Other than politics, why would a DEM oppose shrub's f'ing war and support Obama's?

[RiverStone]

Gawd, other than the fact we voted for Obama and he's a DEM - I can't see any other logic, and even that logic is flawed.

I worked hard to elect Obama (twice), and I'd vote for him again. Though he's not perfect, and on this Syria thing he needs to practice humility on the red line statement, let go of the lose/lose war talk - and work with the international community on other punitive sanctions that don't involve killing more people (in protest of Syria killing people).

Obama rocks, but on the Syria questions - he's just plain wrong.

[polichick]

1. Well, now there's the belief that it's been intergalactic chess after all.

[geek tragedy]

2. Iraq and Syria are completely different situations. Vastly different in some respects.

Now, I oppose getting involved in Syria, but I can certainly understand why one could have opposed Iraq invasion but support Syria air strikes.

What's really puzzling are those who supported invading and occupying Iraq but oppose missile strikes on Syria.

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. Putin and Assad offer to give up the chemicals...and you are STILL comparing

Obama to Bush?

GMAFB.

[RiverStone]

4. War = insanity, no matter who starts it or adds to it

Bush's war = insanity, so would Obama's. I'm not comparing the men, but the action of leading the US into a reckless decision IS fucked to the extreme.

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. so even if it CAUSED Putin and Assad to give up their chemical weapons...

that's insanity? You must not have seen how things work around the world before huh? Little naive are we? Even FDR would disagree with ya on that one....sometimes you gotta risk breaking a few eggs to get an omelet.

[RiverStone]

8. Naive is thinking Putin and Assad would do what we want....

Create an illusion of giving it up... maybe, but how to verify a truthful act when they have such the history of lying?

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. an "illusion" oh okay...

that's a convenient response I suppose.

[treestar]

7. If it's insanity then aren't Assad and the rebels insane?

What about the use of chemical weapons on civilians? Just letting that happen is sane? And anti-war?

The idea seems anti the US being in any war - the rest of the world can have at it.

[RiverStone]

14. Sudan, Darfur --- lots of insanity to go around

We pick and choose based on our oil interests and politics.

Genocide is horrific! So is killing innocents as collatoral damage in Syria.

If this was Mitt's, DEMs in unison would be going strong in opposition.

[treestar]

6. Different situations

Not every case is exactly alike.

[RiverStone]

10. Different yes, though military action reeks of hyprocracy

Then why not in Sudan or Darfur? It feels like politics + oil again in the middle east.

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. feels like....doesn't mean it IS....

like...

You don't seem to realize that it is Russia that has the oil this time...they want to continue to sell it monopolistically to the EU...a nice natural gas pipeline through Syria could seriously put a dent in Russia's business with EU. Assad prevents that pipeline from being built..

So I think your little "its all about Oil" falls on Putin this time.

[blm]

9. Why do you believe no diplomatic efforts were made?

In fact, I'd say because of the earlier diplomacy, Russia and US are playing this exactly as needed to get Assad under control after that chem attack.

August 10, 2013
Lavrov, Kerry 'Agree On Need' For Syria Peace Conference
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says he and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have agreed on the need to start a Syrian peace conference in Geneva as soon as possible.

Lavrov made the remarks after talks in Washington on August 9 with Kerry.

Lavrov said he and Kerry agreed they should meet again by the end of August to prepare for the proposed Geneva talks.

Kerry said Russia and the United States needed to find ways to work around their differences on Syria’s civil war, and to make progress on missile defense, Afghanistan, and nuclear disputes with Iran and North Korea.>>>

[RiverStone]

18. Never said no diplomatic efforts have been made...

I see it. Regardless, it does not justify a reckless strike that a majority of US citizens oppose. He should not go against the will of the electorate (one of many reasons).

[blm]

23. Bush never worked diplomatically.

Kerry did for 8 years with Assad and Obama trusted his analysis and shared his goals of bringing Assad into the humane leaders column. Unfortunately Arab Spring changed that progress, but, it was seriously attempted. And during that time Kerry gained a lot of valuable insight into Assad.

[brooklynite]

12. Well, there could be the fact that Obama is SMARTER than Bush...

...and the fact that Obama is more THOUGHTFUL about options than Bush...

...and the fact that this is in response to an even that clearly happened...

...and the fact that the event was part of a two year suppression of civilian demands for Democracy...

...and the fact that Obama showed his ability to limit America's military engagement with our action in Libya...

...other than that, it's like a mirror image.

[RiverStone]

15. Oh Obama's light years smarter than Shrub!

Still, he's wrong on this! Would you feel the same if prez Mitt was wanting to do the same thing?

[brooklynite]

21. I might...

...bearing in mind I was in Syria two weeks before the pro-Democracy movement started. I have an understanding about what the locals think of the Assad Government; and I have the facts that the Government has used arms to suppress Democratic protests. If Romney outlined an equally limited strategy, I might be inclined to support him. I never thought Romney wasn't intelligent, just politically sleazy.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

16. a lot of reasons. just one would be valid reason for attack. another is matter of scale

there is not amassing of troops at the border. this is not a ground war invasion. this is a "police action" if you will for the reasons that have been oft-cited by the administration.

[Prism]

17. Because they believe the motive

A Republican wants wars only for gain, American imperialism, oil, racism, or a host of malevolent causes.

If you trust President Obama, if you believe he is a good man who would only wage a war with the best of intentions, you will see the current chemical weapon crisis and see only the best humanitarian motives.

Of course, the world is more complex. We're seeing a lot of post-Cold war dick-shifting. It's interesting and complicated and I don't have an answer for any of it, but I do get why people are reacting the way that they are.

[RiverStone]

19. Glad you see both sides...

It is complicated, and Obama is a good man.

Yet genocide has been happening in Darfur, Sudan, and other places hidden away from the MSM where I wonder...if Syria is war worthy, why did not we step in and prevent 10's of thousands of deaths in those civil wars?

[Prism]

20. You've hit upon it

The reason my eyebrow jumps and goes, "Sorry, why are we all about this all of a sudden?" is because there are far worse atrocities the world over where Americans and Democrats are not scrambling to intervene. We've been told from on high that we should pay attention here, and so the motives of those doing that telling deserve a thorough examination. They have their reasons.

[RiverStone]

22. Yes --- a thorough examination!

Agreed there Prism. No rush to war.

Gotta run. Thanks for the conversation all

Praying for an end to genocide everywhere.......