We are going to war with Syria

And OU your forgetting the status of forces agreement that Bush wanted
Obama did not sign it and pulled all troops out
Bushs plan would have left at least 30,000 in Iraq with that status of forces agreement

Let's not forget ecause bush an Rumsfeld failed to send the right troop levels into Iraq
Over 100,000 security contractors flooded into the country to fill the vacuum
They did not have to follow military laws and created more problems in Iraq (black water especially)

oggy420 wrote:

no. im just not gonna give credit where it isn't due.

Obama did not save us from war. The backlash to his plans for war is what saved us from war.

Buddy your missing the entire point
We were not about to carry out a land war

We were about to do air strikes that we hoped would deter Assad from using chemical weapons again.
But then Assad offered to give those weapons up, the whole purpose of Obamas strike was to deter Assad from using these weapons again.
Assad just offered to hand over the 6th largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world.
Obama did not attack Syria and he was letting congress debate as they should when the UN cannot act.

Obama does not want to start a war with Assad he wants to contain his WMds and
Prevent groups like Al nusrah from getting their hands on them.
Assad knows he can likely continue surviving and may even begin to wrap the war up if Obama stays out.


The real kicker is that in 10 years I'm sure you and all the republicans will be bitching
About how Obama let all those poor Syrians get slauggtered by Assad.

oggy420 wrote:

September 26, 2013

Fox News is reporting a stunning theft of U.S. arms by jihadist salafists in Libya. This news item will be made much of by critics of Obama on the right. However, military and government blunders, cost overruns, unneeded weapons systems, and general mis-management are par for the course.

of coarse there is theft of arms in libya, there are just different groups of people looting and killing for the stockpile of weapson caches after we helped oust the government

Birdofthad wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

Bird, in your honest assessment, leaving out the left right paradigm, is there anything Obama has done that has disappointed you? Anything you would criticize him for?

he does not return my love letters

 

cheekynffc wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

cheeky what do you think of Nigel Farage?

i suspect that inside beats the heart of a right wing extremist.

he doesn't exactly fit the "right wing extremists" profile if you ask me. I agree with everything he says in this video.

oggy420 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

cheeky what do you think of Nigel Farage?

i suspect that inside beats the heart of a right wing extremist.

he doesn't exactly fit the "right wing extremists" profile if you ask me. I agree with everything he says in this video.

i agree with his position on the EU and some of what he says about immigration. i also agree with his views on syria, as do the majority of british citizens

some of their views are very base level and unsophisticated though and UKIP actively courts the far right voters, sometimes they just sound like little more than nationalist tubthumpers. UKIP have some way to go to convince me they're legit.

Maybe I do give Obama too much credit on this. But imo he never wanted in on Syria. It appeared his hand would be forced due to the chemical weapons, but still he tip toed around the issue and came out the other side not involved. He drew a red line, they crossed it, yet we still did not go in.

Now we can say Putin was the main man in the US not coming to blows. But Obama allowed that to happen. Obama put the issue to congress, Kerry "slipped" with the rhetoric comment, Obama worked with Putin.

If nothing else, Obama proved himself not to be heavy handed, not to be stubborn in forcing the issue(again I don't think that is the case, because imo he never really wanted in), and he showed that he was willing to work with others. These are all major differences between he and the previous regime.

But Oggy, my original point here still stands. U predicted Syria invasion, followed by Iran(who Obama is now talking to, the first time in over 30 years the US has talked to those guys) followed by WWIII. None of this happened. Man up. Admit u were wrong. Admit Obama handled the issue ENTIRELY different then u expected.

+1,000,000,000 captain

OU wrote:

George Bush's exit plan is the exit plan that was used. Obama's express plan was thrown out the window when he realized he didn't know shit. The exit plan was in place long before Obama had any kind of authority. He even admitted the current plan in place seemed to be the correct plan. Which is why he went with it. I'm not hating on Obama but he doesn't deserve any credit for leaving Iraq. Bush gets more hate then needed and Obama gets more credit then deserved in that situation.
I'm not saying the war in Iraq was right or the plan was correct. However the exit strategy had begun under the Bush administration and Obama doesn't deserve the credit just because it ended under his.

It's one thing to draw up an exit plan that calls for troop withdrawal AFTER your term is up, and its a whole other thing to actually withdraw troops. We don't know that Bush would have followed that plan, and if we look at McCain's or Romney's campaign rhetoric, I think it's a good bet to say they would not have followed that plan(granted it is only campairn rhetoric).

Bottom line is, we went into Iraq under Bush, and we got out under Obama.

First of all, no, Obama didn't do what he said. in 2008 he promised he would end the Iraq war and start bringing troops home immediately.

Then he used the exact drawdown method proposed by the Bush admin. So he deserves no credit there, he followed Bush's plan for troop withdrawal.

