This may be something going on in Syria we didn't want to know.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Since the Syrian gassing of their own population happened some time back, it made me think

that all this stuff in DC is purely political in nature. Rush talked about this on today's show and

posted this link, and at the same time warning that this could be mere speculation, but is very

plausible.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542

 

Why wasn't there a unilateral strike immediately, unless there is more to it? Could Obama be doing

the bidding of Al Qaeda? I've been maintaining for a long time that he has, but never had anything

substantive to back it up, except his actions.

 

If you recall what is going on in DC, Congress is going to have a vote about the US performing

some kind of strike on Syria. Some on both sides are for it. Boehner came out in favor of it, along

with McCain and several others. There are many on both sides who oppose it, also. Why so long

after the incident? What could it do, except aid and comfort an enemy. Assad is a dictator, but

the opposition is Al Qaeda. Could it have been orchestrated to cause a continuation of the Arab

Spring and replace one more leader? Sure, it could have. Does it smell like a conspiracy? If you

want the answer to that question, you have to understand that anything political is by definition

a conspiracy.

[TMF]

I think it's a conspiracy to make Obama not look weak and stupid. They failed.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's an assumption I made years ago. :D You can't prop up stupid, but only so long.

 

A good movie that showed that was "Being There". Ever watch it? Hilarious, and shows how dumb

dumb can get.

Edited September 3, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[MacGyver]

As was put forth by an Arab ambassador last week, "There has to be some additional motivation for the Obama administration to act now.  I mean, excuse me, but where the f*** was your outrage over the last year as more than 100,000 people were killed?  Why the outrage now over an additional 1,000?  He must have some other strategic objective."

[TMF]

[quote name="MacGyver" post="1026338" timestamp="1378234804"] As was put forth by an Arab ambassador last week, "There has to be some additional motivation for the Obama administration to act now. I mean, excuse me, but where the f*** was your outrage over the last year as more than 100,000 people were killed? Why the outrage now over an additional 1,000? He must have some other strategic objective."[/quote] I would like to believe so because if there was a massive conspiracy going on here I might actually respect him more. The real reason he's doing this is much more sickening; his ego. He can't let go of his "red line" threat. He has to do something to save face. If he hadn't had made that comment prior to the gas attack he'd probably not be pushing for a strike. He's trying to make it look like he means what he says. He'll go so far as to drag us into a conflict just because he doesn't want to look bad. Can you think of a more shallow reason to start a war? Hell, if this was about money or oil at least I could understand that. Edited September 3, 2013 by TMF

[Oh Shoot]

Assad is a dictator, but the opposition is Al Qaeda. .. 

 

From what I can gather, that's a huge oversimplification ... the so far "organized" opposition is about 5 groups, only one of which is US "sanctioned", the Syrian National Council. Two of them are indeed at least partially Al Qaeda supported. There are also lots of groups that seems to just be almost like large neighborhood gangs here, with no particular allegiance or funding from anybody.

 

More than one analyst I've heard has posited that this very fragmentation of opposition is significant reason Assad has been able to keep power so far.

 

Little doubt if Assad regime finally bites it, Saudi and Iranian money will compete to determine the successor. Which, by proxy will probably be US and Russian funds too.

 

- OS

Edited September 3, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[TMF]

More than one analyst I've heard has posited that this very fragmentation of opposition is significant reason Assad has been able to keep power so far.

- OS

That is a very accurate assessment. The emotional spectrum of Arab culture does not allow them to rationalize alliances for the advancement of a cause. The reason is because it requires compromising small bits of their agenda in order to meet their goals, such as the removal of Assad. Arabs aren't capable of compromise. It's their way or Allah snackbar. This is why I believe this will go on for the next decade or more.

On the bright side, there is an over abundance of single Syrian ladies flooding southern Turkey and N. Jordan. Ya just got to house break them and you're GTG.

