The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Freeper on September 01, 2013, 08:43:28 AM

Title: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: Freeper on September 01, 2013, 08:43:28 AM
Quote
kalisto2010 (21 posts)

Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria


 
Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:11 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

Just look at the comments on this thread. They now say the exact opposite now that Obama is in office. That's why you can never win with Republicans, if you do, they just move the goal post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1812491/posts


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1811715/posts


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1810440/posts


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801802/posts


Heres's the index that covers Syria during the Bush years, when the Republicans considered him a terrorist. Now he's their freedom fighter. This post is for you vile little Freeper trolls. This goes to show you how batshit insane you really are.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/assad/index?more=5143372

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752928/posts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023574661

Quote
Star Member alphafemale (13,424 posts)
1. I've seen some right-wing postings of support of anti-war protests.

Irony is delightful at times.

Yes it is. You hated Bush for his wars yet other than a little bit of grumbling you don't say much about 0bama and his wars. Everything that 0bama has done would have been considered war crimes if Bush had done so, yet no calls for frog marching and impeachment for 0bama.

Once again you display how little you understand about us in the first place, we do not support going to war because we love war, there has to be a reason that we believe in and we have to have some confidence in the president that runs that war.

So perhaps you can argue that freepers are being hypocritical on this, but you will refuse to take into account the hypocrisy on your own side. If this was Bush you would be demanding frog marching to The Hague and impeachment of his freshly hanged corpse.

I can also guarantee you, if we put troops on the ground we won't be spitting on the troops fighting the war. We won't be cheering on the enemy and hoping that they teach the US a lesson and defeat us. We will want our troops to kick ass, do the job then come home safely.




Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: MrsSmith on September 01, 2013, 08:56:04 AM
Somehow, Bush doing everything with Congressional approval and a coalition of countries was "going it alone," "war crimes," and cowboying.  Now Obama taking similar actions with no Congressional approval or coalition of countries is perfectly acceptable, and WE are the hypocrites.  I can only suppose all the illegal drugs have destroyed whatever brains they once had...
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: Mr Mannn on September 01, 2013, 09:02:52 AM
Hmmm Bush got international approval at the UN. He arranged to get an international coalition to go with us.
Bush got congressional approval...TWICE. and each time democrats voted for war.

Now we have Syria. A brutal dictator on one side. Bloodthirsty terrorists on the other.
The international coalition fell apart. There is no consensus in the UN. and congress (both dems and repubs) will not vote for war.
...and conservatives are the hypocrites?
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: JohnnyReb on September 01, 2013, 09:09:00 AM
All we ever hear from the DUmmies in the peanut gallery is......

O-BOMB-ER....O-BOMB-ER....O-BOMB-ER
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: Vagabond on September 01, 2013, 09:10:07 AM
Obama and the democrats think a war will distract people from their failures and allow them to pass a porker of a defense spending bill.  They could care less that Assad possibly used chemical weapons.
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: vesta111 on September 01, 2013, 09:36:13 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023574661

Yes it is. You hated Bush for his wars yet other than a little bit of grumbling you don't say much about 0bama and his wars. Everything that 0bama has done would have been considered war crimes if Bush had done so, yet no calls for frog marching and impeachment for 0bama.

Once again you display how little you understand about us in the first place, we do not support going to war because we love war, there has to be a reason that we believe in and we have to have some confidence in the president that runs that war.

So perhaps you can argue that freepers are being hypocritical on this, but you will refuse to take into account the hypocrisy on your own side. If this was Bush you would be demanding frog marching to The Hague and impeachment of his freshly hanged corpse.

I can also guarantee you, if we put troops on the ground we won't be spitting on the troops fighting the war. We won't be cheering on the enemy and hoping that they teach the US a lesson and defeat us. We will want our troops to kick ass, do the job then come home safely.


Discussing this with Mom, she has an interesting slant on this.

According to Mom, the old timers in the pentagon either retired or getting ready to do so are very much against the war.   They have paid their dues, fought their own wars, have the luxuries to collect their pensions and hang their medals on the wall.   Last thing the active duty old timers want is a world wide war and any screw ups in it to put a black mark on their service.    

She believes it is the younger Officers that are itching to get some war experience under their belt.  
This is what they have been educated in, trained in for years, the art of war.  Few want to retire with out not one battle or campaign ribbon.

 Most look forward to retiring with a few grandchildren to recount the battles of the past.   Sort of akin to my grandparents telling of facing down the enemy in WW1 or my Uncles telling of the desert campaigns in Africa in WW2, or both parents and grandparents telling about life in military and as civilians at that time.

Far as the handling of foreign affairs and Obama much less domestic affairs, even the most liberal dead heads among friends and family are now questioning Obama's policy's and wondering if the man himself is qualified to be a city dog catcher.

Quite a surprise when to me when the Liberals around me get that look of a deer caught in the head lights every time our Fearless Leader opens his mouth about War then heads for the golf course.  

