Want to know the REAL reason Republicans are so desperate for Obama to intervene in Syria?

[TrollBuster9090]

They're actually HOPING a Democratic President will dump the country into another foolish military quagmire, to dispel the current impression that only REPUBLICAN Presidents do that. "Look, now the score is now 'one clusterf%$ck per party,' and we're even again. "

There was an uprising in Iran, they wanted him to intervene.
There was a conflict in Georgia, they wanted him to intervene.
There was an uprising in Tunisian, they wanted him to intervene.
There was an uprising in Egypt, they wanted him to intervene.
There was an uprising in Libya, they wanted him to intervene.
Now there's an uprising in Syria, and they're trying to force him to intervene.

Basically, they've been trying to force him to intervene, in a major way, in every conflict that's come along since he's been President. Why? Not because they're a bunch of bellicose war mongers (although some of them obviously are).

The reason is simple: They've been pushing Obama to get involved in every war that comes along because they want one of those interventions to blow up into a hideous, badly-planned, costly, clusterf%#ck; specifically to dispel the idea that only REPUBLICANS get America into hideous, expensive, badly-planned clusterf%$ck wars. As it stands, the last guy to get us into a STUPID, un-necessary war was a Republican, and people are thinking that maybe getting the country into stupid wars is a REPUBLICAN thing. At the moment, people see a clear choice between a party that gets us into stupid wars, and a party that doesn't. Easy choice! They want to erase that choice, and when there is no difference between the parties on the WAR/PEACE issue, they'll again have the upper hand on other (superficial) issues, like TAXES.

Fact: for the last 30 years, Republicans have polled more favorably on military and foreign policy issues than Democrats. Whether justified or not, that was the impression. The mythology.

Then two things happened:
1. Bush exploded the myth that Republicans are good at foreign and military policy, and proved they're not.
2. Meanwhile, Obama took a measured response to everything, and so far has succeeded. And for the first time in decades, Democrats now poll higher than Republicans on foreign and military policy.

They HATED losing the foreign/military advantage. They simply want to erase the Democratic advantage on foreign and military policy that Obama has given us, by getting Obama involved in a messy conflict that'll blow up in his face, and prove that NEITHER Party knows what it's doing on foreign and military policy.

[think]

1. K&R

I've been hard on Obama for military spending but will give him all the credit he deserves for being a true leader of the people when it comes to avoiding foreign entanglements that lead to full military interventions.

We don't need another fucking war....

[Skittles]

2. they need something better than Benghazi n/t

[John2]

3. He needs to change

his Policy of regime change. I mean do an complete about face. The people that want this Policy, favor rightwing Republicans in office because they know that party will intervene in a minute. He is trusted Petraeus whom republican operatives tried to recruit as a Presidential candidate. Petraeus was Bush's General. He trusts the guy in charge of the CIA now.

The President only gives Directives for his subordinates to carry out. That meant Petraeus also who advise him on conditions in Libya. Petraeus should have known how dangerous Libya was and the groups operating there. The attack in Benghazi seemed co-ordinated but how can the militias responsible for security under the CIA be exonerated, when the video showed they left the area and let the assailants carry out their mission? Either the CIA was in on the scheme or they had an intelligence failure. Stevens should have never been allowed into the area by the CIA. The only civilian got killed was Stevens, the others were attached to the CIA. The focus needs to be on the CIA and Petraeus but it seems the Republicans and everybody favoring this regime change wants to exonerate the CIA for mission failure. The bottomline is the talking points were cleared by the CIA because of classified material. The simple reason they needed to come up with a name to call the building exposes it. The regime change Policy is flawed period Obama has signed on to. Stop supplying and scheming with shady groups to overthrow Governments through the CIA.

[pampango]

10. He cannot change a policy that does not exist.

Did the US promote regime change in Tunisia or Egypt? The UN authorized intervention in Libya to protect civilians. (The UN has done this many times in the past, which many do not seem to realize.) As a member of the UN, the US participated in that intervention. Without UN authorization the US would have done nothing. Bush (and many other republicans) would have intervened in Libya without waiting for the UN.

In Syria, the UN has not authorized any intervention and the US has not intervened. Bush (and many current republican politicians) would have intervened there regardless of what the UN authorized, but Obama has not.

As liberals most of us believe that representative government with free and fair elections and the consent of the governed is a reasonable goal for everyone even those who do not have it now. Most of us recognize that, while repressive governments exist - always have and probably always will - there are less of them than there were a few decades ago. While we may not be able to do anything about those that do still exist but we should not accept them as 'normal' nor be surprised if people who live in them find occasions to rebel against them.

Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Americas

The concepts of social democracy, social liberalism, or democratic socialism all support a commitment to consent of the governed that exceeds the 'right' of dictators to keep their jobs. None of these political philosophies pose that we, as Americans or Canadians or Germans (Westerners in general) have a right to choose who governs us, but the rest of the people in the world have no such right. That does not mean that a country has a right to intervene when people in another country rebel against repressive rule, but it does mean that we should not support the dictator in such situations.

[barbtries]

4. that may play into it,

but i think it's even simpler than that. wars make them RICH. rich, rich, rich.

[BrotherIvan]

8. ^^This!^^

War is our greatest export. Repubs are serving their true constituents/masters when they make more theatres of carnage. They may hate Obama, they may hate Democrats, etc., but nothing, NOTHING motivates them like $$$$$$$$$$$$.

[bemildred]

11. Yah, all war is good.

For the man in the paddock, whose duty it is to sweep up manure, the supreme terror is the possibility of a world without horses.

-- Henry Miller in Tropic of Cancer"

That's pretty much how they feel about war.

[Cosmocat]

5. SPOT ON

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING republican's do is based on politics.

They have given up the pretense of even trying to talk like they care about the country at this point, it bleeds into eveything they say at this point.

Yeah, they are war craven lunatics, yeah, they know there is money to be made on it, but end of the day, you are absolutely right that they are going to want to do the "but, a D did it, too, so it is all the same" which always in the "liberal media" ends up a win for them.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Revisionism...

...it was on grand display at the opening of the Dubya "library". The game is to "justify" any and all American political and military intervention wherever and whenever...and to make past crimes like Iraq...appear to be noble. It's the ultimate whitewash that portrays the U.S. as the paragon of "right" and "freedom" in the world even if it leads to disastrous results...and then to revise those results into positives to promote even further adventurism.

You are spot on that dubya's mismanagement has destroyed a lot of the credibility the rushpublicans have had on foreign policy and military matters and this surely has to be frosting old Gramp McQueeg's butt. He's still smartin' that he wasn't overwhelming loved and elected over that "coloured fella" and he's gonna prove how wrong we all are.

It's a no-win game for Obama to play along...but, sadly, play he will, as the corporate media and the beltway chattering class still cling onto the "conventional wisdom" that has led to endless wars and financial ruin.

[erpowers]

7. I Disagree

Although many Republican politicians would like to see President Obama end his term with a bad record, they are pushing him to use military intervention in foreign countries because of their foreign policy views. Modern Republicans think the United States should intervene in foreign countries. It is possible that part of the reason Republicans currently support military intervention in foreign countries is their desire to keep America the sole international superpower.

Keeping America the sole international superpower was at least part of the reasoning behind the Project For A New American Century's policy paper that called for the United States to invade countries like Iraq. It seems that at least part of the point of having the United States intervene in foreign countries is to try to get control of this countries' resources and use control of those resources to prevent other countries from becoming superpowers and challenging the United States' place in the world.

[LeftInTX]

12. My dad thinks like this

He was an AF pilot (major) in Vietnam during 1966-67.
I was 10 years old, old enough to know what was going on.

He retired from the AF in 1969.
During the 70s, when I was in high school and the Vietnam war was still raging, we got into many heated discussions.

I don't quite know where he got his ideas, but there was much tension involved in these discussions. It was so bad, I often wonder if the military brainwashed him. I never got to the root of his ideas because the discussions were so tense, that I would just change the subject. There was a sense of resentment in his tone whenever the subject came up. He wasn't this way prior to Vietnam.

He blamed Clinton for 911. He was very anti-Kerry.

[RC]

9. The reason Republicans want war is Syria is because it gives them a tingling sensation in the crouch

when these clusterf%#cks blow up. All that money is orgasmic, as they discharge the profits into the Cayman islands.

[KoKo]

13. Don't forget our Mighty Military needs feeding with our tax dollars, though.

So endless war isn't only a Repug function. The MIC hires Dems, too.

Hopefully it's gotten so out out of hand that rational minds on both sides can reign it all in.
I figure it's gotta come from Dems because there are so few "rational Repugs" anymore that there's little help, but a few like Walter Jones Repug from NC is against these wars. Still ...it's fighting back against all the money that goes into the military supports all the hardware, military contractors and so many more Generals than we had in any of our previous wars. The Glory of Petraeus is one example. But, I read that there are many more generals raking in bucks and flauting a lifestyle that wouldn't have been accepted in times past without there being some comeuppance. And, even all these "retired military" getting paid to be consultants for Corporations that promote death and destruction and paid to be on our Media selling more of it.

[progressoid]

14. Or they just like war.

[Cha]

15. Or both.