easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,151
- 2,645
Defense Secretary Ash Carter: Obama Administration Will Make ‘Principally Political’ Moves to Oust Assad
- LINK: Defense Secretary Carter: White House Moves Against Assad 'Principally Political'
"While being questioned by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC, 'DUMBMASS'), about the means through which the Obama administration intended to secure the ousting of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter conceded that such efforts were “principally political.”
-- "Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, General Joseph Dunford, admitted, “the balance of forces (that include Iranian, Russian, and Syrian troops / forces) are in Assad’s advantage.”
The story goes on to say that the Obama administration believes ousting Assad, not defeating ISIS, is key to stabilizing the Middle East.
-----------------------
Liberals have lambasted Bush for taking America to war against Iraq because of some vendetta / agenda with Saddam Hussein, spending billions of dollars and too many lives in doing so against a Tyrant who did not threaten the United States.
Replace the name Hussein with Assad, and you have Barak Obama's mini-'Iraq'.
So what the hell is Obama's obsession with Assad? Is he trying to amend for that horrendously embarrassing 'Red Line' disaster or WHAT?
Assad used bio-chem weapons on his own people....Yeah, and that's why the world has the U.N. (same argument made with Bush) - 'The United States is not the 'world's policeman'. Still Obama created and imposed the threat of the infamous 'Red Line', which failed miserably as Assad ignored it and gassed his people again...and Obama backed down in front of the whole world. I have criticized him for this, and I have been challenged by Liberals who have asked, "Would you rather he went to war instead?" NO, I would rather the man be intelligent enough to have thought this through - it is 'chess' not 'checkers'. You don't issue a 'Red Line' if you have no intention of backing it up. I believe Obama was arrogant enough to believe Assad would never defy his challenge, and when he did he had no idea what to do. What he did further compounded the problem - he embarrassingly tried to declare to the world that it had not been HIS 'Red Line' but instead had been the WHOLE WORLD'S 'Red Line; that they were now obligated to back-up HIS challenge. Yeah...not so much. 'The world' left Obama standing alone with egg on his face.
Obsessed with Assad, he ran weapons to Syrian 'rebels' who swore to fight against Assad...while ISIS grew. He ignored them. Many of the Syrian 'rebels' BECAME ISIS, and Obama ignored ISIS as they flooded un-opposed into Iraq, and the generals who pleaded with him to strike them, as they took over much of the country our military had just liberated at great cost. He called ISIS a 'JV Team' while continuing to focus on Assad. Bowing to external and internal pressure (IMO) Obama ordered a military campaign against ISIS through limited air strikes and mostly by drones.
Meanwhile Obama spent millions of US tax dollars to arm, outfit, and train 6 (SIX) Syrian Rebels to go against Assad (Syrian versions of Rambo?). 5 of them converted to ISIS, and the other was confirmed killed by Russia. So I would call this 'foreign policy' a fail. Since then Obama declared he would just start providing weapons to those fighting ISIS...and Assad.
Russia stepped in, joined forces with Assad, built a Russian base there, brought in Russian War Planes and troops, has brought in Iranians to join the 'team', and has bombed the Anti-Assad Obama-supported rebels almost into non-existence. So Obama has not declared he will break his vow of 'No Boots on the Ground' to place boots on the ground in Iraq...NEAR SYRIA. What about ISIS scattered all over Iraq and those attacking the Kurds and our ally Turkey? Are the boots on the ground more interested in ASSAD or ISIS?
Meanwhile The Taliban is making another resurgence in Afghanistan AND reports say they are starting to team with ISIS. China is expending their influence, Russia is expanding their influence. Iran is now in Iraq and Syria (and other places), and we just made it easier for them to obtain nukes while ensuring a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. We're brining in thousands of Syrian men / 'refugees' without conducting adequate security checks AFTER ISIS has sworn to send their fighters here claiming to be refugees. Thousands of illegals are assaulting, robbing, raping, and murdering Americans, the administration are releasing them, Sanctuary cities are protecting them, and the Obama administration is protecting the cities that do this.
I have heard the argument that Afghanistan will eventually fall and go back the way it was, we can't stop it, and it's none of our problem. I have heard the same things about Iraq. The same should / could be said about Syria....so why the Obsession then with Syria?
If we had no business going to war in Iraq then we have no business going to war in / with Syria. And again, THIS is why we have the U.N. ... or it is supposed to be why. An out-of-control terrorist organization spreading across the globe violently killing people - where the hell is the U.N.? A 'rogue' Leader gassing his own people - where the hell is the U.N.? If America is not the world's policeman SOME of the time then it shouldn't be the world's policeman ALL of the time (if you subscribe to that argument).
