• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W:43]

We haven't seen ANYTHING like during the lead-up to Iraq. Not even close. Not by a country mile. And topical to the thread, we haven't seen the Sheryl Crows, the Sean Penns, the Alec Baldwins, the Martin Sheens, etc., etc.

Who gives a flying **** what Alec Baldwin or any of those other ****-heads have to say? Why is anybody making a fuss about them shutting their mouths for ONCE in their lives. Frankly I enjoy the silence.
 
Who gives a flying **** what Alec Baldwin or any of those other ****-heads have to say? Why is anybody making a fuss about them shutting their mouths for ONCE in their lives. Frankly I enjoy the silence.

He thinks they'd hypocrites for having two different reactions to two different situations.
 
Syria isn't Iraq and likely never will be. Some need to recognize this fact.
 
Why are all the right-wingers talking about the Iraq invasion and probable Syrian missile strikes as if they are equivalent?

I'm sorry; I didn't realize that missile strikes against the military assets (or anything else) of another nation weren't war. I guess when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, that wasn't war -- no invasion.

So, according to Deuce, as long as you don't put boots on the ground, you can blow up whatever you want, and it won't be "war." Hell, why are we endangering the Navy? We've got ICBMs which will take care of things without anyone having to go anywhere. As long as we don't invade, that should be hunky-dory for Deuce.
 
I'm sorry; I didn't realize that missile strikes against the military assets (or anything else) of another nation weren't war. I guess when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, that wasn't war -- no invasion.

So, according to Deuce, as long as you don't put boots on the ground, you can blow up whatever you want, and it won't be "war." Hell, why are we endangering the Navy? We've got ICBMs which will take care of things without anyone having to go anywhere. As long as we don't invade, that should be hunky-dory for Deuce.

I didn't say anything about it not being an act of war. Dump your straw man, respond like an adult, and we'll try again.
 
Who gives a flying **** what Alec Baldwin or any of those other ****-heads have to say?

While I agree with your sentiment, the fact is the Alec Baldwins of the world (Baldwin will be getting his own show on MSNBC this October) express their views just as other talking heads like Matthews and others. Most American's don't follow closely what's going on and swallow what they hear or see so they do have influence, albeit a minor one, on public opinion.
 
Why are all the right-wingers talking about the Iraq invasion and probable Syrian missile strikes as if they are equivalent?

OK, Skippy, but please explain how "briefly" blowing up some selected stuff either 1) assures a regime change or 2) places the WMDs in more secure hands. Everyone with half a brain knows that if the Syria mission is regime change or to gain control of WMDs that it will require "boots on the ground". Ruining the military capability (along with lots of other targets?) of Syria and then expecting anyone to then govern it without the constant protection of Uncle Sucker (or some outside force) is unrealistic.

The key difference between the Iraq and Syria "battle plans" is that in Iraq we were expected to maintain order until a new "acceptable" gov't was capable of taking over. They are clearly not equivalent and you have provided no examples of "right wingers" that think so.
 
Who gives a flying **** what Alec Baldwin or any of those other ****-heads have to say? Why is anybody making a fuss about them shutting their mouths for ONCE in their lives. Frankly I enjoy the silence.

It's the topic of the thread, dude. If you don't think it's worth discussing, why are you even in it?

First you deny that there's been a difference, and then you dismiss the difference, that difference being the whole point of the thread, when it's pointed out. That's pretty weak argumentation.

You: "there hasn't been a difference."

Me: "Yes, there has; X, Y, and Z."

You: "Who cares?"

:roll:

That's not far from simple, straight-up trolling.
 
OK, Skippy, but please explain how "briefly" blowing up some selected stuff either 1) assures a regime change or 2) places the WMDs in more secure hands. Everyone with half a brain knows that if the Syria mission is regime change or to gain control of WMDs that it will require "boots on the ground". Ruining the military capability (along with lots of other targets?) of Syria and then expecting anyone to then govern it without the constant protection of Uncle Sucker (or some outside force) is unrealistic.

The key difference between the Iraq and Syria "battle plans" is that in Iraq we were expected to maintain order until a new "acceptable" gov't was capable of taking over. They are clearly not equivalent and you have provided no examples of "right wingers" that think so.

Over and over and over again the right wingers are demanding to know why liberals aren't protesting Syrian strikes when they protested the Iraqi invasion.

You think we're invading Syria? As in full-on invasion?
 
I didn't say anything about it not being an act of war. Dump your straw man, respond like an adult, and we'll try again.

Your post to me was not the post of an "adult." Of course, they never are.
 
Your post to me was not the post of an "adult." Of course, they never are.

What, because I called you a right-winger? :roll:

Fine. Straw man dismissed.
 
Over and over and over again the right wingers are demanding to know why liberals aren't protesting Syrian strikes when they protested the Iraqi invasion.

You think we're invading Syria? As in full-on invasion?

