6 Ways Syria Isn’t Iraq (according to Time Magazine)

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I was wondering when the MSM would step up the propaganda about the need or righteousness of attacking Syria. Time magazine has come out with it's 6 point explanation about why Syria is not another Iraq. Here why Obama isn't Bush (according to Time Mag.)

6 Ways Syria 2013 Isn’t Iraq 2003


1. Regime change - Bush made no secret that his plan was to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. This time around, the Obama administration is taking pains to say that ousting Syrian strongman Bashar Assad is the last thing they want

2. A limited engagement - U.S. officials are looking at a two-day, limited strike on Syria, which would not involve any American boots on the ground

3. Arab support - Most of the Arab world opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq. This time around, most of the Arab world, with the exceptions of Iraq and Lebanon, supports strikes against Assad

4. European support - Remember Freedom Fries? France and much of Europe weren’t wild about going to war in Iraq.

5. WMDs - This time, there’s next to no doubt they actually exist.

6. Congress - Bush asked for and received overwhelming permission and support from Congress to invade Iraq. (Obama is) likely will go this alone as he did Libya.


The administration has made it clear that Assad must go, sounds like they want a regime change from here. Limited engagements have a nasty way of escalating as well.

The Arabs and Europe support this... ? So what, let them handle it.

WMD's are there. Oh yes! Kick the football Charlie Brown.

And finally no Congressional support. Maybe Time magazine should have left that on off the list. Kind of skews the party line.




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Yeah, they could have saved us all some time and just put 1 line,

1. Trust the Govt.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
And the biggest reason Syria isn't Iraq...

7) Bush is a Republican, Obama is a Democrat.

IF Time had any sort of journalistic conscience, it would instead point out the fact that the vast majority of Americans are against ANY type of military involvement in Syria. Most of us recognize this is nothing but a quagmire and American 'intervention' is simply another word for war.

At this point, no MSM has any credibility left with me. They are all propaganda outfits, town criers for the highest bidder.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The Iraq War consisted of 100,000 plus U.S. boots on the ground

We're talking about launching a few cruise missiles at syria .



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 



1. Regime change - Bush made no secret that his plan was to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. This time around, the Obama administration is taking pains to say that ousting Syrian strongman Bashar Assad is the last thing they want


No offense to those on a certain side of the isle but the present Disaster and Chief has a record of waffling on the topic of Syria.


Meh...



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Whilst we are all revelling in near or abject poverty what exactly is the financial cost of all this missile throwing, did Time Magazine come up with a price tag?

As far as I am concerned in the UK we have had too many viscous cuts to our services and welfare and any waste of money by our government is too much.

Also if the other wealthy Arab countries want Assad out then shouldn't they put their army and arms where their whining little mouths are and deal with getting rid of him themselves - or is it simply a blood bath between Shia and Sunni which is nothing to do with the West as its purely internal Arab politics. Surely enough people have died in Syria and related trouble already.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
The Iraq War consisted of 100,000 plus U.S. boots on the ground

We're talking about launching a few cruise missiles at syria .


Maybe but war has a way of getting out of hand. Especially may happen here as Iran has said Israel is going to get it if we attack. Also Syria would have every reason to respond against Jordon, Qatar and Turkey. Then of course there is Russia.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Strategic missile strikes do not constitute a "war".

And let Israel fend for itself.

Iran has been saying for years it was going to "wipe Israel off the map"....



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Iran has been saying for years it was going to "wipe Israel off the map"....



now now now, Setting their well known intentions aside.
They never used those EXACT words....
edit on 28-8-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Another reason this could get out of hand...

The Syrians have S-300 SAM batteries, manned by Russian advisors and technicians. For our bombers to get over Syria (if they decide to do bombing runs), those batteries have to be neutralized. Not sure if soft kill is capable or not, which means they'll probably go hard kill. And in doing so, there will be 'unintended' Russian casualties.

Too many hornets in the nest in Syria, we had better stay the hell away from there. No missiles, no bombs, nothing. Wanna drop something on Syria? How about some food, medical supplies, water?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
1. Regime change - Obama said two years ago that Assad had to go!

2. Limited engagement - This is how Obama likes to side step that pesky " War Powers" Act

3. Arab Support: Those countries that will profit from a natural gas pipeline through Syria support an attack. Those that will not profit do not support an attack.

4. See Point #3

5. WMD - We had video of Iraqi military gassing thousands of Kurds! Chemical Ali ring any bells?

6. King Obama needs no permission and to suggest that he does is racist. When the smoke clears he will have spent American money, American blood, and American lives to place the Muslim Brotherhood in power in yet another country that was once an American ally.
edit on 28-8-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
yeah it`s a lot different.
The biggest difference is Sadam didn`t have any friends to watch his back.

assad has friends.
In Syria any arms,equipment, tanks, artillery,ammo that is destroyed by the U.S. will quickly be replaced by the Russians.
They probably already have transport planes parked in Russia somewhere fully loaded with nice shiny new tanks.ammo and artillery,just waiting for the shooting to stop so they can haul them into syria to replace any destroyed ones.

Iran has already made noises about retaliation against Israel for any attack against Syria,Syria has made similar threats.