Obama didn't want war in Syria? Ummm, yea. ok.

The al-Qaeda rebels did the chemical attack anyway with Homemade sarin gas they got from the Saudi's. The AP reporter who wrote that story has now received death threats against her family from Saudi's.

It is now public knowledge that Prince Bandar, who bird says is a great guy just like the rest of the Saudi Royal Family, who according to bird have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, threatened Putin with terrorist attacks during the Olympic Games in Sochi next February unless he drops his support for Syria and Assad.

After offering several bribes in the form of oil interests, Prince Bandar, the Prince of terrorists, said :

As a threat, he hinted that terrorists from Chechnya, who could otherwise attack the Winter Games in Sochi, in case if there was to be no agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia.


“I give you the guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. Chechen groups, which threaten the security of the games, are controlled by us, and they do nothing without consulting us.”

The Saudi intelligence chief boasted that the Chechens, who rage in Syria, are a pressure medium, which can be deactivated or activated – just as he needs it. Bandar said further: “These groups do not scare us. We use them against the Syrian regime, but they will play no role in the political future of Syria.”

The conversation between Putin and Bandar was very heated, filled with warnings about a “dramatic change” in Syria. Putin, however, was unmoved by the Saudi offer and the threat – he was not dissuaded from his existing opinion.


Americans want to avoid another war. The Syrian leader agreed to give up his chemical weapons, and the Russian leader brokered the deal. Obama, on the other hand, wanted war, and was dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiating table.

Bandar bin Sultan is the director general of the Saudi Intelligence Agency. In that capacity, he has earned a well-deserved reputation as the “Prince of Terrorists.”


According to the Wall Street Journal, Bandar is leading the rebel forces trying to overthrow the Syrian government. Many analysts consider Bandar a prime suspect in the apparent false-flag chemical weapons attack in al-Ghouta.

Adam Entous of the Wall Street Journal says that Prince Bandar and his Saudi Intelligence Agency manufactured “evidence” that the Syrian government had used sarin gas prior to the al-Ghouta attack.

Entous stated during a Democracy Now interview: “Bandar’s intelligence agency concluded that chemical weapons were being used on a small scale by the regime. Followed by that, the Brits and the French were convinced of the same conclusion. It took US intelligence agencies really until June to reach that conclusion.”

In other words, Bandar used his money, clout, and connections to make sure that “the intelligence would be fixed around the policy” - just like Bush did with the alleged Iraqi WMDs in 2003.

How did Bandar convince Western intelligence agencies to accept his extremely dubious claims that Assad was using sarin gas? Bandar found a Syrian who had been exposed to sarin and flew him to Britain to be tested. When the Syrian victim tested positive for sarin, Bandar pushed his Western intelligence colleagues to accept the far-from-obvious conclusion that Assad must have been responsible.


But do the US and British and French intelligence really believe that Bandar - who commands hundreds of billions of dollars and a sophisticated network of covert operators and killers - could not have poisoned the Syrian victim himself? Obviously, they are not that naïve. Western intelligence is complicit in Bandar's attempt to frame Assad for the use of sarin. They were looking for an excuse to attack Syria, and Bandar gave it to them.


Then when the huge sarin attack struck al-Ghouta on August 21st, knowledgeable observers immediately suspected a false-flag attack by Bandar's forces. According to Associated Press Mideast correspondent Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh: “... from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture (from the Western mainstream media narrative) emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the deadly gas attack.”

More evidence that the terrorist prince orchestrated the attack on al-Ghouta emerged when it was revealed that the photos of dead children were not what they appeared. According to VoltaireNet.org:

"Following the broadcasting of the images of the massacre in Ghouta, distributed by the Free Syrian Army and relayed by US and French services, Alawite families from Latakia have filed a complaint for murder."
"Some of these videos were filmed and posted on Youtube before the events they picture."

"They show children suffocating from a chemical intoxication that can’t possibly be sarin gas (the latter provokes yellow drool, not white drool)."

"The children do not correspond to a sample of the population: they are all almost of the same age and have light hair. They are not accompanied by their grieving families."

"They are in fact children who were abducted by jihadists (i.e. mercenaries of Prince Bandar) two weeks before in Alawite villages in the surroundings of Latakia, 200km away from Ghouta."

"Contrary to the claims of the Free Syrian Army and the Western services, the only identified victims of the Ghouta massacre are those belonging to families that support the Syrian government. In the videos, the individuals that show outrage against the 'crimes of Bashar el-Assad' are in reality their killers."

Is terrorist prince Bandar really shameless enough to kidnap children, murder them, and then present the dead children as alleged victims of his enemies? In a word: Yes.

