# Can anyone defend the Admin Syria drive? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417 "2013-09-09T16:04:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 44
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/861 "2013-10-13T06:10:46Z")
**NotfooledbyW** : “John Mace does not care if any murderous dictator has WMD. . . .” is different from **John Mace** actually saying “On my part, I didn’t care whether he had WMDs or not. I didn’t see that as a reason to go to war.” For one thing, it generalizes improperly. For another thing, it removes the context. My views really are closer to yours than to most of the others here, but I was dismayed by the comment, because I don’t think it’s fair. I want to agree with you, but there are rules of logic and rhetoric. It might seem like having to fight with one arm tied behind your back, but it’s necessary. Otherwise, anyone might as easily generalize something you or I have said, or quote without context. I hate it when it’s done to me, so I can’t very well approve when it’s done to someone else. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/862 "2013-10-13T07:39:51Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **NotfooledbyW** : “John Mace does not care if any murderous dictator has WMD. . . .” is different from **John Mace** actually saying “On my part, I didn’t care whether he had WMDs or not. I didn’t see that as a reason to go to war.” > > For one thing, it generalizes improperly. For another thing, it removes the context. > > My views really are closer to yours than to most of the others here, but I was dismayed by the comment, because I don’t think it’s fair. I want to agree with you, but there are rules of logic and rhetoric. It might seem like having to fight with one arm tied behind your back, but it’s necessary. Otherwise, anyone might as easily generalize something you or I have said, or quote without context. I hate it when it’s done to me, so I can’t very well approve when it’s done to someone else. Good Post and fair enough. Sticking to the Syria discussion I can cite John Mace directly and make the same exact point. This is what he wrote on this thread. ‘’ > [@](#): > > I can’t remember losing any sleep in Jun 2012 over Syria’s chemical weapons. -Oct 12 at 11:47 AM John Mace I do not recall losing any sleep over Syria’s chemical weapons in June 2012 either, but both John Mace and I were not President of the United States or running for that job in June 2012. Now I voted for President Obama to return to the Oval Office because I am impressed with the military policy he pursues that most of the Democrats to my left barely can put up with. So I can work, do my job and enjoy life with friends and family I expect and appreciate that Obama and his national security team and our intelligence services will do their best to make decisions on issues like Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. I don’t lose sleep but I care about a murderous dictator like Assad having control of or losing control of a 1000 Ton CW arsenal to any group that resembles al Qaeda. I can’t say that I believe John Mace shares that concern because of the context in which he wrote what he wrote above added to what he has written since. The reason I believe it is correct to point out that John Mace does not care if Assad, who is a murderous dictator, has chemical weapons , would be because it is difficult to take John Mace serious when he mocks the President with such an off base comedy routine about what is a serious threat in the region for now and more than a threat to scores of Syrians who were gassed to death last August the Assad regime. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Tomorrow night, Obama makes his case for a military strike against Syria: > > My fellow Americans. I stand before you tonight to urge you to support a resolution I submitted to Congress to authorize a military strike against Syria in the wake of incontrovertible evidence that the regime of President Assad used Chemical Weapons against his own people. > > Some of you have asked, what is our long term strategy? Well, you saw just today what that strategy is. I can assure you that, each week, Secretary Kerry will give a news conference in which he will jokingly offer a solution to this terrible international crisis. Upon receiving the reaction of Syria and Russia, we will say: Ah hah! So, you don’t want us to bomb you after all. In which case, we expect Congress to expeditiously grant us authority tp commence a 90 day effort of unbelievably small attacks against Syria that will significantly degrade and deter any future CW attacks. I am confident that President Assad will take each joke very seriously, as evidenced by his denial of any use of CWs by his regime. > > Further, our closest ally, Russia, will help ensure that Syria sequester its CWs, and open an inspection effort to contain the CWs that Assad assures he has not use. What could possibly go wrong with this strategy? > > Failing compliance by Syria, we will amass what I call the Coalition of the Expedient, consisting of the US and Saudi Arabia, to punish the rogue regime in the mildest way possible. Lest any of you doubt the value of this Coalition, let me point out that Saudi Arabia is one the leading Middle Eastern