Syria
-
-
Obamao may never make a major decision in the Middle East. He'll just vote "present" like he did
all those hundred + times as a senator.
Obamao may never make a major decision in the Middle East. He'll just vote "present" like he did
all those hundred + times as a senator.
remember this?
Obama Absent During Iranian Protests
During the Iranians' protests for fair elections in 2009, President Obama said nothing about it publicly for days and did nothing of consequence to support the Iranian people. An opportunity to promote viable democratic accountability in a terrorist-exporting state ruled by mullahs was wasted. Obama's foreign policy has failed to capitalize on opportunities to better the world, meanwhile fostering instability through its reactive decision-making and projection of weakness.
to me THEN, seemed like a real opportunity to get rid of AHMANUTJOB for someone more moderate AND maybe, just maybe alter the current events in Syria....
-
Syria's government DID NOT gas their own citizens. The phone conversation that is supposed to be proof they did is bullshit. The General is asking who did it. He was not aware of the attack. Fucking sheep.
-
If Obama bypasses the UN, watch for WWIII. He needs to be impeached for this.
Luck is Tim Couch. Big, Dumb Goofy, slow thinking QB - Ghoolie, 2-28-12 -
If Obama bypasses the UN, watch for WWIII. He needs to be impeached for this.
If Obama bypasses the UN, watch for WWIII. He needs to be impeached for this.
watch what you say...your freedom isnt what it once was in america...this idiot Obama has fucked it all up...
-
If Obama bypasses the UN, watch for WWIII. He needs to be impeached for this.
watch what you say...your freedom isnt what it once was in america...this idiot Obama has fucked it all up...
watch what you say...your freedom isnt what it once was in america...this idiot Obama has fucked it all up...
I don't give a shit, he and the administration can suck it. Does this asshole think invading Syria is going to improve the situation. 100 times more people are going to die because of this.
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-proof-syria-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-004613934.html
-
If Obama bypasses the UN, watch for WWIII. He needs to be impeached for this.
If Obama bypasses the UN, watch for WWIII. He needs to be impeached for this.
Kosar, I agree that could be a possibility. This country has gone down hill rapidly in the past year or less. Russia and China back Syria. Iran also. Obama is playing around with shit he should just leave alone. We have no business interfering with the Syrians. I firmly believe it was the rebels who set off the nerve agents they probably captured.
-
In September 2009, President Obama bounded up to the U.N. General Assembly podium and announced: “We've re-engaged the United Nations… We have sought…a new era of engagement with the world.” He would “begin a new chapter of international cooperation” and he promised “we will work with the U.N.” In short, Gulliver marched into the UN and demanded to be tied down.
I can't believe people still defend this administration.By engagement he means illegal bombing on false pre-text.
-
It's all the lies/redefining of terms/manipulation with bs.
"most transparent" --> opposite
"national debt is unpatriotic under Bush" --> opposite
"bring all Americans together" --> opposite
"respect 2nd Amendment" --> opposite
"diplomatic peace" --> opposite
"domestic spying is wrong" --> opposite.
"marriage is between a man and a woman" --> opposite
It's what mentally warped, corrupt tyrants do. They lie, then they do what they want.
-
In September 2009, President Obama bounded up to the U.N. General Assembly podium and announced: “We've re-engaged the United Nations… We have sought…a new era of engagement with the world.” He would “begin a new chapter of international cooperation” and he promised “we will work with the U.N.” In short, Gulliver marched into the UN and demanded to be tied down.
I can't believe people still defend this administration.By engagement he means illegal bombing on false pre-text.
In September 2009, President Obama bounded up to the U.N. General Assembly podium and announced: “We've re-engaged the United Nations… We have sought…a new era of engagement with the world.” He would “begin a new chapter of international cooperation” and he promised “we will work with the U.N.” In short, Gulliver marched into the UN and demanded to be tied down.
I can't believe people still defend this administration.
By engagement he means illegal bombing on false pre-text.
very true! this is his foreign policy in a nutshell. when times demanded a response, he failed to act....
NOW, when times demand we stay away.... (to me) Obama is acting on behalf of the MB and its psychotic sister groups- the rebel forces
proclaiming support is a thinly veiled look into his real identity as a sympathizer... NOT a leader (and he's more than proven that!)
-
All this posturing was meant as a show of force to Iran, Russia, and China because we've looked pretty stupid lately due to Manning and Snowden. They've called us on it, and now we look even more foolish. There's no reason that Assad or whatever the hell his name is would use sarin gas on some strategically irrelevant people in a war that he's winning.
