It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Syria, if this had been a Republican President instead of Obama.......

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:35 AM
This point has been nagging me for a while now and merits comment.

As I've posted before, I was for Iraq and Afghanistan and now for immediate and complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The right pundits and Republican leadership has backed Obama to a large extent. Some with qualifiers such as a real hit, not a "shot across the bow". "Maintain U.S. dominance", retain the leadership role and other dunnage that goes on and on.

This convinces me that a Republican President would probably be offering up a similar "solution" as Obama!!

In that scenario, the debate/fight would flip-flop. The left peace at any price crowd would be screaming bloody blue murder and the right would be pounding the lone super-power mantra.

Some would say there's no difference between the two, there is, but one has to look real hard to find it. LOL.

The positive in all this is a grass-roots activism that crosses party lines and has given the powers that be pause-yes, Putin is taking political advantage of it, but, so what?

My personal "fear" is both extremes, zero intervention vs anything goes to maintain military supremacy.

Both are nuts in my view.

The real problem is balance and where to draw the line.

The pendulum is swinging wildly right now and will probably get worse before it gets better.

I suppose the only real solution-other than unending grid-lock- is thee and me...grass-roots people screaming ENOUGH!

Politicians have excellent survival instincts. They lick their collective fingers, stick them in the air and adjust accordingly. We have to maintain that "wind"...else they take over again.
edit on 12-9-2013 by nwtrucker because: grammar

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by nwtrucker

I've read your post three times and still not cannot find out what point your trying to make.

Is there a question for debate somewhere in there?

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by nwtrucker

To be honest, I fail to see the downside to the USA if the path of zero intervention was taken. WE MUST STOP THIS WORLD POLICE B.S. If, and this is an 'if' which absolutely must be laid bare to the American people with none of this "the evidence is classified" horsecrap, it can be demonstrated and proven to the American people that intervention presents a tangible monetary benefit or protection equal to or greater than the cost of intervention, then by all means rush in to save the mellon farming day. Otherwise, isolation, isolation, isolation.

Real conservatives recognize this fact, neocons and RINOs do not.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 01:20 PM
When you see a so called "Liberal" Democrat President not repealing the former Republican status quo and acting like Hawk without Diplomacy you start to see the...


In full effect. The Republicans will not save you from this nor will the Democrats both parties are inept and corrupt and should be replaced!

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 01:23 PM
But the thing is lots of liberal/democrats or whoever you wanna call them are opposing the war even tho Obama is on their "team.

If the president political party was switched, im sure 99% of republicans would be rooting for 3rd war.

Liberals were always anti war ever since 2001, whether its a republican or democrat in the office. Most republicans are anti-war only because the president is not a republican, also they hated Obama since day 1.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 01:57 PM
I can tell you Exactly what a republican president would do. All I have to do is remember back about 11 1/2 years. He would attack viciously. If anyone opposed It, you would hear cries of, "Why do you hate America" and "How dare you question the President in a time of war". That is exactly how they got congress to support the Iraq war. Wrap themselves up in the flag and chant "God bless the soldiers". Don't you remember that? Remember the rallies where they Burnt Dixie Chick CDs because they spoke against the Iraq war? If you were in the administration and spoke against it you were fired. Remember Richard Clarke ? Fired and then Cheney outed his CIA operative wife Valerie Plame. I remember it well and I will never vote for a lying self serving republican for the rest of my life.

Luciddream: Liberals have always been anti war well before 2001. In my life at least since Vietnam
edit on Thu September 12th, 2013 by damwel because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by nwtrucker

Nothing personal, but your premise fails.

Intervention is supported by mainstream GOP and Dems...opposed by the farther left wing and farther right wing.

Strangely this was the same as the NSA issue...a strange bi-partisan alliance by the non-mainstream of both parties.

It would be strange to see the far right and far left begin to align on policy issues.

For me, the bottom line is that our mild "intervention" will not help...Nor would full scale invasion or occupation.

Look at this way... President Bush invaded and occupied two middle-eastern countries...

President Obama made "Outreach" to the middle east a big component of his foreign policy...

Wait for it...Right now by all surveys...Pres. Obama is LESS popular in the Middle-East than President Bush was at the end of his term.

The lesson? There is NO SCENARIO where foreigners intervene and win in the Middle-east...Not a heavy hand nor soft touch.

