Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[boomerangutang]

Here's how acerbic comedian BILL MAHER sees recent events in Syria:

"I am with the majority who don't want to strike Syria. As horrible as chemical weapons are, lots of people don't want to start new s**t in the Middle East. I never understood the rationale behind this: 'Assad you bastard, you monster, you have crossed a line no human may ever cross, even in war. We are going to bomb you. But just a little. Just a little poke there Satan.'"

"This would be simple if we had a Republican president because a Republican president could get a Republican Congress to bomb Sea World."

"McCain wants war so much, he resents meth labs because they blow themselves up."

"The last couple of weeks have been very tough for Republicans because of course they always have to call for the opposite of whatever Obama is saying or doing. And this has been hard when Obama himself has been changing his mind pretty much on a daily basis. First he was against the bombing, of course they were for it. Then he was for the bombing, now they're against it. Now there's a peace plan on the table, and the same Republicans who were saying he was acting too rash to call for strikes on Syria are now calling him a wimp for going with the diplomacy. They say in the end, whether he chooses war or peace, the hard truth is either way he is still inarguably, hopelessly black."

"The peacemaker is Vladimir Putin. He is going to help us secure the chemical weapons, because if there is one thing you can trust Putin with, it’s poison. "

"The way it's going to work is Assad is going to turn over his chemical weapons to Russia, who will then of course sell them to China, who will repackage them as off-brand roach spray, and you can get them at the 99 cent store."

"It's not that easy to go and secure all these chemical weapons. For one thing, the Syrians have been scattering stockpiles of the chemical weapons all over. They've even got some stored here in the U.S. It's called Monsanto."

http://politicalhumo...ldailyfeed3.htm

[Publicus]

Here's how acerbic comedian BILL MAHER sees recent events in Syria:

"I am with the majority who don't want to strike Syria. As horrible as chemical weapons are, lots of people don't want to start new s**t in the Middle East. I never understood the rationale behind this: 'Assad you bastard, you monster, you have crossed a line no human may ever cross, even in war. We are going to bomb you. But just a little. Just a little poke there Satan.'"

"This would be simple if we had a Republican president because a Republican president could get a Republican Congress to bomb Sea World."

"McCain wants war so much, he resents meth labs because they blow themselves up."

"The last couple of weeks have been very tough for Republicans because of course they always have to call for the opposite of whatever Obama is saying or doing. And this has been hard when Obama himself has been changing his mind pretty much on a daily basis. First he was against the bombing, of course they were for it. Then he was for the bombing, now they're against it. Now there's a peace plan on the table, and the same Republicans who were saying he was acting too rash to call for strikes on Syria are now calling him a wimp for going with the diplomacy. They say in the end, whether he chooses war or peace, the hard truth is either way he is still inarguably, hopelessly black."

"The peacemaker is Vladimir Putin. He is going to help us secure the chemical weapons, because if there is one thing you can trust Putin with, it’s poison. "

"The way it's going to work is Assad is going to turn over his chemical weapons to Russia, who will then of course sell them to China, who will repackage them as off-brand roach spray, and you can get them at the 99 cent store."

"It's not that easy to go and secure all these chemical weapons. For one thing, the Syrians have been scattering stockpiles of the chemical weapons all over. They've even got some stored here in the U.S. It's called Monsanto."

Maher of course refers to all of the Polonium widows Putin has created in Russia.

[Sing_Sling]

I don't think the jihadi forces can be in full control of places for any long period. It will be just a matter of time before the US bombs the jihadis in Syria.

If it is proven that Turkey and some Gulf states provide any kind of aid to the jihadi forces, the US should cut all aid to those countries.

The way things look, the best option is for Assad and his government to stay in power, BUT free and fair elections should be called for within 2 years.

You do realise that Assad violently suppressed demonstrations calling for democracy in 2011 that triggered the civil war. Assad will not permit free and fair elctions

There is no history of 'fair' elections (chads anyone?) in Syria or anywhere in the region. He got hiss post when his father died - THAT was the time he could have brought in a type of democracy . . . but he didn't. Now he is fighting for his life, not only his political life but literally his life . . . anyone remember what happened to Ghadafi and Sadaam and many like them?

He would be suicidal to back down . . . as he, as well as his cronies, would very soon be dead

[Chicog]

I don't think the jihadi forces can be in full control of places for any long period. It will be just a matter of time before the US bombs the jihadis in Syria.

If it is proven that Turkey and some Gulf states provide any kind of aid to the jihadi forces, the US should cut all aid to those countries.

The way things look, the best option is for Assad and his government to stay in power, BUT free and fair elections should be called for within 2 years.

OK consider it proven. And some of the US aid is getting to them as well.

Get rid of Assad first, then the Jihadis can go and continue the fight in Iraq where all of the above really want them.

[SinglePot]

Assad will come to a sticky end.

How long?

[Sing_Sling]

 

Assad will come to a sticky end.

How long?

Not long if he gives in/up . . . hence his all-out battle for survival.

For once the US won't give a dictator asylum . . . the usual other suspects France and GB won't either . . . so there's Saudi.

No-brainer to fight on

[ABCer]

Hi, Chicog. We have met here before on the same issue. I have stopped the discussion because I hate rude remarks. So try to be polite, constructive and logical.

Assad is not a good man. No present for any lady on a Valentines day. But he represents some kind of stability in Syria.

Putin may be equally good or bad, but he was the one to call for caution and no rash decisions. He did succeed in pushing through some dialog and constructive measures.

Unlike you I do not claim living in Middle East. I also have no sources of information from Intelligence people there. I also do not trust those intel reports - they are made to order.

What I do have is my own intelligence and logical thinking. Which unfortunately brings me to this:

US Gov't drew the 'Red Line'. As soon as it was spelled out - use of chem weapons happened. Very timely and very convenient for the Rebels.

Knowing who and what are the Rebels and knowing that Assad was winning I expressed serious doubts he was the culprit.

Now US has changed the angle to the point of almost about face - let us bomb the Rebels.

It looks to me that US is bent on one thing - bomb or bust. No matter whom. No matter where. No matter why.

Some people believe that Rebels, fundamentalists, Islamists will go away. Did they promise to do so? Methinks not.

And who will benefit from them winning? Not Syrians, Not Israelis, Not the region's stability, Not the region's Democracy.

Once again, I come to the invariable conclusion that US is only interested in creating exactly this - region's instability. Nothing else they could achieve even if they wanted.

Perhaps US Gov't is hoping to catch some fish in muddy waters. But it is also possible that something comes to bite them on the hand in the same muddy waters.

Neither of the two possibilities are good.

Cheers

[Chicog]

Hi, Chicog. We have met here before on the same issue. I have stopped the discussion because I hate rude remarks. So try to be polite, constructive and logical.

Assad is not a good man. No present for any lady on a Valentines day. But he represents some kind of stability in Syria.

Anyone who calls 100,000 dead "stability" in my book does not really understand the issue of why so many people want Assad gone - not least the majority Sunni population of Syria.

As for the rest of your post, I can't quite see what website is forming your opinions, I've seen nothing about the US bombing jihadists other than speculation on opinionated websites. Perhaps you could post a link?

And Obama's "red line" was drawn in August 2012, the chemical attacks came almost a year later. Not quite "As soon as it was spelled out", is it?

Perhaps if you could introduce some hard facts into your posts to support your madcap theories, I might be less inclined to laugh at your "invariable conclusion", which seems to me to be based on anti-US propaganda.

Just to clarify: It suits everyone but Iran, Iraq, and Russia for Syria to become a Sunni democracy.

No, regional instability suits no-one, including the US (and currently Assad, because he's the one trying to turn his war crimes into a defence of Middle East peace by playing the "Oh look, I'm keeping it all stable!" card).

And by the way, I don't "claim" to live in the Middle East.

I live in the Middle East, and have done for decades.

Glad that you would seek to question that, perhaps you can find a slightly less ridiculous way to try and get a point across.

[SinglePot]

 

Assad will come to a sticky end.

How long?

Not long if he gives in/up . . . hence his all-out battle for survival.

For once the US won't give a dictator asylum . . . the usual other suspects France and GB won't either . . . so there's Saudi.

No-brainer to fight on

and end up like a rat in a sewer pipe shot by his own golden gun.

It's a shame Obama gets grief and criticism because of people like this.

And while I am here, I don't like regimes likes Putin's or the abortion of the PRC.

Toxic.

Up to them.

[StasD]

And Obama's "red line" was drawn in August 2012, the chemical attacks came almost a year later.

1 year is very little time to plan, find and use chem weapon. Only if some secret services would help you

[simple1]

And Obama's "red line" was drawn in August 2012, the chemical attacks came almost a year later.

1 year is very little time to plan, find and use chem weapon. Only if some secret services would help you

Assad regime has had chemical weapons for years.

Syria "probably" first began stockpiling chemical weapons in 1972 or 1973, when Egypt gave the country a small number of chemicals and delivery systems before the Yom Kippur War against Israel, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service. The Soviet Union later supplied chemical agents, delivery systems and training. Syria is also "likely to have procured equipment and precursor chemicals from private companies in Western Europe." According to the report, Syria doesn't yet appear to have the capacity to produce the weapons entirely on its own, relying on outside help for precursors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/05/everything-you-need-to-know-about-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[SinglePot]

And Obama's "red line" was drawn in August 2012, the chemical attacks came almost a year later.

1 year is very little time to plan, find and use chem weapon. Only if some secret services would help you

Putin (KGB) is dictating Russia and backing a loser (Assad).

[Sing_Sling]

 

Assad will come to a sticky end.

How long?

Not long if he gives in/up . . . hence his all-out battle for survival.

For once the US won't give a dictator asylum . . . the usual other suspects France and GB won't either . . . so there's Saudi.

No-brainer to fight on

and end up like a rat in a sewer pipe shot by his own golden gun.

It's a shame Obama gets grief and criticism because of people like this.

And while I am here, I don't like regimes likes Putin's or the abortion of the PRC.

Toxic.

Up to them.

I have no doubts that he will end up dead - irrespective of how - due to his actions . . . but blaming him for Obama looking bad is simply preposterous.

Assad didn't have anything to do with Obama - and certainly didn't stick his nose in US affairs - it was definitely the other way around . . . unless some DC boffins come up with a story that Assad was involved with AQ and the 9/11 'incident' . . . remember that Bachman, Gohmert and Joker3 were recently in Cairo telling people that the Muslim Brotherhood were responsible for it.

Assad will go, it's just a matter of time - he'll be soiling his pants by now

[F430murci]

Hi, Chicog. We have met here before on the same issue. I have stopped the discussion because I hate rude remarks. So try to be polite, constructive and logical.

Assad is not a good man. No present for any lady on a Valentines day. But he represents some kind of stability in Syria.

Putin may be equally good or bad, but he was the one to call for caution and no rash decisions. He did succeed in pushing through some dialog and constructive measures.

Unlike you I do not claim living in Middle East. I also have no sources of information from Intelligence people there. I also do not trust those intel reports - they are made to order.

What I do have is my own intelligence and logical thinking. Which unfortunately brings me to this:

US Gov't drew the 'Red Line'. As soon as it was spelled out - use of chem weapons happened. Very timely and very convenient for the Rebels.

Knowing who and what are the Rebels and knowing that Assad was winning I expressed serious doubts he was the culprit.

Now US has changed the angle to the point of almost about face - let us bomb the Rebels.

It looks to me that US is bent on one thing - bomb or bust. No matter whom. No matter where. No matter why.

Some people believe that Rebels, fundamentalists, Islamists will go away. Did they promise to do so? Methinks not.

And who will benefit from them winning? Not Syrians, Not Israelis, Not the region's stability, Not the region's Democracy.

Once again, I come to the invariable conclusion that US is only interested in creating exactly this - region's instability. Nothing else they could achieve even if they wanted.

Perhaps US Gov't is hoping to catch some fish in muddy waters. But it is also possible that something comes to bite them on the hand in the same muddy waters.

Neither of the two possibilities are good.

Cheers

Stability? Huh? This is about the most unstable in the world. Napalm dropped on school yards. Civilians, children and infants lined up and shot in the streets. The worst forms of torture the UN human rights investigation team has every heard of or witnessed. It is a war zone with no target being off limits. Forget the chical weapon use and that is less than 1 percent of the actual human suffering taking place. Ih, and the mass exodus and refuge crisis. I guess we have a different definition of stability.

[F430murci]

And Obama's "red line" was drawn in August 2012, the chemical attacks came almost a year later.

1 year is very little time to plan, find and use chem weapon. Only if some secret services would help you

Putin (KGB) is dictating Russia and backing a loser (Assad).

What is the world to do when UN human rights team tries to indict Assad and possibly Putin on war crimes? It you have read anything by Pinheiro and Del Ponte you know it's coming. They have a list of about 20 names and she said those supplying Assad with weapons are just as guilty.

What is going on is a temporary ruse by Putin to sway Public opinion and quietly behind the scenes Russia will supply Assad stronger weapons and help Iran develop nuclear. This all points to bigger more serious problems down the with Israel, Saudi et al. Russia does not care as they no US is impotent now to do anything.

[JemJem]

I don't think the jihadi forces can be in full control of places for any long period. It will be just a matter of time before the US bombs the jihadis in Syria.

If it is proven that Turkey and some Gulf states provide any kind of aid to the jihadi forces, the US should cut all aid to those countries.

The way things look, the best option is for Assad and his government to stay in power, BUT free and fair elections should be called for within 2 years.

OK consider it proven. And some of the US aid is getting to them as well.

Get rid of Assad first, then the Jihadis can go and continue the fight in Iraq where all of the above really want them.

So, you think that if/when the Assad regime's gone in the near future, the jihadis will just leave Syria and move on to Iraq ?!

[F430murci]

I don't think the jihadi forces can be in full control of places for any long period. It will be just a matter of time before the US bombs the jihadis in Syria.

If it is proven that Turkey and some Gulf states provide any kind of aid to the jihadi forces, the US should cut all aid to those countries.

The way things look, the best option is for Assad and his government to stay in power, BUT free and fair elections should be called for within 2 years.

OK consider it proven. And some of the US aid is getting to them as well.

Get rid of Assad first, then the Jihadis can go and continue the fight in Iraq where all of the above really want them.

So, you think that if/when the Assad regime's gone in the near future, the jihadis will just leave Syria and move on to Iraq ?!

To be clear, are you saying Assad should stay in power so he can keep suppressed and kill the jihadis? For God's sake they are people too and certainly no worse than Assad and his regime.

[ABCer]

Well, Chicog, let us agree on disagreeing. I think I have made my position clear enough.

I do not have any 'hard facts' to support my 'madcap theories' and I am totally unaffected by 'anti US propaganda'. Not even by US propaganda.

Unlike many others I do not believe in what is written by any politicians. Or mass media. I only believe in common sense. My own common sense.

My common sense tells me this:

1. Of those 100,000 dead in Syria (your figure) how many killed by Assad compared to Rebels? I do not know. If you do - you only know what you are told.

2. You say Sunni democracy suits everyone except Iran, Iraq, Russia and PRC. Let us say the four are bad (I am not their supporter). But the others, are they good? More importantly, will they all support US or Obama? Methinks not.

3. You say you live in Middle East. Nothing wrong with this. Do you really believe Sunni democracy is going to be better than today's Assad? Like in Afghanistan? Like in Iraq? Like in Iran? Like in Egypt? Like in Libya? Are you sure?

4. Assad used chemicals on his own people? I do not know. If you do - you only know what you are told. Who is affected by propaganda you or I?

5. You say Syrians (Sunni) are fighting Assad. I am afraid they are running away and/or getting killed. I may be right(?) But you know - only what you are told.

All I say - doubt everything. Do not believe any propaganda wherever it comes from. And do not rush into bombings. Because if you do - those dead will be on the hands of intervening country. Didn't this happen before? Many times?

Who said that US Gov't has the Licence to kill? Who said that US democracy is a model to copy? Who said that US has the right to police the world? Who said that US soldiers must go and get killed in other countries?

By now you can say that my name is Usama Bin Laden. Or that I am Putin's apologist. Or that I am an anti US propagandist. Or whatever... But I think there are many US people, even politicians saying the same things.

[F430murci]

So Assad saying a stalemate and no sense in continuing to fight. Did he and Putin not say he was winning so why would he use chemical weapons? And some of you guys believe or buy into both version! Priceless!

[Publicus]

And Obama's "red line" was drawn in August 2012, the chemical attacks came almost a year later.

1 year is very little time to plan, find and use chem weapon. Only if some secret services would help you

Putin (KGB) is dictating Russia and backing a loser (Assad).

What is the world to do when UN human rights team tries to indict Assad and possibly Putin on war crimes? It you have read anything by Pinheiro and Del Ponte you know it's coming. They have a list of about 20 names and she said those supplying Assad with weapons are just as guilty.

What is going on is a temporary ruse by Putin to sway Public opinion and quietly behind the scenes Russia will supply Assad stronger weapons and help Iran develop nuclear. This all points to bigger more serious problems down the with Israel, Saudi et al. Russia does not care as they no US is impotent now to do anything.

All of this constant hammering away at Prez Obama being weak and a wimp are affecting perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses among governments and non-state actors of both Prez Obama and of the United States.

