Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

The founding principles were to create a White Supremacist Male dominated society. Do you agree with those principles? They were embedded into the constitution in Article 1 sec 2, Article 1 sec 9 and Article IV Sec 2. Why would anybody today agree with any of that?

 

The contemporary left-right paradigm cannot be applied to the FFs. Their understanding of 'liberal' was radically different than its common definition today.

 

We don't gas our own people.

And if you don't?? You get gassed. Not much of a choice there. That's called a Dictatorship. As long as you support the Dictator you can live. If you don't, you die...horribly. We don't operate that way in civilized societies. We have something called freedom of speech where you are free to criticize the party that you don't like without being gassed or imprisoned.

Man you've got a lot to learn about the West. You're completely under the thumb of a dictator. Don't cause him trouble or you die. How can you live that way?

Then why leave it?

I hear Russia is nice this time of year. Why didn't you just go there?

Ahh...so you leave Syria because of the Civil War...and instead of going to Russia where you had it so good, you come here to the west where you are allowed to speak your mind and you hate us for allowing you to do that? I don't see the logic there.

 

The art of propaganda, weaken the current president to enforce the next. They weakened Bush to let Obama gain, from now to 2016 (or even an impeachment) you will see the same happen. By mass organisation countries are systematically taken over.

 

Nope. You "realize" very little. But this was the comment that you posted: "I would really like you to explain his brilliant strategy then, since right now this looks like the most amateurish thing I've seen from a White House in my lifetime." What I posted in response is that you must be very young and missed the entire Bush Administrations attempts at "stategery". In other words, your comment was an over the top exaggeration that we've come to expect from the I hate Obama crowd. So to avoid this in the future you might want to stop making absurd comments like that which are nothing more than opinions that carry no weight. Try dealing with the issues at hand and things will move along a lot better. You might start with facts. Those are always cool.

 

When you say "allowed", then allowed by who? Is it the role of USA to be the police of the entire planet? All two hundred plus countries out there? If you are asking if the Arab Coalition should allow it; probably not. If you are asking about USA - then my question is does USA even have a dog in the hunt?

 

The policy of foreigners coming to USA to criticize the hand that feeds them is shocking. Your posts serve as a reminder that immigration needs to get tightened up and people's intentions need to be further ferreted out before letting people come here.

 

Lincoln's major issue wasn't slavery. Most northern States had all but given up on slavery by the War of 1812. His big qualm was that States couldn't just quit being part of the country when there was a disagreement. His view of the Constitution was that each State was required to remain in the USA. He felt Whites were superior to Blacks. He told the States they could keep their slaves - but by the time he got that message out it was too late; the States had already seceded.

 

'Seem like heap good advice to me'

 

The States had seceded prior to his inauguration. Lincolns views evolved over time while he was in office. Obviously it took a while for the Emancipation Proclamation to come about.

These two positions appear to contradict each other.

 

That's exactly my point. Violence and injustice is rampant around the world and the US isn't the world's policemen. I was playing off what 'Adagio' said.

 

That's a different issue. Why do you avoid answering the question? Should Syria, and I'm talking about the Assad regime, be allowed to use CW against his own people or any people? Yes or No? Answer that question please. We can get into the tactics of the different parties in this civil war as another question. The "Rebels" is a loose term since we don't even know who they are, so just saying the "rebels" doesn't tell us anything. We know about the Assad regime and he represents the Syrian Government. Whether he ordered the gas attack or one of his generals is irrelevant. He's responsible for what his army does. They have the gas, and they have the means to deliver it. My question remains, "Should Syria be allowed to use Chemical Weapons against their own people or any people? Yes or No?

 

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![/QUOTE]

What 5 million dead civilians? Who and what exactly are you talking about?

 

No. But repercussions should be diplomatic and economic. If 7/9 of the rebel groups weren't al-Qaeda affiliated then perhaps one could make a more defensible call for military action.

The fact is just because something is wrong doesn't mean that the same response is given to that situation every time. The despicable rebels exemplify my point. It would be more unjust and inhumane to leverage the Syrian civil war in favor of the rebels.

