Funny how you blame a past event on liberals, but ignore "conservatives" right now- like John Mccain who is calling for U.S. involvement in Syria right now. This isn't a liberal v. conserative issue no matter how much some people want to make it one.
rfenst wrote:
First, you are either totally ignorant, or hopelessly deluded if you think McCain is a "conservative." This ignores:
1) His revulsion for the Tea Party (remember his "hobbits" comment),
2) His breathless desire to run to Chris Matthews to be called a "maverick" again,
3) How he crapped all over Conservatives in his presidential primaries,
Seriously, Robert, you claim that anyone who is slightly to the right of Mao Tse Tung is a "conservative." It is just flat-out false. McCain is no conservative. Any passive, unbiased, informed individual can figure that one out.
And, a better example/analogy would likely be Libya's recent civil war, which involved state attacks on civilian populations. We participated with other nations, including some Arab nationss, by shooting a bunch of cruise missles, dropping a few bombs and tamping downn a no-fly zone. No boots on the ground, plenty of support from Europe, NATO and others. Hell, a U.N. Security counsel resolution was not even vetoed by Russia or China.
rfenst wrote:
1) Wasn't our fight.
2) We has ZERO national interest in getting involved over there aside from payback on Quaddaffi (sp:?).
3) We have now ushered in a government - if you want to call them that - that now has strong ties to Al Qaeda, who still wants to kill every American in existence,
4) It is now becoming clear that our involvement has potentially placed some 400 surface-to-air missiles in the hands of Al Qaeda operatives.
5) I believe that Idi Amin Jr. kept forces engaged in that conflict that breached his authority under the War Powers act. Frankly speaking, that is an impeachable offense. He received ZERO authorization from Congress to engage in conflict (unlike Bush who had two different authorizations from Congress for both Iraq and Afghanistan).
6) The result of all of this was a dead ambassador, the invasion of our Embassy (which is considered US Soil, and therefore an invasion), more dead Americans, a signal to every terrorist group out there that we are timid to act, and the possibility that dangerous US weapons have now fallen into the hands of terrorists.
Should Syria be found by today's UN inspectors to have gassed its own people, there is at least something that needs to be discussed by the nations of the world. I do not want to see us involved as this IMO is Rusiia's problem fostered in part
via Iran.
rfenst wrote:
1) It is now being openly speculated that the chemical weapons supposedly being used on Syrians came from Iraq. Check the New York times and the Atlantic. They are now BOTH running stories that imply this.
2) Who the hell cares for the "nations of the world?" You think China really cares about this? Cripes, they strap down their own females and force them to have abortions. You think Canada is going to do anything about civilians getting gassed in Syria? Or the Brits? Or the French? Pffth!
3) Even if someone took action, and took out Assad, what is waiting in the wings to take over is EVEN WORSE THAN ASSAD! And they will get their hands on those WMDs, and God know where they will end up. At least with Assad, there is enough cognitive ability there to prevent those types of weapons from getting in the hands of terrorists, lest it be traced back to him, and an invasion ensue. The people who seek to replace Assad are the types who think everyone should be martyred in the name is Islam.
4) These same UN weapons inspectors first said that there were WMDs in Iraq, then said that there weren't, yet produced a report that Powell cited in his UN speech detailing the deficits from what was found, and what remained to be destroyed. Now they are making the same claims in Syria. So we should believe them...now?
How many times does history need to repeat itself with you, Robert, before you'll catch on?
Your type of wholesale ignorance on the subjects you highlighted above is dangerous, Robert. Your view of the world is hopelessly warped, and out of touch with reality. Most people, when confronted with this, would re-evaluate what they think. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll happen in your case.
