Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Fury on April 12, 2011, 05:32:42 PM
-
SYRIA: OPPOSITION, 200 PEOPLE KILLED DURING PROTESTS
(ANSAmed) - AMMAN, APRIL 12 - The main Syrian human rights movement has estimated that up to 200 people have been killed during protests that have been ongoing in Syria for less than a month, and has called on the Arab League to impose sanctions on the figures in power.
''The uprisings in Syria have produced 200 martyrs, hundreds of people injured and a similar number arrested,'' says the ''Declaration of Damascus'' group in a letter to the secretary general of the Arab League. ''We ask you to impose political, diplomatic and economic sanctions upon the Syrian regime, which continues to be the loyal guardian of the legacy of Hafez Al Assad,'' says the document, in reference to the ''iron fist'' imposed by the father of the current President, Bashar Al Assad.
http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME.XEF77113.html
So Libya, where the so-called "massacres" haven't even been documented, gets invaded while the terrorist-financing, Iranian lackey gets a free pass on their massacres. Makes sense. ::)
-
Assad is a reformer!
-
Yeah, I don't get any of this shit.
Can't we just bring everyone back home and say, if you fuck with us or our allies, I will turn your front yard into glass.
Fuck all this shit.
-
it's a "get involved with the affairs of other nations thing".
Bush loved doing it. Obama loves doing it. Clinton did it.
It's always countries that export terrorism or oil, for some reason ;)
-
SYRIA: OPPOSITION, 200 PEOPLE KILLED DURING PROTESTS
(ANSAmed) - AMMAN, APRIL 12 - The main Syrian human rights movement has estimated that up to 200 people have been killed during protests that have been ongoing in Syria for less than a month, and has called on the Arab League to impose sanctions on the figures in power.
''The uprisings in Syria have produced 200 martyrs, hundreds of people injured and a similar number arrested,'' says the ''Declaration of Damascus'' group in a letter to the secretary general of the Arab League. ''We ask you to impose political, diplomatic and economic sanctions upon the Syrian regime, which continues to be the loyal guardian of the legacy of Hafez Al Assad,'' says the document, in reference to the ''iron fist'' imposed by the father of the current President, Bashar Al Assad.
http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME.XEF77113.html
So Libya, where the so-called "massacres" haven't even been documented, gets invaded while the terrorist-financing, Iranian lackey gets a free pass on their massacres. Makes sense. ::)
What a dick you are,.,..you KNOW we can't intervene everywhere....you're being really dumb here
-
What a dick you are,.,..you KNOW we can't intervene everywhere....you're being really dumb here
That's the precedent Obama set. He invaded a country to save civilians. Civilians in Syria are dying. What makes Libya special? More civilians have been confirmed dead in Syria than there were in Libya before we decided to run in there guns-a-blazing. Are you insinuating that Obama is indeed a hypocrite?
Pelosi’s Favorite Arab Dictator Shooting Soldiers For Refusing to Fire on Protesters
(Guardian) – Syrian soldiers have been shot by security forces after refusing to fire on protesters, witnesses said, as a crackdown on anti-government demonstrations intensified.
Witnesses told al-Jazeera and the BBC that some soldiers had refused to shoot after the army moved into Banias in the wake of intense protests on Friday.
Human rights monitors named Mourad Hejjo, a conscript from Madaya village, as one of those shot by security snipers. “His family and town are saying he refused to shoot at his people,” said Wassim Tarif, a local human rights monitor.
Footage on YouTube shows an injured soldier saying he was shot in the back by security forces, while another video shows the funeral of Muhammad Awad Qunbar, who sources said was killed for refusing to fire on protesters. Signs of defections will be worrying to Syria’s regime. State media reported a different version of events, claiming nine soldiers had been killed in an ambush by an armed group in Banias.
Activists said not all soldiers reported dead or injured were shot after refusing to fire. “We are investigating reports that some people have personal weapons and used them in self-defence,” said Tarif.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/12/syrian-soldiers-shot-protest
-
That's the precedent Obama set. He invaded a country to save civilians. Civilians in Syria are dying. What makes Libya special? More civilians have been confirmed dead in Syria than there were in Libya before we decided to run in there guns-a-blazing. Are you insinuating that Obama is indeed a hypocrite?
Pelosi’s Favorite Arab Dictator Shooting Soldiers For Refusing to Fire on Protesters
(Guardian) – Syrian soldiers have been shot by security forces after refusing to fire on protesters, witnesses said, as a crackdown on anti-government demonstrations intensified.
Witnesses told al-Jazeera and the BBC that some soldiers had refused to shoot after the army moved into Banias in the wake of intense protests on Friday.
Human rights monitors named Mourad Hejjo, a conscript from Madaya village, as one of those shot by security snipers. “His family and town are saying he refused to shoot at his people,” said Wassim Tarif, a local human rights monitor.
Footage on YouTube shows an injured soldier saying he was shot in the back by security forces, while another video shows the funeral of Muhammad Awad Qunbar, who sources said was killed for refusing to fire on protesters. Signs of defections will be worrying to Syria’s regime. State media reported a different version of events, claiming nine soldiers had been killed in an ambush by an armed group in Banias.
Activists said not all soldiers reported dead or injured were shot after refusing to fire. “We are investigating reports that some people have personal weapons and used them in self-defence,” said Tarif.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/12/syrian-soldiers-shot-protest
he's not a hypocrite...you and I both know you can't always fight everybody..you have to pick and choose your battles..what the real question is why are you constantly trying to make your own president look bad???..okay you don't agree with him,..but he is still your representative in the world...I can't understand why you would constantly try to make him look bad when that just degrades our country further???
-
He is not my president. He is the object for me to defeat in 2012 at the ballot box, no matter who runs against him, madoff, vandersloot, BTK Killer, scott peterson, all included.
-
he's not a hypocrite...you and I both know you can't always fight everybody..you have to pick and choose your battles..what the real question is why are you constantly trying to make your own president look bad???..okay you don't agree with him,..but he is still your representative in the world...I can't understand why you would constantly try to make him look bad when that just degrades our country further???
Pick and choose? He said that protecting civilians in foreign countries is in our national interest. Well, the Syrian govt. has been documented massacring civilians (there was no such documentation in Libya, just hearsay) so why aren't we invading? Obama and his cronies, specifically Samantha Power and Susan Rice, are hypocrites of the highest order. Pick and choose your battles? Give me a fucking break.
And I'm not the one making him look bad. Him putting this country into a third war that has no end in sight and for no reason whatsoever is making us look bad.
-
Pick and choose? He said that protecting civilians in foreign countries is in our national interest. Well, the Syrian govt. has been documented massacring civilians (there was no such documentation in Libya, just hearsay) so why aren't we invading? Obama and his cronies, specifically Samantha Power and Susan Rice, are hypocrites of the highest order. Pick and choose your battles? Give me a fucking break.
And I'm not the one making him look bad. Him putting this country into a third war that has no end in sight and for no reason whatsoever is making us look bad.
you are contradicting yourself which I expect since you guys on here will do and say anything to make Obama look bad....you say he is an idiot for getting us into a third war yet you basically agitate for him to get us into another war with Syria and if he did you would be criticizing that...so which is it?...I am sick of you guys taking artificial positions just to position yourself to make Obama look bad....should he go into Syria or not?>..don't talk about anything else..answer that question and come down on one side of the issue...
-
you are contradicting yourself which I expect since you guys on here will do and say anything to make Obama look bad....you say he is an idiot for getting us into a third war yet you basically agitate for him to get us into another war with Syria and if he did you would be criticizing that...so which is it?...I am sick of you guys taking artificial positions just to position yourself to make Obama look bad....should he go into Syria or not?>..don't talk about anything else..answer that question and come down on one side of the issue...
Ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ! ! ! ! ! !
Are you kidding?
-
you are contradicting yourself which I expect since you guys on here will do and say anything to make Obama look bad....you say he is an idiot for getting us into a third war yet you basically agitate for him to get us into another war with Syria and if he did you would be criticizing that...so which is it?...I am sick of you guys taking artificial positions just to position yourself to make Obama look bad....should he go into Syria or not?>..don't talk about anything else..answer that question and come down on one side of the issue...
If we're invading countries that kill their own populace then why not run with? What makes Libya special? He's a hypocrite.
I can see it now. Swing down through Africa and work our way back towards Syria and Iran, then onto China and finally through South America and Venezuela on the way home. It'll be a party!
-
If we're invading countries that kill their own populace then why not run with? What makes Libya special? He's a hypocrite.
I can see it now. Swing down through Africa and work our way back towards Syria and Iran, then onto China and finally through South America and Venezuela on the way home. It'll be a party!
naturally you don't answer the question because you know you would expose yourself to your own hypocrisy...OWNED!!!!
-
Obama: "Gadaffi will be gone in a matter of days."
Ha ha ha ha ha - what a joke. FUCK YOU OBAMA SUPPORTERS.
-
naturally you don't answer the question because you know you would expose yourself to your own hypocrisy...OWNED!!!!
Andre, I say this with a heavy heart because I truly believe that you lack the cognitive ability to comprehend most of the discussions that transpire in these threads. You--- are---- an----- idiot.
To explain, I will address your latest war against logic and reason. BF's point is that Osama entered into an armed conflict in the middle east and gave "humanitarian" justifications to do so. However, if you take a look at the region as a whole, there are humanitarian reasons to go into the entire middle east and help liberate the population. Syria is a great example because they pose a legitimate threat to the United States while sponsoring terrorism. In addition they aid Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other terror groups. Right now the dictator of Syria is killing men, women and children that are peacefully protesting by the hundreds. Contrary to much of the middle east, a substantial portion of the Syrian population is moderate. Why are we fighting in Libya, a country of absolutely no strategic value to the United States when the rebels that we are assisting contain sizeable elements of Al Queda and other terror offshoots? Because of humanitarian reasons? If you are stupid enough to believe that and cant tell why BF is sarcastically asking why we dont intervene in Syria, then you should sign yourself up for electroshock therapy.
-
Andre, I say this with a heavy heart because I truly believe that you lack the cognitive ability to comprehend most of the discussions that transpire in these threads. You--- are---- an----- idiot.
To explain, I will address your latest war against logic and reason. BF's point is that Osama entered into an armed conflict in the middle east and gave "humanitarian" justifications to do so. However, if you take a look at the region as a whole, there are humanitarian reasons to go into the entire middle east and help liberate the population. Syria is a great example because they pose a legitimate threat to the United States while sponsoring terrorism. In addition they aid Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other terror groups. Right now the dictator of Syria is killing men, women and children that are peacefully protesting by the hundreds. Contrary to much of the middle east, a substantial portion of the Syrian population is moderate. Why are we fighting in Libya, a country of absolutely no strategic value to the United States when the rebels that we are assisting contain sizeable elements of Al Queda and other terror offshoots? Because of humanitarian reasons? If you are stupid enough to believe that and cant tell why BF is sarcastically asking why we dont intervene in Syria, then you should sign yourself up for electroshock therapy.
and my answer to that is that you have to choose your battles..we can't intervene everywhere all at once.....and strategically we need the Syrians to be on board with any peace deal with Israel in the future....no one gives a shit about Gaddhafi....also, Libya has oil and Syria ain't got shit..plus our allies wanted to do it.....we went along with it because they have gone along with us on things we have wanted to do in the past.....
thats the real world reasons.....they aren't perfect and they don't fit into what we want, but we gotta accept it for what it is.....hope you accept them
-
and my answer to that is that you have to choose your battles..we can't intervene everywhere all at once.....and strategically we need the Syrians to be on board with any peace deal with Israel in the future....no one gives a shit about Qaddafi....also, Libya has oil and Syria ain't got shit..plus our allies wanted to do it.....we went along with it because they have gone along with us on things we have wanted to do in the past.....
thats the real world reasons.....they aren't perfect and they don't fit into what we want, but we gotta accept it for what it is.....hope you accept them
Ok- so then you admit that Osama lied about why we are in Libya. It's just about oil correct? Also, you do realize that Europe, not the United States gets its oil from Libya right?
So essentially, we chose to pick a battle with a country that is irrelevant to American interests under false pretenses in order to help our European allies-- at least one of which pushed for the early release of a Libyan terrorist who murdered several Americans ( Great Britain+ the Lockerbie Bomber) and is under Qaddafi's protection?
Also, I don't know how much attention you pay to mid east affairs, but Syria wants Israel wiped off the map, supports Hamas+ Hezbollah and is a defacto arm of Iran. Syria is about as important to the Israeli peace process as dogshit is to perfume. Just FYI.
-
Ha ha ha ha ha ha - are you fucking kidding?
-
Ok- so then you admit that Osama lied about why we are in Libya. It's just about oil correct? Also, you do realize that Europe, not the United States gets its oil from Libya right?
So essentially, we chose to pick a battle with a country that is irrelevant to American interests under false pretenses in order to help our European allies-- at least one of which that pushed for the early release of a Libyan terrorist who murdered several Americans ( Great Britain+ the Lockerbie Bomber) and is under Qaddafi's protection?
Also, I don't know how much attention you pay to mid east affairs, but Syria wants Israel wiped off the map, supports Hamas+ Hezbollah and is a defacto arm of Iran. Syria is about as important to the Israeli peace process as dogshit is to perfume. Just FYI.
Syria and its leader, who is murdering people in the streets at this moment, is also supported by the Obama admin. as being "progressive" and a "force for change".
Your post was the end of the thread.
-
and my answer to that is that you have to choose your battles..we can't intervene everywhere all at once.....and strategically we need the Syrians to be on board with any peace deal with Israel in the future....no one gives a shit about Gaddhafi....also, Libya has oil and Syria ain't got shit..plus our allies wanted to do it.....we went along with it because they have gone along with us on things we have wanted to do in the past.....
thats the real world reasons.....they aren't perfect and they don't fit into what we want, but we gotta accept it for what it is.....hope you accept them
Yes, and they've also told us to fuck off and didn't help us when we asked. To suggest that Obama couldn't have done the same thing is to basically alledge that Obama is a mindless and stupid drone.
For once, you and I are in agreement.
-
16 nations call for kadaffi to leave now. he'll be gone soon.
-
and my answer to that is that you have to choose your battles..we can't intervene everywhere all at once.....and strategically we need the Syrians to be on board with any peace deal with Israel in the future....no one gives a shit about Gaddhafi....also, Libya has oil and Syria ain't got shit..plus our allies wanted to do it.....we went along with it because they have gone along with us on things we have wanted to do in the past.....
thats the real world reasons.....they aren't perfect and they don't fit into what we want, but we gotta accept it for what it is.....hope you accept them
so I guess youre ok with bush's decision to invade Iraq?
after all they have oil, nobody gave a fuck about sadam, our allies wanted us to...
-
Andre, I say this with a heavy heart because I truly believe that you lack the cognitive ability to comprehend most of the discussions that transpire in these threads. You--- are---- an----- idiot.
this is about the truth of it
I dont know how many of you guys have seen the thread on general that andre started but if you havent go check it out. Its titled like this one and he really does show himself to be a fucking moron.
-
Andre, I say this with a heavy heart because I truly believe that you lack the cognitive ability to comprehend most of the discussions that transpire in these threads. You--- are---- an----- idiot.