 

What 5 million dead civilians? Who and what exactly are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

I meant 5 million hacked to death, raped to death and cannibalized in the Congo

and 1.5 million killed in less than a year in Rwanda

where was concern there? where were red lines? where were airstrikes? where was world outrage?

but 1400 dead by Sarin gas somehow crosses the line?

1400 vs 6.5 million dead in Rwanda and Congo

no american response, not even proposals or any action.

 

The last thing I would want is to intervene on behalf of al-Qaeda. We are not supporting AQ rebels. There are several different rebel groups. One is called MWR...(Men With Rifles) and they're nothing but a small bunch of neighborhood militias. There are others. The point is that this is not a support of the rebels. It's an action to stop the use of chemical weapons which is a war crime that WE are over 100 other countries signed onto. If our word means anything then we really have little choice in the matter. Otherwise just come out and state in clear unmistakable words, that the US Word is Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and Meaningless. I'm sure that will do wonders for our foreign policy, but it will be honest. At least people will know that were completely hollow and morally bankrupt.

Why must it be either/or? Why can't we do both? We can certainly walk and chew gum at the same time. I see no reason why we can't take this action and provide the needed refugee support that is overwhelming Jordan and Lebanon right now.

 

I am left to wonder something. As Syria (and four other counties) did not sign the treaty which bans chemical weapons in the first place...how can they be legally bound by it?

No one seems to question the use is unacceptable, but what is the international law that allows action?

 

Please educate me which Syrian rebel groups are not connected to Al-Qaeda. Give me the names of the groups, who their leaders are, which cities and areas they operate.

For your information, the Syrian rebel who ate the heart and liver of a soldier is the leader of a "mainstream rebel group". His group was considered moderate by the West before the incident.

Yesterday a Christian village in Syria was taken over by the rebels. Guess who was part of the rebel groups? A so called "moderate battalion" of the Free Syrian Army, fighting side by side with Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra front.

But since you seem to be an expert on Syria, please tell me which moderate groups are there and where they are from.

You seem to know better than me.

 

So by your logic bullets, designed to kill people, should not be allowed in warfare and should be against international law, but bombs are OK?

- - - Updated - - -

I hope you mean by shelter, to to that in surrounding countries, and not bring them here to the US as refugees.

 

No I don't think I've exaggerated at all. Nor do I hate Obama. Once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth to avoid my actual arguments so you can tangle with your own, fake arguments, just like you said that I called for Obama's impeachment when I never did. And you said that I said the constitution prohibited Obama attacking Syria. Again, I never said that. So it's you who is trying to distract, and you did it by not addressing a single point I made. So maybe I can rephrase this to try to get some answers:

What is the strategy of requesting Congressional approval for an act that the President already claims he has the power to do without Congressional approval?

Militarily, how is the US position enhanced since we are giving Assad several weeks to prepare for a military attack?

What is the US national security interest that is enhanced by attacking Assad's regime?

What is the international angle, since Syria isn't a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, there was not treaty violation or violation of international law that should concern the world community?

What is the attack supposed to accomplish since it's not designed to either 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 you lied and really don't have anything. That's what I thought.

 

No, I would bring the minority groups, Christians, Alawites, Shiaates here on the condition that they are vetted.

 

There isn't any and the administration knows it. That's why they use the term "international norms." So in other words, this has nothing to do with any interpretation of the various treaties and agreements that make up "international law." This bothers me that they are being so disingenuous in their public statements. They should be making the case based on US national security, but that's even more difficult then making up fake international law.

 

I think they should be making comparisons in order to make the national security argument. It's not that complicated. Just imagine CW use in a city 130 miles away (about the distance from LA to San Diego). That's how far away this attack happened from Israel. Would the US be acting if this CW use was this close? I say yes. And since Israel is our ally, and since there is no arbitrary distance that one can assign in which one shouldn't worry about CW use, it is obvious we must act.

 

You are such an Obama Bot..

 

Coming from a tea party extremist that means little.