Where are the "no war" people?

[jimnyc]

There were more people than calculators can count condemning every little move by GWB that could even be remotely seen as an offensive towards any type of "war".

Obama didn't exactly do in Iraq and Afghanistan what he promised on the trail. Then the whole Libya thing. And now threatening Syria, whether based on war actions or simply moving certain weapons. While I have seen some condemn his actions, the normal peace people, the majority of liberals and his support base have been fairly silent. In fact, many have spoke out in defense of him. Seeing so many do an about face from the GWB days is hilarious. And when you toss it in their faces? "Well, this is different" LOL

For the record, everyone knows I supported the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I supported the killing of OBL. I supported the aid given to toss aside Gaddafi. And I support stopping the carnage of the Syrian citizens, no matter who it is that may try to intervene on their behalf. This is about the hypocrisy of Obama's supporters.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There were more people than calculators can count condemning every little move by GWB that could even be remotely seen as an offensive towards any type of "war".

Obama didn't exactly do in Iraq and Afghanistan what he promised on the trail. Then the whole Libya thing. And now threatening Syria, whether based on war actions or simply moving certain weapons. While I have seen some condemn his actions, the normal peace people, the majority of liberals and his support base have been fairly silent. In fact, many have spoke out in defense of him. Seeing so many do an about face from the GWB days is hilarious. And when you toss it in their faces? "Well, this is different" LOL

For the record, everyone knows I supported the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I supported the killing of OBL. I supported the aid given to toss aside Gaddafi. And I support stopping the carnage of the Syrian citizens, no matter who it is that may try to intervene on their behalf. This is about the hypocrisy of Obama's supporters.

O' ye of little nuance understanding. Your ability to understand a mighty intellect such as obama represents makes your words shallow and silly. A peasant such as you should be flogged for those insulting words about our Dear Leader. I have a good mind to report you to one of the great Messiah's snitch sites! Just you wait until he gets his powerful "civilian" army equal to the nation's army, then brash loudmouth antagonists such as you are will be dealt with severely.Tremble and repent now for after reelection you will be chosen for "reeducation" because of your hate speech that you believe to be freedom of speech. Silly man, only Allah grants freedom of speech!
For Sharia law forbids such blasphemy and so does the Koran, mohamboy and Hadith number , I forget tha number(;)), just know Hadith is against your bellowing too.-:laugh: ;):laugh:--Tyr

[gabosaurus]

You need to keep up better. I've been critical of Obama about this all along. When Obama promised to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan during the 2008 campaign, I took him at his word. And I still do. It is one of the primary reasons why I haven't made up my mind on who to vote for this fall.

[jimnyc]

You need to keep up better. I've been critical of Obama about this all along. When Obama promised to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan during the 2008 campaign, I took him at his word. And I still do. It is one of the primary reasons why I haven't made up my mind on who to vote for this fall.

I need to keep up better? LOL Sure, because gabby is critical, that changes everything! :lol:

You STILL blame GWB for crap and I don't think I've EVER seen you start a thread to condemn Obama for Iraq, Afghan, Libya or anything in the current Syria situation. But I will give you a pat on the back for your current posts, and will acknowledge I recall a few times you chiming in previously.

[gabosaurus]

I have been blaming Dubya for "crap" for the past 10 years and I still do. The man is a liar, a sadist, an idiot and a mass murderer.
I am sure I have started a few threads about Obama along the way. Just because he didn't start the war doesn't mean he can't finish it.

[jimnyc]

I have been blaming Dubya for "crap" for the past 10 years and I still do. The man is a liar, a sadist, an idiot and a mass murderer.
I am sure I have started a few threads about Obama along the way. Just because he didn't start the war doesn't mean he can't finish it.

So Bush started things in Libya? And made Obama make his statements about Syria? You make these comments about Bush because of his actions, and then toss in a token peep when the same type of actions are brought up about Obama.

So don't just toss things in without proof - PLEASE link to us where you have started threads to condemn Obama in a similar manner regarding war tactics.

[MtnBiker]

When Obama promised to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan during the 2008 campaign, I took him at his word. And I still do.

Really? It doesn't take a very smart person to realize those are promises that Obama is not going to keep.

[jafar00]

:lol: Another "no war" guy here.

Didn't you notice me Jimmy in all the threads calling for illegal pre-emptive war on Iran over a non existent nuclear weapons program? :p

[Voted4Reagan]

You need to keep up better. I've been critical of Obama about this all along. When Obama promised to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan during the 2008 campaign, I took him at his word. And I still do. It is one of the primary reasons why I haven't made up my mind on who to vote for this fall.