-
All this posturing was meant as a show of force to Iran, Russia, and China because we've looked pretty stupid lately due to Manning and Snowden. They've called us on it, and now we look even more foolish. There's no reason that Assad or whatever the hell his name is would use sarin gas on some strategically irrelevant people in a war that he's winning.
All this posturing was meant as a show of force to Iran, Russia, and China because we've looked pretty stupid lately due to Manning and Snowden. They've called us on it, and now we look even more foolish. There's no reason that Assad or whatever the hell his name is would use sarin gas on some strategically irrelevant people in a war that he's winning.
Exactly.
Either somebody from the opposition is pulling a fast one or our State Department is. Or somebody might just be stupid.
WSS
-
(Reuters) - Russia is sending two warships to the east Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, but Moscow denied this meant it was beefing up its naval force there as Western powers prepare for military action against Syria.
Interfax quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying Russia, Syria's most powerful ally, was deploying a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet in the "coming days".
Any strengthening of the navy's presence could fuel tension, especially as the United States has said it is repositioning naval forces in the Mediterranean following an alleged chemical weapons attack which is blames on Syrian government forces.
"The well-known situation now in the eastern Mediterranean required us to make some adjustments to the naval force," the source said in a reference to the events in Syria.
It was not clear when the vessels would arrive but Interfax said the Moskva missile cruiser was currently in the North Atlantic and would set sail in the next few days.
President Vladimir Putin has said the naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation. Russia cooperates with NATO navies against piracy and its ships call at Western ports.
The navy later indicated a deployment was imminent in the Mediterranean but gave no details except to say it would be part of a long-planned rotation and suggested it would not increase the size of Russian forces there.
"This is not a new group ... but a planned rotation," an highly-placed navy official who was not identified told state-run RIA news agency.
The reason for the discrepancy in the reports by Interfax and RIA was not clear but confusion has at times surrounded previous Russian deployments in the Mediterranean because of the secrecy involved. The Defence Ministry declined comment.
Washington accuses Syrian government forces of carrying out last week's chemical weapons attack and has made clear it could soon launch a military strike.
Russia is one of Assad's biggest arms suppliers. It opposes any military intervention in Syria and has shielded Damascus against further sanctions at the U.N. Security Council.
Defense experts said the deployment of the two warships identified by Interfax could give Assad early warning of cruise missile launches, particularly by submarine, or jam radars or navigation systems although they might never be used for this.
"What we may be seeing here is an example of gunboat diplomacy rather than a deliberate attempt to interfere directly in any coalition strike militarily," said Lee Willett, editor of IHS Jane's Navy International.
"The simple presence of any ships will have an impact politically, and that is the primary intent."
Russia's chief of staff said in June the navy had stationed 16 warships and three ship-based helicopters in the Mediterranean, its first permanent naval deployment there since Soviet times.
(Additional reporting by Peter Apps in London, editing by Elizabeth Piper)
-
Watch Putin punk Obama again.
-
"As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action.
But they asked—and rightly so—what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted.
Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos, without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today—my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate." - Martin Luther King, Jr
Listen to your hero ass clown. -
For those that are interested, the UK government yesterday voted against taking any military action in Syria. Something like 285 to 270, so fairly close. Obviously a divisive issue. I think the majority or dissenters are saying, justifiably, that there just isn't enough evidence either way. Clearly, the world as a whole should be taking a stand against the use of chemical weapons, napalm bombing a school and the rest. But until there's proof, we really can't take any action legally.
On the other hand, while it's all over the news here, it doesn't really seem to be a hot-button topic among the general public, like Iraq/Afghanistan were. So it's not like there'd be a huge backlash either way.
-
I've been reading about that Chris.
Except for the hardcore right and left here it doesn't seem like there's much interest either.
The rebels don't make me feel all warm and fuzzy, and I can't imagine why Asaad I would do something like this for no reason.
Nor do I see a handful of Scud missiles making much of a difference.
WSS
-
I think that's also a factor for a lot of people - it's not like we'd be removing Asaad and handing over to bunch of level headed guys with beliefs and a democratic system that lines up with the western view of a well run country. I think people are wary of another situation like Egypt where you're removing Murbarak but creating a huge power vacuum, with the consequences they have right now. There would need to be clear evidence that one side is in the wrong, the other side would make a 'fit and proper' government and that there wouldn't be massive uprisings as a consequence.
-
we have absolutely zero benefits to any actions in Syria.
both side of that mess hate the US and would prefer us dead.
Congress would need to vote on any action taken, Obama would be hard pressed to survive taking action without Congresses approval.
-
I watched the Kerry news conference and read the so called 'evidence'. I don't buy it for a minute. Just Obama trying to justify it.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login