I ask again

[Papageorgio]

If we start targeting the head of states of other nations, what is to keep them from doing the same to us?

What's to keep them from doing it anyway?

 

[deltex1]

Why would the objective be to remove Assad? By all appearances those that would replace him would be even worse not to mention this has been the objective of AQ all along, to destabilize the Middle East and if the Assad regime falls Syria will be yet another destabilized country with a power vacuum that Islamic extremists can fill.

Obabble has said thru Kerry that those responsible must be held accountable. Who is more responsible than Assad?

Responsible for what? held accountable for what? and since when has the President or John Kerry given any indication that either of them have the first clue as to what they're doing when it comes to foreign policy? both of these geniuses (as well as their Republican predecessors) seem to think that AQ is playing checkers when actually they've been playing chess all along. Syria is just another piece in the game and it should be patently obvious that the United States has been stumbling through helping to destabilize country after country from day 1, starting with the boneheaded idea to invade the graveyard of empires, following up with the ultimate act of stupidity in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, now Syria , with Bahrain, Jordan and Pakistan teetering on the edge.

To top it all off we're bleeding ourselves to death economically and allowing our federal behemoth to walk all over our civil liberties living in fear of another major domestic that will never come, AQ doesn't need to take the risk or the expense to carry out major operations here anymore, they can just agitate in the Middle East to get what they want (restoration of the Caliphate).

Our hubris and our own stupidity will be the final death of the Republic.

I guess you missed the line in the sand...and Kerry's big reveal today? All I am trying to say is that Assad is the head of the sake...kill him now...don't like the next head....kill him.?.biggest bang for the smallest buck.

 

[NightFox]

Obabble has said thru Kerry that those responsible must be held accountable. Who is more responsible than Assad?

Responsible for what? held accountable for what? and since when has the President or John Kerry given any indication that either of them have the first clue as to what they're doing when it comes to foreign policy? both of these geniuses (as well as their Republican predecessors) seem to think that AQ is playing checkers when actually they've been playing chess all along. Syria is just another piece in the game and it should be patently obvious that the United States has been stumbling through helping to destabilize country after country from day 1, starting with the boneheaded idea to invade the graveyard of empires, following up with the ultimate act of stupidity in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, now Syria , with Bahrain, Jordan and Pakistan teetering on the edge.

To top it all off we're bleeding ourselves to death economically and allowing our federal behemoth to walk all over our civil liberties living in fear of another major domestic that will never come, AQ doesn't need to take the risk or the expense to carry out major operations here anymore, they can just agitate in the Middle East to get what they want (restoration of the Caliphate).

Our hubris and our own stupidity will be the final death of the Republic.

I guess you missed the line in the sand...and Kerry's big reveal today?

No, that's not the case, it was a boneheaded move when the President was doing it and it's still a boneheaded move when Kerry parrots the President.

All I am trying to say is that Assad is the head of the sake...kill him now...don't like the next head....kill him.?.biggest bang for the smallest buck.

When does the murdering end? How much blood is going to satisfy you? Removing Assad is exactly what the real enemies of the United States WANT US TO DO, we'd just be acting as button man for AQ.

Instead of doing exactly what AQ wants and expects us to do, how about we try doing the intelligent thing and do exactly what they don't expect, like for example keeping our blood lust in check for a change.

 

[deltex1]

Responsible for what? held accountable for what? and since when has the President or John Kerry given any indication that either of them have the first clue as to what they're doing when it comes to foreign policy? both of these geniuses (as well as their Republican predecessors) seem to think that AQ is playing checkers when actually they've been playing chess all along. Syria is just another piece in the game and it should be patently obvious that the United States has been stumbling through helping to destabilize country after country from day 1, starting with the boneheaded idea to invade the graveyard of empires, following up with the ultimate act of stupidity in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, now Syria , with Bahrain, Jordan and Pakistan teetering on the edge.

To top it all off we're bleeding ourselves to death economically and allowing our federal behemoth to walk all over our civil liberties living in fear of another major domestic that will never come, AQ doesn't need to take the risk or the expense to carry out major operations here anymore, they can just agitate in the Middle East to get what they want (restoration of the Caliphate).

Our hubris and our own stupidity will be the final death of the Republic.

I guess you missed the line in the sand...and Kerry's big reveal today?

No, that's not the case, it was a boneheaded move when the President was doing it and it's still a boneheaded move when Kerry parrots the President.

All I am trying to say is that Assad is the head of the sake...kill him now...don't like the next head....kill him.?.biggest bang for the smallest buck.

When does the murdering end? How much blood is going to satisfy you? Removing Assad is exactly what the real enemies of the United States WANT US TO DO, we'd just be acting as button man for AQ.

Instead of doing exactly what AQ wants and expects us to do, how about we try doing the intelligent thing and do exactly what they don't expect, like for example keeping our blood lust in check for a change.

