Syria

Odd isn't it, that everyone Obama has backed in the middle east have been al Qaeda affiliated jihadists?
From the rebels in Libya to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to the rebels now in Syria, Obama hasn't found a radical islamist he doesn't like.

The only rebel group Obama hasn't supported is the secular Iranian students who wanted to end the theocracy and bring liberal democracy to Iran.
 
Odd isn't it, that everyone Obama has backed in the middle east have been al Qaeda affiliated jihadists?
From the rebels in Libya to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to the rebels now in Syria, Obama hasn't found a radical islamist he doesn't like.
Explain how Obama helped the Muslim Brotherhood, please. Explain how the Libyan rebels were run by al-Qaeda. I'll admit that some of those groups consisted of al-Qaeda-aligned people, but please, I'd love to see evidence that al-Qaeda is in charge and the primary beneficiary. Personally, when I think of Obama and al-Qaeda, I think of the time soldiers located and killed Osama bin Laden at Obama's order. I think there's a radical Islamist Obama doesn't like.
 
0bama was a spectator at the bin Laden operation, at best... apparently he had to be called in from the golf course and at one point said "I can't watch this entire thing" and played cards instead.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ama-played-cards-on-day-bin-laden-was-killed/

That is if it even happened. There is no actual evidence of it released to the public. At least when Bush got Saddam's sons and later Saddam, proof was presented to the world. Apparently 0bama wanted to be respectful -- to bin Laden! They even reportedly gave him a proper islamic burial at sea. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/21/us/bin-laden-burial

It is well documented that the rebels in Libya have Al Qaeda ties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

And the Egyptian people certainly think 0bama has aided the Muslim Brotherhood, and they are none too happy about that. In case you missed it, the Egyptian media just published claims that 0bama is a MEMBER of the Muslim Brotherhood, along with this http://www.alwafd.org/الصفحة-الاخيرة/535481-أوباما-شيطان-على-فيس-بوك

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-obama-is-a-secret-muslim-brotherhood-member/

He's given them political cover, invited them to the White House, given them both aid and comfort, even though they were deemed to be a terrorist organization.

You really need proof that Al Qaeda is the PRIMARY beneficiary of 0bama's actions in the middle east?
I'd say that Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood have been the ONLY beneficiaries of 0bama's mideast policy.

The only question is whether that is because of incompetence or design.
 
Last edited:
King of Twilight: We've asked people to not post pictures like that. You can remove it now.
 
Iffy... the little bit of support he had has completely collapsed.

The video of al Qaeda "rebels" executing POWs pretty much killed any support 0bama has with everyone but John McCain, ironically enough.
 
I was being kind. There are a number of undecided votes, Obama needs to knock it out of the park if he hopes to get support for this ... which he really did not to get ... I almost wonder if he is looking for a way out, then can lay any blame on Congress. I am betting Obama wishes he could vote Present like that wimp Markey
 
From the Onion ... awesome as always
WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.

The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.

“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”

“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.

Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.

In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.

Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks, 78 percent supporting intervention in cases of kidnappings and executions, and 75 percent saying representatives should be deployed in cases where government forces were found to have used torture.

When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that sending Congress to Syria—or, at the very least, sending the major congressional leaders in both parties—is the correct course of action,” survey respondent and Iraq war veteran Maj. Gen. John Mill said, noting that his opinion was informed by four tours of duty in which he saw dozens of close friends sustain physical as well as emotional injury and post-traumatic stress. “There is a clear solution to our problems staring us right in the face here, and we need to take action.”

“Sooner rather than later, too,” Mill added. “This war isn’t going to last forever.”
 
Check this out. Interesting interview and good questions asked to Wesley Clark who gives clear and confident answers. And he tries to convince (Europe) why action is needed. He brings in the horrors of WWI and WWII (on the horror of chemical weapons). And he compares the effectiveness of the action itself with eliminating Milosevic's grip on Kosovo, which was a 78 day air-campaign, without boots on the ground. Also, in 1998 there were no-boots-on-the-ground vs Saddam Hussein.

http://nieuwsuur.nl/video/548636-het-advies-van-wesley-clark.html
You can see the whole video, or start at 6.15.
 
Come on Forostar --the Iraq War may have started in that way, but there were plenty of boots on the ground in the end. Most conflicts start with the dreamy misconceived, & frankly deluded, view that the conflict will be over quickly. This one is no exception. Also, if you take Libya (I know you didn't, but it's been mentioned) as an example of "no boots" & it being short-&-sweet --look at the mess the country is actually in right now. It's literally disappeared off the news radar, but things aren't, to say the least, going well there. The economy is in pieces, there is still plenty of fighting, & the government is incredibly fragile. Problem solved? Hardly.
 
The saddest thing is that the international community has not been able to take action for two years because Russia blocks every step in the UN security council while at the same they deliver big masses of weapons to Assad.
 
The most basic question that no one who supports this war has answered - from the president on down: so you launch some missiles... then what?

If you remove the Assad regime, who takes power? With no boots on the ground, who controls the WMDs then? Al Qaeda? Does anyone know? Has anyone thought that far ahead? Wasn't this the biggest failing of the war in Iraq, about to be played out all over again, but with more dire consequences?

But if you don't remove the regime, then what's the point?
To kill a bunch of Syrians to "teach Assad a lesson" to not kill Syrians?
How does that make us any better than Assad?
And what if the very jihadists we're empowering were actually the ones that used the chemical weapons? Seems odd the attack was exactly one year to the day that 0bama drew his "red line." Clearly a message is being sent by someone. Would Assad do it, just to invite the US to attack? How does that help him? It doesn't in the least. Then who does it help?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top