Syria

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

An opportunity to add 1.6 million voters to the democrat party, brilliant! Settle them in Texas, even better!,(/ corrupt democrat party advisor)

 

Hope and change!

[DC Tom]

[...]the use of a chemical weapon crosses President Barack Obama's "red line" for escalating U.S. involvement in the conflict and prompted the decision to send arms and ammunition, not just humanitarian aid and defensive non-lethal help like armored vests and night goggles.

 

According to officials, the U.S. is most likely to provide the rebel fighters with small arms, ammunition, assault rifles and a variety of anti-tank weaponry such as shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenades and other missiles.

 

As of Friday, however, no final decisions had been made on the details or when it would reach the rebels, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal administration discussions with reporters.

 

Obama has consistently said he will not put American troops in Syria, making it less likely the U.S. will provide sophisticated arms or anti-aircraft weapons that would require large-scale training. Administration officials are also worried about high-powered weapons ending up in the hands of terrorist groups. Hezbollah fighters are among those backing Assad's armed forces, and al-Qaida-linked extremists back the rebellion.

 

 

Seriously? The policy is: here's a line you don't cross...and if you cross it, we'll send light weapons that won't make a damn bit of difference in the conflict to the people who want to kill Americans, but other than that we won't do ****? That's really our foreign policy? Seriously? Somebody thought this was a good, sound idea? Assad must be quaking in his !@#$ing boots right now.

[B-Man]

Krauthammer’s Take: Obama’s Syria Response ‘Preposterous’

 

President Obama’s response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons is “preposterous,” says Charles Krauthammer.

 

“I think there is an unbelievable disconnect between the seriousness of the situation on the ground, what is happening right now,” Krauthammer said, “and the lack of seriousness in the presidential response.” The shelling of Aleppo and other large-scale military actions within Syria are increasing the devastation as we speak, he observed. “And what does the president do after the ‘red line’ is crossed? . . . He says he’s going to send small arms and bullets. This is preposterous.”

 

Responding to the State Department’s assurance that the president will “change his calculus,” Krauthammer said, “It’s not about him and his ‘calculus’; it’s about our national interest and are you going to change the course of the war? If you aren’t, you should do nothing. The only reason he’s doing this is so that he will appear to have done something and honored the red line while actually doing nothing.”

 

 

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

Seriously? The policy is: here's a line you don't cross...and if you cross it, we'll send light weapons that won't make a damn bit of difference in the conflict to the people who want to kill Americans, but other than that we won't do ****? That's really our foreign policy? Seriously? Somebody thought this was a good, sound idea? Assad must be quaking in his !@#$ing boots right now.

 

Well, it's not like he's had a lot of time to consider his options.

[Passepartout]

How is the US and Obama going to be, smuggling weapons into Syria for the rebels. They think it is going to be a piece of cake? Really Assad has people watching and seeing if and finding out about those weapons to be smuggled In. Assad is evil but not stupid.

[Rob's House]

 

 

 

Seriously? The policy is: here's a line you don't cross...and if you cross it, we'll send light weapons that won't make a damn bit of difference in the conflict to the people who want to kill Americans, but other than that we won't do ****? That's really our foreign policy? Seriously? Somebody thought this was a good, sound idea? Assad must be quaking in his !@#$ing boots right now.

You have to admit, it is change.

[OCinBuffalo]

Ah when all else fails, mention Canada.

Well, blaming Canada is funny, and, you do such a fine job of taking the blame(as a way to get attention...any...attention). So....

I blame the zionists.

Of course you do. You won't take any of the blame yourself, and you try to heap it all onto Obama, or this time: the Zionists.

Both Great Britain and the Soviet Union benefited from U.S. money and supplies, many would argue that they would not have prevailed without them.

Argue? The Lend Lease Act is fact, therefore, there is nothing to argue. We were literally shipping them tanks, machine guns, oil, food etc....and all of this started before Pearl Harbor. In fact, both countries would have easily been starved, militarily and literally, without us. In fact again, our shipping was being attacked by Nazi Uboats as a result. The notion that the Nazis didn't attack us? Preposterous.

 

The notion that FDR started WW2 because he wanted to go after the Communists, and NOT the Fascists? Or, that he didn't want to support the Communists, because in his hubris, with his ideological blinders in full effect, he didn't believe that he could not only control the Communists with his aid, but also "guide" them?

 

Um, that is called: having your plausible conspiracy theory backwards.

If not for oil and Israel, we would treat the Middle East like we do wars in Africa. It's always been about economics and politics, regardless of political party.

Right, and we didn't go into Somalia, and completely F that up, and that wasn't done by your favorite's husband.

 

Newsflash: Africa has oil, and more importantly, minerals quantities that you will only find there. So, your premise is ridiculous.

Newsflash 2: Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia are....part of Africa.

