Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Howard Dean for Syria Strike

Has liberalism gone totally mad?

by Anonymousreply 7109/05/2013

I told you he was not a genuine liberal. People don't listen to me, I've found.

by Anonymousreply 109/04/2013

Dean's the one who famously kept using "fig leaf" instead of "olive branch" in a television interview.

by Anonymousreply 209/04/2013

He was NEVER a liberal, he just opposed the Iraq War and that fucking idiot Bush when nobody else would, so liberals rallied behind him.

by Anonymousreply 309/04/2013

Iran War - By. Obama, Inc.

by Anonymousreply 409/04/2013

R4 is insane, and I have no idea where you even came up with that crap.

And I have to consider that there are other factors at play here that I don't really know or understand... as there are a lot of traditionally liberal and even anti-war people who claim some military action is "required" at this point.

The world is certainly more complicated with shades of gray than I wish, and a purely pacifist position will never actually work in the real world (unfortunately), but ... as much as I wish we wouldn't go in and start killing more people in yet another country, it's just never going to be the case that we should NEVER consider that option.

I've yet to be convinced one way or the other at this point. I'm not going to choose a side based solely on dogma, and I just don't have enough actual, factual information to pick a side yet.

I do trust Obama/Biden/Kerry way more than I trust Bush/Cheney/Rice though. They're simply more educated, more rational, more thoughtful, and far more fact-based.

At the same time, I do worry about Obama considering military action just to 'appease' Republicans or appear "tough" to fight the appearance of being 'weak' that the GOP/FOXNews likes to push. That shit bothers me a lot, actually. Stop caring what people who will never vote for you anyway think!

by Anonymousreply 509/04/2013

No. Liberalism is divided. Human rights and international law are liberal values. It's important to learn the lessons of the past, but it is also important to make sure you apply them with reason.

Here's some context: Israel has launched attacks against Syria to prevent arms from going to Hezbollah. Syria did not respond to Israeli attacks. Assad has every reason to avoid drawing the US into the civil war and therefore knows retaliation is against his interests. This action will not lead to war, chicken littles.

by Anonymousreply 609/04/2013

Reminder: Howard Dean was NEVER a "dove". He was FOR the Afghanistan War, and campaigned on a surge for that. He was (rightfully) against the ridiculous and expensive Iraq war, which was completely unjustified by any measure, and which has cost us dearly.

by Anonymousreply 709/04/2013

[quote]He was NEVER a liberal, he just opposed the Iraq War and that fucking idiot Bush when nobody else would, so liberals rallied behind him.

Nope.

by Anonymousreply 809/04/2013

This isn't even that complicated. The world does not want to tolerate the use of chemical weapons. Doing nothing sends the signal that it's open season for Assad and others to use WMDs. The US has declared that using such weapons will not be tolerated. Backing down destroys the value of deterrence which has been the US's central strategic stance since the end of WWII.

The doomsday scenarios are illogical for all involved.

by Anonymousreply 909/04/2013

no, R4 isn't insane at all. The objectives of the Project on a New American Century didn't go away when Bush and the Neocons did, they're sublimated into the general thinking of the American foreign policy establishment. An attack on Syria is only the latest step in a more generalized and long term war on Iran, and the Syrian War has long been a proxy fight with Israel, Turkey, the UAE, the fucking Saudis, the USA, and Qatar on one side and Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia on the other. An attack on Syria will further destabilize Lebanon, and a failed state in Syria will deprive Iran of a key ally and Hezbollah of a resupply route. "Anyone can go to Baghdad real men go to Tehran." It may not happen during Obama's term, but probably during Clinton II. They all think alike - the ghost of Bush W never left, its all one long thread.

by Anonymousreply 1009/04/2013

R10, I agree with you. That is all.

by Anonymousreply 1109/04/2013

R11, then you're probaly as stupid as r10.

by Anonymousreply 1209/04/2013

[quote]He was FOR the Afghanistan War

As he should, and as you should have been as well.

by Anonymousreply 1309/04/2013

R10 isn't stupid. He just looks for the worst possible case scenario and advocates that we make decisions based on what he finds. It's a matter of temperament, not intelligence.

by Anonymousreply 1509/04/2013

[quote]Syria Stryke

That's my new drag name!

by Anonymousreply 1609/04/2013

liberal does not equal isolationist. syria has violated an important international norm which has direct regional implications to US interests. not to mention that many liberals believe we have a moral obligation to stop Assad from freely gassing women and children with impunity

by Anonymousreply 1709/04/2013

Wrote r16 (Syria Stryke):

That's my new drag name!