With any luck Obama will be bit by incest on the course and never play golf again.  

    
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: BlueStateSaint on September 01, 2013, 09:45:31 AM
With any luck Obama will be bit by incest on the course and never play golf again.

Ooooookay, vesta . . .

 :wtf2: :wtf3:
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: Doc Savage on September 01, 2013, 11:11:38 AM
I don't consider Assad a freedom fighter, thats for sure.  If it was me at 1600, I would be asking publicly where are the arab countries on this, where is their air forces, where is their PUBLIC call for U.S. intervention?  His air fields would be cratered like the face of the moon and his "navy" would be sitting on the bottom of the bay. 
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: Dori on September 01, 2013, 11:28:05 AM
With any luck Obama will be bit by incest on the course and never play golf again.  

 :rotf:

I love your posts Vesta.
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: jukin on September 01, 2013, 07:52:06 PM
Hmmm Bush got international approval at the UN. He arranged to get an international coalition to go with us.
Bush got congressional approval...TWICE. and each time democrats voted for war.

Now we have Syria. A brutal dictator on one side. Bloodthirsty terrorists on the other.
The international coalition fell apart. There is no consensus in the UN. and congress (both dems and repubs) will not vote for war.
...and conservatives are the hypocrites?

Also remember that all of that over two years was a RUSH TO WAR!!!!!!!11111!!!!!elebinty
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: I_B_Perky on September 01, 2013, 09:04:59 PM
Quote
kalisto2010 (21 posts)
blah-blah-blah

Look dummie... my position on Syria has never changed you moron. I want both sides in their civil war to be roughly equal. Why? So their little war can continue on and on. If they are fighting each other, they are not causing the rest of the world any trouble.

Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: marv on September 01, 2013, 09:19:58 PM
With any luck Obama will be bit by incest on the course and never play golf again.      

Maybe?

(http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/41.jpg)

Ya guess?
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: Tess Anderson on September 01, 2013, 10:08:18 PM
and yet Pitt's idiot of a mother is all worried that Congress will embarass this country before the entire world:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023578463

Quote

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:03 PM

 Raven (11,120 posts)


This is what I'm worried about tonight:


 

You know when you have your family and extended family at an event...a wedding or christening or something serious like that...and you worry that your wacko brother or weird cousin or off the wall sister in law won't know how to behave or will do or say something really stupid?...that is how I am feeling about the convocation that will take place in the US House (and maybe the Senate) over Syria. I am seriously concerned that our Congress will make fools of themselves on the global stage for all the world to see. No reason to think any of these people acquired brain cells on their congressional break, is there?


or your Troofer son or the tard you two voted for, right Jane?
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: obumazombie on September 02, 2013, 12:48:49 AM
:rotf:

I love your posts Vesta.
vesta turned me on to incest bites ! They can be nasty though.
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: 98ZJUSMC on September 02, 2013, 02:43:01 AM
Quote
Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:03 PM

 Raven (11,120 posts)


This is what I'm worried about tonight:


 

You know when you have your family and extended family at an event...a wedding or christening or something serious like that...and you worry that your wacko brother or weird cousin or off the wall sister in law won't know how to behave or will do or say something really stupid?...that is how I am feeling about the convocation that will take place in the US House (and maybe the Senate) over Syria. I am seriously concerned that our Congress will make fools of themselves on the global stage for all the world to see. No reason to think any of these people acquired brain cells on their congressional break, is there?

Uh-huh.  So, not authorizing a war concerns you?

Huh.
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: diesel driver on September 02, 2013, 07:38:31 AM
vesta turned me on to incest bites ! They can be nasty though.

Depends on what the "incestor" looks like!   :lmao:

I ASSUMED she meant "insect", but this :lol: works better!  
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on September 02, 2013, 08:49:11 AM
Quote
kalisto2010 (21 posts)

Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria


 
Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:11 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

Just look at the comments on this thread. They now say the exact opposite now that Obama is in office.

So much stupid, or are you a mole that's just trying too hard?

The decision to go to war is not a partisan tribal loyalty thing, it has to be taken on its own merits each time.  In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Administration made a plausible case for our national security interests being involved (Frankly, not an overwhelming case, since it was laced with conjecture and intelligence-community card castles of 'Ifs' that proved to be largely unfounded, and looked a bit dubious to many of us including Conservatives at the time, but it was at least plausible).  In the Yugoslavian Civil War and Clinton's leadership, we pretty much stood by for four years while bloodshed and massacres that equal anything in Syria went on, without seriously lifting a finger about it, until we eventually came in to go through the pockets of the dead and claim some credit for a peace for which we had done almost nothing to bring, because the Clinton administration never felt like making a case that our national security interests were involved in a civil war with unbelievable crimes and atrocities occurring every day on an institutional scale. 