Obama threatening Syria over it's possession (allegedly) of WMD's in a unilateral way is far more overreaching then anything that G.W. Bush did in the Similar Situation in regards to Iraq... In Iraq we had the Justification and Approval of UNITED NATIONS MANDATES that allowed us to re-start Military action because of repeated violations of the CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT back in 1991.

I am unaware of any UN MANDATES in regard to SYRIAS WMD's and for OBAMA TO SAY THAT HE'LL ACT IF THEY ARE MOVED OR USED bypasses the standard you crucified Bush for.

So you MUST PROTEST against the President... Just as you did against BUSH. Even though Bush had UN SUPPORT...

If you dont... you're the biggest of Hypocrites.

[revelarts]

the neo cons and neo libs are on the same page.
"war am good, mm hmmm"

the few real leftist are not very eager to attack Obama though there are exceptions like Glen Greenwall and Cindy Sheehan have been very Anti Libyan and Syrian war and extremely critical of Obama.

but for many progressives it's just hard to criticize "their guy" when the right is "piling on" .
I don't see many people on the right willing to admit that Bush Did much of anything wrong either though, "well he may have made Mistakes.." "...but i can't believe he did _____ on purpose.." .
The political elite have to many people bound up in a party spirit that doesn't allow them to think outside of the box objectively on whats going on. If it doesn't fit the boxes it's can't be real.
and if it's in the Box and MY guy did it ... well... he meant well and the other guy did worse soo there.

but to the topic....

Left and Right Call for Escalation in Syria

by Ivan Eland (http://original.antiwar.com/author/eland/), August 15, 2012

For some time, Sen. John McCain and the Wilsonian neoconservatives have been beating the drum to escalate the U.S. intervention in Syria. Now, from the other side of the political spectrum, the Wilsonian progressives are calling for the same solution. The hawks on the left and right abhor each other on most policy issues, but in foreign policy they are both imperialist to the core. To not appear as naive as they actually are, neoconservatives dress up their imperial “democracy promotion at gunpoint” preferences with peacock-strutting red, white, and blue American exceptionalism and repeated references to vague “U.S. interests” or “American vital interests.” Their leftist co-travelers mask their imperial mindset under the banner of “humanitarian protection of lives using military power.” To save Syrian lives, William Perry and Madeleine Albright, secretaries of defense and state, respectively, under President Bill Clinton, advocate U.S. military intervention without putting forces on the ground. In Perry’s case, he specifically advocates establishing a no-fly zone over northern Syria as a sanctuary for Syrian rebels.
Hawkish progressives, such as former Obama administration official Anne-Marie Slaughter and columnist Nicholas Kristof, advocate providing heavier anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons and maybe U.S. air cover to rebel commanders who pledge to avoid sectarian killings and protect civilians. Most of the progressives seem to be using the “low cost” (read: few or no American casualties) model of “overthrow from the air” that caused Moammar Gadhafi’s demise in Libya.
Underneath all the humanitarian rhetoric, the muscular left seems to believe that the Assad government’s downfall is only a matter of time and that the longer the war goes on the more it will have adverse spillover effects in the region (read: the more it will affect Israel). Also, the argument is made that if the United States doesn’t jump into the Syrian civil war with both feet, it won’t have any influence in post-Assad Syria (again, to better protect Israel).
Using the Libyan model as a success story is a bit premature, however. As the Iraq debacle showed, toppling a dictator does not a stable democracy make. In the absence of a strong dictator to hold fractious countries with severe tribal, ethnic, and sectarian cleavages together, much strife and killing may result and democratic rule may be tenuous or temporary. Revolutions are often lengthy and unpredictable phenomena (note the lengthy four phases of the Russian Revolution) in which the group that initially takes power may not end up on top when all of the dust settles. In the case of Libya, the big problem now is the potential for future violence among multiple tribal militias, armed by the West, that don’t get along. In Syria, if anything, the ethno-sectarian cleavages are even greater than in Iraq, leading many experts to believe that much chaos and bloodletting may result if Assad is thrown out of power.
Neoconservative hawks learned the wrong lesson from 9/11 and used those attacks to make the problem of Islamist terrorism worldwide worse by invading Iraq. Instead, they (and their brethren on the Wilsonian left) should have learned that aiding rebels in a civil war — the Afghan mujahedeen against the Soviet-backed Afghan government — can be very dangerous. Al-Qaeda was spawned from the mujahedeen and is clearly one faction of the Syrian insurgency now. Pro-interventionists are confident that a U.S. intelligence community that couldn’t detect the 9/11 attacks and thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction can properly tell the good guys from the bad guys (Islamist militants) in the Syrian resistance. Even if U.S. intelligence had a reasonable chance of successfully doing such vetting before providing weapons, in chaotic civil wars, weapons regularly leak from the initial recipients to others — for example, U.S. military supplies in Afghanistan and Pakistan have fallen into the hands of the Taliban, and the Syrian rebels are fighting with armaments, even heavy weapons, such as tanks, captured from the Syrian military.
But isn’t it necessary to intervene to safeguard Assad’s alleged chemical weapons arsenal so that it doesn’t fall into the hands of terrorists? Unlike biological weapons, which are mainly terror weapons, chemical weapons are normally used as defensive weapons on conventional battlefields (armies on offensive operations are reluctant to “slime” territory that their own forces will likely be moving through). Also, chemical weapons, although fearsome in reputation, have historically killed fewer people than conventional weapons. It would not be good for Islamist terrorists to get them in a post-Assad Syria, but they are not good terrorist weapons, and the threat has been overstated.
In any case, Israeli or Turkish commando teams could safeguard chemical weapons without the help of the United States. Islamist militants — Hezbollah of Lebanon or otherwise — would most likely use such weapons (probably ineffectually) against Israel. If Assad falls, Israel should use some of its $3 billion-plus in annual U.S. military assistance to secure such weapons. More generally, what happens in faraway Syria is only a concern to the United States because of our government’s slavish support of Israel. But Israel is a rich, technologically competent nation that has 200-plus nuclear weapons and poorer, militarily feckless neighbors (including Syria).

