Rand Paul Praises Assad

[Hoffstra]

there is no good guy in this conflict.

 

[R.C. Christian]

there is no good guy in this conflict.

Roger that.

 

[ba1614]

there is no good guy in this conflict.

Exactly why we should be sitting it out

 

[Hoffstra]

there is no good guy in this conflict.

Roger that.

sorry about the neg. rep. i gave you.

my mistake.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There were Republicans in the House and Senate who were doing that very thing before WWII....praising how Hitler was running Germany.

How about the love FDR had for "Uncle" Joe Stalin and "Chairman" Mao

 

[tinydancer]

How many Italian players can Manchester United hire before it effectively becomes an Italian team?

al Nusra is the strongest, most ruthless team in the game for power in Syria. AQ doesn't hire "players".

It's join or lose your head AND in some cases your heart. Literally your heart.

AQ will when it's all said and done steam roll any other rebel group out of existence. And the Administration knows this and still prefers to remove Assad knowing full well they are giving Syria and Syrians over to AQ.

Bush claimed that al Qaeda was in Iraq. Yet he still went ahead and removed Saddam.

Why?

Bush never claimed they were in Iraq. Only that there had been multiple contacts between Hussein's regime and AQ.

And that was verified.

You are talking apples and oranges.

Obama created a vacuum by removing Mubarak and giving Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood.

FACT.

Now Obama is actively trying to remove Assad from power. And he will be giving Syria to Al Nusra the AQ arm of Syria.

Come on just admit it. He loves loves loves radical Islam.

There is no denying it. He's in negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan as we speak.

 

[Ernie S.]

Assad, while definitely a bastard for using sarin, is, for the most part, head of a secular government.

Let's look at obama's record for meddling in Mid East affairs.
Egypt:
Hosni Mubarak was President of Egypt for what? 30 years? Certainly not what I would want for human rights, but his government was stable and secular. Along with Saudi Arabia, the most rational Arab country in the region.
Libya:
Muammar Gaddafi led Libya for 42 years. While another bastard, his government was stable and he wasn't trying to expand his reach beyond Libya.
He did try his hand at terrorism, but Ronald Reagan convinced him it was not in his best interests. Since the mid 90's, he had been improving relations with the west and improving his human rights stance.
But Muammar Gaddafi had to go too. Arab Spring had to continue. Tell me! Are Libyans better off under a secular dictator or a radical Muslim dictator.

I have no love for Assad, but if we take him out, what do you suppose we end up with?
Saudi Arabia would be next. 2, maybe 3 years and the whole region with the exception of Israel will be radical Muslim terrorist states.

We can't remove leaders without considering the repercussions of leaving a vacuum.

 

[Hoffstra]

unless we are 100% convinced that the FSA can win and will install a secular & free democracy, we shouldn't be supporting them.

 

[tinydancer]

I wonder how relatives of the fallen in Afghanistan and the wounded vets from Afghanistan's battle grounds feel about Obama's embrace of their enemy.

Obama welcomes Taliban’s return to reconciliation talks, U.S. negotiations

Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News June 18, 2013

President Barack Obama warmly welcomed the announcement on Tuesday of fresh reconciliation talks between Afghanistan's government and the Taliban, as well as plans to launch a new round of direct negotiations between the insurgent force and the United States.

U.S. officials said one of the likely items on the U.S.-Taliban agenda would be the return of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, held captive by the Taliban-allied Haqqani network since 2009.

"This is an important first step toward reconciliation," Obama told reporters after a meeting with French President François Hollande on the sidelines of the G-8 summit of rich countries. "It's a very early step—we anticipate there will be a lot of bumps in the road—but the fact that the parties have an opportunity to talk and discuss Afghanistan's future I think is very important."

Opinion News Headlines - Yahoo! News

 

[Contumacious]

Assad, while definitely a bastard for using sarin, is,

I have no idea whether or not Assad used sarin Gas, extremely doubt it.

I DO know that Clinton used CS gas on the Davidians. Why hasn't him been penalized?!?!?!?!

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think Rand Paul is jealous of Assad for actually becoming an accredited eye doctor, not a failed one who had to start his own accreditation board in order to pass.

Or it could be some sort of cult of ophthalmology at work here...we protect our own...

 

[S.J.]

Assad, while definitely a bastard for using sarin, is, for the most part, head of a secular government.

Let's look at obama's record for meddling in Mid East affairs.
Egypt:
Hosni Mubarak was President of Egypt for what? 30 years? Certainly not what I would want for human rights, but his government was stable and secular. Along with Saudi Arabia, the most rational Arab country in the region.
Libya:
Muammar Gaddafi led Libya for 42 years. While another bastard, his government was stable and he wasn't trying to expand his reach beyond Libya.
He did try his hand at terrorism, but Ronald Reagan convinced him it was not in his best interests. Since the mid 90's, he had been improving relations with the west and improving his human rights stance.
But Muammar Gaddafi had to go too. Arab Spring had to continue. Tell me! Are Libyans better off under a secular dictator or a radical Muslim dictator.