 

What Africa doesn't have....in the Non-Egypt, Libya and Tunisia parts is: a bunch of psychotics bent on acquiring nuclear weapons so that they can start a holy war, and bring about the Mahdi...who will only reveal himself once the war begins.

 

When are liberals going to start putting the meaning back into words, and/or select the words whose meaning fits the scenario?

 

Or, PastaJoe: when are you going to define Jihad as the POLITICAL movement, and not the religion, it so obviously is? When are you going to define making war, while hiding behind religious freedom, as BS? When are you going to say that Islam, the religion, is not absolved of all responsibility here, when it's proponents have done literally NOTHING to separate themselves from the political movement, and in many cases appear to be along for the ride, waiting to see how it turns out, and if they can benefit? How do you define barbarian? How do you define barbaric war of conquest? Who is the only religious figure in history...who is also a conqueror? Why aren't we allowed to define that religious figure as he is defined in the holy books of that religion? How do you distinguish conqueror from murderer?

 

Or, is it going to be more "the definition of is" from you clowns?

Are you new?

Actually, compared to the other posters in this thread? Yep.

Edited June 15, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[dayman]

I can't bring myself to catch up with this thread but generally speaking do people on this board want to do anything, including sending weapons, with regards to Syria at this moment?

[DC Tom]

I can't bring myself to catch up with this thread but generally speaking do people on this board want to do anything, including sending weapons, with regards to Syria at this moment?

 

Support Assad and wind down the "revolution". In the absence of a viable alternative the status quo with him in charge is miles better than Lebanon-style free-for-all instability with Kurdish separatism thrown in.

 

The real problem here is that Syria truly has the makings of an inescapable tar pit that this administration can't handle. There is no winning policy, just a selection of bad ones. The absolute WORST one, though, is to take mincing half-measures that accomplish exactly nothing. Act decisively or not at all.

[3rdnlng]

I can't bring myself to catch up with this thread but generally speaking do people on this board want to do anything, including sending weapons, with regards to Syria at this moment?

 

Save our money. No matter what happens over there we will be screwed. If we would have gotten involved in a substantial way from the start on the side of the rebels, we might have had a chance to help them gain a government that would be somewhat friendly towards us. Now that Al Qaeda has joined the rebels both sides are hostile towards us.

[Just Jack]

Sarah Palin on U.S. Decision on Syria: 'Let Allah Sort It Out'

 

"Militarily, where is our commander in chief? We're talking now more new interventions. I say until we know what we're doing, until we have a commander and chief who knows what he's doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren't even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, 'Allah Akbar,' I say until we have someone who knows what they're doing, I say let Allah sort it out," Palin said at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference.

[IDBillzFan]

Sarah Palin on U.S. Decision on Syria: 'Let Allah Sort It Out'

 

We could be seeing JTSP agreeing with Sarah Palin, which would be, y'know, interesting.

[dayman]

We could be seeing JTSP agreeing with Sarah Palin, which would be, y'know, interesting.

 

!@#$, I agree with Sarah Palin.

[Cinga]

Sarah Palin on U.S. Decision on Syria: 'Let Allah Sort It Out'

 

Palin for POTUS!!!

[DC Tom]

!@#$, I agree with Sarah Palin.

 

Even a blind squirrel gets the time right twice a day.

 

Or something.

[1billsfan]

Even a blind squirrel gets the time right twice a day.

 

Or something.

 

 

Sarah Palin, September 9, 2008...

 

"What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington"

[B-Man]

Obama’s increasingly muddled Syria policy

 

By Richard Cohen,

 

I have written so many columns about the Syrian civil war they are like rings on a tree stump — a way of gauging Barack Obama’s steadfast inaction and what the cost has been. In one of my first columns about that war, I called on the administration to arm the rebels and impose a no-fly zone, grounding Bashar al-Assad’s attack helicopters and his airplanes. At that point — March 27, 2012 — the war had taken the lives of 10,000 Syrians.

The figure is now at least 92,000.

The war claims about 10,000 lives a month. It has pushed more than 1.5 million refugees over Syria’s various borders. It has destabilized the Middle East. It has sucked in jihadists from all over the region. It has become increasingly sectarian in nature and extended Iranian influence. Hezbollah, an Iranian client, has entered the fray, pouring over the border from Lebanon. Poison gas (sarin) has apparently been used by government forces. The larger this crisis gets, the smaller Obama appears. He has shrunk into insignificance.

