This is an honest question for people who supported going into Irag, but don't want to go into Syria; and vice versa. They seem to be similar situations for me. Both have/had an authoritarian government who is sectarian for the most part, who rules their people with an iron fist. They both have/had WMDs. The people people being ruled are mixed between extremist and moderate. I personally never thought going into Iraq was a good idea, and don't think going into Syria is a good idea. I do not mind giving assistance such as arming and supplying the moderate groups, because we want those groups to win. The last thing we want is the fundamentalist or Al Queda groups to control the country. So what makes the situations different enough to have a different positions on the two?
I think the big difference is the proposed military plans in dealing with them. Bush wanted an invasion with ground troops. Obama doesn't want that. Another huge difference is that Obama is willing to wait and see if diplomacy can succeed before trying military action. Beyond that, Assad has just recently used chemical weapons on his own partner. It had been years since Saddam had. That being said, I'm not in favor of military action in either situation.
This could make the comparison somewhat stronger. Listing Demands, Assad Uses Crisis to His Advantage
So is it okay or not okay to get involved involved in other countries civil wars? Where do you stand on the intervening in Syria?
Are you saying you supported going into Iraq, and realized in hindsight that it was a mistake. I can definitely respect that stance.
You speak as if what's happening is Syria is behind everyone. Iraq happened and the story in Syria has been unfolding for almost 3 years. The final chapters have not been written.
I wasn't really supporting or against Iraq, but I definitely do not want the country to keep on getting tangled in the middle east web unless absolutely necessary. Syria to me is not something that is absolutely vital to the US interest.
I dont what we should do but when iraq happened i said then as i do now i dont support our military helping people who arent fighting themselves.
The Iraq WMD lies were delivered with team effort and planed very well. The Syria sarin lies were not so profound.
We're not going to occupy Syria or disband their army. Also, we're not hallucinating nuclear weapons out of thin air.
Another thing is that Obama is both considering and conceding congressional and popular dissent, which Bush was physically incapable of doing while a leader.
I guess it depends if you believe shooting missiles into a country is different than a full-scale ground invasion, taking control of the country, and installing a new government.
When I was hearing about THE STRIKES This seem to amount to . . .. walking into a Domestic disbute Going up to the husband and smacking him around a bit because he hit her with a frying pan instead of his hand . . . . . . then walking away from the whole situation . . . turning back and saying .. REMEMBER!!! NO FRYING PANS!!! Rocket River
Syria is what comes in a box that you eat for breakfast in the morning Iraq is a what you is what sandwiches you with a hard place.
What about all of the Dems who were also for it? I think the difference this time around is the country as a whole learned that it's not as easy as they thought it would be.