[mikegideon]

That is a very accurate assessment. The emotional spectrum of Arab culture does not allow them to rationalize alliances for the advancement of a cause. The reason is because it requires compromising small bits of their agenda in order to meet their goals, such as the removal of Assad. Arabs aren't capable of compromise. It's their way or Allah snackbar. This is why I believe this will go on for the next decade or more.
 

 

Ah... they're Republicans :)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

As was put forth by an Arab ambassador last week, "There has to be some additional motivation for the Obama administration to act now.  I mean, excuse me, but where the f*** was your outrage over the last year as more than 100,000 people were killed?  Why the outrage now over an additional 1,000?  He must have some other strategic objective."

And I think that article did a fair job of laying out part of that motivation. The rest, being a mixing and a blur of foreign and

domestic policy, being possibly a diversion from his domestic problems, his foreign policy is nothing but wreckless.

 

I would like to believe so because if there was a massive conspiracy going on here I might actually respect him more. The real reason he's doing this is much more sickening; his ego. He can't let go of his "red line" threat. He has to do something to save face. If he hadn't had made that comment prior to the gas attack he'd probably not be pushing for a strike. He's trying to make it look like he means what he says. He'll go so far as to drag us into a conflict just because he doesn't want to look bad. Can you think of a more shallow reason to start a war? Hell, if this was about money or oil at least I could understand that.

His ego has been his worst problem,all along. When I mentioned that word "conspiracy", I meant the puppet masters like Valerie

Jarrett and the Soros types. Obama's ideology is also rearing its head with all this for all of those reasons, I think. The "red meat"

gaffe stirred the pot in his own political party to the point that he decided to "consult" and get Congress' blessing, since he painted

himself into a corner with it.

 

From what I can gather, that's a huge oversimplification ... the so far "organized" opposition is about 5 groups, only one of which is US "sanctioned", the Syrian National Council. Two of them are indeed at least partially Al Qaeda supported. There are also lots of groups that seems to just be almost like large neighborhood gangs here, with no particular allegiance or funding from anybody.

 

More than one analyst I've heard has posited that this very fragmentation of opposition is significant reason Assad has been able to keep power so far.

 

Little doubt if Assad regime finally bites it, Saudi and Iranian money will compete to determine the successor. Which, by proxy will probably be US and Russian funds too.

 

- OS

It is an oversimplification. I don't see how separating them up and picking an ally out of the bunch is possible, though. What is

the motivation? To overthrow a dictator, to establish Sharia Law with another "dictator", to nation-build? That's something the

Russkies don't want us in the middle of, and I agree, if that's the case.

 

That is a very accurate assessment. The emotional spectrum of Arab culture does not allow them to rationalize alliances for the advancement of a cause. The reason is because it requires compromising small bits of their agenda in order to meet their goals, such as the removal of Assad. Arabs aren't capable of compromise. It's their way or Allah snackbar. This is why I believe this will go on for the next decade or more.

On the bright side, there is an over abundance of single Syrian ladies flooding southern Turkey and N. Jordan. Ya just got to house break them and you're GTG.

Maybe that's the best reason for us to have no policy, or have a policy of non-intervention in the region. After all, we've been spilling

too much blood in the region for over a decade, with what some would say marginal results.

 

I just think if we do intervene, all it will do is get people killed in Israel, on top of the Syrian deaths, and Assad will be replaced by

what? More of the same, and more money spent on politics in the region, which is none of our business. If it was up to me, the

only reason I would commit our military might would be if Israel asked. Nothing else.

[E4 No More]

I think when our enemies are fighting each other we should stay the $#%&^ out of it!

[safeandsecure]

I am certainly no expert -- I usually stay out of any "political" or military debates -- political, because I don't have much use for ANY career politician, of any party, and military, because I HOPE someone knows more than I do about military deployment/capabilities/etc.

 

But ... it seems to me that, no matter what we or anyone else in the world might do, very little of anything positive can come out of a military action in the Middle East.  Those folks have been killing each other over there for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.  Don't know what anyone can do to stop or even curtail it.