countries in the vanguard of democratization of the region. I have it on good faith that within 5 years, women in Saudi Arabia will be able to drive automobiles provided they have the permission from only a senior male relative, and are accompanied by only 2 of such relatives to ensure that they do not insight unrelated men to, justifiably, rape them. Such progress is only possible if we agree to bomb the living daylights out of Syria in the most unbelievably small way possible. > > In closing, my fellow Americans, let me leave you with these thoughts: > > Small is big > War is Peace > and > We all love Big Brother! I don’t feel bad about untying that hand behind my back you mentioned at times when under attack by someone who writes ‘we all love big brother’ in an discussion about Obama’s handling of the chemical weapons threat that has unfolded for the past two months or so. John Mace put on record regarding a murderous dictator “I didn’t care whether he had WMDs or not” and that means to me that Mace does not care if any murderous dictator has WMDs or not. I don’t see that as a leap since he also says he didn’t lose sleep over Assad’s CW and has consistently made fun of Obama’s serious efforts to rid the world of 1000 tons of deadly chemical weapons in the midst of a civil war. I believe there are many posters here who opposed military strikes as an option against Assad’s regime and I certainly believe they care about the threat that that those CW posed. But John Mace has not shown me that he cares about Assad’s CW as a threat. > [@](#): > > QUOTE=John Mace;16650313]I’m willing to wait and see what happens. The fact that they are “open” to this deal is meaningless. It will be a positive sign when they actually take the first, _substantive_ step in doing so. [/QUOTE] Mace seems to me to care about Syria’s WMD only as it affords an opportunity to make a political knock against the current Administration. The positive sign that Mace mentioned has arrived well over a week ago. So why is Mace still riding the weapons were not a threat worth losing sleep over, if indeed the start of actually dismantling the arsenal is a positive sign as Mace said it would be. Why is it a positive sign we should ask Mace. It has to be that a threat is being eliminated. The CWC experts are not in Syria at some risk to themselves to dismantle a Tiddly-Wink or Slinky factory. It is time, if Mace cares about a CW threat in Syria, to help us put Magiver’s _no threat argument_ down and give some credit to Obama for setting the red line, and for threatening strikes when the red line was crossed, and for giving diplomacy and experts the chance to remove the threat from the Syrian Civil War as we see happening right now. We’ll see if that comes. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/863 "2013-10-13T08:04:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Had Syria used CWs outside their own boarders, I have no doubt the entire civilized world would have tried to do something about it. But when it comes to internal conflicts, there isn’t a whole lot that the “entire civilized world” is willing to do. The \*‘entire civilized world’ \*is \*‘willing’ \*and massively engaged \*‘to do’ \*something about Syria’s CW arsenal right now and Syria has not used CWs outside their own borders. So what is your point? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/864 "2013-10-13T13:31:52Z")
The “entire civilized world” isn’t doing anything that Russia and Syria aren’t allowing them to do. And in the end, Assad stays in power. Win-win for them both. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/865 "2013-10-14T00:03:51Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > . . . I don’t feel bad about untying that hand behind my back you mentioned at times when under attack by someone who writes ‘we all love big brother’ in an discussion about Obama’s handling of the chemical weapons threat that has unfolded for the past two months or so. . . . Well, that was also a poor thing to say in a proper debate. Obviously, we do not all love big brother. Anyway, let’s let this drop; I don’t want to be written up for “junior modding.” I have strong opinions on proper debate technique, but, at best, it belongs in another thread. (At worst, it belongs in the Pit!) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/866 "2013-10-14T00:21:59Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Well, that was also a poor thing to say in a proper debate. Obviously, we do not all love big brother. > > Anyway, let’s let this drop; I don’t want to be written up for “junior modding.” I have strong opinions on proper debate technique, but, at best, it belongs in another thread. (At worst, it belongs in the Pit!) I think you can let it drop for at least [30 days.