{snip}

Obama’s approach to this crisis is stunningly chaotic. First he did next to nothing as the war got out of hand. Now he’s supplying what amounts to Daisy air rifles to the outgunned rebels. He draws the line at using U.S. ground troops — rejecting a demand that has never been made — and if he issues oaths to human decency and laments the huge loss of life, it must be over dinner with the kids. I look — so far in vain — for his policy, for his principles or even for his concern, but what I get is a steely determination to do nothing. There are two tragedies here — one in Syria and one in the West Wing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-obamas-increasingly-muddled-syria-policy/2013/06/17/6be2a17e-d77b-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html?hpid=z2

[DC Tom]

It has pushed more than 1.5 million refugees over Syria’s various borders.

 

The true danger of the situation in Syria. Hezbollah and chemical weapons are a sideshow in comparison.

[B-Man]

Syria: America Sidelined :After Iraq, Obama wasted a golden opportunity to keep a presence in the region.

 

By Charles Krauthammer

 

 

The war in Syria, started by locals, is now a regional conflict, the meeting ground of two warring blocs. On one side, the radical Shiite bloc led by Iran, which overflies Iraq to supply Bashar Assad and sends Hezbollah to fight for him. Behind them lies Russia, which has stationed ships offshore, provided the regime with tons of weaponry, and essentially claimed Syria as a Russian protectorate.

 

And on the other side are the Sunni Gulf states terrified of Iranian hegemony (territorial and soon nuclear); non-Arab Turkey, now convulsed by an internal uprising; and fragile Jordan, dragged in by geography.

 

And behind them? No one. It’s the Spanish Civil War except that only one side — the fascists — showed up. The natural ally of what began as a spontaneous, secular, liberationist uprising in Syria was the United States. For two years, it did nothing.

 

President Obama’s dodge was his chemical-weapons red line. In a conflict requiring serious statecraft, Obama chose to practice forensics instead, earnestly agonizing over whether reported poison-gas attacks reached the evidentiary standards of CSI: Miami.

 

Obama talked “chain of custody,” while Iran and Russia, hardly believing their luck, reached for regional hegemony — the ayatollahs solidifying their “Shiite crescent” and Vladimir Putin seizing the opportunity to dislodge America as regional hegemon, a position the U.S. achieved four decades ago under Henry Kissinger.

 

And when finally forced to admit that his red line had been crossed — a “game changer,” Obama had gravely warned — what did he do? Promise the rebels small arms and ammunition.

 

That’s it? It’s meaningless: The rebels are already receiving small arms from the Gulf states.

 

Compounding the half-heartedness, Obama transmitted his new “calculus” through his deputy national-security adviser. Deputy, mind you. Obama gave 39 (or was it 42?) speeches on health-care reform. How many on the regional war in Syria, in which he has now involved the United States, however uselessly? Zero.

 

Serious policymaking would dictate that we either do something that will alter the course of the war, or do nothing. Instead, Obama has chosen to do just enough to give the appearance of having done something.

 

But it gets worse. Despite his commitment to steadfast inaction, Obama has been forced by events to send F-16s, Patriot missiles, and a headquarters unit of the First Armored Division (indicating preparation for a possible “larger force,” explains the Washington Post) — to Jordan. America’s most reliable Arab ally needs protection. It is threatened not just by a flood of refugees but by the rise of Iran’s radical Shiite bloc with ambitions far beyond Syria, beyond even Jordan and Lebanon, to Yemen, where, it was reported just Wednesday, Iran is arming and training separatists.

Obama has thus been forced back into the very vacuum he created — but at a distinct disadvantage. We are now scrambling to put together some kind of presence in Jordan as a defensive counterweight to the Iran-Hezbollah-Russia bloc.

 

The tragedy is that we once had a counterweight and Obama threw it away. Obama still thinks the total evacuation of Iraq is a foreign-policy triumph. In fact, his inability — unwillingness? — to negotiate a status of forces agreement that would have left behind a small but powerful residual force in Iraq is precisely what compels him today to recreate in Jordan a pale facsimile of that regional presence.

 

 

Whatever the wisdom of the Iraq War in the first place, when Obama came to office in January 2009 the war was won. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had been routed. Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite government had taken down the Sadr Shiite extremists from Basra all the way north to Baghdad. Casualties were at a wartime low, the civil war essentially over.

 

We had a golden opportunity to reap the rewards of this too-bloody war by establishing a strategic relationship with an Iraq that was still under American sway. Iraqi airspace, for example, was under U.S. control as we prepared to advise and rebuild Iraq’s nonexistent air force.

 

With our evacuation, however, Iraqi airspace today effectively belongs to Iran — over which it is flying weapons, troops, and advisers to turn the tide in Syria. The U.S. air bases, the vast military equipment, the intelligence sources available in Iraq were all abandoned. Gratis. Now we’re trying to hold the line in Jordan.

 

Obama is learning very late that, for a superpower, inaction is a form of action. You can abdicate, but you really can’t hide. History will find you. It has now found Obama.

Edited June 21, 2013 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

 

Obama has chosen to do just enough to give the appearance of having done something.

 

The Obama administration...in a nutshell.