 

Personal thoughts are, if they are intent on killing each other, they can go ahead.

 

But then, what do I know? Always heard that the enemy of my enemy was my friend.  Don't know how this applies when BOTH parties seem to be our enemies.  Also, always heard "better the devil you know than the one you don't know."  Again, personal thoughts are, better to not have any dealings with ANY devils.

 

'Course, I'm just an old ignorant hillbilly.

[johnboy]

Maybe its to make the "phony scandals" go away for a little while?

[DaveTN]

I thought Obama didn’t want any wars and that he told American Mothers everywhere that if he was elected he was going to bring their sons and daughters home. Or did I dream that?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Maybe its to make the "phony scandals" go away for a little while?

That, and it's an escalation no one needs, especially us. If he was truly just being stupid, without having a teleprompter,

saying that "red line" remark, he is making himself into a more complete fool than he is. I think he is setting up another way

for Al Qaeda to score another country, while risking Armageddon showing his vanity.

[Randall53]

I thought Obama didn’t want any wars and that he told American Mothers everywhere that if he was elected he was going to bring their sons and daughters home. Or did I dream that?

 

I remember that......strange though. Took my son to the airport yesterday for his second deployment.  He was home only 5 months from the last one.

[RED333]

POTUS is a muslin!!!

He will do anything he can to help them get a foot hold anywhere, remember Egypt!

It is his way to keep them off his back, to keep them from letting go

the crap in our country. He has to help them, PERIOD!

Bet my last dollar an attack will happen in this country, marshal law will fallow.

The UN will be asked to help ,

WHAT WILL YOU SAY WHEN THE UN KNOCKS ON YOUR DOOR?

I will tell them to go away, I dont need their help!

[kieefer]

I think when our enemies are fighting each other we should stay the $#%&^ out of it!

 

That's my thoughts exactly.

 

"Colossal failure" is a good description. This article states 1300 were killed. I read a piece out of the UK that was confirmed by Syrian human rights activists that there were less than 400...? WTF

 

Off topic but isn't our country broke? Are we just going to print some more funny money to pay for this attack like we have been and never address the debt? Appears so, at least with this administration. Keep in mind too of all the cuts the king has done to our military. 

 

Maybe its another diversion away from the numerous scandals and all the other colossal F-U's our own dictator has gotten us into? 

Heck with it.

I've gone full blown libertarian on this issue, GTFO, bring our troops home, worry about our own borders and the hell with the ME.

 

Palin said is best, let Allah sort it out.

 

 

Oh yea I forgot, how's Iran doing with their nuclear program?  :snore:

 

 

 

. :waiting:

Edited September 4, 2013 by kieefer

[Guest 6.8 AR]

POTUS is a muslin!!!

He will do anything he can to help them get a foot hold anywhere, remember Egypt!

It is his way to keep them off his back, to keep them from letting go

the crap in our country. He has to help them, PERIOD!

Bet my last dollar an attack will happen in this country, marshal law will fallow.

The UN will be asked to help ,

WHAT WILL YOU SAY WHEN THE UN KNOCKS ON YOUR DOOR?

I will tell them to go away, I dont need their help!

Rush had a caller, someone with that kind of accent, say that very thing today, on his show.

[bersaguy]

6.8AR, you ask why there was not a unilateral strike immediately? When was the last time you saw an immediate response from our military ordered by either the President or the Congress? Go back through the last several times our military was called into action and see if there were any immediate actions taken. There are only long term reactions. Going all the way back to Desert Storm. There was not an immediate action about the invasion of Kuwait by Saddem Hussein. There was almost a 3 month delay before we and other nations acted. After 9/11 the immediate action, none.