Nice to meet you.

by Anonymousreply 1809/04/2013

Neither party (there is actually only one, but that's for another thread) cares about the wishes of the people.

In any other country, that would mean demonstrations and riots.

by Anonymousreply 1909/04/2013

[quote][R4] is insane, and I have no idea where you even came up with that crap.

Gee, Deja vu. I was told the same thing when I knew Iraq was bullshit, too.

Of course you think I'm insane. I doubt you even have a rudimentary understanding of what's going on over there and why it's people like McCain, Graham, Lieberman, Kristol, and every other neo con out there who wants this. Along with the Saudis, Qatar, Israel.

I'm not some conspiracy nut. I have a better understanding of all of the players involved in this current situation and why suddenly, the likes of Graham and McCain and Cruz -men who couldn't give a shit about Americans- "care" about Syrians.

Learn about what's going on beyond what the media is telling you. I'm mean for fuck sake, they're using the same God damned playbook because they know most American are idiots.

by Anonymousreply 2009/04/2013

I mean*

by Anonymousreply 2109/04/2013

[quote]why it's people like McCain, Graham, Lieberman, Kristol, and every other neo con out there who wants this. Along with the Saudis, Qatar, Israel.

And Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Hagel and Pelosi.

[quote]Learn about what's going on beyond what the media is telling you. I'm mean for fuck sake, they're using the same God damned playbook because they know most American are idiots.

If you think this is the same playbook as Iraq you should not be presenting yourself as some kind of expert. Iraq was an invasion based on flawed intelligence. This is a missile strike in response to something we can all see and hear from survivors and UN inspectors. I very much doubt Israel is happy about it. Assad kept the peace.

by Anonymousreply 2209/04/2013

Why is killing with bombs and bullets OK but killing with chemical weapons not OK? Why is Obama suddenly so righteous and trigger happy?

by Anonymousreply 2309/04/2013

R22, did you know that before he turned into a vegetable, Ariel Sharon was claiming that Iraq moved its weapons to Syria? This was when the Iraq war had barely started. He already wanted the US to start with Syria.

Now if you have a basic understanding of the conflict, you'd know it would be preposterous for Iraq to move its weapons to Syria of all places because Syria is an ally of Iran.

Israel -even back then- was trying to get the US to start with Syria specifically to weaken Iran. It's not my fault you have a short memory - I don't.

All I have to see is a list of the characters who are pushing for this to know it's the same ones as with Iraq. You'll regret doubting me down the line. I'm used to it.

by Anonymousreply 2409/04/2013

He's going British

by Anonymousreply 2509/04/2013

[quote]Now if you have a basic understanding of the conflict, you'd know it would be preposterous for Iraq to move its weapons to Syria of all places because Syria is an ally of Iran.

There was talk during the war that Saddam had hidden his weapons in Iran, too.

Even if you are correct that Sharon wanted the US to attack Syria (which makes no sense at all), what does that say about Israel today?

[quote]All I have to see is a list of the characters who are pushing for this to know it's the same ones as with Iraq.

Even if that were true (which it isn't), if that's all you need to see to figure the whole thing out, I don't see why anyone would place much faith in your views.

[quote] You'll regret doubting me down the line. I'm used to it.

I'm not surprised you're used to people doubting you. You seem to evaluate events based on an ideology rather than on logic and to see the world in black and white.

by Anonymousreply 2609/04/2013

Assad has been using chemical weapons for two(2) years . . . even when the Kerry's and the Assad's were photographed dining together.

Why the sudden sense of alarm now . . . did Assad stiff Kerry with the check?

by Anonymousreply 2709/04/2013

Kerry has stated the arabs are financing this war. I am very uncomfortable with their money buying the use of our army. They are buying our blood. Where are the wealthy arab bodies? Our soldiers are theirs apparently, hired mercinaries...I bet they are freaked by this. Bad morale. I would feel betrayed and that Obama is a traitor.

