Astounding right-wing hypocrisy

[mythbuster43]

Well, Moonbattery is angry that Obama may be leading Americans into a war (with Syria) the majority don't support. Funny, I don't remember them being angry at Bush for doing the exact same fucking thing with Iraq. Let's face it, if Obama does go to war, he'll have made the decision most right-wingers would have done themselves. The only reason--the ONLY fucking reason--they are now against the war is because the President is a Democrat. They'd be cheering him on if he were a Republican.

I get so angry with the self-righteous, transparent hypocrisy of the Right sometimes that I'm almost seeing red. These fuckers have no integrity and no brain cells.

[guizonde]

i've been having panic attacks about this for two reasons: a) i'm a staunch pacifist, and 2) my girlfriend will (not could, will) get drafted if there's that conflict, and neither she nor i will be able to survive it without some heavy mental scars. it's not even hell in a handcart no more. this is the time i wish i could be heard when i say that violence won't solve shit. the middle east suffered a cultural freeze in the 1300's, meaning that we are culturally more advanced, and history is repeating itself. take the situation back 300 years. not a pretty sight, right? that's what's going on in the middle east. the last thing they need is western intervention. as much as it pains me to say it, we actually need to let these guys kick their own asses without lending a helping hand. they need this to move on... ok, apparently, red wine isn't good for depression. let it be known i took note...

this could spark world war 3, but i don't find it likely, however i'm persuaded that it will leave a lasting stigma in the 21st century's chronology. with or without intervention, history books will record this, and we won't come out of this unscathed, for better or worse.

[KZN02]

As I said before on Gawker and here, I'm wondering if Obama is doing Republican things just so Republicans will turn on their own ideology.

[mythbuster43]

I'm debating a right-wing hypocrite right now on YouTube. His stupidity and his illogical "arguements" are astounding. He's not listening to anything I say, and is just enjoying the sound of his own voice.

It's a YouTuber named StompingRabbits.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otLBUTWat_U" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otLBUTWat_U</a>

[MadCatTLX]

Wait, I don't watch the news, but is there any actual indication that shit's about to go down or is the US reaction to Syria still in limbo and you're just picking this moment to highlight the hypocrisy that's been going on the whole time?

[mythbuster43]

Wait, I don't watch the news, but is there any actual indication that shit's about to go down or is the US reaction to Syria still in limbo and you're just picking this moment to highlight the hypocrisy that's been going on the whole time?

Well, according to the Young Turks video, people on both sides of the aisle are agitating to go to war with Syria. This is being parroted throughout the media, according to this:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urrFL95bjcU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urrFL95bjcU</a>

So no side is really exempt from blame here. I'm just not amused at all the right-wingers trying to pretend they have nothing to do with it.

Edit: By the way, my back and forth with StompingRabbits is still going on. He seems to think that Benghazi occured because Ambassador Steven's plan to sell arms to Al Qaeda went awry. I'm not kidding. I don't know what this guy is smoking, or where he's getting his information from. Methinks he listens to too much Alex Jones.

[MadCatTLX]

A video linked from that one you posted...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUTwZCeBS0U" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUTwZCeBS0U</a>

... makes it look like it's a forgone conclusion at this point and we're rolling out in days.

I don't see any way this could go wrong. Why can't we send in a UN force to deal with it?

[KZN02]

Had a small conversation with a friend in the military on this.

I'd rather we not get into another conflict. Can we afford to do so in the US' current state?

I agree 100%. We need all the resources we can get our hands on, which is why the question of exactly how much force we should use is still highly debatable. And as a member of the US armed forces with family members who rely on me, I would rather not get into another armed conflict as you mentioned. However, as a country that claims to be a highly humanitarian nation with intentions set on world peace, to ignore such atrocities as the ones seen in Syria would undermine our true aspirations severely. We're one of the only countries that is actually willing to stand up and fight those who violate basic moral values established by those who have experienced these types of horrors first hand. It's one of the things this country should be most proud of.

[Jack Mann]

I'm hoping it will be limited intervention like we did with Libya.  Support a no-fly zone to even out the playing field a bit.

[lord gibbon]

Yeah, Libya is the example I use to people as how international intervention SHOULD go. It was strong but limited, gave the Libyan people control, and occurred at their request.

[Lt. Fred]

Yeah, Libya is the example I use to people as how international intervention SHOULD go. It was strong but limited, gave the Libyan people control, and occurred at their request.

Libya was basically a failure. Justified as an attempt to reduce casualties, it dramatically increased them as such "humanitarian" interventions always do. Kosovo was the same.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do this, I'm saying it will kill more people.

Had a small conversation with a friend in the military on this.

I'd rather we not get into another conflict. Can we afford to do so in the US' current state?

I agree 100%. We need all the resources we can get our hands on, which is why the question of exactly how much force we should use is still highly debatable. And as a member of the US armed forces with family members who rely on me, I would rather not get into another armed conflict as you mentioned. However, as a country that claims to be a highly humanitarian nation with intentions set on world peace, to ignore such atrocities as the ones seen in Syria would undermine our true aspirations severely. We're one of the only countries that is actually willing to stand up and fight those who violate basic moral values established by those who have experienced these types of horrors first hand. It's one of the things this country should be most proud of.

Public debt isn't a major constraint on policy. Nor would a bombing campaign cost that much. Invading the place would, but that's not being proposed.

Now, is this about America being so morally pure it can't exist on a planet with a person who uses chemical weapons or in some other way breaks international law? Of course not. There are respected Americans who've done worse. The US routinely ignores worse atrocities when committed by allies.

What is this about, then? Is it about Obama being embarrassed by the violated red line? Or is it something else? I literally have no idea.

I'm hoping it will be limited intervention like we did with Libya.  Support a no-fly zone to even out the playing field a bit.

Limited isn't limited. A no-fly zone would require substantial and extensive bombing.

As I said before on Gawker and here, I'm wondering if Obama is doing Republican things just so Republicans will turn on their own ideology.

It's a strategy that might just work. Keep doing things Republicans like, forcing them to disagree with themselves, until they overheat, explode, and you can create a good country.

[TheUnknown]

From what I heard, the US have sent ships that are now waiting off the coast.

[Lt. Fred]

From what I heard, the US have sent ships that are now waiting off the coast.

The George Bush and its fleet.

[Barbarella]

As I said before on Gawker and here, I'm wondering if Obama is doing Republican things just so Republicans will turn on their own ideology.

Gawd, I hope that's the case. Otherwise Barack Obama is the Neville Chamberlain of our age.

If a Syrian action is inevitable, we should leave it to brief, swift, indirect actions, help the Syrian citizens help themselves. We don't need another full-blown war. I'm sick of war! It's about time the "Bonobos" of humanity take the world back from the "Chimps" of humanity! We have both Bonobo & Chimp within us since they are our closest relatives.

EDIT: Considering that some GOPers are opposing Obama, perhaps that's his plan.

Considering that this is Obama, and the above theory may be true, I think the stuff in Syria will be limited intervention...I hope.

[Meshakhad]

I'm hoping it will be limited intervention like we did with Libya.  Support a no-fly zone to even out the playing field a bit.

Not even a no-fly zone. Just missile strikes.