Syria is being massacred - Where is Obama?

[BoycottTheday]

. It's time to update the definitions of these labels.

 

[Sallow]

Liberals do not have clear and consistent principles. Their warmongering is atrocious as well as their attacks on civil liberties.

Remember when Clinton was busy bombing aspirin factories while ignoring a genocide in Rwanda all while Albright declared that murdering a half of million Iraqi children was worth it regarding our sanctions?

These people have a disgusting record for standing up for basic human rights, despite their empty rhetoric.

Funny you skipped the Balkans. How many genocides does one President actually have to stop to be considered for the "basic human rights" prize?

 

[Warrior102]

'Tank assault on Syria's Hama kills at least 95' -

Dozens killed as Syria army storms Hama - Yahoo! News

Dozens killed as Syria army storms Hama

"AMMAN (Reuters) - Syrian tanks firing shells and machineguns stormed the city of Hama Sunday, killing at least 45 civilians in a move to crush demonstrations against President Bashar al-Assad's rule, residents and activists said.

Assad's forces began their assault on the city, scene of a 1982 massacre, at dawn after besieging it for nearly a month. The official state news agency said scores of were on rooftops and "shooting intensively to terrorize citizens."

But residents said tanks and snipers were shooting at unarmed residential districts, where inhabitants had set up makeshift road blocks to try and stop their advance, and that an irregular Alawite militia loyal to Assad, known as 'shabbiha' accompanied the invading forces in buses."

=============================================

Where is that prick, spineless empty-suit "president" we have? It is like 1938 all over again - we have a chance to stop a holocaust, and this awful, fake regime right here in the US remains silent while thousands are arrested, tortured, and killed. Is this how one "earns" a nobel prize - sit silently, doing NOTHING? Has obama no shame, no humanity? What kind of person, let alone leader of the free world, remain completely invisible while the tanks of the #$%$ad criminal dictatorship machine gun and shell unarmed civilians? What is he waiting for?

He'll get to it between tee times.

Please be patient.

 

[Sallow]

What?

Philip Zelikow - the executive director of the 9/11 commission - and Bush's personal friend didn't know what he was talking about?

Shirley, you jest.

.

That might be his opinion but the people that actually were architects of the Iraqi invasion had different reasons..although I don't entirely discount Israel as one of them..it was definitely low on that totem pole.

Really?

Why is it then that USAF Col. Karen Kwiatkowski shares Zelikow's opinion that the protection of Israel was the primary reason.

The new Pentagon papers - Salon.com

.

Yeah really.

I could link you to the PNAC Doctrine and point out that the authors of that document populated the Bush administration..but do I really have too?

And you might want to point out what advantage was there to be had by Israel in knocking over Iraq?

They don't share any borders.
They weren't openly hostile to each other until the invasion.
The middle east became much more unstable after the invasion.

It just makes very little sense.

 

[Antiderivative]

Warrior showed up--the pussy ass war hero who complained about me negging after he negged me.

 

[Contumacious]

That might be his opinion but the people that actually were architects of the Iraqi invasion had different reasons..although I don't entirely discount Israel as one of them..it was definitely low on that totem pole.

Really?

Why is it then that USAF Col. Karen Kwiatkowski shares Zelikow's opinion that the protection of Israel was the primary reason.

The new Pentagon papers - Salon.com

.

Yeah really.

I could link you to the PNAC Doctrine and point out that the authors of that document populated the Bush administration..but do I really have too?

And you might want to point out what advantage was there to be had by Israel in knocking over Iraq?
.

the strategic doctrine at the heart of U.S. Middle Eastern policy: the installation of Israel as regional hegemon.

This doctrine was prefigured in a 1996 paper prepared for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a working group consisting of several individuals who are now in top spots in the Bush administration. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" recommended that Israel set itself free from its embarrassing and debilitating dependence on U.S. military and diplomatic support: no matter how unconditional, this support constrained Israel and prevented it from pursuing its true interests. The paper, co-authored by Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, portrayed Syria as the main enemy of Israel, but maintained the road to Damascus had to first pass through Baghdad:

Israel Is the Problem, by Justin Raimondo

.

 

[BDBoop]

You screamed at him for not going into Libya.

A week later, you screamed at him for going into Libya.

Morons.

If he went into Syria, they would scream as well - and rightfully so. As it turns out, we cannot save the whole world.

 

[Sallow]

Really?

Why is it then that USAF Col. Karen Kwiatkowski shares Zelikow's opinion that the protection of Israel was the primary reason.

The new Pentagon papers - Salon.com

.

Yeah really.

I could link you to the PNAC Doctrine and point out that the authors of that document populated the Bush administration..but do I really have too?

And you might want to point out what advantage was there to be had by Israel in knocking over Iraq?
.

the strategic doctrine at the heart of U.S. Middle Eastern policy: the installation of Israel as regional hegemon.

This doctrine was prefigured in a 1996 paper prepared for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a working group consisting of several individuals who are now in top spots in the Bush administration. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" recommended that Israel set itself free from its embarrassing and debilitating dependence on U.S. military and diplomatic support: no matter how unconditional, this support constrained Israel and prevented it from pursuing its true interests. The paper, co-authored by Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, portrayed Syria as the main enemy of Israel, but maintained the road to Damascus had to first pass through Baghdad:

Israel Is the Problem, by Justin Raimondo

.

And?

Almost a decade after the knocking over of Iraq. What happened?

Seriously this was a paper specifically written to the leaders of Israel as a blueprint for getting off the US teet in terms of the Israel military.

It was not the top priority of the Bush administration in regards to the middle east.

 

[Antiderivative]

Israel Is the Problem, by Justin Raimondo

.