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=704783) ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/867 "2013-10-15T18:50:35Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > [Not bad for a Russian President you mean](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/06/syria-chemical-weapons-destroyed): > > Last month Obama said: “It is too early to tell whether [the Russian plan] will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.” Let’s be clear here: All movement on the issue of the Syrian CW’s was initiated by President Obama. He made threats, called their bluff, and everyone from Syria to Russia got scared Obama was going to attack for real and agreed to the UN deal. What quotes you dig up is simply a humble man willing to give others credit for his own achievements. Nothing moves without Obama’s threats and diplomacy. Russia has no reason to do this except to prevent the US from attacking Syria, something he believed Obama was willing to order If you still think its all Russia’s doing, why don’t you dig up a few quotes from the past years on whether Russia will act or not. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/868 "2013-11-14T06:25:52Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Let’s be clear here: All movement on the issue of the Syrian CW’s was initiated by President Obama. He made threats, called their bluff, and everyone from Syria to Russia got scared Obama was going to attack for real and agreed to the UN deal. What quotes you dig up is simply a humble man willing to give others credit for his own achievements. Nothing moves without Obama’s threats and diplomacy. Russia has no reason to do this except to prevent the US from attacking Syria, something he believed Obama was willing to order > > If you still think its all Russia’s doing, why don’t you dig up a few quotes from the past years on whether Russia will act or not. Thanks Yogsouth. There appears to be no interest anymore by those who attacked and ridiculed \*\*Obama’s Syria Drive \*\*any more. That has to be because they were all wrong about Obama’s red line forcing Syria to give up its Chemical Weapons Arsenal. Without the “Red Line” and the threat to use even a small amount of force there would have been no reason for Putin to force Assad to give his CW arsenal up. But he did. The “Red Line” drawn in the Syrian sand has produce a tremendous accomplishment thus far and there are no signs that a huge problem in the midst of that civil war is being removed. These conservatives can’t be too happy with their poor assessments and predictions as we are seeing the CW inspection, removal and destruction success taking place in Syria: > [@](#): > > Well, yeah, kinda. He set himself up for a no-win situation. Red Lines sometimes do that to the Red Line Setters. -John Mace 09-09-2013 06:47 PM 252p0647 > [@](#): > > There will be negotiations set up about setting up the surrender of control. There will be talks about where to hold the talks, about who the parties to the talks will be, about who takes eventual control, what exactly they take control of, what does “control” mean, how the “control” is handed over, etc. etc. A million (almost literally) details. Over each of which one can quibble basically forever, while maintaining the image of “moving forward”. Meantime the control is still Syria’s. For years, or decades, if need be. -Terr 09-09-2013 03:18 PM 252p0318 > [@](#): > > This is what’s going to happen. Inspectors are going to go down the list ASSAD provided and box up what ASSAD decides to part with. -Magiver 09-25-2013 12:45 PM 268p0045 ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/869 "2013-11-14T06:50:34Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Let’s be clear here: All movement on the issue of the Syrian CW’s was initiated by President Obama. He made threats, called their bluff, and everyone from Syria to Russia got scared Obama was going to attack for real and agreed to the UN deal. What quotes you dig up is simply a humble man willing to give others credit for his own achievements. Nothing moves without Obama’s threats and diplomacy. Russia has no reason to do this except to prevent the US from attacking Syria, something he believed Obama was willing to order > > If you still think its all Russia’s doing, why don’t you dig up a few quotes from the past years on whether Russia will act or not. There was never any real threat from Obama. He simply didn’t have the political capital to spend. The support wasn’t there. He’s too busy getting spanked over a health bill with his name on it which has driven his popularity into the 30’s. All Putin gets credit for is saving Obama’s face. As was predicted this has fallen off the news cycle and unless NotfooledbyW comes back it’s a dead issue. Should have checked first. Out of the penalty box and back fighting this windmill again. must have been his response that triggered an email alert to the thread. Hey, maybe GM can install a new transmission and call it “Obama Syrian Drive”. For those times when you really want to drive like you mean it. Red line not include. See your dealer for payment options. ---