To explain, I will address your latest war against logic and reason. BF's point is that Osama entered into an armed conflict in the middle east and gave "humanitarian" justifications to do so. However, if you take a look at the region as a whole, there are humanitarian reasons to go into the entire middle east and help liberate the population. Syria is a great example because they pose a legitimate threat to the United States while sponsoring terrorism. In addition they aid Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other terror groups. Right now the dictator of Syria is killing men, women and children that are peacefully protesting by the hundreds. Contrary to much of the middle east, a substantial portion of the Syrian population is moderate. Why are we fighting in Libya, a country of absolutely no strategic value to the United States when the rebels that we are assisting contain sizeable elements of Al Queda and other terror offshoots? Because of humanitarian reasons? If you are stupid enough to believe that and cant tell why BF is sarcastically asking why we dont intervene in Syria, then you should sign yourself up for electroshock therapy.
This. Well said, GW. At least everyone else understood it. Guess you have to put things in "Hooked-on-Phonics" terms for Andre.
16 nations call for kadaffi to leave now. he'll be gone soon.
You've been saying this for a month now, Nostradamus. ::)
I like that you're bragging about 16 countries calling for him to leave. Meanwhile, the other 179 countries on the planet couldn't care less.
-
Obama "days, not weeks".
Ha ha ha ha. Fail.
-
This. Well said, GW. At least everyone else understood it. Guess you have to put things in "Hooked-on-Phonics" terms for Andre.
You've been saying this for a month now, Nostradamus. ::)
I like that you're bragging about 16 countries calling for him to leave. Meanwhile, the other 179 countries on the planet couldn't care less.
Like most of us on Getbig.
Even if you like Obama... you gotta admit this is a colossal fuck up.
-
Like most of us on Getbig.
Even if you like Obama... you gotta admit this is a colossal fuck up.
I've yet to see any of them on this board admit it was a fuck-up. The majority refuse to even address this topic and the few who have done so have thrown their weight behind their God-King.
-
I've yet to see any of them on this board admit it was a fuck-up. The majority refuse to even address this topic and the few who have done so have thrown their weight behind their God-King.
OBAMA: "DAYS NOT WEEKS, OR MONTHS, OR YEARS" HA HA HA HA HA
-
I've yet to see any of them on this board admit it was a fuck-up. The majority refuse to even address this topic and the few who have done so have thrown their weight behind their God-King.
I was willing to give him a shot, but yeah... dude has fucked up.
-
I was willing to give him a shot, but yeah... dude has fucked up.
you and hugo are pretty much the only ones who voted for him that are willing to admit he is a shit ball
-
you and hugo are pretty much the only ones who voted for him that are willing to admit he is a shit ball
I want the country to be better... It can't get better by sticking my head in the sand.
-
Ok- so then you admit that Osama lied about why we are in Libya. It's just about oil correct? Also, you do realize that Europe, not the United States gets its oil from Libya right?
So essentially, we chose to pick a battle with a country that is irrelevant to American interests under false pretenses in order to help our European allies-- at least one of which pushed for the early release of a Libyan terrorist who murdered several Americans ( Great Britain+ the Lockerbie Bomber) and is under Qaddafi's protection?
Also, I don't know how much attention you pay to mid east affairs, but Syria wants Israel wiped off the map, supports Hamas+ Hezbollah and is a defacto arm of Iran. Syria is about as important to the Israeli peace process as dogshit is to perfume. Just FYI.
Guess what???..I agree with everything you said here...and again..I reiterate...that its politics..its not all perfect how we want it to be.....I gave you the real reasons..accept it or not.....also yes Syria wants Israel off the face of the earth..I admit that...but it has always been U.S,. policy even with Republican presidents to keep a sort of hands off policy on Syria and to try and get them to come around to peace with Israel....This policy has been in place before Obama and will be in place after him.....accept it and move on....politics ain't pretty
-
Yes, and they've also told us to fuck off and didn't help us when we asked. To suggest that Obama couldn't have done the same thing is to basically alledge that Obama is a mindless and stupid drone.
For once, you and I are in agreement.
your statement is really idiotic...how can the president of the United states..the most powerful man in the world....be a drone???....you don't tell allies to fuck off..thats why you don't have any idea about world diplomacy.....your lack of education really shows here
-
so I guess youre ok with bush's decision to invade Iraq?
after all they have oil, nobody gave a fuck about sadam, our allies wanted us to...
I have always said I was a Bush supporter and that I was okay with him invading Iraq...sorry I don't fit into your idea of a leftist sympathizer
-
this is about the truth of it
I dont know how many of you guys have seen the thread on general that andre started but if you havent go check it out. Its titled like this one and he really does show himself to be a fucking moron.
I guess I am a moron because I don't stay stuck in my way of thinking like the rest of you....there is no critical thinking by you or other conservatives on this board at all
-
your statement is really idiotic...how can the president of the United states..the most powerful man in the world....be a drone???....you don't tell allies to fuck off..thats why you don't have any idea about world diplomacy.....your lack of education really shows here
Do you ever stop contradicting yourself? "You don't tell allies to fuck off?" Ha. That's exactly what Obama did with Mubarak. Good job criticizing your Messiah in an attempt to defend him.
Your lack of education really shows here. (Protip: Don't insult the intelligence of others when you use "..." as you did.)
Critical thinking. LOL! You're an Obama lemming. Plain and simple.
-
Syria and its leader, who is murdering people in the streets at this moment, is also supported by the Obama admin. as being "progressive" and a "force for change".
Your post was the end of the thread.
again its been United States policy for at least 25 years.....I don't agree with it but thats the way it is...my point is..why blame Obama for that>>>>????
-
This. Well said, GW. At least everyone else understood it. Guess you have to put things in "Hooked-on-Phonics" terms for Andre.
You've been saying this for a month now, Nostradamus. ::)
I like that you're bragging about 16 countries calling for him to leave. Meanwhile, the other 179 countries on the planet couldn't care less.
again you never answered the question I posed to you....STILL OWNED ;D
-
Do you ever stop contradicting yourself? "You don't tell allies to fuck off?" Ha. That's exactly what Obama did with Mubarak. Good job criticizing your Messiah in an attempt to defend him.
Your lack of education really shows here. (Protip: Don't insult the intelligence of others when you use "..." as you did.)
Critical thinking. LOL! You're an Obama lemming. Plain and simple.
When I said allies, I meant our NATO partners.....Mubarak was not an ally per se..he was a convenient partner...keep trying..you're still OWNED :D
-
When I said allies, I meant our NATO partners.....Mubarak was not an ally per se..he was a convenient partner...keep trying..you're still OWNED :D
Hahaha, now you're just playing word games. In essence, every ally is a "convenient partner". You're embarrassing yourself pretty badly here.
And here I was thinking you wouldn't pop back into this thread after GW so nicely laid it out for you, while also making you look like the moron you are. Guess you're a glutton for punishment.
-
Hahaha, now you're just playing word games. In essence, every ally is a "convenient partner". You're embarrassing yourself pretty badly here.
And here I was thinking you wouldn't pop back into this thread after GW so nicely laid it out for you, while also making you look like the moron you are. Guess you're a glutton for punishment.
sigh,....this thread has basically degenerated to you trying to use word games as a form of "gotcha"..if thats all you have then good for you....still waiting for a response to my question posed to you a long time ago...you won't answer because you can't....until you answer that, please stay out of the thread....STILL OWNED
-
Dozens being killed every day here. 24 reported dead in the latest protests.
Meanwhile, the Obama regime and other leftist "pro-democracy" heroes stay silent.
-
Dozens being killed every day here. 24 reported dead in the latest protests.
