Bipartisan Support For War!

I’m talking about Syria.

How did the CIA "start the whole thing" in Syria?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore

The Civil War in Syria was already going on when the CIA entered the frey.

Per your own link.

The rebels were propped up by the CIA in an attempt to induce a regime change. They likely would not have been very successful without that support. During Assad’s reign the region was much more stable than it is now and ISIS had little to no influence in the region. Because we got involved, Iran and Russia got involved. Furthermore, the real reason we are there is because the Saudi’s want a pipeline through there. Also, the rebels we’ re supporting, some of them are connected to ISIS, so if you support Assad , then you’re supporting Iran and likely Putin’s interests and if you support the rebels, you’re likely actually supporting ISIS. The whole thing is a farce and more people should dig deeper on this. I also want to reiterate that regime changes never work and the CIA is known for this type of crap ex. Directly funding the Mujahadeen that OBL was part of and directly led to Al Queda. Our mission to destroy Al Queda has ended, none of the 911 attackers are free or or alive, so what’s the end game?

^I'll go you one better, there is reason to believe that in fact the Assad gassed his own people intelligence was actually manufactured information ('fake intel') as justification for US intervention. I don't know how reliable the info is so please don't take it as fact.

Yes, the gas attacks are in question.

Every argument I've read in this thread is the same argument that was used for continueing Vietnam. Dems have certainly come a long way since Give Peace A Chance.

For further analysis, check this right winger out.

Or this.

Hell, it wasn't that long ago that the left was whining about the US being the world police. Now they're insisting on it!?

MSDNC says we should stay in perpetual war so it’s okay.

I would disagree that "regime changes never work". You look too narrowly at problems with Iraq. But Iraq isn't all of history.

As for "none of the 911 attackers are free or alive"

WTF are you talking about. The "911 attackers" were killed on 911!!!!

Did you not notice that?

And all of the 911 atackers were from Saudi Arabia, but let”s not look at that.

I thought three or four were from Egypt.

A few of them were. And?

The "brutal dictator" argument is tiresome. It's clearly not the differential factor in Syria, because brutal dictators are tolerated and supported elsewhere. So tell the truth and stop falling back on that crutch.

The brutal dictator crap was one excuse used to justify the invasion of Iraq and now that excuse is being used from the other side for Syria. Unless they are ready to invade and occupy every dictator on the planet, get the hell out of here with that crap.

If you think we shouldn't have been in Vietnam but should be in Syria then you are either ignorant to the similarities or so anti-trump that ideology no longer matters . Which is it?

I'm not arguing against getting out, but I admit I am ignorant of the similarities between Syria and Vietnam. I mean, sure...I get that they were/are both proxy wars, between Russia and the West, but that's about it as far as I can see.

so?

This argument is stupid. Just because the U.S. supports some dictators that are in its national interests it isn't supposed to try to get rid of the ones that do not serve our purposes?

That's not what they're saying. Assuming what you just said is true, it's still disingenuous to use the fact that they are dictators as justification for invading countries when we are supporting other dictators. If we're killing people because it's in our national interest, just say so.

The American people have never been prepared to accept simple national interests as justification for conflict. They want any foreign policy act we commit to "pay off" for the U.S. but they also want it to at least appear to be based on morality.

That's an Orwellian way of looking at it.

Isn't it largely accurate?

No idea. I have to wonder though, if just explaining why it's in our national interest would be better.

That some might want it to "appear" to be based on morality when it is not, is entirely the problem. If people are going to push for warfare then they should do so honestly.