiot talking head shows on

Sunday they so much as said it.

There is absolutely nothing to stop Congress from doing something, but I won't hold my breath

[MohRokTah]

16. Congress should stand up and do their jobs, but they're fucking cowards. eom

[still_one]

20. yup

[Purveyor]

19. Well that is just how a gov't of the 'supposed' world leader/policeman should

conduct business now isn't it?

What a crock of cowardly bullshit. If you can't put your name on an act of war, you shouldn't hold office and should be defeated with cause.

I don't give a damn what party is in play...we are talking war here, not who gets to invited to the next White House dinner.

[MohRokTah]

22. Congress has shirked their war powers and demanded Obama act alone.

Obama is doing what's right, not just now but for the long term.

Congress will react by calling Obama all sorts of names and other shit, possibly even letting this become the impeachment predicate if the GOP wins the Senate.

Sad, but true.

And you blamed Obama when the real culprit was Congress. Even you fell into the GOP trap.

[MFrohike]

35. Just a thought

You've just argued that a sitting president is violating a constitutional imperative for domestic political reasons. You really should try being less condescending to others when you're busy spouting off things like this. As the title says, just a thought.

[MohRokTah]

36. Just a thought.

You have no clue about political reality.

[MFrohike]

37. Clearly

If I did have a clue about it, I'm sure I'd have the good sense not to advertise taking blatantly unconstitutional actions solely to safeguard my chances in an upcoming election. I can't imagine that saying that sort of thing out loud would be wise, from a political realist standpoint.

[sabrina 1]

21. Lol, you mean lik Libya?? Checked that country lately? I remember being told the

same thing about Libya, how we were going there to 'fight terror'. Not much of a fight, other than against ordinary people. The terrorists are now out of control there. After we got control of the oil we lost interest in 'protecting civilians' and we don't even bother to look at what is happening there.

I KNOW we will be saying the same thing, those of us who predicted the outcome in Libya and Iraq and Afghanstan, about Syria in a very short time. And people such as yourself will suddenly be silent. As are the enthusiastic supporters of Air strikes in Libya. Of course we had our 'proxy army' there on the ground, as Hillary calls them.

[morningfog]

7. We're bombing Syria because one day, maybe, IS could

possibly be a threat to the US. It has nothing to do with the people of Syria. Obama's rationale is that he has the authority to bomb Syria because he believes a faction there poses a potential future threat. It's bullshit, so it invites is to ask what the actual purpose is.

[Cayenne]

17. Inconvenient man, that Assad. We want a better puppet.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

9. The US isn't bombing "Syria".

[Purveyor]

12. Not at this very moment but the President set the stage. Oh that's right, a "strike" isn't

considered 'bombing' now, eh?

New neocon/lib speak, I suppose. I need to catch up with the new lingo, I guess...

[ChisolmTrailDem]

23. Are you calling me a neocon or a neolib, Purveyor? Do you know me well enough

to imply such a ridiculous thing?

We're not bombing, nor are we going to bomb, "Syria". We're going after ISIL, which happens to be HQed in an area that Syria has written off as lost. And before you start crowing that I am supporting this adventure, I'll have you know that I haven't stated my opinion on that on this board and don't know that I ever will.

The target here is not "Syria", it's a terrorist organization called ISIL.

I'd reckon that if we were bombing Syria, well, the world might feel a little differently about our presence there. But, instead, the world (for the most part) seems to be supportive of our involvement to stop ISIS.

[morningfog]

25. That's some silly double thinking.

We are set to bomb in Syria. We are set to bomb Syria. We are to be a military force in a fractured civil war. Obama had said he'll go after IS wherever they are, that means Syria.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

27. Bwaahahahahahaha!

That's some silly regular 'ol thinking you got goin' on there, morningfog!

[morningfog]

29. Got it. Bombing in Syria is not bombing Syria.

And when we kill Syrians, will they be something else? When we tip the scales of the Syrian civil war? Please.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

32. Whatevs, morningfog. But I wish you'd slow down and give me a chance to swallow all them

there words you be crammin' into by face.

Thank you for your concern. I really appreciate the cool story bro.

[morningfog]

24. I assume by putting Syria in quotes, the poster

is exercising double thinking in that bombing IS in Syria is not bombing
"Syria." Of course, when Assad meddles in our Syrian war, we will protect our American interests there, which will soon include the billions of dollars investment in the "moderate rebel army." Then the threat to US interests and personnel will be from Assad, and he'll have to go, as Kerry said.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

26. "Then the threat to US interests and personnel will be from Assad" - and at that point,

we'll begin bombing "Syria".



Your comments are silly too!

[morningfog]

28. With this war set to last at least 3 years,

It's sure to happen.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

31. And BTW, I am not "the poster". My friends call me "CTD".

Common, let's be friends like Washington and New York "journalists" and politicians and bankers and CEOs and SCOTUS egoists and some slumming 1%ers are friends! You now how the introduce each other by saying, "I have the distankt honah ayund plissure to inchoduce to yew, mah warm fray-und and benef -- er...ahem... golf pardnah, Mr. Charles Koch!"

Whadya say, morningfog?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Did he have his comfortable cowboy boots on when he gave the speech?

Like that other peace lover did when he said, , "Bring it on", and "Smoke 'em out".

[joshcryer]

39. ISIS exists. Persecution of Russians in Ukraine doesn't.