Bandar's shamelessness knows no bounds. The dissolute chief of “radical Islamic terrorists” actually had the audacity to threaten Russian President Putin with a terrorist attack on the Winter Olympics if Putin didn't stop supporting the Syrian government! Bandar claimed that he had the full support of the American government in delivering his bribe offers and terrorist threats to President Putin.

Oggy if Obama wanted a war in Syria we would be there

You can't admit how wrong you are

Birdofthad wrote:

Oggy if Obama wanted a war in Syria we would be there

You can't admit how wrong you are

No, he cannot.

ok yes I was wrong Obama is the savior of the world and is incapable of doing anything wrong


you really think were just gonna leave the middle east alone now? Iran is still very much on the radar. Israel is jumping out of their skin to attack Iran. And im not convinced weve heard the last of a strike in Syria. time will tell.

Oggy your lying again
Obamas plan called for troops to be home within
16 months of the election
Stop posting your bullshit opinion as if it was fact

Iran and USA just talked for the first time since 1979
You fuckong moron

Oggy educate yourself on israeli politics
Yihtzak Rabin wanted peace He represented moderate Israelis
Netenyahu was against this and represents the conservative Israeli Wing
When BeBe won he took a harder stance toward Palestinians then Yihtzak
Posting BeBe Netenyahu saying beware of Iran is like posting a video of Ronald McDonald selling kids meals

BeBe wants a war with Iran and he wants US help
Obama ain't going for it
BeBe prett much backed Romney in the last election
I thought you said Obama wanted to invade Iran

You clearly don't understand what is going on around the world
That's why you think Obama wants to put boots on the ground on Syria an Iran

Bebe wanted Romney to win cause he knew he'd go to war with Iran faster
Than Obama
http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=17672479&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fclient%3Dsafari%26hl%3Den%26ei%3DCHtMUpiMF6GqiALXpYDIAw%26q%3Dmitt%2Bromney%2Band%2Bbebe%2Bnetenyahu%26oq%3Dmitt%2Bromney%2Band%2Bbebe%2Bnetenyahu%26gs_l%3Dmobile-gws-serp.3..0i13i30.12008.16100.0.16581.10.10.0.0.0.0.1686.6325.2-2j2j1j3j0j1j1.10.0....0...1c.1.27.mobile-gws-serp..6.4.1886.Rwof-LVNuro

Israeli politicos from the other end of the political spectrum happily piled onto the narrative. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is mulling another run in Israel's upcoming elections, said, "Our prime minister meddled in the U.S. elections in the name of an American billionaire, who used the prime minister of Israel to promote his own candidate for president. This is a significant violation of the basic rules in the relations between countries, certainly when we are talking about allies such as Israel and the United States."

The relationship between Obama and Netanyahu has long been a frosty one, highlighted by Netanyahu's public lecturing of the president in the Oval Office in 2011 and Obama's refusal to meet with the Israeli premier on his recent to the U.S. for the United Nations General Assembly.

The Obama administration has not been as tough on Iran as Netanyahu would have liked, culminating with harsh comments in September.

"The world tells Israel, 'Wait, there's still time.' And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?'" Netanyahu said. "Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."

Well before Obama had sealed his victory, some here had begun speculating what Obama's revenge might look like in a second term. The Israel newspaper Ma'ariv reported Thursday that the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, had fretted months ago in private conversations that Obama would want to settle scores. And with Israeli elections slated for Jan. 22, the day after Obama's inauguration, many are wondering aloud whether the president might try to in run interfere in an election Netanyahu's party is poised to win.

Three hours after ABC News called the election for Obama, Netanyahu's office put out a short statement, saying, "The strategic alliance between Israel and the U.S. is stronger than ever. I will continue to work with President Obama in order to assure the interests that are vital to the security of the citizens of Israel."

Netanyahu appeared eager to start repairing the damage, meeting with the U.S. ambassador here, Dan Shapiro, even having his personal congratulations filmed. He ordered fellow members of his Likud Party to stop expressing their disappointment over Obama's victory, and to run their statements by his office.

But Netanyahu is far from the only Israeli who supported Romney in Israel. In global polls, Israel is the only country in the world that would have elected Romney over Obama.

A recent Tel Aviv University poll put Romney's support among Israeli Jews at 57.2 percent, compared with Obama's 21.5 percent. Romney's support among Israeli-American voters is believed to be even higher.

So, now, with Obama's kicking off his second term, big questions loom over the U.S.-Israel relationship and how it will deal with the two biggest issues they grapple with together: Iran's growing nuclear program and the Israel-Palestinian peace process that hasn't budged in more than two years.

"If he takes revenge on Bibi or even just conducts himself with chilly cerebral rationalism," an official described as a member of Netanyahu's inner circle told Maariv newspaper, "we're going to be in a difficult position."