**Author:** ![Gerald\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Gerald\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gerald_II)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/870 "2013-11-14T07:35:06Z")
It seems more likely that the strategic location of Syria was more important to Russia and the US than anything else. If it’s only about the use of chemical weapons, why was regime change being discussed as early as August 2011 before Syria confirmed in July 2012 that it had chemical weapons? Are we still aiding the rebel factions in Syria, even as the chemical weapons stockpiles are being destroyed? That said, I don’t see how people can have such a narrow view of this situation and only declare that either Putin lost or Obama lost. Putin doesn’t have to worry about the US bombing Syria and we don’t have to worry about Syria having and using chemical weapons. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/871 "2013-11-14T12:15:11Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There was never any real threat from Obama. He simply didn’t have the political capital to spend. The support wasn’t there. . Whether Obama had support or political capital is a side-issue as Yogsouth points out: > [@](#): > > Let’s be clear here: All movement on the issue of the Syrian CW’s was initiated by President Obama. He made threats, called their bluff, and everyone from Syria to Russia got scared Obama was going to attack for real and agreed to the UN deal. What quotes you dig up is simply a humble man willing to give others credit for his own achievements. Nothing moves without Obama’s threats and diplomacy. -Yogsouth If this is supposed to be a debate forum it would behoove Magiver to defend his very weak argument as to why Obama’s lone and courageous political red line stand, against his own base, can be called, ‘never a real threat’ by conservatives like Magiver and declared to be final, debate over, dead issue on the basis of a conservatives political hay making. You can see that all we get from Magiver is a repeat after repeat of his argument and no response to what the other side has to say. Its as if conservatives believe that repetition is what makes things true and not walking down the path of reason. QUOTE=Magiver;16846972]As was predicted this has fallen off the news cycle and unless NotfooledbyW comes back it’s a dead issue. Should have checked first. Out of the penalty box and back fighting this windmill again. must have been his response that triggered an email alert to the thread. Hey, maybe GM can install a new transmission and call it “Obama Syrian Drive”. For those times when you really want to drive like you mean it. Red line not include. See your dealer for payment options. [/QUOTE] The preference for conservatives to fall back on personal attack rather than discuss the issues with facts logic and reason is duly noted. And what is wrong with bringing quotes from the past as events unfold to credit writers or discredit writers for the actual words they put down in a debate forum. > [@](#): > > This is what’s going to happen. Inspectors are going to go down the list ASSAD provided and box up what ASSAD decides to part with. -Magiver 09-25-2013 12:45 PM 268p0045 When you are wrong about something six months before an outcome it shows you are not truly dedicated to finding the truth about events and issues - you are interested in political partisan game winning. When time passes and you are shown to be wrong - you declare dead issue. The CW clearing in Syria is not a dead issue. It is on track to be a record setting elimination of CW in the midst of a civil war. Putin gets credit for finally forcing Assad to admit they had them and give them up. But there is little doubt that Obama’s red line and his determination to strike with or without support at home or abroad has brought the ongoing good news and successes about. And why is it conservatives that always must insist that they are right so the discussion must end? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/872 "2013-11-14T12:25:19Z")
> [@Gerald\_II](#): > > It seems more likely that the strategic location of Syria was more important to Russia and the US than anything else. > > If it’s only about the use of chemical weapons, why was regime change being discussed as early as August 2011 before Syria confirmed in July 2012 that it had chemical weapons? Are we still aiding the rebel factions in Syria, even as the chemical weapons stockpiles are being destroyed? > > That said, I don’t see how people can have such a narrow view of this situation and only declare that either Putin lost or Obama lost. Putin doesn’t have to worry about the US bombing Syria and we don’t have to worry about Syria having and using chemical weapons. Thanks for an intelligent assessment that the view that Obama or Putin lost is narrow. Putin did gain some time to work with Assad. But that is a gain for Obama too in the sense that the rebels were getting too mixed up with terrorist from outside Syria. My point also applies to the moral gains or losses between Putin and Obama alongside the strategic ones. On the moral matter of stockpiling and using chemical weapons on non-combatants there is no doubt that Obama has it won and Putin has lost. Putin is backing the dictator that has committed mass murder- there is no win or gain on the morality side if this issue for Putin. That is a huge point that has not been made and should be. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/873 "2013-11-14T15:29:50Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Whether Obama had support or political capital is a side-issue as Yogsouth points out: > > If this is supposed to be a debate forum it would behoove Magiver to defend his very weak argument as to why Obama’s lone and courageous political red line stand, against his own base, can be called, ‘never a real threat’ by conservatives like Magiver and declared to be final, debate over, dead issue on the basis of a conservatives political hay making. > You can see that all we get from Magiver is a repeat after repeat of his argument and no response to what the other side has to say. > > Its as if conservatives believe that repetition is what makes things true and not walking down the path of reason. > > QUOTE=Magiver;16846972]As was predicted this has fallen off the news cycle and unless NotfooledbyW comes back it’s a dead issue. > > Should have checked first. Out of the penalty box and back fighting this windmill again. must have been his response that triggered an email alert to the thread. > > Hey, maybe GM can install a new transmission and call it “Obama Syrian Drive”. For those times when you really want to drive like you mean it. Red line not include. See your dealer for payment options. The preference for conservatives to fall back on personal attack rather than discuss the issues with facts logic and reason is duly noted. And what is wrong with bringing quotes from the past as events unfold to credit writers or discredit writers for the actual words they put down in a debate forum. When you are wrong about something six months before an outcome it shows you are not truly dedicated to finding the truth about events and issues - you are interested in political partisan game winning. When time passes and you are shown to be wrong - you declare dead issue. The CW clearing in Syria is not a dead issue. It is on track to be a record setting elimination of CW in the midst of a civil war. Putin gets credit for finally forcing Assad to admit they had them and give them up. But there is little doubt that Obama’s red line and his determination to strike with or without support at home or abroad has brought the ongoing good news and successes about. **And why is it conservatives that always must insist that they are right so the discussion must end?** [/QUOTE] Bolded the extremely relevant part ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/874 "2013-11-14T15:42:25Z")
I cant change the way that the quote came out (passed the edit window) but all of that post was by **NotFooledbyW** , and I don’t want any of it attributed to me nor do I wish to cross the line in regards to quote changing. Can a mod please fix? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/875 "2013-11-14T16:02:57Z")
> [@Gerald\_II](#): > > Putin doesn’t have to worry about the US bombing Syria and we don’t have to worry about Syria having and using chemical weapons. Also, on the off chance that the rebels win, we don’t have to worry about the chemical weapons being lost in the chaos and falling into the hands of terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/876 "2013-11-14T19:58:01Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Bolded the extremely relevant part It was clear what was attributed to me. Thanks for the bump and bolding the extremely relevant part. Many Conservatives proselytize their secular views as if it were their church’s doctrine. Opponents are expected to take their arguments on faith. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/877 "2013-11-14T21:19:34Z")
Let’s be careful with the broad brush ‘conservatives do this, conservatives do that’ stuff, please. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/878 "2013-11-15T04:28:57Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Let’s be careful with the broad brush ‘conservatives do this, conservatives do that’ stuff, please. Please note that I purposely used the word ‘many’ in front of conservatives. Hardly a broad brush. And I am addressing what is going on by some conservatives on this forum to declare debates finished when they are not. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/879 "2013-11-15T21:50:09Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Please note that I purposely used the word ‘many’ in front of conservatives. Hardly a broad brush. > And I am addressing what is going on by some conservatives on this forum to declare debates finished when they are not. From one single post by you above: > [@](#): > > Its as if conservatives believe that repetition is what makes things true and not walking down the path of reason. > > \ > > The preference for conservatives to fall back on personal attack rather than discuss the issues with facts logic and reason is duly noted. > > \ > > And why is it conservatives that always must insist that they are right so the discussion must end? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/880 "2013-11-16T01:21:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > From one single post by you above: Yes in reference to the \*\*personal attack \*\*by a conservative rather than reply to the point that was made. > [@](#): > > As was predicted this has fallen off the news cycle and unless NotfooledbyW comes back it’s a dead issue. Should have checked first. Out of the penalty box and back fighting this windmill again.-Magiver 11/15/13 01:50 am Is it now that when a conservative makes a personal attack rather than respond on topic that they are not a conservative when they do it. That is interesting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417.md?page=43) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417.md?page=45)