Meanwhile, the Obama regime and other leftist "pro-democracy" heroes stay silent.
This whole mess is going to end up very badly. The islamists are going to end up stronger, Saudi's (as bad as they are) not even a noinal ally of the US, and a stronger Iran.
The level of sheer incompetence of this Admn is beyond comprehension or description.
-
This whole mess is going to end up very badly. The islamists are going to end up stronger, Saudi's (as bad as they are) not even a noinal ally of the US, and a stronger Iran.
The level of sheer incompetence of this Admn is beyond comprehension or description.
These Syrian protesters hate Iran and Hezbollah (they've been chanting against them since these protests started), which would explain why Obama isn't helping them. :-\
-
I want the country to be better... It can't get better by sticking my head in the sand.
Foreign interventionism has been a hallmark of the USA going back at least to Truman and much further to Teddy Roosevelt. The funny thing is you see how polarised these boards are in this regard because if an alleged conservative wastes, money, resources, lives and time playing policeman of the world, it's fine, but if a 'liberal' does it, it's not. I would have thought by now that people would have been sick of the foreign policy we have, but it's just game playing, Obama does it=bad, Bush does it=fine.
-
Foreign interventionism has been a hallmark of the USA going back at least to Truman and much further to Teddy Roosevelt. The funny thing is you see how polarised these boards are in this regard because if an alleged conservative wastes, money, resources, lives and time playing policeman of the world, it's fine, but if a 'liberal' does it, it's not. I would have thought by now that people would have been sick of the foreign policy we have, but it's just game playing, Obama does it=bad, Bush does it=fine.
It is shameful to be sure... I can't stand the US foreign policy... We have no real super enemies, so we have to make them up or what have you.
I would pull my guys away from these places so bad, you'd have people going cross-eyed over it, and if someone came into my house and put their foot on my couch, I'd return them to the stone age.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldq6nosn4d1qebk4ho1_r1_400.gif)
=
(http://helian.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/nuclear-explosion.jpg)
-
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldq6nosn4d1qebk4ho1_r1_400.gif)
=
(http://helian.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/nuclear-explosion.jpg)
;D
We've got enemies. I like to call them "the UN".
-
;D
We've got enemies. I like to call them "the UN".
I also agree... That would be my first military decision.
Bye UN... You don't like it... Move your office to France.
-
It is shameful to be sure... I can't stand the US foreign policy... We have no real super enemies, so we have to make them up or what have you.
I would pull my guys away from these places so bad, you'd have people going cross-eyed over it, and if someone came into my house and put their foot on my couch, I'd return them to the stone age.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldq6nosn4d1qebk4ho1_r1_400.gif)
=
(http://helian.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/nuclear-explosion.jpg)
There is an independent historian called Gareth Porter and he has some interesting ideas about our foreign policy and militarism. Contrary to what many propose and think, his idea is that the interventionism arises from the military and the MIC being a self-contained, self-propagating entity, basically they fight wars, because that's what the military does, no grand scheme of resource war or any such thing and if you think about it makes sense.
-
There is a independent historian called Gareth Porter and he has some interesting ideas about our foreign policy and militarism. Contrary to what many propose and think, his idea is that the interventionism arises from the military and the MIC being a self-contained, self-propagating entity, basically they fight wars, because that's what the military does, no grand scheme of resource war or any such thing and if you think about it makes sense.
Like arresting people for bullshit because that's what keeps the cops / judges / and lawyers in business.
I can see that as a possible truth.
-
Like arresting people for bullshit because that's what keeps the cops / judges / and lawyers in business.
I can see that as a possible truth.
Pretty much. I think most people don't want to look at it that way because it is really depressing, basically just business as usual.
BTW, any thoughts on this year of PC games? Big year this, year, though DA2 was a big disappointment.
-
your statement is really idiotic...how can the president of the United states..the most powerful man in the world....be a drone???....you don't tell allies to fuck off..thats why you don't have any idea about world diplomacy.....your lack of education really shows here
You don't? Clueless tard. Why don't you check when Reagan hit Libya. Hint: The French wouldn't help us and the Italians actually warned them. BTW, Turkey's a part of NATO now - if you only had a fucking clue as to how much they impede us.
To say that we have to support our allies every time they want to intervene is nonsense and merely suggests that Obama is a mindless drone. Acting as though there is some imminent threat of attack on one of our allies is equally mindless.
-
Funny - when is the last time osama made a statement on libya? Last I heard from his stupid ass was "days not weeks".
Ha ha ha ha ha. What a shit show.
-
That Harvard education is really coming handy now.
-
Why Obama’s Mistakes in Syria Are Even More Damaging Than in Libya
Frontpagemagazine ^ | April 18 2011 | Moshe Phillips
There can be little doubt that the administration has made serious mistakes in Syria in regard to the protests there and Assad’s hyper violent response from day one. America’s newly appointed ambassador to Damascus arrived just weeks before the protests there erupted costing the Obama Administration much credibility and leverage.
When the Foreign Policy (FP) magazine website ran an April 14 above the fold link that read “Stop Whining About Syria and Do Something” (to the story http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/14/twisting_assads_arm) it revealed that some serious mistakes have been made by the White House.
In Libya the president’s hesitation to encourage the protesters or to pledge support to the armed rebels gave Gaddafi the opportunity to gain the upper hand in the conflict. The effect of this cannot be debated: civilians were killed by the Libyan army and the effect of the U.S. led air strikes was less in the end than it would have been had it come when Sarah Palin and others first called for it.
The Obama administration’s decision to wait until the Arab League and the U.N. gave the green light to begin air strikes against the Gaddafi regime will hurt the U.S. if any decision is made to intervene in Syria.
Obama’s outreach to Syria complicates this as well. A prime example of this was the appointment of Ambassador Robert Ford. Jim Zanotti’s “Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress” 67 page report issued by the Congressional Research Service on December 2, 2010 can be found be found on the U.S. State Department website. The report also stated “(t)he movement’s political leadership is currently headquartered in exile in Damascus, Syria.”
On December 29, just four weeks after the publication of the Congressional Research Service report, President Obama appointed Robert Ford to be the first U.S. ambassador to Syria since February 2005.
The Christian Science Monitor described the background to the appointment this way:
In June 2009, Obama announced that he was sending a new US ambassador to Damascus, but it was not until seven months later that he named Ford, a career diplomat, as the new head of mission. Even then, Ford’s departure was delayed because the Senate refused to confirm his appointment due to its opposition to returning an ambassador to Syria. Obama took advantage of the Senate recess last month to sign off on several diplomatic appointments, including Ford, allowing the new ambassador to take up his position.
The Senate had good reason to block the appointment. American mistakes in Syria can lead to disaster. Syria is much more strategically important to U.S. interests than Libya. Much more:
•Syria borders Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Israel. It is hard to imagine a more vitally positioned nation on the planet. •Syria’s national policy for decades has been to undermine the Lebanese government and exert control over Beirut. •Syria’s population is approximately 22.5 million compared to Libya’s less than 6.5 million. •Syria has substantial minorities of Kurds and Armenians that are in danger. •Syria has alliances strong with Iran and other rogue states. •Emergency martial law has basically been in effect since 1963 and an emergency law bans demonstrations. •The Syrian army has been used to slaughter thousands of civilians in the past. Scattered demonstrations began in Syria as early as on January 26, 2011 and the first “Days of Rage” protests began in Damascus on February 4 and February 5.
On March 18 hundreds of protesters were injured and at least four were killed.
These mid-March protests have been described as “unprecedented” and the demonstrations are the most serious since 1982 when tens of thousands of civilians were slaughtered in the city of Hama.
And March looked calm compared to April. There were over fifty fatalities among civilians and soldiers on April 10 alone. On April 8 reports are that close to 40 civilians were killed.