Hillary Clinton, James Baker III on Iran: “We Ought to Take Em Out”, “We’re going to Provoke an Attack because then we will be in Power for as long as Anyone can Imagine”

Watch the exchange between former Secretaries of State James Baker III and Hillary Clinton. It reveals the true nature of US foreign policy.

Countries we do not like, we take em out. We seek a justification to wage war.

Provoke them, let them attack us, because that will “unify us”.

We really want them to fire the first strike and then we will strike back in self defense.

And everybody will support us because we have a massive war propaganda apparatus. In chorus the media will portray Iran as a threat to global security and the US is the savior of democracy.

View this video, it is no laughing matter and then decide, who is a threat to Global Security.

Excerpts

[Baker] At the end of the day. if we do not get it done the way the administration is working on it now, which we totally agree with, we ought to take em out

[Laugh]…. We are working hard. [Laugh]

All options are on the table. ….

[Clinton] And then, frankly, there are those who are saying, “The best thing that could happen to us is be attacked by somebody. Just bring it on because that would unify us. It would legitimize the regime.”

…. “We’re not going to give anything up. And in fact we’re going to provoke an attack because then we will be in power for as long as anyone can imagine.”

Saudi black op team behind Damascus chem weapons attack – diplomatic sources


Published time: October 04, 2013 13:14
Edited time: October 04, 2013 17:58

The August chemical weapons attack in the Syrian capital’s suburbs was done by a Saudi Arabian black operations team, Russian diplomatic sources have told a Russian news agency.

“Based on data from a number of sources a picture can be pieced together. The criminal provocation in Eastern Ghouta was done by a black op team that the Saudi’s sent through Jordan and which acted with support of the Liwa Al-Islam group,” a source in the diplomatic circles told Interfax.

The attack and its consequences had a huge impact on the Syrian situation, another source said.

“Syrians of various political views, including some opposition fighters, are seeking to inform diplomats and members of international organizations working in Syria what they know about the crime and the forces which inspired it,” he told the agency.

Liwa Al-Islam is an Islamist armed group operating near Damascus headed by the son of a Saudi-based Salafi cleric. The group claimed responsibility for the bombing of a secret governmental meeting in Damascus in July 2012 that killed a number of top Syrian officials, including Defense Minister Dawoud Rajiha, his deputy Asef Shawkat, and Assistant Vice President Hassan Turkmani.

The allegations mirror a number of earlier reports, which pointed to Saudi Arabia as the mastermind behind the sarin gas attack, which almost led to US military action against Syrian government. Proponents of this scenario say intelligence services in Riyadh needed a false flag operation to provoke an American attack in Syria, which would tip the balance in favor of the armed opposition supported by Saudi Arabia.

While the majority of Western countries say they are certain that the Syrian government carries the blame for the attack, Damascus maintains that the rebel forces must be behind it. Russia shares this conviction too, calling the incident a provocation.

Back in March US President Barack Obama said the use of chemical weapons would be a ‘red line’ for the Syrian government, crossing which would prompt America’s intervention into the bloody Syrian conflict. After the August attack, which the US believes has claimed some 1,400 lives, the president was called on his words by many supporters of the Syrian opposition both at home and outside of the US.

Earlier a UN report concluded that nerve gas had indeed been used “on a large scale” in August. However, the consistency of the findings is under question.


According to the report, none of the environmental samples the UN collected in Western Ghouta tested positive for Sarin, while biomedical samples, taken from affected people, all tested positive.


RT’s Worlds Apart host Oksana Boyko has spoken to Angela Kane, UN high representative for disarmament affairs, who has just returned from Damascus.

“If you read the report, the report comes out and says sarin was used. It is also a matter that maybe in the environmental samples they took there was no sarin found, but that does not mean that sarin was not used,” Kane told Worlds Apart. “It was there in the human samples. If they had more time to go around they would have found different samples. It was a limited collection that they did, but the collection was conclusive. I think, it was very comprehensive, therefore, we shared all of those samples with the Syrian government.”


At the same time, there have been concerns voiced that witnesses the UN team spoke to were brought by the opposition from different regions and did not live in Western Ghouta.


“I think it is not possible to say ‘We brought them all from a different area.’ To my mind that is inconceivable. You can come up with the theory, but this does not mean the theory is correct,” Kane said.

When asked if the UN team had requested examining dead bodies to take more samples, Kane said they had not, because “there was no need to exhume dead bodies” as victims’ accounts “are much more powerful.”


“Dead body can’t tell you anything. The dead body can’t tell how the person dies, how the person was affected, how the person suffered. A living person can tell you that,” Kane said.

After the UN team left Syria on Monday, Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) experts arrived in the country. They are currently making preparations for the disarmament.


The OPCW team will start conducting tests on October 7.