I am also uncomfortable with us siding with Al Queda, who's sole stated goal is our destruction. Also, they have no endgame, no stated way that they will measure success, it is open ended. There is no one other than Al Queda to replace Assad. They are basically ensuring terrorists will now have access to chemical weapons.

I am uncomfortable CIA has trained these rebels who are enemy to the US. But you cannot train Al Queda rebels in a few weeks so...

This indicates to me they have been planning and preparing for this war for months.

by Anonymousreply 2809/04/2013

No, R26, I'm not the one who sees black and white - you do.

Black and white would be if I simply took the government at its word.

by Anonymousreply 2909/04/2013

[quote]Neither party (there is actually only one, but that's for another thread) cares about the wishes of the people.

You are completely full of shit, R19, as are all morons that claim there's no difference between the parties. It's such an obvious and blatant lie, it makes me wonder how you can assert it with a straight face. It outs you as a stupid idiot.

by Anonymousreply 3009/04/2013

...and spare me the "if you are correct/if that were true." You don't want to educate yourself by doing a two second google search, you'd rather insult me for remembering how it played out with Iraq.

Ariel Sharon did claim it about Syria, and the exact same characters from Iraq support this, too, or did you also forget that Romney's foreign policy team was comprised of the likes of John Bolton and Dan Senor? Recall Romney mentioning Syria? You think that Middle-aged Sears model thought of that all on his own?

by Anonymousreply 3109/04/2013

They ARE the same party when it comes to foreign policy. All neo cons. There has yet to be a Middle East war those scumbags in Congress haven't supported.

by Anonymousreply 3209/04/2013

That's not what black and white thinking refers to. I'm referring to arguments like "all you need to know is who supports this" and the sense that there is some grand, devious plan at work in this mess.

Believing everything the government says would be foolish. So is believing that everything the government is a lie. You started this discussion by saying that Obama is starting a war with Iran on behalf of mysterious corporate sponsors. That is probably where you analysis started. When you start with the conclusion that there is a dark conspiracy at work, you surely will find what you see as evidence to back your story.

by Anonymousreply 3309/04/2013

[quote]There has yet to be a Middle East war those scumbags in Congress haven't supported.

That's one perspective. Another might be there has only been one war in the Middle East that they have supported. The War against Saddam Hussien which took place in two Acts.

by Anonymousreply 3409/04/2013

[quote]and the sense that there is some grand, devious plan at work in this mess.

Right... because there's no history of that with the US government. Go ask Iran in say...1950ish. "Black water" "Halliburton"... all figments of my imagination.

R33, "dark conspiracy" would imply I claimed the moon-landing was fake or something along those lines. You can't possibly think that these days, the government is in the business of giving a shit about humanity.

We have a president who has put people who worked at Monsanto in charge of the FDA, but yeah, I'm sure the Syrian people are Obama's priority. And McCain's. And Graham's. And Cruz.

You'll forget this exchange down the line, but you'll hear about Iran having done something that "requires military intervention," too. I have no doubt that you'll be right back here justifying that, too.

by Anonymousreply 3509/04/2013

R14, your opinion isn't moronic because it's "divergent", it's moronic simply because it's moronic, moronic from every way you look at it.

The only thing you're right about is that this is a "complicated and nuanced issue". Yet, you look at it from the most crude, simplistic, cliched, ignorant and uninformed perspective possible. Aside from "the US is the great devil" or "the evil empire" perspectives.

R27, because, although there was much suspicion, there was not so much documented evidence that such attacks had taken place, but this time opposition groups video recorded the victims.

by Anonymousreply 3609/04/2013

No, r29, seeing things in black and white is when you refuse to believe something simply because the government says it and, instead of trying to assess the information available, you immediately resort to conspiracy theories and make up some stories that you have absolutely no evidence for and then present those stories as "the truth".

R35, don't worry, we'll come back to remind you of the drivel your dribbling now, once this is over and you're proved sorely wrong. Of course, you'll twist things then as well.

by Anonymousreply 3709/04/2013

They are not claiming that the Syrian people are their priority. They are saying that preserving the ban on the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world is their priority. And that is a perfectly logical motivation for retaliating against Assad.