The whole "limited engagement" thing is a joke. The reaction to the strikes is completely out of the hands of the U.S. How Syria,Russia,Iran, and China react to the strikes will determine how limited the engagement will be.
It`s like saying you are only going to have limited engagement with a hornets nest because you are only going to poke it with a stick a few times.
Just like poking a hornets nest with a stick, these strikes won`t cause any permanent damage or disruption and we may end up getting stung. It`s just going to be a big waste of time and money and may just create a much bigger problem.





edit on 28-8-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I am actually with them on a few of these points.




Regime change - Bush made no secret that his plan was to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. This time around, the Obama administration is taking pains to say that ousting Syrian strongman Bashar Assad is the last thing they want


I actually kind of get this, they dont so much want Assad out they just want the fighting to stop so that some Radical Islamist anti-American/Israeli government takes over.



A limited engagement - U.S. officials are looking at a two-day, limited strike on Syria, which would not involve any American boots on the ground


I think that its going to be limited, but longer than two days.

Also this "no boots on the ground" stuff is rubbish, yes there wont be any invasion force like in Iraq but there is going to be lots of Special Forces inside Syria doing a lot of stuff we probably will never hear about.




4. European support - Remember Freedom Fries? France and much of Europe weren’t wild about going to war in Iraq.

5. WMDs - This time, there’s next to no doubt they actually exist.

6. Congress - Bush asked for and received overwhelming permission and support from Congress to invade Iraq. (Obama is) likely will go this alone as he did Libya.


well this all seems to be true.

the article is making a few good points



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Strategic missile strikes do not constitute a "war".

And let Israel fend for itself.

Iran has been saying for years it was going to "wipe Israel off the map"....


If someone attacked the US with a missile strike would we consider that a declaration of war? Yes we would. Geez they hit us with a couple planes and look what we did.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


Yea.... this is all Obama and the Democrats. The Republicans are dead-set against it:


Congressional Republicans on Sunday ratcheted up pressure on the White House to intervene in Syria, saying the United States “has sat on the sidelines for too long” amid increasing evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on civilians.


article #1


Sen. John McCain doesn't think three days of missile strikes against Syria will make a significant impact on the fighting, and said it might even have an "unhelpful effect."

McCain, on the other hand, thinks Obama isn't going far enough.

"The question is, will those attacks just be a retaliation and Bashar (Assad) goes on as normal, or will those attacks degrade his capabilities, particularly his air capabilities, which you could do easily with stand-off weaponry?"


article #2



Prominent US Republican lawmakers are lining up behind military strikes in Syria, forming a rare alliance with the Democratic commander in chief.


article #3

The Republicans couldn't be happier.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
This is way beyond Dem vs. Repub, let's put that herring out to rest right now.

This is about our entire government going rogue against it's people. Going against the wishes of the majority of the population who sees Syria as another 'no way out' war, and one that will more than likely escalate into something bigger. And even if it doesn't, we're looking at another Iraq/Afghan 'nation building' exercise that will go just as bad, if not worse than, the previous ones.

Don't lose sight of the forest through the trees. EVERY elected official in the United States federal government will have blood on their hands if we go into Syria. I could care less what political party/ideology they subscribe to.

Bush should never have gone into Iraq.
Obama should not go into Syria.

It's as simple as that.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
"1. Regime change - Bush made no secret that his plan was to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. This time around, the Obama administration is taking pains to say that ousting Syrian strongman Bashar Assad is the last thing they want"

That's OK. Down the road, maybe 1 or 2 presidents later, with Assad already demonized, we can stir up some more nonsense about him, then go in and find him hiding in some hole and sentence him to death for war crimes.

On and on it goes.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


Then why doesn't President Obama confirm that Assad actually used the chemical weapons and not his friends in the Muslim Brotherhood?

Wouldn't it make more sense to confirm who used the WMD, bring Assad and Russia to the table and actually attempt to stabilize the country? Rather than:

1. blame Assad with no proof
2. attack a one time ally
3. further erode relations with Russia
4. invite multiple attacks on Israel
5. hand another one time allied country to the Muslim Brotherhood

What exactly has America gained by Obama's foreign policy of strengthening the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaida anyway?

+EDIT - It was a travesty what we did in Iraq I will admit that. We prevented tens of thousands of mass murders by the Baath Party and stopped a generation from being brutalized by the regime. I was there I witnessed it first hand. In Afghanistan we bombed them forward into the stone age so I can on hope they continue to progress into the bronze age by the time my grandchildren are attacked by terrorists due to democrats foreign policy mistakes.
edit on 28-8-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


Because, John Kerry has spoken, hell even "too many cups of Joe" Biden has spoken now, and if they say there is no doubt, then it has to be true because these are GREAT men of wisdom and justice. Along with the president, these guys are the coolest crew ever, not that nasty old Bush/Cheney... grrr they were meanies!



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 





What exactly has America gained by Obama's foreign policy of strengthening the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaida anyway?


The US want to strengthen the Islamic world to create a conflict between the Islamic world and the Zionist Israel.

The plan is to stage a war between the two so that they will fight eachother to the end. The US dont want to attack Israel head on them selves. So they support the Political oppostition that will attack Israel.

It is a very good camouflage if you think about Public support against Israel. Without anybody catching on.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join