I have no love for Assad, but if we take him out, what do you suppose we end up with?
Saudi Arabia would be next. 2, maybe 3 years and the whole region with the exception of Israel will be radical Muslim terrorist states.

We can't remove leaders without considering the repercussions of leaving a vacuum.

Agreed. Look what happened in Iran after the Shah was deposed. A monster took over and the executions began. They're still going on.

 

[Ernie S.]

We have a piss poor record of nation building all the way back to Castro. I can't remember a single success since the end of WW II.

 

[Synthaholic]

al Nusra is the strongest, most ruthless team in the game for power in Syria. AQ doesn't hire "players".

It's join or lose your head AND in some cases your heart. Literally your heart.

AQ will when it's all said and done steam roll any other rebel group out of existence. And the Administration knows this and still prefers to remove Assad knowing full well they are giving Syria and Syrians over to AQ.

Bush claimed that al Qaeda was in Iraq. Yet he still went ahead and removed Saddam.

Why?

Bush never claimed they were in Iraq. Only that there had been multiple contacts between Hussein's regime and AQ.

And that was verified.

You are talking apples and oranges.

Obama created a vacuum by removing Mubarak and giving Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood.

FACT.

Time to back that bullshit up, TD.

I'll wait . . .

 

[Synthaholic]

Assad, while definitely a bastard for using sarin, is, for the most part, head of a secular government.

Let's look at obama's record for meddling in Mid East affairs.
Egypt:
Hosni Mubarak was President of Egypt for what? 30 years? Certainly not what I would want for human rights, but his government was stable and secular. Along with Saudi Arabia, the most rational Arab country in the region.
Libya:
Muammar Gaddafi led Libya for 42 years. While another bastard, his government was stable and he wasn't trying to expand his reach beyond Libya.
He did try his hand at terrorism, but Ronald Reagan convinced him it was not in his best interests. Since the mid 90's, he had been improving relations with the west and improving his human rights stance.
But Muammar Gaddafi had to go too. Arab Spring had to continue. Tell me! Are Libyans better off under a secular dictator or a radical Muslim dictator.

I have no love for Assad, but if we take him out, what do you suppose we end up with?
Saudi Arabia would be next. 2, maybe 3 years and the whole region with the exception of Israel will be radical Muslim terrorist states.

We can't remove leaders without considering the repercussions of leaving a vacuum.

Obama didn't remove Mubarek.

 

[blackhawk]

Opinion: Syria rebel group's dangerous tie to al Qaeda - CNN.com
Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda

Nothing of which proves that the removal of assad will lead to a jihadist regime. A few thousand al qaeda/jihadists, some of which hate each other, out of an FSA of 150,000 men, is not really a concern - unless you are a sucker for assad's propaganda claiming he is "fighting terrorists," which is truly fucking hilarious.

Look at the history of the middle east you have two types of regimes that survive there radical Islamist and military strongmen you do have some exceptions but for the most part it's these two. Look at Egypt military strongman overthrown in Mubarak radical Morsi and Muslim brotherhood comes in they are overthrown military back in charge in Syria you have the strongman Assad if he falls history is one the side of Syria becoming a jihadist regime or a failed state which is basically the same thing as jihadist thrive in those. Not understanding the history there is the mistake we keep making over and over Bush made it with Iraq and more than a few seem determined to do so again with Syria.

 

[Contumacious]

Look at the history of the middle east you have two types of regimes that survive there radical Islamist a

Yo Vern, why are radicalized muslims a problem but radicalized zionists are not?

.

 

[Clementine]

I guess it's difficult to choose the lesser of two evils in this matter. It's easy to criticize anyone who would, in any way, defend one side or the other.

Words don't really matter, as in Paul's case. Actions against either side will make a difference and Obama has to choose between al Qaeda and the infidels.

Assad is much like Mubarak. Both evil, though a tad less evil than the organized terrorists, like Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. People will die under any of the evil dictators. The MB and al Qaeda want to kill all infidels, which include Jews and Christians.

Paul defended the ones who will kill less people and he wasn't really defending them, just noting that they are slightly less evil, if a body count is any indication.

Obama would endanger our troops to support al Qaeda, who will kill more of us infidels if given the chance. That is far worse in the long run, at least for us.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Synthabrain once again displays his ignorance - this time of history and the current geo-political-national security situation.

Some of the insurgents opposing Assad are Al Quaeda operatives. Does he really think American interests would be served by supporting AQ taking over Syria?

(h/t to eots - great minds think alike)

What a minute: some of the insurgents opposing Saddam were al Qaeda operatives.

Did you really think American interests would be served by Bush supporting AQ taking over Iraq?

Considering how badly we want to kill Al Qaeda, did you ever stop to think that AQ is purposely forming a homogenous organization and growing as large as possible throughout the Middle East, but with the tacit intent to fight us tooth-and-nail, when they feel they have become large enough?

 

[Papageorgio]

There were Republicans in the House and Senate who were doing that very thing before WWII....praising how Hitler was running Germany.

Hmmm....Like this?

How JFK secretly ADMIRED Hitler: Explosive book reveals former President's praise for the Nazis as he travelled through Germany before Second World War | Mail Online