And is Assad really our BIGGEST concern and the key to stabilizing the Middle East...REALLY?! I would think at the top of that list would be IRAN.
- LINK: Defense Secretary Carter: White House Moves Against Assad 'Principally Political'
"While being questioned by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC, 'DUMBMASS'), about the means through which the Obama administration intended to secure the ousting of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter conceded that such efforts were “principally political.”
-- "Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, General Joseph Dunford, admitted, “the balance of forces (that include Iranian, Russian, and Syrian troops / forces) are in Assad’s advantage.”
The story goes on to say that the Obama administration believes ousting Assad, not defeating ISIS, is key to stabilizing the Middle East.
-----------------------
Liberals have lambasted Bush for taking America to war against Iraq because of some vendetta / agenda with Saddam Hussein, spending billions of dollars and too many lives in doing so against a Tyrant who did not threaten the United States.
Replace the name Hussein with Assad, and you have Barak Obama's mini-'Iraq'.
So what the hell is Obama's obsession with Assad? Is he trying to amend for that horrendously embarrassing 'Red Line' disaster or WHAT?
Assad used bio-chem weapons on his own people....Yeah, and that's why the world has the U.N. (same argument made with Bush) - 'The United States is not the 'world's policeman'. Still Obama created and imposed the threat of the infamous 'Red Line', which failed miserably as Assad ignored it and gassed his people again...and Obama backed down in front of the whole world. I have criticized him for this, and I have been challenged by Liberals who have asked, "Would you rather he went to war instead?" NO, I would rather the man be intelligent enough to have thought this through - it is 'chess' not 'checkers'. You don't issue a 'Red Line' if you have no intention of backing it up. I believe Obama was arrogant enough to believe Assad would never defy his challenge, and when he did he had no idea what to do. What he did further compounded the problem - he embarrassingly tried to declare to the world that it had not been HIS 'Red Line' but instead had been the WHOLE WORLD'S 'Red Line; that they were now obligated to back-up HIS challenge. Yeah...not so much. 'The world' left Obama standing alone with egg on his face.
Obsessed with Assad, he ran weapons to Syrian 'rebels' who swore to fight against Assad...while ISIS grew. He ignored them. Many of the Syrian 'rebels' BECAME ISIS, and Obama ignored ISIS as they flooded un-opposed into Iraq, and the generals who pleaded with him to strike them, as they took over much of the country our military had just liberated at great cost. He called ISIS a 'JV Team' while continuing to focus on Assad. Bowing to external and internal pressure (IMO) Obama ordered a military campaign against ISIS through limited air strikes and mostly by drones.
Meanwhile Obama spent millions of US tax dollars to arm, outfit, and train 6 (SIX) Syrian Rebels to go against Assad (Syrian versions of Rambo?). 5 of them converted to ISIS, and the other was confirmed killed by Russia. So I would call this 'foreign policy' a fail. Since then Obama declared he would just start providing weapons to those fighting ISIS...and Assad.
Russia stepped in, joined forces with Assad, built a Russian base there, brought in Russian War Planes and troops, has brought in Iranians to join the 'team', and has bombed the Anti-Assad Obama-supported rebels almost into non-existence. So Obama has not declared he will break his vow of 'No Boots on the Ground' to place boots on the ground in Iraq...NEAR SYRIA. What about ISIS scattered all over Iraq and those attacking the Kurds and our ally Turkey? Are the boots on the ground more interested in ASSAD or ISIS?
Meanwhile The Taliban is making another resurgence in Afghanistan AND reports say they are starting to team with ISIS. China is expending their influence, Russia is expanding their influence. Iran is now in Iraq and Syria (and other places), and we just made it easier for them to obtain nukes while ensuring a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. We're brining in thousands of Syrian men / 'refugees' without conducting adequate security checks AFTER ISIS has sworn to send their fighters here claiming to be refugees. Thousands of illegals are assaulting, robbing, raping, and murdering Americans, the administration are releasing them, Sanctuary cities are protecting them, and the Obama administration is protecting the cities that do this.
I have heard the argument that Afghanistan will eventually fall and go back the way it was, we can't stop it, and it's none of our problem. I have heard the same things about Iraq. The same should / could be said about Syria....so why the Obsession then with Syria?
If we had no business going to war in Iraq then we have no business going to war in / with Syria. And again, THIS is why we have the U.N. ... or it is supposed to be why. An out-of-control terrorist organization spreading across the globe violently killing people - where the hell is the U.N.? A 'rogue' Leader gassing his own people - where the hell is the U.N.? If America is not the world's policeman SOME of the time then it shouldn't be the world's policeman ALL of the time (if you subscribe to that argument).
And is Assad really our BIGGEST concern and the key to stabilizing the Middle East...REALLY?! I would think at the top of that list would be IRAN.
