Is it weird for you to watch Lief and BRTD as hawks?

[Eraserhead]

Is it?

[badgate]

Which one is BRTD

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Lief has been a hawk as long as I've been here.

[Eraserhead]

Lief has been a hawk as long as I've been here.

I don't recall him being one before Obama was sworn in.

[Хahar 🤔]

Not really? They're both on the right side here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not really? They're both on the right side here.

[opebo]

Not really? They're both on the right side here.

Good lord, the entire left of the Atlas are bloodthirsty neocons now!

[DC Al Fine]

It's pretty funny imagining Dick Cheney saying what BRTD or Lief posted and it not sounding unusual.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Not really? They're both on the right side here.

Good lord, the entire left of the Atlas are bloodthirsty neocons now!

You're surprised at a social democrat and a Sunni supporting war?

It's not really weird, given that they both cast their lot with the lesser of two evils party.

[DC Al Fine]

Not really? They're both on the right side here.

Good lord, the entire left of the Atlas are bloodthirsty neocons now!

You're surprised at a social democrat and a Sunni supporting war?

It's not really weird, given that they both cast their lot with the lesser of two evils party.

True.

I am enjoying agreeing with the True Leftists for once.

[tik 🪀✨]

Attempting to uphold the standards of international law = hawkish neocons. Thanks, Atlas.

[opebo]

Attempting to uphold the standards of international law = hawkish neocons. Thanks, Atlas.

What the heck does 'international law' have to do with the internal affairs of Syria?

[MasterJedi]

Yes, it's hilarious at the hypocrisy. If Bush, McCain or Romney would have been President they, and many others, would be screaming to the skies about how this is illegal, etc.

[7,052,770]

Supporting limited air-only strikes to prevent the use of WMDs makes someone a hawk now??  Jesus Christ....

[Lief 🗽]

Yes, it's hilarious at the hypocrisy. If Bush, McCain or Romney would have been President they, and many others, would be screaming to the skies about how this is illegal, etc.

I acknowledge that it's illegal under international law.

[memphis]

Supporting limited air-only strikes to prevent the use of WMDs makes someone a hawk now??  Jesus Christ....

^^^^^^^
People who support or oppose every military action in every situatuon are exceedingly rare. Context is everything. It's strange that some would expect otherwise.

[Hatman 🍁]

Not really? They're both on the right side here.

Good lord, the entire left of the Atlas are bloodthirsty neocons now!

You're surprised at a social democrat and a Sunni supporting war?

It's not really weird, given that they both cast their lot with the lesser of two evils party.

Well, then there's me. I don't support the Democrats as much as they do, and yet I still support intervention. It doesn't matter who the President is, it's the right thing to do.

I do support the NDP, who I have a feeling would be against this (although not necessarily; I think they supported strikes on Libya- only the Greens were against that). Most of the NDP has been silent about Syria, however some NDP supporters I know have come out against it. The most vocal critics on Twitter have come from radical marxists and libertarians. What strange bedfellows.

[Lief 🗽]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

War is peace. I am always on the side of peace and prosperity. I'm glad to see they have joined me.

[MasterJedi]

Maybe the title should be changed to: "Is it the end times that Lief and MasterJedi agree on something?"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BO6GP9NMY

[7,052,770]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

Some people are so consumed by a narcissistic self image of "I'm always against all wars, no matter what!" that they miss the big picture.  Limited airstrikes will save many lives and send a message to the other dictatorial thugs of the world that we will not allow the use of WMDs on civilians,  period.

This has nothing to do with Bush's failures.  Obama proved in Libya that he could help a people liberate themselves from a brutal dictator with airstrikes at the cost of 0 soldiers' lives. Unlike Bush, Obama has earned our trust in these matters, and if he thinks limited airstrikes are appropriate,  I'm with hom.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

Deaths will if anything spike if we get involved, and given that all of the fighting is in urban areas against a far more competent military force than Qaddafi's, anything more than a limited strike on chemical weapons assets (which obviously won't stop the killing or harm the regime's warmaking capacity in any way--95%+ of deaths have been from conventional weaponry, which is somehow okay) will result in massive collateral damage that won't do much to improve Syrian civilians' opinion of us.

A foreign imperial power trying to bring peace with bombs will only cause more suffering than there already is in Syria, but of course the military contractors whose tentacles extend into our government media won't let that view see the light of day. Why do you think MSNBC, a network of Obama hacks, is so gung-ho about bombing Syria? Why, they're owned by GE, which also owns the presidency. Like all wars, the owning class sends the working class to battle.

Getting back to Syria, a large chunk of the opposition is Sunni Islamists and that chunk is growing daily, leading me to suspect that if Assad is somehow ousted, he would be replaced with either bloody chaos or an Islamist regime. If the latter happens, expect it to be whitewashed like how Kosovo's president is a horrifically corrupt mob boss who butchered Serbs for their organs or how Libya is on the brink of collapse into tribal warfare while Islamists are cracking down on women's rights and making Rick Santorum look like Dan Savage in their homophobic rhetoric.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

The position that you can solve a problem by throwing missiles at it is inherently more hawkish than the position that you can't.

[© tweed]

Yes, it's hilarious at the hypocrisy. If Bush, McCain or Romney would have been President they, and many others, would be screaming to the skies about how this is illegal, etc.

I acknowledge that it's illegal under international law.

where within international law is it the job of the USA to unilaterally prosecute or punish war crimes?