Assad may fall, but his regime is fighting back tenaciously. Fortunately, President Obama is more in the realist foreign policy camp and also doesn’t want do anything risky before a likely tight election. So although the U.S. has imposed economic sanctions on Syria and provided “nonlethal” aid (communications equipment, which actually is an important combat multiplier) to the rebels, Obama is resisting calls from hawks on the left and the right for an escalation. But with America’s prestige now on the line after those earlier policy moves and the advocacy of Assad’s ouster, the post-election road to an ill-advised escalation may be open, no matter who wins the plebiscite.


http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2012/08/14/left-and-right-call-for-escalation-in-syria/

[Dilloduck]

Include me in with the "no war" people.

[jimnyc]

This wasn't for a showing of hands of those who are against any hostilities in Syria. This was to see who steadfastly opposed wars of past, specifically when a republican was in office, that now fall rather silent when a democrat does the war or fear mongering. No offense, but I was singling out the hypocrites, but if anyone wants to freely add themselves as a part of hypocrites, no skin off my ass! :poke:

[gabosaurus]

This wasn't for a showing of hands of those who are against any hostilities in Syria. This was to see who steadfastly opposed wars of past, specifically when a republican was in office, that now fall rather silent when a democrat does the war or fear mongering. No offense, but I was singling out the hypocrites, but if anyone wants to freely add themselves as a part of hypocrites, no skin off my ass! :poke:

I would have steadfastly opposed the Viet Nam war, which escalated when Lyndon Johnson was in office. LBJ was a democrat.
There are some hypocrites who believe wars are correct when Republicans are in office and incorrect when Dems are in office. Like those who applauded Reagan's stupid attack on Grenada, but opposed Clinton's stupid intervention in Bosnia.
Sorry Jim, but you are a hypocrite. And a thin skinned one as well.

[jimnyc]

I would have steadfastly opposed the Viet Nam war, which escalated when Lyndon Johnson was in office. LBJ was a democrat.
There are some hypocrites who believe wars are correct when Republicans are in office and incorrect when Dems are in office. Like those who applauded Reagan's stupid attack on Grenada, but opposed Clinton's stupid intervention in Bosnia.
Sorry Jim, but you are a hypocrite. And a thin skinned one as well.

Where have I made myself a hypocrite? HOW? Explain that for starters....

[gabosaurus]

Where have I made myself a hypocrite? HOW? Explain that for starters....

I just told you.
Reading comprehension is your friend.

[jimnyc]

I just told you.
Reading comprehension is your friend.

Unlike you, I am not a hypocrite - I am standing on Obama's side currently, if you weren't so fucking dense. So tell us, what have I done that makes me a hypocrite?

