Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

I realize why you would much rather talk about George Bush and Iraq than Barrack Obama and Syria. If I worshiped at the idol of the cult of personality that's Obama, I'd be trying to change the subject to a President that's been out of office almost 6 years too.

I never called for impeachment. It's pretty obvious that you are trying to distract with things I've never said. Heh, "nice try."

But no, Obama doesn't need Congressional approval to fire a few missiles at Syria. He didn't need it to launch an air war against Libya did he? In fact, Obama didn't even follow the War Powers Resolution in regards to Congress; the first President since the act was passed to fail to comply. Presidents have always been engaging in quick military responses like this, no Congressional approval necessary. That's what makes his actions to date so...ridiculous.

Obama has an obligation as President not to check polls to determine whether he will ignore a vote of Congress or not. I have no idea what your point is supposed to be with that. It doesn't matter if polling on Congress shows 0% approval. Then it really makes no sense for the President to go to Congress requesting a vote, at the same time saying he may or may not abide by it. But at the same time, give opponents of his foreign policy ample committee and TV time to bash his policy. That's just dumb.

Well apparently there is some breaking news here. You are saying that the purpose of the attack is to degrade his CW capability? This is the first time I've heard that. Please go fetch your source for that because meanwhile all the President's Generals and all the President's men are saying that the purpose is to neither attack his CW capabilities, attack him in his leadership position, or damage the Syrian military enough to make a decisive difference in the civil war. So if you've learned something different I'll wait right here until you fetch it for me.

 

You say that Ryan is against missile strikes. If this is true, he must have stated his reason. I suspect that he thinks that Obama has screwed the situation so badly that there is no pretty way out. In that debate he was also saying that Obama was not the man for the job because of what he had already done. It was an election debate, not a How would you fix Obama's screw-up after the fact? meeting.

 

Would it be safe to say that the Jihadis think that Assad is a sissy?

 

It's scary to think that Paul Ryan was one fixed election away from being a heartbeat away from the presidency!

 

Right. Liberty usually appears to be pretty "radical" amongst the socialist failures.

 

No more scary than the fool in the Oval Office right now. Romney's foreign policy was exactly the same as Obama and Bush. It's the one thing they agreed with each other about in the debates lol.

 

Romney did recognize that Russia is the stop stick of the world. Obama is just now figuring that out.

 

So is this some kind of justification for slavery or White Supremacy? If not slavery certainly White Supremacy. It sure sounds like it. I'd like to know how this statement that you posted does anything to deny the founding document of the constitution as a White Supremacist nation? Are you endorsing that? Are you an apologist for racism? I'm trying to figure out your purpose for posting this, if not to justify racism and White Supremacy.

 

Then why does she live here? I guess it's a bit safer knowing that she won't accidently be gassed because she lives in the wrong neighborhood. What is her stated purpose for being here?

 

I don't know that I'd hold Lincoln to something he said in 1861 when it's pretty clear how he reacted to that very kind of thing as President. It kind of fly's in the face of the very Union he was determined to preserve.

 

If you hate the west so much, why on earth are you here? I can tell you that if you're coming here, you'll find a more tolerant society than what you're accustomed to. That's probably going to take some getting used to. The West didn't destroy your country. You're despots did that.

 

I dont hate the West. I like the people and society here. I just dont like American meddling in other countries affairs. Look how many wars the US has fought in past 60 yrs? Nobody even comes close. USA needs to be like China in foreign affairs and mind its own business. It works well for China , it will work well for USA. Need to stop being the bully and the world police.

 

I've read her posts, and I've wondered if she is indeed actually Syrian or just some absurd troll. It's hard to imagine anybody coming here and being this obtuse. I haven't heard one explanation as to why she would come to live here, when she hates it here. I would never entertain the idea of living in Syria or any place that I hate. I don't get the purpose here. That's why I think she's just a lonely troll looking for attention.

 

Neutrality was a core principle professed by the greatest of our founding fathers including Washington. Before ~1960 the US was the most respected country in the Middle East because we didn't meddle. Many scholarly books have been written on this subject.

The only hope is a return to these FF principles and only the libertarian leaning politicians advocate for that.

 

You see the words "next weeks"?

300 congressmen already said they will vote NO.

100 others are undecided and will mostly vote NO

Rest of your post is nonsence as usual. Syrians were perfectly fine living in their country until USA decided there should be regime change. STOP MEDDLING IN OTHER COUNTRIES AFFAIRS![/QUOTE]

How about you answer this question first, and then I'll tell you if Syria should be attacked. Should Syria be allowed to use Chemical Weapons against their own people or any people? Yes or No? give me that answer and I'll tell you what I think.

 

Should the rebels be allowed to massacre Christian towns and Assad supporters (Shiaa and Alawite minorities)?

 

You see the words "next weeks"?

300 congressmen already said they will vote NO.

100 others are undecided and will mostly vote NO

Rest of your post is nonsence as usual. Syrians were perfectly fine living in their country until USA decided there should be regime change. STOP MEDDLING IN OTHER COUNTRIES AFFAIRS![/QUOTE]

Stop using poison gas on your own people. When you do that, it makes it our business.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, Human Rights don't exist in Syria. Lovely spot to live right?

 

Stop using poison gas on your own people. When you do that, it makes it our business.

- - - Updated - - -



In other words, Human Rights don't exist in Syria. Lovely spot to live right?[/QUOTE]



HAHAHA So 5 million dead civilians is OK !

But 1400 dead by Sarin makes it YOUR BUSINESS and requires intervention!!!


Absolutely laughable. Hypocrisy of American foreign policy is shocking!

 

I don't understand how escalating the violence by intervening on the behalf of al-Qaeda affiliated rebels is 'America's duty' in response to the use of chemical weapons.