Yes. You must look beyond the "initial plan" and examine the mission objective. Congress will be asked only to approve the mission objective, not to run (dictate?) the details of accomplishing that mission. Note that nobody thought that Iraq or Afghanistan "missions" would last over a decade - that "detail" was not included in the congressional approval. Once you approve getting rid of the hornets, the fact that the plan was to simply poke the nest with a stick and run is irrelevant - you are then in the extermination business. ;)
 
What, because I called you a right-winger? :roll:

Mostly because it had the reasoning of a child behind it.

War is war. Once you start a war, you don't know where it goes. They're already expanding the plans for it, and it hasn't even started yet, so "boots on the ground" is hardly out of the realm of possibility.

But if you need to split hairs about OK types of war vs. not OK types of war (the people Asner were referring to didn't), you go right ahead. If it makes it easier for you, I'll concede in advance that you're King of the Internet.
 
The last few days of the WH banging the war drum sure sounds like 2002 to me, just with Democrats on the drums this time. So Progs are cool with lobbing bombs and missiles to kill people, just not soldiers with rifles. Good to know. :roll: Let's just call the war protests what they actually were - an anti-Republican activity. The hollywood types aren't stumping down Penn. Ave. with signs because they all supported Obama, and Obama has a (D) next to his name. Sorry to call a spade a spade here but if you remember, not a peep of anti-war hollywood types during Libya either. They're hypocrits who should stick with acting and staying in their self stylized hollywood bubble of insanity and not venture out into the real world.

I'd say you hearing needs to be checked. The BushII war drum beating included a litany of lies to try and convince the American People to INVADE Iraq. Like I keep saying and you Cons keep ignoring, BushII was against just lobbing in a few missiles, he wanted to INVADE.

Can't speak for all Progessives but this veteran Progressive sees a HUGE difference between punishing a regime for using chemical weapons on men women and children and wholesale slaughter of civilians like in Iraq. Odd how thousands of Iraqi civilians died as collateral damage but even the thought of one civilian being killed by a cruise missiles has Cons all up in arms! :roll:

I doubt you know any spades, much less call them. There is a HUGE difference between the Iraqi war protesters and now. First the Iraqi war protesters had a WAR TO PROTEST. There was an INVASION of Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis dying from US military action and the chaos we unleashed after we INVADED.

I understand how desperate some Cons are to make a yet to be done limited missile strike the equiv of a massive INVASION with hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead Americans.

But like your first girlfriend said... "That didn't even come close!"
 
I'd say you hearing needs to be checked. The BushII war drum beating included a litany of lies to try and convince the American People to INVADE Iraq.
And you're so sure a (D) President won't spew a litany of lies huh? We won't know they're lies until after... did you not learn anything from Iraq?

Like I keep saying and you Cons keep ignoring, BushII was against just lobbing in a few missiles, he wanted to INVADE.
Iraq had missiles and a no fly zone for a decade before that. Missiles were lobbed there for a very long time - you have a short memory.

Can't speak for all Progessives but this veteran Progressive sees a HUGE difference between punishing a regime for using chemical weapons on men women and children and wholesale slaughter of civilians like in Iraq. Odd how thousands of Iraqi civilians died as collateral damage but even the thought of one civilian being killed by a cruise missiles has Cons all up in arms! :roll:
Well THIS veteran doesn't see a huge difference. Dead is dead - wholesale slaughter occurs every day and we don't lob missiles into every country (like Africa for example, where thousands of Christians were exterminated by conventional weapons over the last 10 years) and why is that? One would hope intelligent people learn from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I doubt you know any spades, much less call them.
Speak to the subject not the poster - given your attitude, what you think is ranking very low on my concern list.


There is a HUGE difference between the Iraqi war protesters and now.
Yeah, like there not being protestors now.


First the Iraqi war protesters had a WAR TO PROTEST. There was an INVASION of Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis dying from US military action and the chaos we unleashed after we INVADED.
And thousands of Syrians will die with missiles from the U.S. playing "daddy" to Syria for the sole purpose of Obama looking strong to Iran and North Korea. That's a SWELL reason to launch hundreds of million dollar missiles into a civil war we have no business being in.

I understand how desperate some Cons are to make a yet to be done limited missile strike the equiv of a massive INVASION with hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead Americans.
Apparenlty you haven't learned from those hundreds of thousands of deaths and want yet more. That's sad. And I'd venture to guess many share your view because Obama's a (D) - otherwise, calls for impeachment and overthrow of the fascist war monger would be heard from every bastion of progressive thought.
 
