Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

In the debate on Syria, progressive pundits are letting us know that do-gooders can’t be peaceniks. Recently, pro-war commentators on liberal media outlets have greatly outnumbered the doves, with MSNBC leading the way. These humanitarian interventionists understand what the most famous progressives of all time made clear, that the obligation to rescue the unfortunate comes with an obligation to kill. What they don’t understand or willfully ignore is the lesson of history, which is that when the United States has taken on the responsibility for the well-being of humanity, it has destroyed far more lives than it has saved.

Last week on MSNBC’s All In, Chris Hayes featured a host of left-of-center hawks, including Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Julia Ioffe of The New Republic, Iraqi-American writer Zainab Salbi, who called for a “long-term intervention,” Mouaz Moustafa, a representative of the Syrian rebels, and Tom Perriello of the Center for American Progress, who has argued elsewhere not just for missile strikes against Assad but for “a more aggressive posture that would potentially include regime transition.” On his show, Chris Matthews justified bombing the Assad regime by declaring that even “Hitler didn’t use” chemical weapons. The liberal network’s call to war climaxed with a stunning piece of demagoguery on Wednesday’s Last Word, when reporter Richard Engel put a 10-year-old Syrian refugee girl on camera to say, “Does [Obama] want his kids to be like us? … When we get bigger, we’re going to write, ‘Obama didn’t help us.’”

Like many liberals who are asked to explain why Syria will be a good war if Iraq was a bad one, Dexter Filkins in the New Yorker wrote, “This time it’s different… What can America do? It’s not unreasonable to ask whether even a well-intentioned American effort to save Syrians might fail, or whether such an effort might pull America into a terrible quagmire…. But how much longer are we going to allow those questions to prevent us from trying?”

Baldy wrote:Touch 'em all, Mr. Russell.

Killing to Save in Syria: When Liberalism is Lethal

In the debate on Syria, progressive pundits are letting us know that do-gooders can’t be peaceniks. Recently, pro-war commentators on liberal media outlets have greatly outnumbered the doves, with MSNBC leading the way. These humanitarian interventionists understand what the most famous progressives of all time made clear, that the obligation to rescue the unfortunate comes with an obligation to kill. What they don’t understand or willfully ignore is the lesson of history, which is that when the United States has taken on the responsibility for the well-being of humanity, it has destroyed far more lives than it has saved.

Last week on MSNBC’s All In, Chris Hayes featured a host of left-of-center hawks, including Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Julia Ioffe of The New Republic, Iraqi-American writer Zainab Salbi, who called for a “long-term intervention,” Mouaz Moustafa, a representative of the Syrian rebels, and Tom Perriello of the Center for American Progress, who has argued elsewhere not just for missile strikes against Assad but for “a more aggressive posture that would potentially include regime transition.” On his show, Chris Matthews justified bombing the Assad regime by declaring that even “Hitler didn’t use” chemical weapons. The liberal network’s call to war climaxed with a stunning piece of demagoguery on Wednesday’s Last Word, when reporter Richard Engel put a 10-year-old Syrian refugee girl on camera to say, “Does [Obama] want his kids to be like us? … When we get bigger, we’re going to write, ‘Obama didn’t help us.’”

Like many liberals who are asked to explain why Syria will be a good war if Iraq was a bad one, Dexter Filkins in the New Yorker wrote, “This time it’s different… What can America do? It’s not unreasonable to ask whether even a well-intentioned American effort to save Syrians might fail, or whether such an effort might pull America into a terrible quagmire…. But how much longer are we going to allow those questions to prevent us from trying?”

Cluck U wrote:

Baldy wrote:Touch 'em all, Mr. Russell.

Killing to Save in Syria: When Liberalism is Lethal

And the Libs on here quietly stay silent hoping no one will notice the hypocrisy.

kalm wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
And the Libs on here quietly stay silent hoping no one will notice the hypocrisy.

Who?

Cluck U wrote:

Baldy wrote:Touch 'em all, Mr. Russell.

Killing to Save in Syria: When Liberalism is Lethal

And the Libs on here quietly stay silent hoping no one will notice the hypocrisy.