America's duty is to shelter Syrian refugees and provide extensive humanitarian aid. That's the more courageous thing to do instead of succumbing to pride and exacerbating the chaos.

 

Syria never signed on to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Allegedly they are using these weapons in no other country other than there own. I underscore allegedly. So how are they in violation of the convention if they never signed on to it and allegedly are using it solely in its own country - all morals and values aside-? And, if other parties- including assets of other countries are found to have used these weapons, what will be the US response to those countries?

 

I think you need to revisit your thinking. Our government here is a direct reflection of our society. We hold free elections and the "meddling" you have an issue with is authorized by the very society that you enjoy so much. We have this little issue over here concerning Human Rights which don't exist in your beloved Syria. When you ignore the gassing of your own people, we here in the west have serious questions about your values and their consistency with ours. We don't tolerate intolerance here. So if you like the people and the society you'd better get used to the idea that over here we have government BY the people. What you are objecting to is the will of the people that has the authority of a democratic election. Something you can't possibly understand having lived in Syria so long. We do things different here. Our politics change with the times. We evolve here. It's in our nature to do it. Some evolve faster, some slower, but it always evolves in a progressive way. That's the nature of things. So I'd suggest you get used to the democratic process here or you'll find yourself very disappointed. This country is involved in the business of the world because we have the largest economy in the world, and the world depends on us to make that go. If we fell apart the entire world economy would collapse. That's why we have the position that we have. We built it. And if some countries take it upon themselves to dominate smaller countries, then they usually have to deal with us eventually. And if you violate the international laws concerning the use of WMD, you can expect a response from the US that you won't like.

 

The entire world is laughing at him. Giving him the finger, as it were. It's embarrassing, as an American...

 

Yes. I'll give you my reasons. You can reject them if you like. The use of bombs and conventional weapons are designed to destroy buildings and military assets. They are used to inflict damage on material which makes it impossible for the enemy to function. Missiles for example have targeted sites such as airfields, communications sites, weapons depots, weapons sites. Do people die when those are hit. Yes. But as we say, (and I hate using this term), they are collateral damage. Killing them is not the intention or purpose. Destroying the assets is the intention. Poison gas is designed to kill people. It doesn't destroy buildings or communications sites. It's intended to kill people and doesn't care who it kills. It's completely reliant on the way the wind blows. That make the use of CW insidious by it's very nature and there can be no moral justification for its use. The morality of the positions of the parties of the civil war can be argued. The immorality of the use of CW cannot.

 

You have very limited knowledge of your own ideology. That's a very foolish statement to make considering that the founders WERE the leftists of their times. The conservatives were those that supported the existing institution of the Monarchy. Conservatives always support existing institutions. That's what makes them conservatives. They always oppose social change, and there was nothing more radical to social change than the American Revolution. The most radical "leftist" of his time would be Thomas Paine. The most conservative, Edmund Burke who didn't even live here. He was the leading voice of the Anti-Enlightenment. Paine was the leading voice for the Enlightenment and guess which idea won the day? Paine and Burke argued their differences in public through their publications. Burke with his thoughts on the French Revolution, and Paine responded with The Rights of Man which you may have heard of or even read, although I doubt it.

Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values.

The very American Revolution itself was an exercise in Liberalism v the Conservatism that was being imposed on us by the Monarchy. Freedom of Speech is not a conservative concept. It's a Liberal concept. Same with all the Freedoms sited in the 1st Amendment. Those weren't conservative ideas. They were liberal to the core. Ignoring that is ignorance on steroids.

Obviously you don't see it at all. I'd wager you know very little about Keynesian economics. In fact I doubt that you have very little understanding of your own roots in Economism. You're obviously an economic reductionist and have no idea what that means.

How can you since it always changes? It never stays in one place long enough to claim that it is any one thing. Let me inform you of the process though. It's one of deductive reasoning as opposed to the inductive reasoning of the conservative. It takes every situation and looks to logic and reason to determine the validity of the argument. It operates from the general to the specific, as opposed to the specific to the general. You...the conservative look to make general statements. Here's an example: "We already know the pitiful quality of Leftist decision making process". No you don't. And the reason that you don't is that the process always changes, and since it does, KNOWING anything is impossible. You can never prove a theory and that's what you offer. A theory about the decision making process of the "so-called leftist". Conventional liberal thinking regarding military action is that they would oppose it in all instances. Yet the Liberal Obama wants to bomb Syria. That goes totally against the conventional thinking of the liberal thought process. Conservatives oppose the bombing as well, but their opposition is more linked to their hatred for Obama than any principled position.

Of course. The conservatives lie about Obamas' citizenship, they lie about scandals that don't exist. They cheat by changing voting registration laws, and they project their own immoral behavior onto the liberal at the same time. Then when they lose an election...twice, they cry and pout and scream foul. They can't believe that nobody wants what their selling, so the election must have been stolen. They insult every minority group in the country and then can't understand why they don't get their vote. So obviously Obama cheated. Conservatives are the worst cry babies in American Society. The call for impeachment. They call for secession. They applaud racist comments. They love when women are insulted by bloviating talk show hosts. And then they come on political forums and wonder why they are losing elections, and cry some more. They're a pathetic lot, and exist in the playground sandbox world of the juvenile third grader. They reject science, and insist that things like evolution are theories from the pits of hell. Woman don't really get pregnant when they're raped. Mexicans are mostly drug mules with calves the size of cantaloupes. They make outlandish statements and then don't understand why people laugh at them for the pathetic creature that they are. Oh well. It's America. It takes all kinds.

 

There's no point in debating a dedicated ideologue. He's not interested in debate, and I'm not interested in his non-sense. Flame throwers and trolls are of no interest to me.