The Obama administration must not continue to let the opportunity to encourage regime change in Damascus slip through its fingers. Much of the Middle East’s future stability hinges on the streets of Syrian cities and towns. Let’s hope that Team Obama sees that before it is too late.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from NewsReal Blog: http://www.newsrealblog.com
URL to article: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/18/why-obamas-mistakes-in-syria-are-even-more-damaging-than-in-libya
-
it's a "get involved with the affairs of other nations thing".
Bush loved doing it. Obama loves doing it. Clinton did it.
It's always countries that export terrorism produce/transport gas or oil, for some reason ;)
Corrected!
-
You don't? Clueless tard. Why don't you check when Reagan hit Libya. Hint: The French wouldn't help us and the Italians actually warned them. BTW, Turkey's a part of NATO now - if you only had a fucking clue as to how much they impede us.
To say that we have to support our allies every time they want to intervene is nonsense and merely suggests that Obama is a mindless drone. Acting as though there is some imminent threat of attack on one of our allies is equally mindless.
no one said support them every time....but just because you are powerful doesn't mean that you should do whatever you want...I would like to go to the bar every night, bang any chick I want and gamble...but my wife puts a restraint on that for the betterment of our family...and thats a good thing..sometimes for the betterment of the world the United states must show some restraint..and sometimes we have to go along with the Turkeys of the world whether we like it or not
thats the real world..sorry it doesn't fit in with the fantasies in your mind
-
That Harvard education is really coming handy now.
lets see your education credentials..smart guy..whats your degree in?..Getbigtology???
-
lets see your education credentials..smart guy..whats your degree in?..Getbigtology???
I have more verifiable credentials than bama does.
-
I have more verifiable credentials than bama does.
that might be so...but you may not want stuff such as your law school grades and other stuff out there
-
that might be so...but you may not want stuff such as your law school grades and other stuff out there
I already offered you a wager on that.
-
no one said support them every time....but just because you are powerful doesn't mean that you should do whatever you want...I would like to go to the bar every night, bang any chick I want and gamble...but my wife puts a restraint on that for the betterment of our family...and thats a good thing..sometimes for the betterment of the world the United states must show some restraint..and sometimes we have to go along with the Turkeys of the world whether we like it or not
thats the real world..sorry it doesn't fit in with the fantasies in your mind
Wow, what a great 3rd grade argument.
An entire paragraph and the only thing you said is Obama had to make choice.
Well, no kidding dipshit.
The issue at hand is your claim that we have to side with NATO, when the reality is we don't. You can demonstrate little if any diplomatic or strategic gain and it took the Arabs all but a day or so to turn against us.
-
Wow, what a great 3rd grade argument.
An entire paragraph and the only thing you said is Obama had to make choice.
Well, no kidding dipshit.
The issue at hand is your claim that we have to side with NATO, when the reality is we don't. You can demonstrate little if any diplomatic or strategic gain and it took the Arabs all but a day or so to turn against us.
NATO Or North Atlantic Treaty Organization, its whole charter is about member counties coming to the aid if a memeber country is attacked. Who in NATO did Libya attack?
-
NATO Or North Atlantic Treaty Organization, its whole charter is about member counties coming to the aid if a memeber country is attacked. Who in NATO did Libya attack?
If you were keeping up with the times you would know that NATO ha changed its mission posture since getting involved in Bosnia..or did you forget about that???
-
If you were keeping up with the times you would know that NATO ha changed its mission posture since getting involved in Bosnia..or did you forget about that???
I don't give a shit, NATO is not an offensive treaty it is designed to be a deterrent, simply because Europe lacks the stones and apparently the PGM's doesn't mean the US should be involved. Typically you didn't give a damn about the poor Libyans for the last 40 years now all of the sudden we should get rid of Gadhafi.
-
Funny - when is the last time osama made a statement on libya? Last I heard from his stupid ass was "days not weeks".
Ha ha ha ha ha. What a shit show.
Weird - I don't see 100,000 posts from you bashing bush for the lives lost and year past after 'mission accomplished' in iraq.
-
Ten years ago jackass.
-
I don't give a shit, NATO is not an offensive treaty it is designed to be a deterrent, simply because Europe lacks the stones and apparently the PGM's doesn't mean the US should be involved. Typically you didn't give a damn about the poor Libyans for the last 40 years now all of the sudden we should get rid of Gadhafi.
I don't think that NATO gives a shit that you don't give a shit...instead of admitting that you were wrong and you missed that NATO had changed its doctrine to be an offensive force in terms of intervening in certain conflicts, you go on the offensive and and start saying you don't "give a shit"
Whether you give a shit or not...NATO is what NATO is..do they need to ask your permission before they engage in missions???
again..OWNED .....again you are caught not being objective and only wanting to believe what YOU want to believe...waiting for your next offensive in 4....3...2...1....
-
I don't think that NATO gives a shit that you don't give a shit...instead of admitting that you were wrong and you missed that NATO had changed its doctrine to be an offensive force in terms of intervening in certain conflicts, you go on the offensive and and start saying you don't "give a shit"
Whether you give a shit or not...NATO is what NATO is..do they need to ask your permission before they engage in missions???
again..OWNED .....again you are caught not being objective and only wanting to believe what YOU want to believe...waiting for your next offensive in 4....3...2...1....
Yeah "OWNED" ::)
Read the treaty http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm)
I don't see that it has changed since 1949, but that OK you said it changed.
The NFZ what a UN sanctioned intervention. Now that that has been established, anything further is beyond the UN sanction.
I was caught? What makes you think I care, if you think my OPINION is objective?
-
Yeah "OWNED" ::)
Read the treaty http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm)
I don't see that it has changed since 1949, but that OK you said it changed.
The NFZ what a UN sanctioned intervention. Now that that has been established, anything further is beyond the UN sanction.
I said their doctrine has changed.....their involvement in BOSNIA changed the way that NATO operates and set a precedent for being offensive in future conflicts...They fact that they are now involved in Libya offensively further illustrates that point....OWNED AGAIN......how many time do I have to keep owning your ass on here before you get the point????????????????????
-
I said their doctrine has changed.....their involvement in BOSNIA changed the way that NATO operates and set a precedent for being offensive in future conflicts...They fact that they are now involved in Libya offensively further illustrates that point....OWNED AGAIN......how many time do I have to keep owning your ass on here before you get the point????????????????????
You haven't proven or OWNED anyone, again refer to the NATO treaty.
-
You haven't proven or OWNED anyone, again refer to the NATO treaty.
what the treaty says in words and what NATO has done in deed is two different things...whether we like it or not NATO has decided to be an offensive force when necessary..the fact that they acted in Bosnia and now Libya proves as such....LOOK AT THE REALITY..NOT WHAT YOU WISH TO BE ON PAPER
-
what the treaty says in words and what NATO has done in deed is two different things...whether we like it or not NATO has decided to be an offensive force when necessary..the fact that they acted in Bosnia and now Libya proves as such....LOOK AT THE REALITY..NOT WHAT YOU WISH TO BE ON PAPER
Has nothing to do with what I "wish to be on paper" it says what it says. Trying the justify this a legitimate NATO action is completely ridiculous. The action was taken under the UN banner to enforce a NFZ, that has been established. Any further action not under the UN banner, is not in the NATO treaty, plain and simple. How many times do I have to explain that until you get it????????????
-
Has nothing to do with what I "wish to be on paper" it says what it says. Trying the justify this a legitimate NATO action is completely ridiculous. The action was taken under the UN banner to enforce a NFZ, that has been established. Any further action not under the UN banner, is not in the NATO treaty, plain and simple. How many times do I have to explain that until you get it????????????
sssigh......why do I bother???.....what I have said to you is that it does not matter really whats on paper..its what is done in the REAL WORLD that matters....and NATO has, through its recent actions, shown that it wants to be an offensive force when necessary....doesn't matter what the treaty says...
what are you going to do...sue them???
