- Joined
- Feb 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,216
- Reaction score
- 12,112
- Location
- US
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I oppose the syrian war and i hope it gets voted down, but i fear that that some republicans might be voting against it just because they don't want to give obama any sort of political victory. I believe some of republicans like ron paul truly do oppose the war, but there are quite a few republicans who supported iraq and will vote against syria. what do you guys think?
And...what are the democrats saying?
I have heard a number of liberals say they might support an attack because they support Obama. How is that any different than opposing an attack because you oppose Obama?
The entire WH including Kerry have been whipping up support all week. "Someone" even provided CNN with "exclusive" video (that's what CNN was calling it yesterday) of suffering Syrian's dying of what apparently was a Sarin gas as an overt appeal to emotion to sway American attitudes towards military action.
If I provide links - would it really matter since you also can Google... Denis McDonough will be on the Sunday talk shows today, Obama will be on all 6 major Cable and Broadcast news stations tomorrow arguing for Syrian strikes. Feinstein putting together those same 18 videos of suffering to support military action in support of it as well. I'm not saying all Democrats... but the entire WH, and more than a few in the Senate = many to me. My own Senator who votes 97% with the Democratic party is in favor as well.
Congress should represent the views of each members constituents. If reports are true that calls to Washington are running 100 to 1 against military action, the vote should be against military action. Unanimously.I think that would be few and far between. I don't know of many liberals who are supporting military action in Syria. But you are correct. If there were any, they would be just as big of a hypocrite as the Republicans.
I reiterate what I said, I suspect that the only Democrats who will vote for this idiotic attack would be the same fools who voted for military action in Iraq. At last THAT would be consistent. However, I am hoping that most vote against military action.
Kerry in 2002 voted FOR Iraq, so that idiot is consistent and yes, I agree, I too am hoping that any Syria military action is voted down.
I reiterate what I said, I suspect that the only Democrats who will vote for this idiotic attack would be the same fools who voted for military action in Iraq. At last THAT would be consistent. However, I am hoping that most vote against military action.
Congress should represent the views of each members constituents. If reports are true that calls to Washington are running 100 to 1 against military action, the vote should be against military action. Unanimously.
IF the republicans are voting against Obama it is because he is trying to the pass something they do not want.Just like when the democrats opposed bush on things they didn't want. People do not elect one party over another because they want them siding together almost on every issue.
Iraq and Syria are two different situations. Saddam used chemical weapons not once,not twice but around 15-20 times.Saddam also killed a million of his own citizens. Saddam made everyone think he still had WMDs. Politicians on both sides of the isle way before Bush was even in office have said Saddam has WMDs. 9-11 happened shortly before the Iraq war and people did not want some other middle eastern country striking us.
There is a reason they are known as the "party of NO". The reality is, if the President had an R behind his name they would be whooping up they way the always do. This is just another in the Party of No's oppose everything and anything that Obama wants, they are so predictable.
For the record...I don't support it any more than I would support it if the President were Republican. We don't belong in Syria any more than we belonged in Iraq. We are not the police of the world.
And you will be singing the praises of one of those "fools" in 2016.
Which makes you....
In this case you should be cheering the party of No. I would say the party of No as you call them are right in saying No to an idiot president who is always wrong.
I understand. I don't think the Democrats are much better than the Republicans when it comes to warmongering. I getit......I don't expect much different although I hope for more....and I am always disappointed. But across the board....the Democrats are not quite as crazy as the Republicans on other stuff....which is why I support them.
I oppose the syrian war and i hope it gets voted down, but i fear that that some republicans might be voting against it just because they don't want to give obama any sort of political victory. I believe some of republicans like ron paul truly do oppose the war, but there are quite a few republicans who supported iraq and will vote against syria. what do you guys think?
No more predictable than all the anti-war Bush impeachment crowd post 2003, who are now banging the war machine drum for (D) Obama 10 years later. The hypocrisy is so deep America needs hip waders.
I'm more amazed at how readily people suffer 'fools'. And we wonder why we have the government we have.
The situations with Iraq in 2003 and Syria in 2013 are not even remotely analogous.I believe some of republicans like ron paul truly do oppose the war, but there are quite a few republicans who supported iraq and will vote against syria. what do you guys think?
I do side with the opposition here....but for different reasons. The party of NO isn't siding on the right side of the issue for the right reasons. They are siding because they are the party of NO. I have no doubt that if the President were Republican they would be warmongering, cheering USA USA USA and waving flags. If you are honest.....you wont disagree.
Name anyone who opposed the Afghan and Iraq wars who now suports the war with Syria. I don't know of any such person.
Name anyone who opposed the Afghan and Iraq wars who now suports the war with Syria. I don't know of any such person.
Oct. 2. Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama gives speech opposing war in Iraq. He said he did not oppose "all wars," but he opposed "dumb wars," and wanted to finish the job against al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden rather than start a new war in Iraq. He predicted that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
You're qualifier of "Afghan AND Iraq" seems overly restrictive. Only one person voted against the Afghanistan war that I can recall and I looked it up, it was Barbara Lee (D) California, who is I believe "undecided" on Syria at this time. .....