This is pretty stupid.
I mean, I was and am against both the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But they are different. With Syria, no one is talking about an invasion with ground forces to occupy the country and impose a new government, as they were in Iraq. The differences between the proposal to intervene in Iraq in 2002 and early 2003, and the proposed intervention in Syria are pretty significant. There's no inconsistency to being against the Iraq war but for bombing Syria. You can try to glaze over those differences by describing them both as "a war of choice in the Middle East," but that doesn't make them exactly the same.
(via Memeorandum)
I mean, I was and am against both the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But they are different. With Syria, no one is talking about an invasion with ground forces to occupy the country and impose a new government, as they were in Iraq. The differences between the proposal to intervene in Iraq in 2002 and early 2003, and the proposed intervention in Syria are pretty significant. There's no inconsistency to being against the Iraq war but for bombing Syria. You can try to glaze over those differences by describing them both as "a war of choice in the Middle East," but that doesn't make them exactly the same.
(via Memeorandum)