-
sssigh......why do I bother???.....what I have said to you is that it does not matter really whats on paper..its what is done in the REAL WORLD that matters....and NATO has, through its recent actions, shown that it wants to be an offensive force when necessary....doesn't matter what the treaty says...
what are you going to do...sue them???
Doesn't matter what the treaty says? Then whats the point of having one? An offensive force when under the UN banner not under the NATO banner
-
Doesn't matter what the treaty says? Then whats the point of having one? An offensive force when under the UN banner not under the NATO banner
doesn't matter if its sanctioned by the UN or not..NATO will act when it wants to..whose going to stop them???....you'll accept the wording of the NATO treaty all of a sudden despite what you see them doing in the real world yet you won't accept Obama's birth certificate...LOL
-
doesn't matter if its sanctioned by the UN or not..NATO will act when it wants to..whose going to stop them???....you'll accept the wording of the NATO treaty all of a sudden despite what you see them doing in the real world yet you won't accept Obama's birth certificate...LOL
Doesn't matter huh? Well hell the constitution is only words on paper, if the government decided to silence you or detain you in some way for no reason, you can take solace in the fact that the real world is kicking you in the balls ::)
What exactly does Obama's birth certificate have to with a treaty? You stretch any further and you are going to pull something
-
Obama admn ; "assad is a reformer".
-
22 April 2011 Last updated at 13:55 ET
Syria unrest: 'Bloodiest day' as troops fire on rallies
Protesters in Syria report 60 people killed by security forces - the highest death toll in five weeks of unrest against President Bashar al-Assad.
Demonstrators were shot when they gathered following Friday prayers, a day after the country's decades-long state of emergency was lifted.
Many deaths reportedly occurred in a village near Deraa in the south, and in a suburb of the capital, Damascus.
At least 260 people are said to have died since unrest began last month.
Protesters - said to number tens of thousands across the country - chanted for the overthrow of the regime, Reuters news agency reports.
Video images coming out of Syria show footage of many confrontations where live ammunition was used.
President Assad's lifting of the emergency had been seen as a concession to the protesters.
A still from video said to have been shot in Deraa shows a bust of Hafez al-Assad being trampled
In their first joint statement since the protests broke out, activists co-ordinating the mass demonstrations demanded the establishment of a democratic political system.
Political unrest in Syria developed after revolts elsewhere in the Arab world, which saw the downfall of the Tunisian and Egyptian presidents and an ongoing civil war in Libya.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said he was "extremely concerned" by reports of deaths and casualties across Syria and urged restraint on the country's authorities.
"Political reforms should be brought forward and implemented without delay," he said. "The Emergency Law should be lifted in practice, not just in word."
'Rain of bullets'
The state news agency Sana said only that security forces had used tear gas and water cannon "to prevent clashes between protesters and citizens and protect public property", and "some" people had been injured.
Continue reading the main story Analysis Kim Ghattas BBC News, Beirut
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The crowds across Syria are proof if any was needed that Mr Assad's concessions were belated and too symbolic.
Some protesters may have seen them as a sign of weakness and felt emboldened. They may be right on some level - the violent reaction from security forces shows the Syrian authorities are becoming increasingly nervous about the crowds.
But the persistence of the demonstrations shows the growing strength and confidence of the protest movement. There is also a newfound sense of community in Syria where people kept apart by fear for years in a police state are finding comfort and strength in numbers on the street.
This Friday's protests had been in the making for a week. Activists told me they did not expect much from Mr Assad. They also fear that if they do not keep up the pressure, they will lose momentum.
Their demands vary and not all want the removal of Mr Assad. With the protesters and the Syrian president both eager to show they are not going anywhere, the confrontation may only get bloodier.
Deaths were reported by opposition activists and witnesses in Ezra, a village near the flash-point southern town of Deraa, and the Douma suburb of Damascus, as well as the Damascus district of Barzeh, the city of Homs and other areas of the country.
In Ezra, shooting began when protesters marched to the village mayor's office, and one of the dead is said to be a boy of 11.
"Bullets started flying over our heads like heavy rain," a witness was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.
A witness in Douma told Reuters he had helped carry three people with bullet wounds to their legs.
One resident in Homs, a city of 700,000 people in the west, told the BBC she had heard shooting and believed three separate protests were under way in the city.
"The security forces are just dispersing the protesters using live bullets," said the resident, who did not wish to be named.
In Hama, a city in central Syria similar in size to Homs, security forces are said to have also opened fire on a crowd of protesters.
International news organisations are largely refused entry to Syria at the moment, limiting the scope of the information they can gather about events there.
The demands issued by the "Syrian local organising committees" include:
An end to torture, killings, arrests and violence against demonstrators
Three days of state-sanctioned mourning for deaths so far
An independent investigation into the deaths of protesters and judicial proceedings in the light of evidence revealed
Release of all political prisoners
Reform of Syria's constitution, including a two-term presidential limit
'Armed insurrection'
Before the latest violence, the government insisted it was heeding protesters' demands and President Assad was pushing through a programme of reforms.
Thursday's concessions included abolishing state security courts and allowing peaceful protests but other laws give the government wide-ranging powers to detain activists and suppress dissent.
The new law requires Syrians to seek permission from the interior ministry for demonstrations. Some lawyers have said this continues to restrict the freedom of assembly in the same way as the emergency law.
President Assad said last week there would be no more "excuse" for demonstrations once the state of emergency had been lifted.
Damascus has also accused Islamist militants, or Salafists, of waging an "armed insurrection" in Homs and Baniyas.
Overall, the unrest poses the gravest threat to President Assad's rule since he succeeded his father Hafez 11 years ago.
Are you in Syria? Send us your comments using the form below:
Send your pictures and videos to yourpics@bbc.co.uk or text them to 61124 (UK) or +44 7725 100 100 (International). If you have a large file you can upload here.
-
U.N. Can’t Even Agree to Issue Its Standard Sternly Worded Letter Over Bloodshed in Syria
(INN) — The UN Security Council failed to reach an agreement on Wednesday over a statement that would condemn the violence by security forces against demonstrators in Syria.
Diplomats told the Reuters news agency that during the discussions on the subject, the representatives of Lebanon, Russia and China said that they would oppose a decision to denounce the Syrian government’s actions.
-
U.N. Can’t Even Agree to Issue Its Standard Sternly Worded Letter Over Bloodshed in Syria
(INN) — The UN Security Council failed to reach an agreement on Wednesday over a statement that would condemn the violence by security forces against demonstrators in Syria.
Diplomats told the Reuters news agency that during the discussions on the subject, the representatives of Lebanon, Russia and China said that they would oppose a decision to denounce the Syrian government’s actions.
Is this surprising to anyone? Well, we knew what the fuck was up....some of the leg-humpers and cum guzzlers still were blinded by the light, so to speak.
Obama has no idea what he's doing, neither do his advisors and neither does anyone else around him that may have his ear. This whole thing "over there" is total cluster fuck. From beginning to end, from his week and half delay on any word about the bombings of Libya to the ham handed, foggy, vague speech he gave, to the "non-lethal" aide, to every other thing. This idiot has not shown one ounce of brains, diplomatic skill or leadership.
Actually his bumbling started with Egypt.
-
Is this surprising to anyone? Well, we knew what the fuck was up....some of the leg-humpers and cum guzzlers still were blinded by the light, so to speak.