Yes, in the 1950s the CIA intervened in Iran. Then Vietnam in the 1960s and Chile in the 1970s after which such interventions were made illegal. Of course there are still covert operations. Yes, the Republicans were disgusting in the profiteering of their friends through privatization. We certainly should keep all of this in mind. But we shouldn't start from the conclusion that everything the government does is for a hidden purpose.

by Anonymousreply 3809/04/2013

Dean now has BFF on K Street. This is no surprise. It took a while but he finally sold out.

He needs to get together with phony, hypocrite Al Franken. Franken is in favor of more war like this Syria bullshit war and voted to cut food stamps. Could anyone from the GOP/TP be worse?

There are only 3 real Democrats period and they are Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

by Anonymousreply 3909/04/2013

[quote]But we shouldn't start from the conclusion that everything the government does is for a hidden purpose.

I don't think it's hidden at all. The government can be blatant because it has people like you to justify it and the media to feed it to the masses.

Insult me all you want, I'm seeing the same playbook over and over again. Nothing new.

by Anonymousreply 4009/04/2013

[quote] I'm seeing the same playbook over and over again. Nothing new.

My point exactly.

by Anonymousreply 4109/04/2013

When it comes to foreign wars and "interventions", why not, R8? History (not just those you cited, but also such disparate examples as the Panamanian Invasion, and the attempted Venezuelan coup, and the Guatemalan overthrow, and so many other cases - the US has been almost continually at war for over a century now) argues against you. You should always assume that you are probably being lied to about motive and rationale in such instances. All governments lie when it suits them.

by Anonymousreply 4209/04/2013

How is this a fucking easy decision?

When we did nothing for years in Bosnia, and nothing ever in Sudan, we were hated.

Now we are considering a limited action in Syria, and those who hate us for doing nothing for two years are equalled by those who hate that we are about to do even that.

There is no easy answer.

by Anonymousreply 4309/04/2013

Liberal here for Syria and Iran Strike.

by Anonymousreply 4409/04/2013

[quote]Liberal here for Syria and Iran Strike.

You're a Neo Con. Most of you people think you're "liberal."

by Anonymousreply 4509/04/2013

[quote]When we did nothing for years in Bosnia, and nothing ever in Sudan, we were hated.

We intervened in both Bosnia and the Sudan.

by Anonymousreply 4609/04/2013

Saudi Arabia and Arab Gulf countries want secular Arab regimes gone. First Libya, then Syria. The Obama administration is simply providing the logistics, probably in exchange for something else.

by Anonymousreply 4709/04/2013

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries want to keep the Shi'ites under control. They would vastly prefer a secular Syria to a Shi'ite ally for Iran.

by Anonymousreply 4809/04/2013

Question: how will you feel when your children, neighbors, friend's kids, co-workers etc., get sent to the middle east to fight for the Saudis?

by Anonymousreply 4909/04/2013

The Saudis have been quite happy with Assad. He keeps the Shi'ites under control. How would people fighting to bring down Assad be fighting for the Saudis?

by Anonymousreply 5009/04/2013

R1 mentioned was I thinking.

by Anonymousreply 5109/04/2013

[quote]The Saudis have been quite happy with Assad. He keeps the Shi'ites under control. How would people fighting to bring down Assad be fighting for the Saudis?

So incredibly uneducated.

by Anonymousreply 5209/04/2013

There would have to be a draft for that to happen, R49. There will never be a draft in the USA again. If there were then some of the children of the rich would have to fight and we can't have that again. No it works out great that it's mostly the children of what's left of the lower middle class and the children of the poor who go to war, get wounded and die.

I would love for them to put back the draft. Watch how fast we'd have no more wars if that happened.

by Anonymousreply 5309/04/2013

You are right, R52. I mixed up Syria's political situation with Iraq's.

R53 is right. Military action should be a shared burden. The decision makers should have a personal stake.

by Anonymousreply 5409/04/2013

Correct, r54. Just look at tail gunner Joe Biden. Five student deferments and then medical because he had asthma AS A CHILD.

by Anonymousreply 5509/04/2013

I'm left of Liberal, and I say no. I think the fact that Republicans are in favor, tells me Obama is getting played.

As I see it, yes the international community needs to "do something" about the use of gas. Just like they should've when Saddam gassed the Kurds. But to talk about military action? Then what? What are our choices?