How is it that suddenly it IS in our national security interest to intervene on the side of instability, and destabilize what has been a relatively uneventful 40-year armed stand-off between a secular despot and our only long-term ally in the region?  Beyond the idea of just backing up Obama's ill-considered 'Red line' talk, that is?  Frankly, pouring in resources to reinforce bad decisions is normally considered a cardinal error in the military/security arena.

Of course if one is wearing the uniform, either on active duty or as a Reservist who may be mobilized, there is a fundamental obligation to shut up and follow lawful orders once the decision is made.  That primary duty of accomplishing the assigned mission and bend every effort to making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, no matter how stupid or ill-founded the underlying strategy may be, should not be confused with endorsing stupidity.
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: jukin on September 02, 2013, 01:13:42 PM
Quote
Of course if one is wearing the uniform, either on active duty or as a Reservist who may be mobilized, there is a fundamental obligation to shut up and follow lawful orders once the decision is made.

What is at the heart of Obama the Warrior King's war is lawfulness. Obama the Warrior King did conduct an illegal war in Libya already. Bush went to congress for both Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, the donks demanded a second vote to authorize the Iraq campaign to prove how tough on terrorism they were.

My stupid scrunt of a representative voted against both of those authorizations. I will bet a hundred dollars that she votes for this one because you know, DEMOCRAT, BLACK, SMART POWER,... but mostly democrat.
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: Dori on September 02, 2013, 02:57:42 PM
Last night on FOX someone said that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said our military was too degraded to attack Syria??? :???:
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: GOBUCKS on September 02, 2013, 03:20:06 PM
Quote
What is at the heart of Obama the Warrior King's war is lawfulness. Obama the Warrior King did conduct an illegal war in Libya already.


As a warrior king, I wonder if he fancies himself a Hutu, or a Tutsi.
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on September 02, 2013, 03:47:33 PM


As a warrior king, I wonder if he fancies himself a Hutu, or a Tutsi.

I believe he thinks of himself as more of a Hotsy-Totsy.
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: obumazombie on September 02, 2013, 03:55:21 PM
I believe he thinks of himself as more of a Hotsy-Totsy.

Right next to Can't Sea...
(http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/starvania.png)

Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: thundley4 on September 02, 2013, 04:04:48 PM
Explain to me why Obama let four Americans die at Benghazi and the perpetrators are still running loose, but some Muslims get killed and he wants to respond with military force to punish the perps. 

Obama values the Muslim rebels, who might be al Qaeda, more than he does American lives.
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: DefiantSix on September 02, 2013, 05:00:53 PM


As a warrior king, I wonder if he fancies himself a Hutu, or a Tutsi.

Nope; this is how the Delusional WON sees himself, I'm sure...

(http://cdn.static.opensubtitles.org/gfx/thumbs/8/9/7/6/0086798.jpg)
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: sybilll on September 02, 2013, 05:17:24 PM
Somehow, Bush doing everything with Congressional approval and a coalition of countries was "going it alone," "war crimes," and cowboying.  Now Obama taking similar actions with no Congressional approval or coalition of countries is perfectly acceptable, and WE are the hypocrites.  I can only suppose all the illegal drugs have destroyed whatever brains they once had...
Yup.  They even had a separate thread "Remember when we laughed at the Coalition of the Willing" >>http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023581519
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: Wineslob on September 03, 2013, 09:28:12 AM
"Rush to War? It's only OK when we do it."










DUmbass mode off*
Title: Re: Freeper Hypocrisy on Syria
Post by: Flufferlie on September 03, 2013, 01:49:58 PM
warning: rant.  :whistling:

My patience has been wearing so thin with the little idiots and Syria. For QUITE some time now. I am sure I am not the only one.
Basically ever since The One started bluffing with the "red line'' B.S,  and since the chickens have come to roost he now feels
like its imperative something be done to pretty much just save face on the world stage. As if his international counter-parts haven't already been laughing
their asses off at his administration's incompetence and lack of basic foreign policy skills for most of his presidency.

So then we have his tiny minions, who obamagasm at every fart, every sentence and every unconstitutional act he can humanly perform publicly.
Who for decades have been characteristically anti-war and anti-defense, are suddenly NOW happy little war mongers, ready to throw a bomb on someone
to send a message. When just 5 years ago, these same hypocrites tarred and feathered George W Bush on a seemingly daily basis, with accusations of nameless war crimes to boot.
They proclaimed the Republican President a "cowboy" who "went it alone".
We have no friend in this war. There is no good side. We have a dictator on one, and muslim extremists on the other. What purpose does this serve?? All the DUmmies know is that its Obama, and in true democrap form they stick together thick as thieves, whether it is right or wrong. In my mind, it must take more love of self and party to side with your party's leader even if they are wrong.

I am not a hypocrite. I supported Afghanistan for obvious reasons.
I actually did support Iraq as well, not because I LOVE war, as the libs claim Republicans do...
but because I believed, that Saddam was dangerous to us, was hiding WMDs, and was funding terrorists.
I do not think Bush lied. But Obama? He can't prove his imaginary point. At least not to most of the Voting American public who don't want this war.