Obama has no idea what he's doing, neither do his advisors and neither does anyone else around him that may have his ear. This whole thing "over there" is total cluster fuck. From beginning to end, from his week and half delay on any word about the bombings of Libya to the ham handed, foggy, vague speech he gave, to the "non-lethal" aide, to every other thing. This idiot has not shown one ounce of brains, diplomatic skill or leadership.
Actually his bumbling started with Egypt.
what is he supposed to do smartguy???
-
Resign.
-
Resign.
How did you become such a racist liar?
Show your records!
-
what is he supposed to do smartguy???
Not be exposed as a total clown.
-Have a clear, consistent message when it came to Egypt.
-See Assad in Jordan for what he/his father were/was and not go and call him a "reformer" thus making a fool of himself and his Admin.
-Not give a speech on Libya 9 days after operations began.
-Have a clear message on Libya. Not a "no fly zone only" to "bombing the hell out of everything" to "non lethal aide" to "we don't know who the rebels are" to "We are in charge, no wait, we aren't" to "NATO is in charge now, oh wait, no they're not we still are for a few more days" and on and on.
-Not give said speech that spoke about "preventing" human slaughters as a reason for action in Libya and then do/say nothing as as human slaughters go on in Syria, Yemen etc.
-Do nothing as, some time ago, Iran was having dissidents/protesters/young professionals march for revolution in Iran. That was the missed opportunity to affect change.
The list goes on.
-
Not be exposed as a total clown.
-Have a clear, consistent message when it came to Egypt.
-See Assad in Jordan for what he/his father were/was and not go and call him a "reformer" thus making a fool of himself and his Admin.
-Not give a speech on Libya 9 days after operations began.
-Have a clear message on Libya. Not a "no fly zone only" to "bombing the hell out of everything" to "non lethal aide" to "we don't know who the rebels are" to "We are in charge, no wait, we aren't" to "NATO is in charge now, oh wait, no they're not we still are for a few more days" and on and on.
-Not give said speech that spoke about "preventing" human slaughters as a reason for action in Libya and then do/say nothing as as human slaughters go on in Syria, Yemen etc.
-Do nothing as, some time ago, Iran was having dissidents/protesters/young professionals march for revolution in Iran. That was the missed opportunity to affect change.
The list goes on.
\
whatever...too bad..keep complaining...you're stuck with Obama...move on
-
Assad is an agent of change according to bama.
-
Assad is an agent of change according to bama.
Assad doesn't have oil, so no one cares
-
Assad doesn't have oil, so no one cares
so what???..every other country in the world acts in its own best interests..why can't we do the same???...I don't see china, Russia or Germany intervening either
-
Andre - I generally like you - but please - wake the hell up - your messiah has royally screwed this up as well.
-
Andre - I generally like you - but please - wake the hell up - your messiah has royally screwed this up as well.
in what way???...if he intervenes you guys yell..if he doesn't you guys yell....you and I both know when it comes to Obama there is no right way with you guys..at least admit it...you'd gain much credibility that way
-
Decision time for the U.S. on Assad rule April 28, 2011 01:51 AM (Last updated: April 28, 2011 10:56 AM)
By Michael Young The Daily Star
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Apr/28/Decision-time-for-the-US-on-Assad-rule.ashx#axzz1KoJyA2JT
The Obama administration’s policy toward Syria has been narrowly portrayed as vacillating between heart and mind. On the one side the United States has sought to save lives and defend humanistic values; on the other, it has endeavored to protect its interests in the Middle East.
The tension between principles and political preferences is ever present in the foreign policy of democracies, so it should come as no surprise that Washington has struggled amid proliferating Arab uprisings. However, the Obama administration’s confusion on Syria has also very much had to do with the absence of an overriding strategy. The United States has had no center of gravity when dealing with Damascus.
It was obvious weeks ago, when the Syrian protests began, that the Obama team could not avoid addressing the situation in the country, whatever the outcome. If President Bashar Assad crushed his own people, the administration would face a major human rights challenge; and if Assad and his regime buckled, then Washington would have to attend to a volatile new political reality. Either way, more was required than the reactive, timorous responses we witnessed as the situation in Syria worsened. President Barack Obama and his advisers seem as unprepared today on Syria as they were last month.
The latest twist is that Washington is considering sanctions against Syrian regime figures, even as American officials whisper that the U.S. has little leverage over Syria. The second proposition underlines how low are the administration’s expectations that the first will succeed. Sanctions are there for show, to do something when one doesn’t want to have to do more. Yet Obama has no justification to pursue that vacant path when he was provided with ample evidence that sanctions against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime failed utterly to halt a military onslaught on eastern Libya, let alone ameliorate Gadhafi’s behavior.
If fears of a possible breakdown in Syria are serious enough to warrant excessive cautiousness by the Obama administration, surely that means the country is sufficiently important to impose a U.S. approach more coherent than what we have had until now. The grim fact is that there is no Syria policy in Washington. The Assad regime’s ever higher levels of barbarity have been eliciting ever sharper administration ejaculations of outrage, and feverish consultations with this ally and that. But none of those steps has established that Obama knows what he really wants to achieve in Syria, whether he actually sees beyond the Assads, what his endgame is, let alone whether he is looking to exploit the situation to bolster America’s otherwise uneasy status in the Middle East.
As numerous commentators have pointed out, Syria is that rare place where America’s heart and mind converge. The fall of the Assad regime, if handled properly, would represent a major setback for Iran and its regional allies. Potentially, this could have a positive impact in Lebanon, Palestinian areas and Iraq. More important, it could free the Syrian people from four decades of subjugation by a single sinister family.
Understandably, no one is seriously contemplating a scheme for the U.S. and European states to mount a military campaign to protect the Syrian population. Syrians have not braved the bullets of their security services and pro-Assad crime gangs in the hope of inviting foreign armed intervention. This is one society that has appeared quite determined to free itself largely through its own agency, and peacefully. However, with Western, especially American, apathy measured in lives, Syrian protesters are entitled to wonder why their plight has been so much less pressing than those of the Egyptians and Libyans.
You can still hear Western officials and spokespersons mouthing empty words about the need for Bashar Assad to embrace reform. Have they been watching what is going on? The Syrian regime knows that it simply has no such option. If you give society a bit of breathing space, it realizes better than anyone else, most Syrians will see an opening to overthrow the entire foul edifice repressing them. What many in Syria want is an end to the institutionalized suffocation and terrorization of Assad rule. They see no point in preserving Bashar if they can get rid of Maher, his brother who has led the savage military counterattack.
Bashar Assad is no more a reformer than Moammar Gadhafi or Hosni Mubarak. And with his security forces butchering Syrians from north to south and from east to west, his legitimacy has reached an end. It’s about time that Washington accept these simple propositions and reshape its attitude toward Syria accordingly. Bashar is not about to do what Washington, deep down, pines for him to do: He won’t reform, he won’t break with Iran, he won’t engage seriously in peace negotiations with Israel, and he won’t halt his interference in Lebanon.
What Bashar will do is continue to slaughter his own population, and they will likely continue to resist. It’s as simple as that, and Obama should place the U.S. on the right side of the fight against the Assads and their maintenance in power, while also helping to ease Syria toward a smooth democratic transition. This is not about regime change in Syria; the Syrian regime has already ascertained that change is obligatory. It’s about the U.S. accepting that change is inevitable and ensuring that it can become useful for whatever occurs next.
If politics is the art of the possible, it’s also about knowing what one desires. Barack Obama has so often accepted the restrictions of what is possible that he has frequently proven unwilling to pursue what he finds desirable. The president’s wavering on Syria has been a prime illustration of this shortcoming. And yet the sordid methods of the Assads make even the most difficult decisions fairly easy to take.
Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR and author of “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon & Schuster), listed as one of the 10 notable books of 2010 by The Wall Street Journal. He tweets @BeirutCalling.
A version of this article appeared
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Apr/28/Decision-time-for-the-US-on-Assad-rule.ashx#ixzz1KqFEiwks
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)
-
so what???..every other country in the world acts in its own best interests..why can't we do the same???...I don't see china, Russia or Germany intervening either
No you don't see them doing it, because the US does the dirty work and they reap the benefits.
-
in what way???...if he intervenes you guys yell..if he doesn't you guys yell....you and I both know when it comes to Obama there is no right way with you guys..at least admit it...you'd gain much credibility that way
This is 33386's entire waking life.
-
This is 33386's entire waking life.
-
No you don't see them doing it, because the US does the dirty work and they reap the benefits.
wow!..I actually agree with you....you finally said something smart.....I knew it would happen if I waited long enough :)
-
\
whatever...too bad..keep complaining...you're stuck with Obama...move on
If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.
You're rebuttal's lack of substance doesn't reflect well on you.
-
Obama's Inconsistency Doctrine on the Arab Spring
by P.J. Crowley
April 28, 2011 | 10:38pm
International criticism is mounting and Syrian protesters are planning another day of rage after Assad regime’s brutal crackdown left hundreds dead. So why, asks former Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley, isn’t the president telling Bashar al-Assad to step down, like Muammar Gaddafi in Libya?
When President Obama authorized an intervention in Libya in March, pundits rushed to declare an Obama Doctrine.
Kathy Willens / AP Photo
But one decision does not a doctrine make, despite the popular idea that every modern president must have one. Although Obama seemed to embrace the concept of “responsibility to protect” in intervening in Libya and calling for Muammar Gaddafi to step down from power, he has not done the same in Syria. If Gaddafi must go because he is unwilling to reform and has employed extreme state-controlled violence against a population that no longer fears him, so should President Bashar al-Assad.
The responsibility to protect, or the notion that the international community has an obligation to intervene when governments threaten their people with mass atrocities, leaves undefined a specific trigger for intervention. Obama, supported by a U.N. Security Council resolution and a clear call for action by the Arab League, pointed to Gaddafi’s threat to attack Benghazi, the center of the rebellion against the Libyan dictator. So far, so good.
But the president went beyond simply justifying military action. Because of Gaddafi’s explicit threat, Obama said, the Libyan “lost legitimacy with his people” and “needs to step down from power.” While for Egypt the president publicly encouraged only a transition, Obama called for regime change in Libya. Transformation became personal.
The White House was quick to downplay the idea of a precedent. “We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent,” said Denis McDonough, the deputy national-security adviser.
Having publicly called for Gaddafi’s departure, the administration is hesitating to do the same with Assad. It shouldn’t.
So we have the Doctrine of Inconsistency, which is becoming ever clearer as the administration struggles to develop a coherent approach to events in Syria in light of our statements on and actions in Libya.
If Libya, then why not Syria?
Let’s stipulate that, in the face of truly transformational change, any government will be challenged. Whether televised or tweeted, history is unfolding in real time and policymakers—and spokesmen, of which I was one until mid-March—are constantly playing catchup with events the U.S. cannot control.
Throughout this Arab awakening, the administration’s words and actions have actually been pretty consistent. Starting with Secretary of State Clinton’s speech in Doha in January, the Obama team has urgently called on the region to embrace political, social, and economic reform. It laid down broad principles to guide change: no violence, respect for human rights and universal principles including freedom of speech and assembly, and real reform. The administration has made clear repeatedly that specific actions would vary country by country.
And in contrast to Libya, there is no viable military option in Syria. But what about the question of legitimacy? As the crackdown in Syria escalates, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish Gaddafi’s sins from those of Assad. Having publicly called for Gaddafi’s departure, the administration is hesitating to do the same with Assad. It shouldn’t.
No bright lines determine crimes against humanity; as Potter Stewart once said about obscenity, we know it when we see it. Gaddafi has killed thousands while Assad reportedly has killed hundreds—so far. But both are aggressively employing the full weight of their security forces to violently quell all political opposition.
While some regional leaders are still heeding calls for reform, potentially sooner in Yemen and later in Bahrain because of Saudi opposition, Gaddafi is not listening to anyone—and neither is Assad. For more than a decade, Assad has always chosen survival over reform. There is no indication he will make a different choice with his back against the wall.
The administration’s caution with Syria is certainly due in part to the uncertainty that what follows Assad would be better. But if that were the criteria guiding us, we would have stuck with Hosni Mubarak. Another factor is the absence of the strong regional support that crystallized around Libya. Again, if that is a precondition, the Arab Spring will end in Tripoli or Sana’a, depending on which leader holds out the longest.
And yet the political case for regime change in Syria is compelling, and far more fundamental to long-term regional interests. We want Gaddafi to go, a leader we took off the state sponsor of terrorism list. We appear prepared to tolerate a leader whose regime remains on the list—and for good reason.
While Assad has kept the border with Israel quiet, every other action he has taken, most particularly his alliances with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, undermine the overarching U.S. objective in the region: comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
If the United States is committed to promoting responsible, accountable, and representative government around the world, it cannot just do so where it is easy. It should do so where it matters. If Gaddafi has forfeited his legitimacy, then Assad is as well, and the world’s most powerful democracy should say so now, when it matters.
Philip J. (P.J.) Crowley is the 2011-2012 Omar Bradley Chair for Strategic Leadership at Dickinson College, Penn State University Dickinson School of Law and School of International Affairs, and the Army War College. He served as the assistant secretary of state for public affairs and spokesman for the State Department from May 2009 until March 2011.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
URL: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-04-28/libya-syria-crackdown-responses-reflect-obamas-inconsistency-doctrine/p/
-
If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.
You're rebuttal's lack of substance doesn't reflect well on you.
your one-note criticism of Obama does not reflect well on you either..how can EVERYTHING he does be wrong????..you have no credibility
-
your one-note criticism of Obama does not reflect well on you either..how can EVERYTHING he does be wrong????..you have no credibility
Show me what he has done that is right?
-
Show me what he has done that is right?
I have given you a list of things he has done right about 10 times already....doing so an 11th time won't make difference
-
I have given you a list of things he has done right about 10 times already....doing so an 11th time won't make difference
Jobs - NO
Oil - NO
Foreign policy - NO
SC Picks - NO
Health Care - NO
Partying - YES
Grifting - YES
Stealing - YES
Drinking and Gorging - YES
Monetary Policy - NO
-
Jobs - NO
Oil - NO
Foreign policy - NO
SC Picks - NO
Health Care - NO
Partying - YES
Grifting - YES
Stealing - YES
Drinking and Gorging - YES
Monetary Policy - NO
What's on the agenda for tonight?
Have a few beers and copy and paste anything you can get your hands on, as usual?
-
What's on the agenda for tonight?
Have a few beers and copy and paste anything you can get your hands on, as usual?
you?
have a few pink martinis and stalk 333?
-
you?
have a few pink martinis and stalk 333?
Tonight probably watch NHL game and UFC. Definitely alcohol though.
-
So Much for 'Engagement': Syrian Regime Freezes Out U.S. Envoy
CNSNews ^ | 6/13/11 | Patrick Goodenough
________________________ ________________________ ___
(CNSNews.com) – Five months after the Obama administration sent a new envoy to Damascus, Ambassador Robert Ford’s lack of access to Syrian leaders shows the limitations of Obama’s policy of seeking to engage hostile regimes.
For the past couple of weeks, attempts by Ford to meet with government officials to discuss the deepening political crisis have been blocked, according to the State Department.
“He continues to request meetings with the Syrian government, and those continue to be denied,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
________________________ ____________________-
FAIL