This is a civil war, and a lot of the elements who are fighting are serious Muslim extremists. So do we arm and create the next Bin Laden as we did in Afghanistan? If we arm the rebels that's what we're doing. "Vetting" the rebels is an impossible task. No one really knows who is who. Do we then allow the kind of barbarism we saw in Libya?

Choice #2: Do we just bomb the crap out of them and leave another country in rubble, millions displaced, and absolute chaos with no one in charge, so we can watch the extremists gain control by default?

Or option #3: Do we send "boots on the ground" so we can get tangled up in a ground war in a bad place? Again? The real reason everyone is wringing their hands, is because this is too close to Israel. But Israel hasn't been attacked. They're just wringing their hands and "testing" missiles.

My point is, what kind of military action are we talking about? And once we engage, what next? What's the goal? and most important, who will be standing beside us. Not behind us but beside us.

Where are the Arabs? Where's the UN? Some coalition needs to walk in there and stop the fucking civil war, and get people to sit down and talk. But that won't happen. Everyone is too busy talking about retribution, consequences, etc.

Assad needs to be isolated, and forced to face his critics at a table. The military needs to stand down. I wish there was some world police force that could go in there and disarm everyone.

I wish there was a way to remove Assad from power, and establish martial law by some international police force until the new government can be established and pound out a Constitution and move forward into the 21st Century.

by Anonymousreply 5609/04/2013

Why do your three choices not include what is on the table?

BTW--most Republicans in the House are expected to vote no because they just can't support the President in anything.

by Anonymousreply 5709/04/2013

Can the people who oppose this war pressure the congress?

by Anonymousreply 5809/04/2013

"You're a Neo Con. Most of you people think you're "liberal." "

Then this "Neo Con" voted for Clinton twice, Al Gore, John Kerry and Obama twice. AND I am still for bombing Syria and Iran. This "Neo Con" is also pro-choice.

by Anonymousreply 5909/04/2013

True liberals didn't vote for Clinton, Gore, or GAWD FORBID Kerry (a Skull and Bones member like Bush), R59.

True liberals don't vote the bankster parties, Dems and Repubs.

by Anonymousreply 6009/04/2013

You're not a "true liberal." A true liberal tolerates dissent and wants to get things done, not cry into the wilderness.

by Anonymousreply 6109/04/2013

When McCain, Cantor and Obama are in favor of the same policy it does make you think there is really only one political party in the U.S.

It is funny watching Obama fans twist themselves into pretzels supporting something they'd be going nuts over if W was still the President. I have to give props to Rand Paul as much as I hate his ideas. At least he's consistent in his beliefs and doesn't care if you're a red or blue Pres.

by Anonymousreply 6209/04/2013

R60 makes another good point that true conservatives did not vote for George W. Bush.

by Anonymousreply 6309/04/2013

Rand Paul is an asshat, no matter what he proclaims or 'stands for'.

by Anonymousreply 6409/04/2013

R60, you are not a progressive. You are an anarchist.

by Anonymousreply 6509/04/2013

[quote]Then this "Neo Con" voted for Clinton twice, Al Gore, John Kerry and Obama twice. AND I am still for bombing Syria and Iran. This "Neo Con" is also pro-choice.

You're funny for thinking pointing out who you voted for somehow makes you less of a neo con. You are a classic neo con. Liberal on most issues, but a warmonger; that's what a neo con is most of the time. You're vile people.

by Anonymousreply 6609/04/2013

It is funny watching Obama fans twist themselves into pretzels supporting something they'd be going nuts over if W was still the President

Brilliant, r62

by Anonymousreply 6709/04/2013

I bet R66 believes that Manning and Snowden are innocent.

by Anonymousreply 6809/04/2013

This is SO different from Iraq. And we are not talking about entering into a war. Use your brains.

by Anonymousreply 6909/05/2013

[quote]I blame the lack of training in formal logic. Having an opinion shared with a group of people does not by default make you a member of that group.

In this case there is not even a shared opinion. Neocons and liberals may want the same action for different reasons, and have entirely different responses to subsequent events.

It is the mark of a small mind to draw and invalid comparison and then rest his case in triumph. Freepers do it all the time. I see less of it on the left.

by Anonymousreply 7109/05/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.