Bush + Iraq = bad. Obama + Syria = good.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
Who?

Owl?

D1B wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
And the Libs on here quietly stay silent hoping no one will notice the hypocrisy.

Bush + Iraq = bad. Obama + Syria = good.

Chime in, Dickhead, when we spend a trillion dollars, kill a couple hundred thousand civilians and several thousand of our soldiers in Syria. Until then, go back to picking your nose and eating your boogers.

kalm wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Owl?

Oh...I'm sorry, I thought you'd figured out by now it's the system and not just ideological. It's kinda the same reason that Barbara Boxer, Chris Christie, and Ivytalk all believe it's OK for Americans to be illegally spied on while most thinking liberals and conservatives disagree.

Cluck U wrote:

D1B wrote:
Chime in, Dickhead, when we spend a trillion dollars, kill a couple hundred thousand civilians and several thousand of our soldiers in Syria. Until then, go back to picking your nose and eating your boogers.

Well, we're up to over 100,000 civilians killed in Syria alone in a resistance that we've been funneling arms to since almost the beginning...and that will only increase as the conflict continues.

And Obama has killed 1,642 of our soldiers in Afghanistan, including one on 9/13/13. Don't forget to add the civilian casualties (including those enemy combatants that Obama likes to redefine).

Coalition forces killed over 1,100 civilians and wounded over 4,500 in our bombing efforts in Libya.

Nobel Peace Prize winner.

D1B wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Well, we're up to over 100,000 civilians killed in Syria alone in a resistance that we've been funneling arms to since almost the beginning...and that will only increase as the conflict continues.

And Obama has killed 1,642 of our soldiers in Afghanistan, including one on 9/13/13. Don't forget to add the civilian casualties (including those enemy combatants that Obama likes to redefine).

Coalition forces killed over 1,100 civilians and wounded over 4,500 in our bombing efforts in Libya.

Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Nice stretch, Booger Nose.

Cluck U wrote: And the Libs on here quietly stay silent hoping no one will notice the hypocrisy.

Bush + Iraq = bad. Obama + Syria = good.

Cluck U wrote:

Baldy wrote:Touch 'em all, Mr. Russell.

Killing to Save in Syria: When Liberalism is Lethal

And the Libs on here quietly stay silent hoping no one will notice the hypocrisy.

Bush + Iraq = bad. Obama + Syria = good.

kalm wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Owl?

Oh...I'm sorry, I thought you'd figured out by now it's the system and not just ideological. It's kinda the same reason that Barbara Boxer, Chris Christie, and Ivytalk all believe it's OK for Americans to be illegally spied on while most thinking liberals and conservatives disagree.

D1B wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
And the Libs on here quietly stay silent hoping no one will notice the hypocrisy.

Bush + Iraq = bad. Obama + Syria = good.

Chime in, Dickhead, when we spend a trillion dollars, kill a couple hundred thousand civilians and several thousand of our soldiers in Syria. Until then, go back to picking your nose and eating your boogers.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oh...I'm sorry, I thought you'd figured out by now it's the system and not just ideological. It's kinda the same reason that Barbara Boxer, Chris Christie, and Ivytalk all believe it's OK for Americans to be illegally spied on while most thinking liberals and conservatives disagree.

Lots of truth to that, but don't you remember that little quip about "fundamentally transforming the United States of America".

With that said, most are missing the gist of the article.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Lots of truth to that, but don't you remember that little quip about "fundamentally transforming the United States of America".

With that said, most are missing the gist of the article.

Well he has fundamentally turned you into a peace loving dirty hippy.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Lots of truth to that, but don't you remember that little quip about "fundamentally transforming the United States of America".

With that said, most are missing the gist of the article.

Well he has fundamentally turned you into a peace loving dirty hippy.

Chizzang wrote:

Cluck U wrote: And the Libs on here quietly stay silent hoping no one will notice the hypocrisy.

Bush + Iraq = bad. Obama + Syria = good.