Keeping our blood lust in check is what just cost 300 innocents their lives...working on the next 100000...????? Kill Assad and see what happens...

 

[Ropey]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

For the Arab/Shia - US concerns?

The US objective is to keep control while stepping back as the blood flow continues. President Obama's objective is to allow the Muslim brotherhood a neck-hold in Syria as Bush allowed Iran (Shia) a strangle-hold with Iraq. Hence, the arming and stepping back.

Now, when the loss seems otherwise inevitable and Iran's Shia side winning through Hezbollah intervention, there's US movement. The US has had the information of chemical attacks since President Obama went to Israel and picked them up while mouthing off niceties and giving weapons systems enhancements. While arming both Egypt, Libya and Syria.

Iran's (Shia) objective is to strengthen its own proxied hand in the Shia 'Green Crescent" while continuing to advance both its nuclear and conventional military strength.

The Muslim Brotherhood sees the loss of Saddam and his Sunni Alliances in Iraq as a regional Arab loss to the Shia. So, there's a drive to regain other buffer states (Yemen, Bahrain, Lebanon etc.)

If Assad is killed and the regime capitulates, then this would be over and the Iranian proxy structure seriously harmed as well as Iran's attempts to re-invigorate the green crescent.

No one who has those concerns wants Assad dead before they get a chance to strengthen their concerns. (imo)

And Assad is not seen as 'illegitimate' in the Muslim world. He's not killing his own and that's why there's no outcry other than condemnation and calls for Sunni warriors to enter the fray.

Assad is Shia and he's killing Sunni. That's allowed. So now the Sunni are coming from all over the ME to fight holy Jihad against the Shia.

The big boys are arming them all.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

remove Assad.....and replace with what....?

Another NWO puppet.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Killing a dictator just creates a power vacuum which will be filled with a newer, more vicious one.

Just as the NWO wants.

 

[NightFox]

I guess you missed the line in the sand...and Kerry's big reveal today?

No, that's not the case, it was a boneheaded move when the President was doing it and it's still a boneheaded move when Kerry parrots the President.

All I am trying to say is that Assad is the head of the sake...kill him now...don't like the next head....kill him.?.biggest bang for the smallest buck.

When does the murdering end? How much blood is going to satisfy you? Removing Assad is exactly what the real enemies of the United States WANT US TO DO, we'd just be acting as button man for AQ.

Instead of doing exactly what AQ wants and expects us to do, how about we try doing the intelligent thing and do exactly what they don't expect, like for example keeping our blood lust in check for a change.

Keeping our blood lust in check is what just cost 300 innocents their lives...working on the next 100000...????? Kill Assad and see what happens...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what happens if you kill Assad, you give AQ exactly what they want, chaos and a power vacuum. Not to mention the immorality of the United States murdering a foreign leader and doubling down on it by killing one that has not attacked us.

 

[deltex1]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

For the Arab/Shia - US concerns?

The US objective is to keep control while stepping back as the blood flow continues. President Obama's objective is to allow the Muslim brotherhood a neck-hold in Syria as Bush allowed Iran (Shia) a strangle-hold with Iraq. Hence, the arming and stepping back.

Now, when the loss seems otherwise inevitable and Iran's Shia side winning through Hezbollah intervention, there's US movement. The US has had the information of chemical attacks since President Obama went to Israel and picked them up while mouthing off niceties and giving weapons systems enhancements. While arming both Egypt, Libya and Syria.

Iran's (Shia) objective is to strengthen its own proxied hand in the Shia 'Green Crescent" while continuing to advance both its nuclear and conventional military strength.

The Muslim Brotherhood sees the loss of Saddam and his Sunni Alliances in Iraq as a regional Arab loss to the Shia. So, there's a drive to regain other buffer states (Yemen, Bahrain, Lebanon etc.)

If Assad is killed and the regime capitulates, then this would be over and the Iranian proxy structure seriously harmed as well as Iran's attempts to re-invigorate the green crescent.

No one who has those concerns wants Assad dead before they get a chance to strengthen their concerns. (imo)

And Assad is not seen as 'illegitimate' in the Muslim world. He's not killing his own and that's why there's no outcry other than condemnation and calls for Sunni warriors to enter the fray.

Assad is Shia and he's killing Sunni. That's allowed. So now the Sunni are coming from all over the ME to fight holy Jihad against the Shia.

The big boys are arming them all.

Nice analysis...so what do you recommend?

 

[deltex1]

No, that's not the case, it was a boneheaded move when the President was doing it and it's still a boneheaded move when Kerry parrots the President.


When does the murdering end? How much blood is going to satisfy you? Removing Assad is exactly what the real enemies of the United States WANT US TO DO, we'd just be acting as button man for AQ.

Instead of doing exactly what AQ wants and expects us to do, how about we try doing the intelligent thing and do exactly what they don't expect, like for example keeping our blood lust in check for a change.