Hell...we helped Libya gain it's freedom and what did we get for it? An embassy attacked and an ambassador murdered.

As difficult as it seems and contrary to our "moral imperialism" as it is...we must let the Middle-East 100% earn it's own freedom.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by damwel

Star for truth in pointing out the hypocrisy. 9-11...3k Americans die at the hands of terrorists on American Soil and everyone rallies around the POTUS....Benghazi? 4 Americans are killed by terrorists in Libya and it's the President to blame. There were twice as many congressional hearings on Benghazi as 9-11 and all of them aimed at the President and his administration with nothing to show for it.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:30 PM

I can tell you Exactly what a republican president would do. All I have to do is remember back about 11 1/2 years.

This isn't 11 1/2 years ago. The tide in this country has changed. All of America is tired.
We are more broke now than ever before (thanks to Mr. Obama).
Iraq had clear objectives. Syria does not.
Iraq had exit plans. Syria does not.
Iraq was rather contained. Syria absolutely is not.
China and Russia backed off with Iraq but with Syria they are going head to head with us.

Two totally different situations.

It's absolutely impossible to say what a republican president would do.

If it was McCain ... we'd be at war by now.
If it was Rand Paul ... we wouldn't even be discussing it. NO WAR.

Totally different time ... totally different situation that Iraq.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:15 PM
As much as I hate to give President Obama credit for anything, I shudder to think where we would be right now if McCain or Romney were at the helm. So, kudos to Obama for not randomly killing Syrian civilians so far.

Anybody else ever get a bad taste in their mouth after typing something?

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:20 PM

kudos to Obama for not randomly killing Syrian civilians so far.

The only reason he hasn't is because Americans, of all political leanings, got ticked off and lobbied congress to stop him. Obama was very clearly going to jump right in but public pressure made him back off.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:31 PM
W are not the world police.

We are the world's "George Zimmerman".

Regardless of what we do, someone , somewhere won't like it.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:41 PM


kudos to Obama for not randomly killing Syrian civilians so far.

The only reason he hasn't is because Americans, of all political leanings, got ticked off and lobbied congress to stop him. Obama was very clearly going to jump right in but public pressure made him back off.

Probably true, but you know McCain or Romney would have had US troops neck deep in Syria right now, with no regard to what anyone thought.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 05:27 PM

Probably true, but you know McCain or Romney would have had US troops neck deep in Syria right now, with no regard to what anyone thought.

McCain, absolutely... but then he's the epitome of a RINO.
Romney, I'm not so sure. He never struck me as the warmongering type, at least nowhere near the degree of the McCain camp.

FlyersFan hit the nail on the head, though. These are vastly different times than when we invaded Iraq. For starters, the nation was looking at a projected $5.6 Trillion budget surplus over the next 10 years in 2001. Today the country is enjoying a projected $8 to $10 Trillion in additional debt (on top of the current $17 Trillion) in the coming 10 years... [a figure which most of us believe is a serious low-ball of reality]

Also in 2001/2002 Americans had a direct reason to be pissed off. 9/11 (and no, that isn't an invitation to start throwing ridiculousness around in regards to who, what, when, where, why, and how) was burnt into the collective consciousness of the people. It wasn't so much that Iraq was (wasn't) involved, it was more along the lines of indiscriminately lashing out against traditional enemies in a time of hurt and rage. Now along comes Obama in 2013 and expects a similar reaction against a regime most of the country doesn't give two squirts over with a price tag none of us are willing to foot the bill for... I get it, the man has demonstrated time after time that he doesn't give a flip about the status of the average American's wallet, so long as that wallet is held open for him and his cronies to roust about in, taking whatever they demand as their dowry for repeated nights of deflowering against the people by the government. That said, it still isn't his money, his decision, or... dare I say it, his country to do with as he pleases.

Hindsight always being 20/20, at least when Bush took us into Iraq he had successfully convinced the majority of the country should support the action, and support it they did... for awhile. Here we have a wannabe Bush trying and failing to get even a defensible minority of the People to support his version of cowboy diplomacy. The ultimate irony is the man was supposed to soothe the afterburn the country was feeling from 8 years of GWB... instead he's attempted to copy Bush on many of GWB's least popular decisions and moments, and he's somehow managed to pull them off in an even less popular and more jacked up fashion than President Bush ever did. Historically speaking it is unprecidented.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 08:44 PM
reply to post by Tinkerpeach

The point? Hmm, I guess it was just a point that no one had mentioned that I'm aware of re: a republican president, most likely, would have come up with a similar plan as Obama's crowd.