The reaction 5 to 6 months in the making to invade Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. Then Iraq (the unnecessary war) even took over 4 to 6 months in preparation for it. Even when Obama finally sent air strikes in Libya  it was announced a few months in advance it was coming. I wonder how the Attack on Pearl Harbor would have went for the Japanese had they given us 5 or 6 months notice when and where they planned to attack? I think it would have been a lot different. This day in time with our Navy spread all over the world and the technology we have at our disposal such as our drones that can pinpoint fire on a target with extreme accuracy and our missile control systems we now have that can take out a single building in the center of a block of stores we don't need to warn anyone we are coming until we rain out of the sky. Boots on the ground are for clean up after we have eliminated all of the clear and present danger by air..............JMHO

  Now as far as striking Syria, I say no, notta, nah and nill. We didn't pick that fight so we don't need to put our noses in it. All the time that red line was drawn in the sand it was NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND. Now we hear about troop ships with Marines on board in the area. I don't trust those folks in Washington even when I am watching them live on TV because what your seeing in plain view is not what is going on behind the scenes.  Now I don't know about ya'll but I'm tired of hearing about our great fighting men and women being killed on foreign soil in some Muslim country that the entire population hates our guts in to begin with.............JMHO and if any of the moderators of the site think this is out of line please delete it

[TMF]

There were boots on the ground in Afghanistan within a couple of days after 9/11.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Reply to bersaguy,

 

Well you didn't have to shout. :D

 

If the idea of a weapon of mass destruction is being used, and it is considered to be so heinous of a device, that's

the one time a president wouldn't be acting on authority of Congress, and acting fast. I'm using the logic behind

M.A.D. When the missiles were detected in a ballistic arc heading this way, the President had the authority to act.

 

Now, being a Weapon of Mass Destruction, knowing I don't know of any other protocol, that is the one I picked. If

it is truly a WMD, does the President have that authority, and why is the nerve gas agent considered a WMD?

 

Some of it is all relative to certain protocols I may not be privy to, but if the stuff is that dangerous as to classify it

as a WMD, why would he need to seek authorization? See the questions appearing?

 

We shouldn't be comparing WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Bosnia Desert Storm to this event if it isn't truly a WMD. In WWII,

the atomic bomb was dropped twice. No noticed, but it was a declared war. Skipping Vietnam. Desert Storm was

a designed event. It was planned and was approved by the Congress and the UN sanction. See where I'm going?

 

This isn't a war declared by us and we have no reason to be there, much less playing with a rule about a WMD

delivered over someone else's soil and not effecting us. We have no reason to retaliate.

 

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about whether previous wars were necessary. That's not what this is

about.

Edited September 4, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Spots]

[size=5] Now we hear about troop ships with Marines on board in the area.

This in and of itself isn't unusual. We (Marines) constantly deploy on MEU's which are Marine Expenditary units. Its basically a response force. We load a Helicopter Squadron, a Harrier squadron, a bunch of grunts, AAV crews, and support equipment and troops onto a navy LHD and go cruise around for 7 months. We get replaced on station and come home. There is always 2 - 3 MEU's out, and their replacements doing work ups to replace them. So its not unusal to hear about Marines sitting off the coast of a trouble spot. Good or bad, its what we do.
Tapatalk ate my spelling.

[bersaguy]

There were boots on the ground in Afghanistan within a couple of days after 9/11.

 

I know about that small strike force went in after 9/11 in hopes of getting Bin Laden at his last known location but they were to late, but I was speaking about a major force on the ground. Heck Bill Clinton even threw a few missiles at him in a location he was suppose to be at while he was in office but hit and empty training base with them. He did that right after the bombing of the World Trade center. I do stand corrected about boots on the ground though and thanks.

[Guest ThePunisher]

WHAT WILL YOU SAY WHEN THE UN KNOCKS ON YOUR DOOR?

Just what Tony Montana said in Scarface "Say 'ello to my little friend".

[mikegideon]

Just what Tony Montana said in Scarface "Say 'ello to my little friend".

 

Correct answer