Modern day liberals despise Justin Raimonodo. In fact, I got banned fro DU for posting anti-war links.

That was a big no-no around there.

 

[shintao]

I's not our problem. No More American Soldiers should EVAH die for the shitholes in the ME. It's not worth it.

Ahh, 4,000+ dead troops, thousands limbless & faceless, paralyzed, mental cases, and trillions in debt after years of ahhh "Terrorist wars," and you are finally coming around to "It's not worth it."

Did god tell you to say that?

 

[CitizenPained]

I agree. I wish Obama would just be honest about his 'moral imperative' in Libya.

No easy answers for U.S. involvement in Libya, Syria - USATODAY.com

But the Republicans won't call him out on this, either, since they're (mostly) supportive of Libya.

Since Europe isn't telling Obama what to do right now...he's just licking his finger and seeing which way the wind blows.

 

[Trajan]

Except of course..that's not true.

What?

Philip Zelikow - the executive director of the 9/11 commission - and Bush's personal friend didn't know what he was talking about?

Shirley, you jest.

.

That might be his opinion but the people that actually were architects of the Iraqi invasion had different reasons..although I don't entirely discount Israel as one of them..it was definitely low on that totem pole.

The first reason was PNAC doctrine. Which is to change the world wide dynamic to favor the United States...unilaterially. And in the middle east, Iraq, was very important to that doctrine. The idea being, to starve off oil flow to China and Russia.

The second reason was personal (And perhaps more important then the first). Saddam Hussien was reportly behind an assassination attempt on George W. Bush's father, George HW Bush.

Overall, the invasion was actually bad for Israel.

to starve Russia of oil? what loony tunes rag did you read that in?

 

[CitizenPained]

We don't go into Syria because it's propped up by Iran, which is actually a real threat.

 

[CitizenPained]

The people are talking.

We're probably funding opposition groups. Maybe that's all we can do for now.

 

[Contumacious]

Yeah really.

I could link you to the PNAC Doctrine and point out that the authors of that document populated the Bush administration..but do I really have too?

And you might want to point out what advantage was there to be had by Israel in knocking over Iraq?
.

the strategic doctrine at the heart of U.S. Middle Eastern policy: the installation of Israel as regional hegemon.

This doctrine was prefigured in a 1996 paper prepared for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a working group consisting of several individuals who are now in top spots in the Bush administration. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" recommended that Israel set itself free from its embarrassing and debilitating dependence on U.S. military and diplomatic support: no matter how unconditional, this support constrained Israel and prevented it from pursuing its true interests. The paper, co-authored by Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, portrayed Syria as the main enemy of Israel, but maintained the road to Damascus had to first pass through Baghdad:

Israel Is the Problem, by Justin Raimondo

.

It was not the top priority of the Bush administration in regards to the middle east.

Really?

This Letter was written by the Bushites 3 years before 09/11 and the letter was signed primarily by zionists.

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

.


.

 

[Contumacious]

We don't go into Syria because it's propped up by Iran, which is actually a real threat.

Really?

What is the name of the last country invaded by Iran?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[cutter]

Who cares if the syrans or the lybans, iraques, iranians afgans any of them kill themselves. Bring our boys home and let them have at it. They don't like us any more than I like them. When they kill each other down to the last one the world will be a better place.

 

[Gadawg73]

Syria is being massacred - Where is Obama?

The Palestinians are being slaughtered and treated as foreignerrs in their own land. But zionist motherfuckeers want the US to invade Syria for them.

ISRAEL IS THE PROBLEM

The Iraq war, as we are beginning to discover, had nothing to do with "weapons of mass destruction," zero to do with Al Qaeda, and zilch to do with implanting "democracy" in the inhospitable soil of Iraq. The first phase of the second Yom Kippur War is revealing, in action, the strategic doctrine at the heart of U.S. Middle Eastern policy: the installation of Israel as regional hegemon.

This doctrine was prefigured in a 1996 paper prepared for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a working group consisting of several individuals who are now in top spots in the Bush administration. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" recommended that Israel set itself free from its embarrassing and debilitating dependence on U.S. military and diplomatic support: no matter how unconditional, this support constrained Israel and prevented it from pursuing its true interests. The paper, co-authored by Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, portrayed Syria as the main enemy of Israel, but maintained the road to Damascus had to first pass through Baghdad:

Israel Is the Problem, by Justin Raimondo

.

Are you that stupid?
Arabs and Persians alike HATE AND DESPISE PALESTINIANS.
They are the ******* of the middle east.
Where are the Arabs and Iranians to give them a leg up on anything OTHER THAN to bomb Isreal.

 

[Gadawg73]

We don't go into Syria because it's propped up by Iran, which is actually a real threat.

Really?

What is the name of the last country invaded by Iran?!?!?!?!?

.

Iraq.

 

[Sallow]

What?

Philip Zelikow - the executive director of the 9/11 commission - and Bush's personal friend didn't know what he was talking about?

Shirley, you jest.

.

That might be his opinion but the people that actually were architects of the Iraqi invasion had different reasons..although I don't entirely discount Israel as one of them..it was definitely low on that totem pole.

The first reason was PNAC doctrine. Which is to change the world wide dynamic to favor the United States...unilaterially. And in the middle east, Iraq, was very important to that doctrine. The idea being, to starve off oil flow to China and Russia.

The second reason was personal (And perhaps more important then the first). Saddam Hussien was reportly behind an assassination attempt on George W. Bush's father, George HW Bush.

Overall, the invasion was actually bad for Israel.

to starve Russia of oil? what loony tunes rag did you read that in?

Here.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf