Uncategorized

Lazenby: On Syria

The Syrian Civil War, a conflict that grew out of the Arab Spring movement that began in late 2010 and has been marked by a revolutionary wave of protest, riots and civil wars that have toppled dictators in some countries and incurred brutal repression in others, is coming to a…

The Syrian Civil War, a conflict that grew out of the Arab Spring movement that began in late 2010 and has been marked by a revolutionary wave of protest, riots and civil wars that have toppled dictators in some countries and incurred brutal repression in others, is coming to a head with the reported used of chemical weapons by the Syrian government on its own people.

First, some background on the situation:

  • Syria has been listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. since 1979
  • President Bashar al-Assad has been in power since 2000, succeeding his father, Hafez al-Assad, who was in office from 1971
  • The country has been in a state of civil war due to uprisings against the Assad government since March 2011, considered to be part of the wider Arab Spring movement that has broken out in the Arab world
  • As a result of these uprisings, the Assad government is losing control over large parts of Syria to rebel groups and is using increasingly violent tactics to maintain the power it has left, including the recent use of chemical weapons on the Syrian people
  • Syria was suspended from the Arab League in November 2011 as a result of this crackdown, and an opposition coalition was given Syria’s seat in the League
  • The United Nations reports that over 70,000 people have already been killed in the Syrian civil war, and the death toll is climbing daily
  • Approximately 1.4 million Syrian refugees have fled (or are trying to flee) to Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq
  • In February, the U.S. announced $60 million in nonlethal aid to assist with the growing humanitarian crisis

At a press conference earlier this week, President Obama said, “My policy from the beginning has been President Assad had lost credibility; that he attacked his own people, has killed his own people, unleashed a military against innocent civilians; and that the only way to bring stability and peace to Syria is going to be for Assad to step down and — and to move forward on a political transition.”

Obama also went down a laundry list of actions that the United States has taken to address the Syrian crisis thus far:

“We’ve organized the international community. We are the largest humanitarian donor. We have worked to strengthen the opposition. We have provided nonlethal assistance to the opposition. We have applied sanctions on Syria.”

Additionally, he referred to what’s happening in Syria as “a blemish on the international community generally,” and insisted that “we’ve got to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to protect the Syrian people.”

President Obama has stated on multiple occasions that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in this conflict would constitute a “red line” being crossed and a “game changer” that would incur further action from the United States. The president’s March 21 comment, “We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists,” appears to be the most applicable statement in the context of the president’s response at the press conference this week.

The administration, however, argued against taking further action in Syria until better information is available about the use of chemical weapons there, and it remained cautious this week. While stating that “we have established international law and international norms that say when you use these kinds of weapons, you have the potential of killing massive numbers of people in the most inhumane way possible, and the proliferation risks are so significant that we don’t want that genie out of the bottle,” the president also cautioned against moving forward without concrete evidence and reminded the country of the detrimental effects of acting too quickly in this situation.

“What we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them; we don’t have chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened,” the president said. “And when I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts. That’s what the American people would expect. And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in the position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do.”

That last point is crucial, especially with regard to Syria’s neighbors. The United States should not go this alone. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been providing aid to the rebel forces within Syria, but the Arab League as a whole has been for the most part publicly quiet on the issue. The Arab League would be crucial to any effort to step up military involvement in the region, and it is a group with its own internal divisions – we could see one of its factions turn on us just as easily as they would help us.

Nonetheless, the administration now finds itself facing calls for direct military intervention. On Sunday, prior to the president’s press conference, several legislators publicly called for the United States to intervene in the Syrian Civil War, and they’re still not backing down. While none of the calls were for a “boots on the ground” strategy of deploying American troops to the country, the legislators insisted that more involvement than what the U.S. is currently engaged in was necessary.

On ABC’s This Week, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) said, “I think the options aren’t huge, but some action needs to be taken.” Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), took things a step further when he said on NBC’s Meet The Press, “They (Syria) need a no-fly zone, which could be obtained without using U.S.-manned aircraft. We could use patriot batteries and cruise missiles to take out their air (power) and to supply the resistance with weapons.”

On CBS’ Face The Nation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) agreed – not surprisingly – with McCain when he stated, “One way you can stop the Syrian air force from flying is to bomb the Syrian airbases with cruise missiles. You don’t need to go deep into Syria to do that,” and “Let’s give the right weapons to the right people,” those people being the rebel forces in Syria. Sen Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), appearing with Graham on Face The Nation, also pushed for more aggressive action in Syria, insisting that the situation in Syria “is an out-and-out war,” and agreeing with Graham that we need to “take affirmative action” by using F-22s and B-2s to take out Syrian anti-aircraft missiles, establish a no-fly zone, and enable Syria’s neighbors to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

But how do we determine who the “right people” are to arm in this conflict? Many of the rebel groups in Syria are known to have direct ties to Al Qaeda. In fact, Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups’ increasing domination of the opposition forces have left the administration with few good options regarding arming rebels. Do we really want to get into another situation where we arm a rebel group against a regime we are opposed to, only to have that group turn on us later with our own weapons? Haven’t we been through this before when we armed Afghan rebels against the then Soviet Union, and even when we have armed rebel groups in Iraq and Afghanistan more recently?

On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel publicly acknowledged for the first time that the Obama administration is not ruling out arming the Syrian rebels. Speaking at a joint news conference with British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond, Hagel told reporters, “Arming the rebels – that’s an option. You look at and rethink all options. It doesn’t mean you do or you will. These are options that must be considered with the international community: what is possible, what can help accomplish [our] objectives.” At this point, while information is still difficult to confirm, arming rebel forces would be a mistake. Fortunately, it is just an option that is being considered – for now.

Do we really want to drop bombs on Syrian air force bases – which will certainly bee seen as an act of war by Syria – on threadbare evidence? No-fly zones don’t maintain themselves, so how long are we prepared to keep this up? The United States simply cannot get militarily involved in a decade long war in the Middle East every time something disruptive happens in the region – and there will be quite a bit of disruption in the years to come as the Arab Spring continues to bubble up.

And make no mistake – neo-con war mongers like McCain and Graham would gladly use the opportunity of military involvement in Syria as an excuse to invade its ally, Iran, something they and other hawkish lawmakers have been making overtures about for years. Syria is also Iran’s ally and beachhead, the place from which an attack could be launched by Iran on any military forces that enter the country, prompting a counter-attack. The same administration that has been trying to extract itself from two armed conflicts in the Middle East now finds itself facing the possibility of another protracted conflict there.

Should the U.S. be doing more to control this deadly and destabilizing situation? No, not from a military standpoint right now. To start dropping bombs now would only serve to increase civilian bloodshed and very possibly anger neighboring countries in an unstable region. Our intelligence forces are already working with Syria’s neighbors and the United Nations to establish concrete evidence regarding the use of chemical weapons, and if the president’s criteria regarding chemical weapons are met, then the answer would be different. Evidence of chemical weapons, which are weapons of mass destruction, would raise the possibility of even more horrific civilian casualties as well as the chance that those weapons could fall into the wrong hands, endangering the U.S. and our allies. That would, indeed, be a game changer.

But should the U.S. stand idly by while tens of thousands of innocent Syrians die and over half of the country’s population is on the run from the Assad regime? No. We can and are providing humanitarian and nonlethal aid, and we are working on a diplomatic solution through our ties with Syria’s neighbors. We can increase the amount of humanitarian aid for refugees both inside Syria and those who have fled to Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. We can also increase our pressure on Russia, which has been providing aid to Assad, to help ensure a transfer of power from the Assad regime to the Syrian people. One way to do that would be for Russia to provide the Assad family, whose base of support is rapidly eroding, safe haven in its country.

And then we should step back and let the Syrian people govern Syria. The United States has a moral obligation to help people who are suffering – and huge numbers of people are clearly suffering while Assad remains in power – so complete isolationism is not the answer, and it is not the course the U.S is currently following. But it is not the job of the United States to nation-build in the Middle East, either, dropping bombs in an attempt to accomplish regime change. Instead, let us help the Syrian people with nonlethal aid and diplomatic solutions so that they may then help themselves.

amy lazenby

Amy Lazenby is a wife, mother of three and small business owner with her husband who splits her time between South Carolina and Georgia. She writes with a liberal world view on most issues, but enjoys exploring where the liberal and libertarian political axes intersect. Follow her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz.

 ***

Related posts

Uncategorized

Escaping Your Timeshare Contract Safely & Effectively

FITSForum
Uncategorized

Spy Apps: Balancing Privacy And Practicality

FITSForum
Murdaughs

Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons

108 comments

Edgar May 3, 2013 at 8:36 am

So you state that chemical weapons have been used but the Prez. and intel community are awaiting hard evidence. You should provide your evidence to Sen. Graham and by doing accelerate an international response and save the Syrians from death.

Reply
Edgar May 3, 2013 at 8:36 am

So you state that chemical weapons have been used but the Prez. and intel community are awaiting hard evidence. You should provide your evidence to Sen. Graham and by doing accelerate an international response and save the Syrians from death.

Reply
Sam Adams May 3, 2013 at 8:38 am

Where is Miss Lindsey? I’m sure she will want to play with the soldiers on the taxpayer’s dime….

Reply
lowcorider May 3, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Sweet Nancy is gettin all gussied up.

Reply
Sam Adams May 3, 2013 at 8:38 am

Where is Miss Lindsey? I’m sure she will want to play with the soldiers on the taxpayer’s dime….

Reply
Lowcorider May 3, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Sweet Nancy is gettin all gussied up.

Reply
lowcorider May 3, 2013 at 8:42 am

Immediately send McCain and Graham to the front lines. Once we can confirm that both have been killed we will convene a special panel of Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, Al Gore, Chuck Hagel, and Oliver Stone. They will determine if the loss of McCain and Graham is worth young Americans dying.

Reply
Smirks May 3, 2013 at 9:01 am

Send Michael Moore to the front lines. There’s enough blubber to shield everyone from harm.

Reply
shifty henry May 3, 2013 at 9:32 am

proof is in the “pudding”

Reply
Brigid May 3, 2013 at 11:40 am

Hi-larious!

Reply
9" May 9, 2013 at 12:24 am

As long as he has a ‘Smirks’ mask on,but hell,then you’d be an,’enemy combatant’ or just plain ugly motherfucker…

Reply
CNSYD May 3, 2013 at 9:03 am

News Flash! I believe you will find that McCain has already been to the front lines. Have you?

Reply
lowcorider May 3, 2013 at 2:15 pm

News flash. Yes. Twice. And had to do my entire tours. Any more fucking questions. And my kids have done tours. Any more fucking questions.

Reply
Lowcorider May 3, 2013 at 8:42 am

Immediately send McCain and Graham to the front lines. Once we can confirm that both have been killed we will convene a special panel of Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, Al Gore, Chuck Hagel, and Oliver Stone. They will determine if the loss of McCain and Graham is worth young Americans dying.

Reply
Smirks May 3, 2013 at 9:01 am

Send Michael Moore to the front lines. There’s enough blubber to shield everyone from harm.

Reply
shifty henry May 3, 2013 at 9:32 am

proof is in the “pudding”

Reply
Brigid May 3, 2013 at 11:40 am

Hi-larious!

Reply
9" May 9, 2013 at 12:24 am

As long as he has a ‘Smirks’ mask on,but hell,then you’d be an,’enemy combatant’ or just plain ugly motherfucker…

Reply
CNSYD May 3, 2013 at 9:03 am

News Flash! I believe you will find that McCain has already been to the front lines. Have you?

Reply
Lowcorider May 3, 2013 at 2:15 pm

News flash. Yes. Twice. And had to do my entire tours. Any more fucking questions. And my kids have done tours. Any more fucking questions.

Reply
GrandTango May 3, 2013 at 8:43 am

It is LUDICROUS for ANYBODY on the Left to have the unmitigated gall to try to preach to us about Syria. You are Failure personified, and NOWHERE is that more apparent than in foreign policy.

See Libya, and four dead Americans, hung out to die, by the Disgusting politicians who put them there.

And: Obama is in the process of trading one group of gruesome monsters for another in Egypt.

He supported the Arab Spring and gave us the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo. He based his overthrow of that government on the idea that the previous regime was a murdering machine. What Obama gave as a replacement is worse.

If Obama was not a liberal democrat, he’d be called out for the TOTAL mess he is making in foreign policy.

Like Jimmy Carter is the root cause of Iran, and millions of deaths and trillions in costs, no one will lay the blame at Carter’s feet, because he is a Leftwing god.

The consequence of worshiping a horrible idol is harsh. And our sons and daughters will pay for the Complete and Bumbling Fool Obama is. And you have some NERVE trying to act as if your hands, as an Obama supporter, as not just as bloody.

Reply
Latter Day Taints May 3, 2013 at 11:35 am

Four Americans dead? Well you must really be outraged by the thousands dead in Iraq by Bush’s “foreign policy”

Go fuck yourself, sunshine.

Reply
GrandTango May 3, 2013 at 11:56 am

Soldiers joining the military go in under known conditions, w/ every assurance that the US Congress (democrat and Republican) that sent them, will do as they say to back them.
You are a Filthy cretin to try and assuage your guilt over leaving those men in Benghazi to be raped and slaughtered because lazy and apathetic liberal politicians ignored them.
Not to mention: The US liberated the country of Iraq from a murderous dictator. That should pay dividends for a Century, unless Obama Screws it up. For that I’m proud, as I am of EVERY Freedom Fight my country has stepped up and fought.
I am ashamed of people who bash our soldiers and sickeningly abandon our countrymen because they lack the character to protect the people they promised and are obligated to save.

Reply
Smirks May 3, 2013 at 1:21 pm

Lincoln must be rolling in his grave now that you’re using his image as your avatar.

Reply
GrandTango May 3, 2013 at 3:24 pm

He’s a Republican, who fought democrat Slave-owners, like you. Lincoln’s just like Rand Paul, Tim Scott, Ronald Reagan and Rand Paul…He loved FREEDOM. Lincoln would have been ashamed of Obama, and people like you…Deal with it!!!!

History Lesson May 3, 2013 at 4:08 pm

“He’s a Republican, who fought democrat Slave-owners, like you.”

But not the pro union Republicans like you?

History Lesson May 3, 2013 at 4:12 pm

Let me add: “.. it seems they’ve conveniently forgotten that Ronald Reagan, their Conservative hero, was also pro-union…”

GrandTango May 9, 2013 at 3:49 pm

You’ve Perverted unions, like you have Race, Gender and everything you touch…
Reagan was a democrat at one time, too. Then he ACCURATELY said the party left the American people….

9" May 9, 2013 at 3:10 pm

He was also homosexual.Is this your way of finally coming-out?

unclewillie1 May 3, 2013 at 8:52 am

The law of unintended consequences rule! I give you Iraq….

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There
are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we
don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we
don’t know we don’t know.”

Reply
shifty henry May 3, 2013 at 9:34 am

Remind me who said that…………

Reply
unclewillie1 May 5, 2013 at 12:35 pm

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Feb, 12, 2002

Reply
shifty henry May 5, 2013 at 1:48 pm

Thanks……………!!

Reply
unclewillie1 May 3, 2013 at 8:52 am

The law of unintended consequences rule! I give you Iraq….

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There
are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we
don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we
don’t know we don’t know.”

Reply
shifty henry May 3, 2013 at 9:34 am

Remind me who said that…………

Reply
unclewillie1 May 5, 2013 at 12:35 pm

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Feb, 12, 2002

Reply
shifty henry May 5, 2013 at 1:48 pm

Thanks……………!!

Reply
Smirks May 3, 2013 at 9:04 am

Should we stand idly by? Well, if we didn’t piss away a decade in Iraq, it might be slightly more trustworthy to have military intervention. We don’t have a huge war chest ready to spend on yet another war and yet another decade-long occupation of a country that may or may not be stable enough to run on its own and more than likely will not play a fiddle to American interests’ tune. (the reason I say this is because that will result in us “needing” to intervene at a later date for some other stupid reason. America doesn’t tend to back the best people in the world to run things when given the opportunity. Saddam Hussein was our friend at one point, remember that.)

Can we just bomb the shit out of wherever Assad and his henchmen are stationed and call it a day?

Reply
Smirks May 3, 2013 at 9:04 am

Should we stand idly by? Well, if we didn’t piss away a decade in Iraq, it might be slightly more trustworthy to have military intervention. We don’t have a huge war chest ready to spend on yet another war and yet another decade-long occupation of a country that may or may not be stable enough to run on its own and more than likely will not play a fiddle to American interests’ tune. (The reason I say this is because that will result in us “needing” to intervene at a later date for some other stupid reason. America doesn’t tend to back the best people in the world to run things when given the opportunity. Saddam Hussein was our friend at one point, remember that.)

We pissed away trillions of dollars we didn’t even have for two wars with little to show for it. We still have people there today. How much intervention are we talking about? Also, why don’t we “intervene” when other massacres and/or genocides are going on? Why is it when we use chemical warfare (Agent Orange) it isn’t a big deal? Why isn’t our massive nuke stockpile an issue? Are we really qualified to be the world’s police?

Can we just bomb the shit out of wherever Assad and his henchmen are stationed and call it a day? That’s about the only “intervention” we should really even consider.

Reply
JC May 3, 2013 at 9:15 am

Humanitarian aid is a political weapon in itself. You better believe any aid we send would be contingent on certain political outcomes once the regime fails. Second, we are $16 trillion in debt. How can we afford to increase humanitarian aid when we’re going broke here? Andf if the United States is to give humanitarian aid to every nation where people are oppressed by an authoritarian regime, then we should go ahead and break the bank, because those in Mali, Belarus, Myanmar, Congo, Eritrea and Equitorial Guinea will be looking for aid. Lastly, does anyone really believe our money will be of good use, that there will be a diplomatic solution to the Syrian conflict? The Alawites (Shia Muslims) support Assad. They fear if his regime crumbles, the Sunni majority will wipe them out. The Sunnis want self-determination and an end to Assad’s political corruption and perceived religious corruption. The Druz and Coptic Christian minorities are caught in the middle. This conflict is only the beginning. These ethnic and religious tensions, which were only kept at bay by Assad’s dictatorial policies, are going to be present in that part of the world for decades at least. We should mind our business and end the belief that our involvement, either economically or militarily, will have any positive effect.

Reply
JC May 3, 2013 at 9:15 am

Humanitarian aid is a political weapon in itself. You better believe any aid we send would be contingent on certain political outcomes once the regime fails. Second, we are $16 trillion in debt. How can we afford to increase humanitarian aid when we’re going broke here? Andf if the United States is to give humanitarian aid to every nation where people are oppressed by an authoritarian regime, then we should go ahead and break the bank, because those in Mali, Belarus, Myanmar, Congo, Eritrea and Equitorial Guinea will be looking for aid. Lastly, does anyone really believe our money will be of good use, that there will be a diplomatic solution to the Syrian conflict? The Alawites (Shia Muslims) support Assad. They fear if his regime crumbles, the Sunni majority will wipe them out. The Sunnis want self-determination and an end to Assad’s political corruption and perceived religious corruption. The Druz and Coptic Christian minorities are caught in the middle. This conflict is only the beginning. These ethnic and religious tensions, which were only kept at bay by Assad’s dictatorial policies, are going to be present in that part of the world for decades at least. We should mind our business and end the belief that our involvement, either economically or militarily, will have any positive effect.

Reply
Squishy123 May 3, 2013 at 10:59 am

Who cares, why does the US have to be involved in every conflict around the globe? Let them fight it out and whoever wins, wins.

Fuck humanitarian aid, we have people going hungry in this country… let’s take care of ourselves first. I’d rather see money spent on on fixing roads over making sure Boobly Boo in some 3rd world country has a bloated stomach full of spoiled rice.

Reply
Right May 3, 2013 at 11:06 am

I’ve got no problem with letting them fight it out on their own – unless we can confirm that they have chemical weapons. They could turn those suckers on us and our allies, so we should do what we can to take those out. Once we take out the chemical weapons, then our military obligation ends.

I am fine with humanitarian aid. I’d want the same if it was me. Golden Rule and all that.

Reply
JC May 3, 2013 at 11:26 am

Do you honestly believe the Assad regime would use chemical weapons on the U.S.? He is currently fighting for his life, both actually and politically. Using weapons on the American people would be perhaps the most idiotic thing he could do at this point, and Assad is no idiot. He has maintained a relatively stable Alawite regime in a Sunni majority country for three decades. And do Americans even realize who the Syrian rebels are? They are Sunni radicals supported by both the Saudi’s and Al Qaeda. So let’s say we go in, take out Assad’s alleged chemical weapons and then what? We have a government in Syria that is more reactionary than the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. Now cue the Israeli’s and their Fifth Column in the U.S. calling for regime change again in Syria, since the rebels will be an existential threat to Israel, just like Assad was. This is all a game, the end result of which is perpetual war. If there is an issue with chemical weapons in Syria, let the Turks and the Israelis handle it. They are Syria’s neighbors, and both have the financial capability of affecting change. But we should not spend one American dollar or lose one American life doing the bidding of Likud and Netanyahu.

Reply
Right May 3, 2013 at 11:41 am

“Do you honestly believe the Assad regime would use chemical weapons on the U.S.?”

Yes, on us and our allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia. Why do I believe that? Because, as you said, “He is currently fighting for his life, both actually and politically.” And there are other countries over there (like Iran) who would support him doing just that. Take out the chemical weapons, once we know where they are. Then our military obligation ends and they can fight it out on their own.

Reply
JC May 3, 2013 at 12:10 pm

Saudi Arabia is not an ally. We have this notion that Iran is a state sponsor of terror, but 19 of the 20 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. Their Wahabi madrassas are the schools of Islamic extremism. But we get oil from them and our political elites, especially the Bushes, are buddies with the Royal Family. If we intervene at all based on Assad’s possession of chemical weapons, it is likely Assad’s regime will be replaced by a worse group of radicals, fudned both by Saudi radicals and Al Qaeda, who really hate the U.S. and Israel much more than the Assad regime. Even still, I don’t believe that Assad has or is using chemical weapons. He is a brute and a murderer, but if he had begun using them, the Turks and the Israelis would have already been involved. It is my belief that these reports are merely propaganda being used to swell support for an American intervention.

JC May 3, 2013 at 12:19 pm

Also, a UN envoy to Syria has said that rebels have used chemical weapons on civilian Alawite populations. So even if Assad has chemical weapons, it is just as likely that the rebels do as well, since many of them are ex-military. So then, our choice would be to either support a Middle Eastern strong man who kills his own people, or a group of radical Islamists who are supported by the very group the AUMF targets. This is a lose-lose situation. We should support no one, and again remind the countries that border Syria that if their national sovereignty is threatened by the flood of refugees and spill over violence, they have every right and duty to intervene. But the United States of America is not in any danger of being attacked by the Assad regime. One could even make the argument that the Syrian rebels would be more likely to target us with attacks, given those who support them.

Smirks May 3, 2013 at 1:33 pm

I feel bad that you’re getting downvoted. You’re bringing up excellent points. There is no cut-and-dry approach to interventionism. There’s consequences to everything and very rarely are there times where you know for a fact that intervening is going to be an overall positive force in a given region. Who replaces Assad if/when he is killed is a huge unknown, they could very well be as bad or even worse than him to the Syrian people, and they could very well hate our guts. Given our history I wouldn’t even trust America appointing someone.

If you’re worried about their chemical weapons, the only way we can stop that is by invading Syria and finding/destroying their supply (which isn’t foolproof). Just note that there are plenty of other countries with the same capabilities, and that each one you invade has a trillion-plus dollar price tag. The military-industrial complex needs new wars all the time to justify that kind of spending, so they’ll back you up on it.

Sure May 4, 2013 at 12:14 am

Well, the Israeli’s just dropped some bombs on Syria, so, by your logic, I guess it’s not propaganda after all. Still, I hope the Israelis can take this guy out without American intervention.

Sure May 4, 2013 at 12:21 am

Well, the Israelis just dropped some bombs on Syria, so perhaps it’s not “propaganda” after all. Still, I hope that Israel can take this guy out without American intervention. Graham is already threatening to go to war with Iran by the end of the year. The man is just itching for a fight over there. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail.

Sure May 4, 2013 at 12:27 am

Edited to add those last 2 lines and it double-posted somehow and made me a “guest.” Sorry for any confusion.

Squishy123 May 3, 2013 at 10:59 am

Who cares, why does the US have to be involved in every conflict around the globe? Let them fight it out and whoever wins, wins.

Fuck humanitarian aid, we have people going hungry in this country… let’s take care of ourselves first. I’d rather see money spent on on fixing roads over making sure Boobly Boo in some 3rd world country has a bloated stomach full of spoiled rice.

Reply
Right May 3, 2013 at 11:06 am

I’ve got no problem with letting them fight it out on their own – unless we can confirm that they have chemical weapons. They could turn those suckers on us and our allies, so we should do what we can to take those out. Once we take out the chemical weapons, then our military obligation ends.

I am fine with humanitarian aid. I’d want the same if it was me. Golden Rule and all that.

Reply
JC May 3, 2013 at 11:26 am

Do you honestly believe the Assad regime would use chemical weapons on the U.S.? He is currently fighting for his life, both actually and politically. Using weapons on the American people would be perhaps the most idiotic thing he could do at this point, and Assad is no idiot. He has maintained a relatively stable Alawite regime in a Sunni majority country for three decades. And do Americans even realize who the Syrian rebels are? They are Sunni radicals supported by both the Saudi’s and Al Qaeda. So let’s say we go in, take out Assad’s alleged chemical weapons and then what? We have a government in Syria that is more reactionary than the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. Now cue the Israeli’s and their Fifth Column in the U.S. calling for regime change again in Syria, since the rebels will be an existential threat to Israel, just like Assad was. This is all a game, the end result of which is perpetual war. If there is an issue with chemical weapons in Syria, let the Turks and the Israelis handle it. They are Syria’s neighbors, and both have the financial capability of affecting change. But we should not spend one American dollar or lose one American life doing the bidding of Likud and Netanyahu.

Reply
Right May 3, 2013 at 11:41 am

“Do you honestly believe the Assad regime would use chemical weapons on the U.S.?”

Yes, on us and our allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia. Why do I believe that? Because, as you said, “He is currently fighting for his life, both actually and politically.” And there are other countries over there (like Iran) who would support him doing just that. Take out the chemical weapons, once we know where they are. Then our military obligation ends and they can fight it out on their own.

Reply
JC May 3, 2013 at 12:10 pm

Saudi Arabia is not an ally. We have this notion that Iran is a state sponsor of terror, but 19 of the 20 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. Their Wahabi madrassas are the schools of Islamic extremism. But we get oil from them and our political elites, especially the Bushes, are buddies with the Royal Family. If we intervene at all based on Assad’s possession of chemical weapons, it is likely Assad’s regime will be replaced by a worse group of radicals, fudned both by Saudi radicals and Al Qaeda, who really hate the U.S. and Israel much more than the Assad regime. Even still, I don’t believe that Assad has or is using chemical weapons. He is a brute and a murderer, but if he had begun using them, the Turks and the Israelis would have already been involved. It is my belief that these reports are merely propaganda being used to swell support for an American intervention.

JC May 3, 2013 at 12:19 pm

Also, a UN envoy to Syria has said that rebels have used chemical weapons on civilian Alawite populations. So even if Assad has chemical weapons, it is just as likely that the rebels do as well, since many of them are ex-military. So then, our choice would be to either support a Middle Eastern strong man who kills his own people, or a group of radical Islamists who are supported by the very group the AUMF targets. This is a lose-lose situation. We should support no one, and again remind the countries that border Syria that if their national sovereignty is threatened by the flood of refugees and spill over violence, they have every right and duty to intervene. But the United States of America is not in any danger of being attacked by the Assad regime. One could even make the argument that the Syrian rebels would be more likely to target us with attacks, given those who support them.

Smirks May 3, 2013 at 1:33 pm

I feel bad that you’re getting downvoted. You’re bringing up excellent points. There is no cut-and-dry approach to interventionism. There’s consequences to everything and very rarely are there times where you know for a fact that intervening is going to be an overall positive force in a given region. Who replaces Assad if/when he is killed is a huge unknown, they could very well be as bad or even worse than him to the Syrian people, and they could very well hate our guts. Given our history I wouldn’t even trust America appointing someone.

If you’re worried about their chemical weapons, the only way we can stop that is by invading Syria and finding/destroying their supply (which isn’t foolproof). Just note that there are plenty of other countries with the same capabilities, and that each one you invade has a trillion-plus dollar price tag. The military-industrial complex needs new wars all the time to justify that kind of spending, so they’ll back you up on it.

Guest May 4, 2013 at 12:14 am

Well, the Israeli’s just dropped some bombs on Syria, so, by your logic, I guess it’s not propaganda after all. Still, I hope the Israelis can take this guy out without American intervention.

Sure May 4, 2013 at 12:21 am

Well, the Israelis just dropped some bombs on Syria, so perhaps it’s not “propaganda” after all. Still, I hope that Israel can take this guy out without American intervention. Graham is already threatening to go to war with Iran by the end of the year. The man is just itching for a fight over there. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail.

Sure May 4, 2013 at 12:27 am

Edited to add those last 2 lines and it double-posted somehow and made me a “guest.” Sorry for any confusion.

GrandTango May 3, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Republican vs democrat foreign policy: Look at Iran, and look at Iraq.
Iraq: Saved by a Republican President and US Soldiers. It will pay dividends in the region for a Century, unless Obama Screws it up.
Iran: Screwed up by Jimmy Carter, an ignorant democrat president, who has made the whole Mid-East unstable for decades. Carter’s poor management perpetuated the death of Millions of people in the MidEast, who would have been spared w/o horrible decisions by Carter.
You people are Stupid and led by the media. And even Republicans will not explain it to you.
You FAIL at everything, but you are not held to account, so we repeat your ignorance over and over…and not only the parents suffer for your stupidity, but so will our children…

Reply
Sure May 3, 2013 at 12:41 pm

American soldiers died and suffered devastating injuries in Iraq after we went in there on a LIE about the existence of WMD there. So, maybe we should be a little more cautious this time. And, the Iraqis currently hate us. Get your head out of your ass.

Reply
GrandTango May 3, 2013 at 3:41 pm

The US liberated millions of people in Iraq using data everybody in gov’t was privy to. Clinton had the same data. It’s why he made threats to Heussein (Saddam, not Barack) over and over….,
Eventually, the US showed Iraq freedom based in their peoples’ will….Obama overthrew a mild dictaor, w/ his Sharia Law Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Iraq is a model, and a lesson to Despots that the US will follow up on threats made against it, even if a coward, like Clinton, ran his mouth, but could not perform, except w/ a little girl, his grand-daughter’s age.
Egypt is a complete mess…w/ more coming at the hands of the totally incompetent Obama. It’s Carter Part II

Reply
Brigid May 3, 2013 at 4:31 pm

Did it ever occur to you that Saddamn Hussein shipped his chemical weapons to Syria, as satellite pictures showed at the time and continue to show? That are allegedly being used in Syria against it’s own population?

Reply
Todd May 3, 2013 at 6:55 pm

That theory is as old as the hills. I ask you this: Why would Saddam give up the worst threat he could make? None of it makes sense to me…

Reply
GrandTango May 3, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Hey, Lizenby: You’re a “repoductive health” expert, so you claim. Fox News is broadcasting an hour-long special on Dr. Gosnell tonight. Do YOU have the Courage to watch it???
I challenge you to watch it, and stand up for your beliefs, even when the media is cowering…Can you assure me you will watch, and report on what you see?????

Reply
Brigid May 3, 2013 at 4:10 pm

Here’s another ‘gosnell’ in Michigan, protected by the state’s medical board:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/02/Michigan-Abortionist-Was-Still-Licensed-After-Leaving-Baby-s-Head-Inside-Mother

Reply
GrandTango May 3, 2013 at 6:33 pm

Remember: Obama (Lizenby’s candidate) voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act!!!!!
It’s really beginning to be like NAZI Germany denying the Holocaust…
Lizenby cannot wait to demand abortion pills for 15-year-old litle girls (how sick is that?)…but she cowers when asked to simply watch, and comment on, a TV documentary about a pro-abotion practioneer, who was a hero in the abortion movment just a short while ago.
Brutal Abortion baby-killer monsters all over the country, in cahoots w/ Planned Parenthood, are beginning to be the leftwing’s Vietnam, Holocaust and Watergate, all rolled up into one.
I cannot believe the average decent person in America is not going to lash out in Outrage, as this thing oozes out despite the media.
These are Hideous people…How can they sleep at night???

Reply
Are you serious May 4, 2013 at 12:36 am

Wait – is this article about abortion? If it is, I missed that part. Why
don’t you act like a person with some critical thinking skills and
stick to the topic?

Reply
GrandTango May 5, 2013 at 5:07 pm

The Author, and her response, to her Birth Control Stance, is FAR, FAR more interesting to me, than some uneducated, unrealistic ideological diatribe on Syria…
When I’m ASKING, why does she hide????

GrandTango May 3, 2013 at 8:47 pm

Chirp, chirp, chirp…..
This author offers her opinions on birth control, to us, the public….We dutifully listen to you invoke your authority…
Can’t we not ask you to do a little research???..and make sure you’ve seen all sides????
Or: Are you like the coward, WORST and disgusting, politicians…who think they can lord over the subjects, but never have to respond to the feedback of the people you preach to????
Are you watching..The Abortion-birth control- special, where you claim dominion over us. It is airing soon.
Are you WATCHING. Will you report and tell us if you still side w/ Dr. Gosnell and his practices??? …I’m WAITING….

Reply
GrandTango May 4, 2013 at 12:21 pm

I’m anxiously awaiting this author’s report on the FOX-News expose on the Baby-Killing Mill.
Will this mother still send her daughter to the abortionist, as Obama pledged he would, to take care of his grandchild, should his daughter “get in trouble?”
Liberals are jockeys of a modern-day Holocaust.
Own up…or Shut Up.
If you are the EXPERT on how we should teach birth control, PLEASE enlighten us on your Dr. Gosnel, and the mutilation of babies……

Reply
BrigidBernadette May 4, 2013 at 5:29 pm

Crickets.

Reply
BrigidBernadette May 4, 2013 at 12:38 pm

How dare you call Graham and McCain ‘neo-con warmongers’? When your boy Obama has already deployed American troops to Jordan, and now to Mali. You failed to mention the 200 to Jordan could surge to 20,000. He did not seek congressional approval for the Mali move. He is spending hundreds of millions of dollars with no congressional authority screwing around in North Africa using the banner of UN and NATO. And they are watching our every move, while the American public remains uninformed and congress is sitting on their hands: http://www.mojahedin.org/pagesEn/detailsNews.aspx?newsid=25491

Reply
Brigid May 4, 2013 at 12:38 pm

How dare you call Graham and McCain ‘neo-con warmongers’? When your boy Obama has already deployed American troops to Jordan, and now to Mali. You failed to mention the 200 to Jordan could surge to 20,000. He did not seek congressional approval for the Mali move. He is spending hundreds of millions of dollars with no congressional authority screwing around in North Africa using the banner of UN and NATO. And they are watching our every move, while the American public remains uninformed and congress is sitting on their hands: http://www.mojahedin.org/pagesEn/detailsNews.aspx?newsid=25491

Reply
BrigidBernadette May 4, 2013 at 5:29 pm

Shouldn’t you ask the question why military action is being done without congressional approval? And when congress acts for example to stop sending money to the muslim brotherhood in Egypt, Obama ignores it and does it anyway? Something about neo-con warmongers? There was congressional approval to invade Iraq, I guess that was the last time there will be, for under this administration the rules are simply do whatever you wish, with taxpayer’s dollars–sorry–money borrowed from China. Arming our enemies. Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets, God only knows what else. Quoted from the Washington Post:
“The Obama administration intends to resume funding for Egypt’s military, despite congressional restrictions and objections from human rights and democracy advocates. For months, the money for Egypt — more than $1.5 billion, with the bulk earmarked for the military —has been withheld amid that country’s crackdown on pro-democracy groups, including several U.S.-based organizations with close ties to political parties in Washington. A law passed by Congress in December forbids funding unless the State Department certifies that Egypt is making progress on basic freedoms and human rights.
But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is close to announcing plans to bypass those restrictions on national security grounds, according to senior administration officials and others who have been briefed on the deliberations but were not authorized to speak publicly. The administration believes failure to provide the funds would risk worsening already fraying ties with Egypt’s
leaders, most notably the Egyptian military, which still controls the country.”

Reply
Brigid May 4, 2013 at 5:29 pm

Shouldn’t you ask the question why military action is being done without congressional approval? And when congress acts for example to stop sending money to the muslim brotherhood in Egypt, Obama ignores it and does it anyway? Something about neo-con warmongers? There was congressional approval to invade Iraq, I guess that was the last time there will be, for under this administration the rules are simply do whatever you wish, with taxpayer’s dollars–sorry–money borrowed from China. Arming our enemies. Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets, God only knows what else. Quoted from the Washington Post:
“The Obama administration intends to resume funding for Egypt’s military, despite congressional restrictions and objections from human rights and democracy advocates. For months, the money for Egypt — more than $1.5 billion, with the bulk earmarked for the military —has been withheld amid that country’s crackdown on pro-democracy groups, including several U.S.-based organizations with close ties to political parties in Washington. A law passed by Congress in December forbids funding unless the State Department certifies that Egypt is making progress on basic freedoms and human rights.
But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is close to announcing plans to bypass those restrictions on national security grounds, according to senior administration officials and others who have been briefed on the deliberations but were not authorized to speak publicly. The administration believes failure to provide the funds would risk worsening already fraying ties with Egypt’s
leaders, most notably the Egyptian military, which still controls the country.”

Reply
GrandTango May 4, 2013 at 5:51 pm

Hey Lizenby: did you watch the expose on your abortion doctor?
And so many of you libs make a BIG production of Telling your children about ancient Slavery or the Sufferage Movement, to EDCUCATE (or indoctrinate hate in) them…
So I’m sure you got the kiddos in front of the Set to show them the Nasty Face of the Pro-Abortion Movement…Right???

Reply
BrigidBernadette May 5, 2013 at 4:25 pm

it’s on again tonight.

Reply
GrandTango May 5, 2013 at 5:05 pm

I doubt we’ll see Lizenby for a while…and I bet you she won’t be talkin’ birth control…
Liberals FLEE like Cowards when their failure manifests…

Reply
BrigidBernadette May 5, 2013 at 11:14 am

Israel bombed a weapons shipment headed for Hizbullah on Friday, an
Israeli source confirmed Saturday. The source spoke after American media
outlets reported the strike.
Israel is considering partnering with several Sunni-Muslim Arab states in a U.S.-brokered defense alliance that would be aimed at containing a nuclear Iran, the Sunday Times reported, citing an unnamed Israeli official.
The alliance would see Israel teaming up with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey and the United Arab Emirates to forge a Middle East “moderate crescent” to “contain” Iran, rather than confront it, according to Russian website RT, which quoted the Times.
According to the report, such an alliance would give Israel access to radar stations in Saudi Arabia and the UAE in exchange for its own early warning radar information and anti-ballistic missile defense systems, the source told the Sunday Times. The report suggested that Jordan would be protected by Israel’s Arrow long-range anti-missile batteries.
“The plan is to start with information-sharing about Iran’s ballistic missiles,” said an Israeli official.
The proposal is reportedly known by participating diplomats as ‘4+1’, and is being brokered by the United States.

–from Arutz Sheva

Reply
Brigid May 5, 2013 at 11:14 am

Israel bombed a weapons shipment headed for Hizbullah on Friday, an
Israeli source confirmed Saturday. The source spoke after American media
outlets reported the strike.
Israel is considering partnering with several Sunni-Muslim Arab states in a U.S.-brokered defense alliance that would be aimed at containing a nuclear Iran, the Sunday Times reported, citing an unnamed Israeli official.
The alliance would see Israel teaming up with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey and the United Arab Emirates to forge a Middle East “moderate crescent” to “contain” Iran, rather than confront it, according to Russian website RT, which quoted the Times.
According to the report, such an alliance would give Israel access to radar stations in Saudi Arabia and the UAE in exchange for its own early warning radar information and anti-ballistic missile defense systems, the source told the Sunday Times. The report suggested that Jordan would be protected by Israel’s Arrow long-range anti-missile batteries.
“The plan is to start with information-sharing about Iran’s ballistic missiles,” said an Israeli official.
The proposal is reportedly known by participating diplomats as ‘4+1’, and is being brokered by the United States.

–from Arutz Sheva

Reply
BrigidBernadette May 5, 2013 at 11:23 am

Zero credibility, zero moral compass. In the meantime, Israel went ahead and acted, thank God:

WASHINGTON — Confronted with evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, President Obama now finds himself in a geopolitical box, his credibility at stake with frustratingly few good options.
“How can we attack another country unless it’s in self-defense and
with no Security Council resolution?” an unnamed Obama administration
official tells the paper. “If he drops sarin on his own people, what’s
that got to do with us?”

Reply
BrigidBernadette May 5, 2013 at 11:34 am Reply
GrandTango May 5, 2013 at 5:04 pm

Thanks Brigid. Obama’s Screw-ups are becoming too obvious and too numerous to keep ignoring. Too many people being slaughtered, while Obama plays golf and lives like an elitist…

Reply
Brigid May 5, 2013 at 11:23 am

Zero credibility, zero moral compass. In the meantime, Israel went ahead and acted, thank God:

WASHINGTON — Confronted with evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, President Obama now finds himself in a geopolitical box, his credibility at stake with frustratingly few good options.
“How can we attack another country unless it’s in self-defense and
with no Security Council resolution?” an unnamed Obama administration
official tells the paper. “If he drops sarin on his own people, what’s
that got to do with us?”

Reply
Brigid May 5, 2013 at 11:34 am Reply
9" May 9, 2013 at 12:07 am

I’m not reading any of this shit;just remembering how hot George Lazenby was as the 1st Bond replacement,although he wasn’t as hairy as Sean.Is Amy hairy?

Reply
A Friend May 9, 2013 at 7:55 pm

Maybe her husband is…

Reply
9" May 9, 2013 at 12:07 am

I’m not reading any of this shit;just remembering how hot George Lazenby was as the 1st Bond replacement,although he wasn’t as hairy as Sean.Is Amy hairy?

Reply
A Friend May 9, 2013 at 7:55 pm

Maybe her husband is…

Reply
A Friend May 9, 2013 at 7:56 pm

So do GrandTango and this Brigid chick just have conversations with each other about abortion on here or what?

Reply
A Friend May 9, 2013 at 7:56 pm

So do GrandTango and this Brigid chick just have conversations with each other about abortion on here or what?

Reply
Thomas May 10, 2013 at 3:45 pm

The Syrian Civil War, a conflict that grew out of the Arab Spring movement that began in late 2010

Says who? Your first sentence, your false premise is wrong. Therefore, your supporting quotes are from people who are lying. Therefore, your insights and conclusions are wrong. Your problem is you are gullible. If the Establishment is wrong on any news story, they lose credibility. They become controlled extensions of the propaganda. From where did this false perception originate, this false premise you hold as fact clouds your judgment to the point that you lose credibility.

“(at) a speech at the University of Alabama Gen. Wesley Clark again recounted his conversation with a general at the Pentagon in November 2001.

I said, “Are we still going to invade Iraq?” “Yes, Sir,” he said, “but it’s worse than that.” I said, “How do you mean?” He held up this piece of paper. He said, “I just got this memo today or yesterday from the office of the Secretary of Defense upstairs. It’s a, it’s a five-year plan. We’re going to take down seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, we’re going to come back and get Iran in five years. I said, “Is that classified, that paper?” He said, “Yes Sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me, because I want to be able to talk about it.”

This was of course just two months after 9-11, when Americans’ attention was focused on al-Qaeda and preparations for an invasion of Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden lived as a guest of the Taliban.”-Gary Leupp is a Professor of History, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion, at Tufts University and author of numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

<So you see, the war in Syria was planned by DC in 2001. The war in Syria is our government attacking Syria, murdering innocent civilians through mercenaries we pay and arm.

The country has been in a state of civil war due to uprisings against the Assad government since March 2011, considered to be part of the wider Arab Spring movement that has broken out in the Arab world

Says who?

In light of the above quotes from Wesley Clark, there was no Arab Spring longing for Democracy. Rather, the people were starving which ignited protests infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood precisely to topple Mubarak. Evidently, the US was backing Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, a Nazi sympathizing band of criminals devoted to the destruction of Israel. Obama supplying the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt with F16 Jets and 220 Abram Tanks, sworn enemies of the USA and our Chief Ally Israel, proves my point.

Government repression, corruption, unemployment and poverty united protesters to oust Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak last week. But experts say the rising price of food was one of the sparks that set off the historic protests. http://www.voanews.com/content/high-food-prices-helped-spark-egypt-protests-116170879/160199.html

Sen’s McCain and Graham are warmongers with innocent blood on their hands promoting military escalation in Syria. Hillary has blood on her hands by supplying arms to mercenaries in Syria through Benghazi. Obama has blood on his hands for leading the charge into Libya. Both Bush’s have the blood of 911 and Iraq on their hands.

Get your act together, Amy. You are nothing more than a malcontent sponge soaking up the lies and falsehoods in DC.

Reply
Thomas May 10, 2013 at 3:45 pm

The Syrian Civil War, a conflict that grew out of the Arab Spring movement that began in late 2010

Says who? Your first sentence, your false premise is wrong. Therefore, your supporting quotes are from people who are lying. Therefore, your insights and conclusions are wrong. Your problem is you are gullible. If the Establishment Media is wrong on any news story, they lose credibility. They become controlled extensions of the propaganda machinations. From where did this false perception originate, this false premise you hold as fact? Your judgment is clouded to the point that you lose credibility. Your sources?

“(at) a speech at the University of Alabama Gen. Wesley Clark again recounted his conversation with a general at the Pentagon in November 2001.

I said, “Are we still going to invade Iraq?” “Yes, Sir,” he said, “but it’s worse than that.” I said, “How do you mean?” He held up this piece of paper. He said, “I just got this memo today or yesterday from the office of the Secretary of Defense upstairs. It’s a, it’s a five-year plan. We’re going to take down seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, we’re going to come back and get Iran in five years. I said, “Is that classified, that paper?” He said, “Yes Sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me, because I want to be able to talk about it.”

This was of course just two months after 9-11, when Americans’ attention was focused on al-Qaeda and preparations for an invasion of Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden lived as a guest of the Taliban.”-Gary Leupp is a Professor of History, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion, at Tufts University and author of numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

So you see, the war in Syria was planned by DC in 2001. The war in Syria is our government attacking Syria, murdering innocent civilians through mercenaries we pay and arm.

The country has been in a state of civil war due to uprisings against the Assad government since March 2011, considered to be part of the wider Arab Spring movement that has broken out in the Arab world

Says who?

In light of the above quotes from Wesley Clark, there was no Arab Spring longing for Democracy. Rather, the people were starving which ignited protests infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood precisely to topple Mubarak. Evidently, the US was backing Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, a Nazi sympathizing band of criminals devoted to the destruction of Israel. Obama supplying the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt with F16 Jets and 220 Abram Tanks, sworn enemies of the USA and our Chief Ally Israel, proves my point.

Government repression, corruption, unemployment and poverty united protesters to oust Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak last week. But experts say the rising price of food was one of the sparks that set off the historic protests. http://www.voanews.com/content/high-food-prices-helped-spark-egypt-protests-116170879/160199.html

Sen’s McCain and Graham are warmongers with innocent blood on their hands promoting military escalation in Syria. Hillary has blood on her hands by supplying arms to mercenaries in Syria through Benghazi. Obama has blood on his hands for leading the charge into Libya. Both Bush’s have the blood of 911 and Iraq on their hands.

Worst of all, Amy, is you completely ignore the Egyptian protests against Morsi and his radical Islamist takeover of Egypt. What’s the matter? NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR did not cover this story, so it did not happen. Ever hear of Wikipedia?

Hundreds of thousands of protesters started to demonstrate against Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi on 22 November 2012,[25] after he granted himself unlimited powers to “protect” the nation,[26][27] and the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts.[28] Morsi followed his decrees by making an effort to push through a referendum on an Islamist-supported draft constitution.[3]

The demonstrations were organized by Egyptian opposition organizations and individuals, mainly pro-democratic liberals, leftists, secularists, and Christians.[29][30] The demonstrations have resulted in violent clashes between members of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood-backed Freedom and Justice Party and the anti-Morsi protesters, with dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries.[24] Demonstrators gathered outside the presidential palace, which in turn was surrounded by tanks and armored vehicles of the Republican Guard.[3] The anti-Morsi protesters in Cairo alone have numbered over 200,000 in some protests.[31] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_Egyptian_protests

Is this your Arab Spring?

Get your act together, Amy. You are nothing more than a malcontent sponge soaking up the lies and falsehoods in DC. You have no credibility. You are bigoted and hateful to write this garbage.

Reply

Leave a Comment