Keeping our blood lust in check is what just cost 300 innocents their lives...working on the next 100000...????? Kill Assad and see what happens...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what happens if you kill Assad, you give AQ exactly what they want, chaos and a power vacuum. Not to mention the immorality of the United States murdering a foreign leader and doubling down on it by killing one that has not attacked us.

We "killed" Mubarak...got Morsi...got rid of Morsi...can do the same in Syria..sorry so late in responding but have company from NY in town and I' m the bartender...and fading fast... Catch you later...plenty of time...Obabble will dither I am sure....

 

[Intense]

Moved to Middle East - General

 

[Ropey]

Nice analysis...so what do you recommend?

It's happening before our very eyes deltex. The US is once again stepping back as it did in both WWI and WWII and the Arab/Shia alliances are being redrawn. I don't see the world powers fighting each other over Shia, Sunni or Jews.

There's only so much a President can effect. He's effected quite a bit for the Muslim brotherhood but the military is now being financed by Qatar and they have ties to both Al Qaida and the Muslim brotherhood.

If what has occurred so far is an Arab Spring, then I don't want to see an Arab Fall or a Shia Winter after this murderous summer. What I want isn't going to amount to a hill of beans if Lebanon goes and it looks as if it shall.

I have no recommendations other than to watch history possibly repeat itself. I think the US simply wants to control the output of the region and history proves that the US likes to mop up.

I see a mop up coming.

 

[deltex1]

Another reason to kill the bastard is that he is affecting the djia negatively...more than sufficient reason to send him to he'll.

 

[deltex1]

Nice analysis...so what do you recommend?

It's happening before our very eyes deltex. The US is once again stepping back as it did in both WWI and WWII and the Arab/Shia alliances are being redrawn. I don't see the world powers fighting each other over Shia, Sunni or Jews.

There's only so much a President can effect. He's effected quite a bit for the Muslim brotherhood but the military is now being financed by Qatar and they have ties to both Al Qaida and the Muslim brotherhood.

If what has occurred so far is an Arab Spring, then I don't want to see an Arab Fall or a Shia Winter after this murderous summer. What I want isn't going to amount to a hill of beans if Lebanon goes and it looks as if it shall.

I have no recommendations other than to watch history possibly repeat itself. I think the US simply wants to control the output of the region and history proves that the US likes to mop up.

I see a mop up coming.

I hate to be crass but we have the weapons to mop up the area....big time. I used to command a 9 megaton weapon...never got to use it.

 

[toastman]

If we start targeting the head of states of other nations, what is to keep them from doing the same to us?

And what makes you think that Syria has the capability to do so ??

 

[Ropey]

Nice analysis...so what do you recommend?

It's happening before our very eyes deltex. The US is once again stepping back as it did in both WWI and WWII and the Arab/Shia alliances are being redrawn. I don't see the world powers fighting each other over Shia, Sunni or Jews.

There's only so much a President can effect. He's effected quite a bit for the Muslim brotherhood but the military is now being financed by Qatar and they have ties to both Al Qaida and the Muslim brotherhood.

If what has occurred so far is an Arab Spring, then I don't want to see an Arab Fall or a Shia Winter after this murderous summer. What I want isn't going to amount to a hill of beans if Lebanon goes and it looks as if it shall.

I have no recommendations other than to watch history possibly repeat itself. I think the US simply wants to control the output of the region and history proves that the US likes to mop up.

I see a mop up coming.

I hate to be crass but we have the weapons to mop up the area....big time. I used to command a 9 megaton weapon...never got to use it.

Death and destruction is crass.

 

[NightFox]

Keeping our blood lust in check is what just cost 300 innocents their lives...working on the next 100000...????? Kill Assad and see what happens...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what happens if you kill Assad, you give AQ exactly what they want, chaos and a power vacuum. Not to mention the immorality of the United States murdering a foreign leader and doubling down on it by killing one that has not attacked us.

We "killed" Mubarak...got Morsi...got rid of Morsi...can do the same in Syria..sorry so late in responding but have company from NY in town and I' m the bartender...and fading fast... Catch you later...plenty of time...Obabble will dither I am sure....

...and Egypt is a total mess. Have a good one Del

 

[MJB12741]

The best case scenario is for the USA to do nothing but help the refugee children as long as Syrian terrorists are massacring each other in their own country. And let us wish both terrorist sides victory. Until there are none left.

 

[Circe]

"A nation is NOT a threat to us until they start DIRECTLY affecting AMERICAN citizens or our national interest. If that occurs, then we immediately and swiftly KILL all of those responsible for such behavior. We kill them quickly and we use such an overwhelming force that it is NOT REASONABLE to oppose us."

I can't argue with that...when was the last time we did that?

Dresden.

Oh, wait, that wasn't us.

Okay, Hiroshima.

 

[Circe]

My only hope is that Susan Rice or Valerie Jarret is in town to tell Obabble what to do.

I think it's David Cameron, prime minister of Britain, who is schooling him. And he's listening.