Madonna has come out against war in Syria

?Stay out?: Madonna slams US plans for Syria strike ? RT News


yes yes yes - I know she is an idiot with cleavage but she does show that some celebs are opposing this contrary to what some believe. Lets hope we will see much more --- celebrities opposing Syrian involvement that is- the cleavage is okay to see much more. ;)
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut out the personal attacks.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

1. But by all means, provide some direct quotes from people who have said "If you don't love Obama, you're racist".
2. Or they just don't see it as that big of an issue. Do you want to see them whine about every single political action? Is that really what you want?
1. You're asking him to find something he never said existed (I refer you to my red signature line). He didn't talk about love.
Anyway, Bill Maher said the Tea Party would support the President on Syria if they weren't racist.

Here's Chris Matthews calling critics racist:
Chris Matthews: Obama Critics Are Motivated By Racism - YouTube

Jimmy Carter:
Jimmy Carter Obama criticism racist - YouTube

Sharpton and Matthews
Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews Say Pointing Out Obama Scandals is Racist - YouTube

2. Every single political action, no.
About starting a war after being so vocal about it before, yes.

They have no core values, just party loyalty.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

And you're so sure a (D) President won't spew a litany of lies huh? We won't know they're lies until after... did you not learn anything from Iraq? Iraq had missiles and a no fly zone for a decade before that. Missiles were lobbed there for a very long time - you have a short memory. Well THIS veteran doesn't see a huge difference. Dead is dead - wholesale slaughter occurs every day and we don't lob missiles into every country (like Africa for example, where thousands of Christians were exterminated by conventional weapons over the last 10 years) and why is that? One would hope intelligent people learn from Iraq and Afghanistan. Speak to the subject not the poster - given your attitude, what you think is ranking very low on my concern list. Yeah, like there not being protestors now. And thousands of Syrians will die with missiles from the U.S. playing "daddy" to Syria for the sole purpose of Obama looking strong to Iran and North Korea. That's a SWELL reason to launch hundreds of million dollar missiles into a civil war we have no business being in. Apparenlty you haven't learned from those hundreds of thousands of deaths and want yet more. That's sad. And I'd venture to guess many share your view because Obama's a (D) - otherwise, calls for impeachment and overthrow of the fascist war monger would be heard from every bastion of progressive thought.

Again there is a difference bewteen what a (D) President MIGHT say and the litany of lies the BushII team DID say. The centrifuge tubes that were not. The yellow cake lie. The Prague meeting that never happened. The al-Qeera link that never was. (We knew those claims were lies BEFORE BushII INVADED Iraq.)

First Clinton didn't lob missiles into Iraq but into Afghanistan- THOSE were the missiles BushII derisively referred to when he said he wasn't just going to lob a few missiles at a camel's ass.

But speaking of the no-fly zone- the liberals didn't protest the no fly zones- not until Thousands of American troops INVADED Iraq did the serious protests start. Again many Cons refuse to see that difference in a need to attack liberals.

Thousands of Syrians are not going to die in the missile attacks- you are just making that up. Certainly not the HUNDREDS of thousands that died AFTER we INVADED Iraq.

You can keep twisting this to try and make a missile attack the equal to the INVASION which Liberals protested. You can attempt to equate the cost of those missiles to the cost of the Iraq war. You can even attempt to equate the deaths a missile strike causes to the hundreds of thousands who died after we INVADED Iraq.

Now IF Obama lies about yellow cake, or Prague meetings, perhaps attempts to call galvanized pipe centrifuge pipe about the Assad regime and declares we must INVADE... yeah the war protests will start.

But until then, as I don't recall a huge protest over the No-Fly Zones- infact Cons wanted more than that when the zones were established, it isn't fascist warmongering.

Out of Africa-

I can't recall our nation EVER caring about West/Central Africa past it's resources. To compare the political clout Central/West Africa has compared to the Middle East is like comparing the political clout of Wyoming to Florida.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Mostly because it had the reasoning of a child behind it.

War is war. Once you start a war, you don't know where it goes. They're already expanding the plans for it, and it hasn't even started yet, so "boots on the ground" is hardly out of the realm of possibility.

But if you need to split hairs about OK types of war vs. not OK types of war (the people Asner were referring to didn't), you go right ahead. If it makes it easier for you, I'll concede in advance that you're King of the Internet.

So, if I'm ok with missile strikes I must be ok with blanketing the country with nuclear missiles. Yes, I guess I'm splitting hairs. My bad.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Well, the war hasn't started yet, so maybe it won't start at all. How about you wait and see what happens before you condemn someone for something they haven't even done yet?
The Iraq War started on March 20, 2003. Prior to that there were 6 major organized protests. The smaller ones, they were numerous, weren't listed on Wikipedia.
Protests against the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Have we not seen quite an uproar from the citizenry lately opposing an attack on Syria? I sure have.
We may differ greatly on the definition of uproar.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Syria isn't Iraq and likely never will be.

That is the safest sentence ever.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Over and over and over again the right wingers are demanding to know why liberals aren't protesting Syrian strikes when they protested the Iraqi invasion.

You think we're invading Syria? As in full-on invasion?
The protests against President Bush's actions began before the invasion.
 
Back
Top Bottom