More of a comment/vent than some challenge to a debate.( not that getting a debate going only requires a minor, innocuous comment on this site...

Also, pointing out the "positive" of a cross party line response from Joe citizen that says enough is enough.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by nwtrucker


It's ALL an elaborate Kabuki dance.

The elite are playing the global citizens and particularly the USA citizens for fools . . . rather successfully, most of the time.

Set-up false flag after trumped up war after set-up false flag endlessly . . . coercing, nudging, shoving the world down the cattle chute toward the increasingly tyrannical NWO satanic global government.

Note in the Syria situation the mantra has been

"International" this and that.

International "law."

International standards.

International intervention.

Submit to the International Community . . .

etc. etc.

Whatever they set-up to happen . . . you can expect that the end result will be

--less individual freedoms;

--more fear, death, suffering;

--more tyrannical control by the elite of their serfs and slaves.

= = =

They don't care if the populace scream their heads off. They know the serfs and slaves are essentially powerless and highly unlikely to gain enough cohesive unity and action to even cause the elite the least bit of pause in their rush to Armageddon.

And were a group to begin to gain such unity and power, they would be exterminated whether by infiltration divide and conquer strategies or outright extermination of the key players by various means.


God alone is the only Hope left. He always has been . . . but more now than ever.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by burdman30ott6

I see a distinction between "isolationism" and peace at any cost.

Seeing human nature hasn't changed for as long as recorded history takes us, the latter mentality would doom the group that adopted it. That's sooner rather than later.

Isolationism as far as the U.S. goes, merely is an added ingredient to an inevitable world war which sucks us in when things are far worse later than sooner.

Look at the ingredients of WWII. An ineffectual League of Nations- what we have now may even be worse!!

A U.S. that made it plain that it wanted nothing to do with European conflicts.

Multiple powers, all fairly close to each other militarily- in perception, if not fact-, leaders that thought they could win through military action.

The pre-eminent world power, England, also with a policy of appeasement, at least until Poland.

Stern, meaningful threats of consequence "might" have given Hitler pause. Certainly, if the "allies" had hit him after Austria, in all likelihood Hitler never moves against Poland, France, the Soviet holocaust...10's of millions saved....

Today, we have an rapidly expanding Chinese military, an India that has ordered more Pak-50s fighter from Russia as the U.S. F-22's. A Russian invasion of Georgia which it still occupies without outcry. All in the face of a contracting U.S. military since Bush Senior.

In short, peace at any cost is suicidal, isolationism speeds the process to world war, given the number of nut jobs out there right now.

Toss in weapon technology which knows no borders, unlike WWII, ie. oceans no longer "protect" us and some selected intervention is warranted, IMO.

The hard part is the why, when and where.

But, certainly NOT Syria.

edit on 12-9-2013 by nwtrucker because: punctuation error

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by luciddream

I disagree, there are many of us, "republicans", whatever your label, that wouldn't support a Syrian action.

I assure you, far less than supported Iraq and Afghanistan.

Besides, the noise from the far left isn't very loud in it's "disagreement" with Obama. The volume would be something else if this was a "Republican" action.

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by damwel

Utter garbage! The dems actually were very vocal in their criticism of Bush for how long it took him to address Afghanistan. They gave him the power, rightfully, without any real protest, cited the same rhetoric as Bush, that includes both Clintons, the whole bunch of them.

The Dixie chicks moved into the political arena in England, apparently not wanting to test the waters back home. Their music is so, so. So it wasn't a bad move on their part. Move into that arena and you will get attacked. EITHER SIDE!

Just ask Charlie Daniels....

edit on 12-9-2013 by nwtrucker because: clarification

posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 12:26 AM
reply to post by Indigo5

I don't see much disagreement with what I think of it. More different wording than anything, so I don't see where the premise fails.

Your eg. Libya is only partially true. There was massive demonstrations by the Libyans protesting the 9-11 attack on the U.S. Consulate afterwards. That was a VERY popular Ambassador with the locals.

Not too many Kuwaitis hold much angst against the U.S. either, nor the Kurds in northern Iraq.

Having said that, in general I'd agree re: intervention in the Mid-East. Yet, personally, I could give a rat's rear-end whether we're popular with the locals or not if the intervention is merited.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in