We only have two opinions in this country anymore...
and you're doing a fine job of showing us that

Cluck U wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
We only have two opinions in this country anymore...
and you're doing a fine job of showing us that

Stop with the "anymore" nonsense...the masses have been easily swayed throughout history by authoritarian figures...emperors, kings, popes, witch doctors, a council of elders, houndawg's pimp.

Rile the people up and rally them to your side by making up information about the enemy du jour. Heck, it goes on in high school with a gaggle of 6th grade girls choosing sides in a popularity contest, and extends to our foreign policy. Once you gain a foothold, you publicly bring down anyone who presents an opposing view (Snowden, Assange, etc.). And what is it all for? Power and ego for the leaders...and for the masses, an insecure desire to be part of the "best" clique/country/gang.

There will always be those who don't partake in the "we're the good guys" silliness...the smarter ones who sit back and learn to make money and/or peace with themselves. The third choice.

Baldy wrote:Touch 'em all, Mr. Russell.

Killing to Save in Syria: When Liberalism is Lethal

In the debate on Syria, progressive pundits are letting us know that do-gooders can’t be peaceniks. Recently, pro-war commentators on liberal media outlets have greatly outnumbered the doves, with MSNBC leading the way. These humanitarian interventionists understand what the most famous progressives of all time made clear, that the obligation to rescue the unfortunate comes with an obligation to kill. What they don’t understand or willfully ignore is the lesson of history, which is that when the United States has taken on the responsibility for the well-being of humanity, it has destroyed far more lives than it has saved.

Last week on MSNBC’s All In, Chris Hayes featured a host of left-of-center hawks, including Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Julia Ioffe of The New Republic, Iraqi-American writer Zainab Salbi, who called for a “long-term intervention,” Mouaz Moustafa, a representative of the Syrian rebels, and Tom Perriello of the Center for American Progress, who has argued elsewhere not just for missile strikes against Assad but for “a more aggressive posture that would potentially include regime transition.” On his show, Chris Matthews justified bombing the Assad regime by declaring that even “Hitler didn’t use” chemical weapons. The liberal network’s call to war climaxed with a stunning piece of demagoguery on Wednesday’s Last Word, when reporter Richard Engel put a 10-year-old Syrian refugee girl on camera to say, “Does [Obama] want his kids to be like us? … When we get bigger, we’re going to write, ‘Obama didn’t help us.’”

Like many liberals who are asked to explain why Syria will be a good war if Iraq was a bad one, Dexter Filkins in the New Yorker wrote, “This time it’s different… What can America do? It’s not unreasonable to ask whether even a well-intentioned American effort to save Syrians might fail, or whether such an effort might pull America into a terrible quagmire…. But how much longer are we going to allow those questions to prevent us from trying?”

D1B wrote:
Pluck U = Another douchebag and a soapbox.

D1B wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Stop with the "anymore" nonsense...the masses have been easily swayed throughout history by authoritarian figures...emperors, kings, popes, witch doctors, a council of elders, houndawg's pimp.

Rile the people up and rally them to your side by making up information about the enemy du jour. Heck, it goes on in high school with a gaggle of 6th grade girls choosing sides in a popularity contest, and extends to our foreign policy. Once you gain a foothold, you publicly bring down anyone who presents an opposing view (Snowden, Assange, etc.). And what is it all for? Power and ego for the leaders...and for the masses, an insecure desire to be part of the "best" clique/country/gang.

There will always be those who don't partake in the "we're the good guys" silliness...the smarter ones who sit back and learn to make money and/or peace with themselves. The third choice.

Pluck U = Another douchebag and a soapbox.

Cluck U wrote:

D1B wrote:
Pluck U = Another douchebag and a soapbox.

D1B: Brawk...Pope...Conks...Mean People with Money...Retirement...Brock...Why Isn't anyone Paying Attention to Me?


Don't worry, D1B, there's some needy women out there for you...one who believes she can change a man for the better.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Baldy wrote:Touch 'em all, Mr. Russell.

Killing to Save in Syria: When Liberalism is Lethal

LMAO @ source: Abrams Media Network!!!