[gabosaurus]

This wasn't for a showing of hands of those who are against any hostilities in Syria. This was to see who steadfastly opposed wars of past, specifically when a republican was in office, that now fall rather silent when a democrat does the war or fear mongering. No offense, but I was singling out the hypocrites, but if anyone wants to freely add themselves as a part of hypocrites, no skin off my ass!

A -- where is Obama doing the war or fear mongering? Obama's mistake (and it is a big one) is continuing the Bush war. But Obama has not lied to start a war, not has he formulated a bogus "War on Terror" as an excuse for continuing it.

B -- You are singling out those who you feel are "hypocrites." But you are making yourself a hypocrite by stating that those who oppose wars started by GOP presidents are "hypocrites."
In reality, there hasn't been an honest cause for military escalation in 50 years or so. No matter who has been in office. You can't separate one from the other.

[jimnyc]

You're obviously a fucking idiot trying to make up garbage to make ME the hypocrite, when my stance to GWB is now the same for Obama, which is exactly what was discussed in the OP. You're too fucking stupid to comprehend what I wrote, immediately assumed I was against Obama. Too bad, you lose, again, idiot.

[Gaffer]

Let's look at history a bit.

WW1 a democrat dilly dallied for three years to insure he got his second term then got the US into war. He turned everything over the the Europeans which guaranteed another war.

WW2 the US again stayed out of things, under a democrat president. Finally dragged kicking and screaming into the conflict. The war ended with a democrat and the cold war began.

The Korean War began with a democrat and ended with a republican. The cold war continued.

The Vietnam War began with a democrat and ended with a republican. The left loved calling it Nixon's war to shift the blame. The cold war continued.

The iran affair began under a democrat and was ended the moment a republican took office.

Granada was a short action to get the Cubans out of that country and protect the medical students there. Over in three days. Republican president. Cold war continues.

Panama, another short action to capture a criminal. Republican president.

Cold war ends, republican president.

First iraq war. Republican president. Over in 6 months. (But not really)

Bosnia, a democrat president. Ended after a huge bombing campaign. The islamist were allowed to make plans and prepare strikes against American interests unmolested by the democrat administration.

Islamic war begins. Under republican president.

It seems more wars start over democrat action and/or inaction than when republicans are in control. Don't want war, keep a republican in office.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Let's look at history a bit.

WW1 a democrat dilly dallied for three years to insure he got his second term then got the US into war. He turned everything over the the Europeans which guaranteed another war.

WW2 the US again stayed out of things, under a democrat president. Finally dragged kicking and screaming into the conflict. The war ended with a democrat and the cold war began.

The Korean War began with a democrat and ended with a republican. The cold war continued.

The Vietnam War began with a democrat and ended with a republican. The left loved calling it Nixon's war to shift the blame. The cold war continued.

The iran affair began under a democrat and was ended the moment a republican took office.

Granada was a short action to get the Cubans out of that country and protect the medical students there. Over in three days. Republican president. Cold war continues.

Panama, another short action to capture a criminal. Republican president.

Cold war ends, republican president.

First iraq war. Republican president. Over in 6 months. (But not really)

Bosnia, a democrat president. Ended after a huge bombing campaign. The islamist were allowed to make plans and prepare strikes against American interests unmolested by the democrat administration.

Islamic war begins. Under republican president.

It seems more wars start over democrat action and/or inaction than when republicans are in control. Don't want war, keep a republican in office.

Carter and obama both prove they are also disasters on our economy when in control of it! Obama's economic disaster has been more costly by itself than a war! Which by the way was deliberate..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

I would have to find the photo again, which I will, but it shows how many "wars" started by Dems/Repubs and how many deaths as a result. The Dems should NEVER whine about Repubs starting wars. I'll post back...

[jimnyc]

Let me see if this lets me post this here... Yep! Just hit the play button

<object height="400" width="600">
<embed src="http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/American-Wars.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="400" width="600"></object>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Let me see if this lets me post this here... Yep! Just hit the play button

<object height="400" width="600">
<embed src="http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/American-Wars.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="400" width="600"></object>

Yet again proof of dem hypocrisy and their arrogant lying about war! Now that obama has been a war happy camper the anti-war screamers have suddenly lost their voice. I guess a messiah making war is nirvana with these hypocrites. Look for obama to start war with Syria if he thinks it will help him win the election. He is just itching to help his muslim brothers overthrow Assad and take power ! So dedicated that he has started to talk tough to Russia and China about it. The guy is a total shill......Tyr