Both our allies and our adversaries are getting from everywhere and from all directions that Prez Obama and the United States are weak and can be successfully challenged on any front concerning almost anything, perhaps everything. Terrorist Jihadist groups of all kinds everywhere are seeing and hearing all of this commotion that Obama is a pansy, is confused and is weak and feeble as a leader and as the commander in chief.

Which means Prez Obama is going to have to take an absolutely firm and strict stand on some issue, somewhere, about something, to hammer somebody really hard and with great force and devastation in order to put an end to the constant drivel about his being a weak and confused wimp.

Prez Obama's most severe critics are forcing him to come out swinging on some issue against somebody, somewhere, sometime soon, to show he means business.

In short, it's developed that Obama is going to have to level somebody over something somewhere to show his strength and to shut people up

It's now in the direct and immediate interests and the national security of the United States that Prez Obama do so. His opponents and relentless critics have made it to be so.

[Baloo22]

Well, the Jihadists of the "Religion of Peace" are at it again! Now, I don't believe that these cats are part of the Assad governement, but are these the "really bad guys", the "somewhat bad guys", or the "moderate bad guys" ??

"Islamic Terrorist Attack In Kenyan Upscale Mall; Muslims Allowed To Leave, Non-Muslims Shot"

"Islamic terrorists attacked an upscale shopping mall this morning in Nairobi, Kenya. Muslims who could recite an Islamic prayer were allowed to leave, and the non-Muslims ordered to stay were shot. Including the children. Reports, so far, say at least 22 people have been killed and 50 wounded by 10 Islamic gunmen using Ak-47s and grenades."

[lannarebirth]

1 year is very little time to plan, find and use chem weapon. Only if some secret services would help you

Putin (KGB) is dictating Russia and backing a loser (Assad).

What is the world to do when UN human rights team tries to indict Assad and possibly Putin on war crimes? It you have read anything by Pinheiro and Del Ponte you know it's coming. They have a list of about 20 names and she said those supplying Assad with weapons are just as guilty.

What is going on is a temporary ruse by Putin to sway Public opinion and quietly behind the scenes Russia will supply Assad stronger weapons and help Iran develop nuclear. This all points to bigger more serious problems down the with Israel, Saudi et al. Russia does not care as they no US is impotent now to do anything.

All of this constant hammering away at Prez Obama being weak and a wimp are affecting perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses among governments and non-state actors of both Prez Obama and of the United States.

Both our allies and our adversaries are getting from everywhere and from all directions that Prez Obama and the United States are weak and can be successfully challenged on any front concerning almost anything, perhaps everything. Terrorist Jihadist groups of all kinds everywhere are seeing and hearing all of this commotion that Obama is a pansy, is confused and is weak and feeble as a leader and as the commander in chief.

Which means Prez Obama is going to have to take an absolutely firm and strict stand on some issue, somewhere, about something, to hammer somebody really hard and with great force and devastation in order to put an end to the constant drivel about his being a weak and confused wimp.

Prez Obama's most severe critics are forcing him to come out swinging on some issue against somebody, somewhere, sometime soon, to show he means business.

In short, it's developed that Obama is going to have to level somebody over something somewhere to show his strength and to shut people up

It's now in the direct and immediate interests and the national security of the United States that Prez Obama do so. His opponents and relentless critics have made it to be so.

Maybe he can channel all that ire and regain respect by presenting a balanced budget that pares military spending, allows for a "grand bargain" on entitlements, and actually funds a single payer health plan. I won't hold my breath on that. He'll probably bomb some brown skinned people who are no threat to America instead.

[NeverSure]

All of this constant hammering away at Prez Obama being weak and a wimp are affecting perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses among governments and non-state actors of both Prez Obama and of the United States.

Both our allies and our adversaries are getting from everywhere and from all directions that Prez Obama and the United States are weak and can be successfully challenged on any front concerning almost anything, perhaps everything. Terrorist Jihadist groups of all kinds everywhere are seeing and hearing all of this commotion that Obama is a pansy, is confused and is weak and feeble as a leader and as the commander in chief.

Which means Prez Obama is going to have to take an absolutely firm and strict stand on some issue, somewhere, about something, to hammer somebody really hard and with great force and devastation in order to put an end to the constant drivel about his being a weak and confused wimp.

Prez Obama's most severe critics are forcing him to come out swinging on some issue against somebody, somewhere, sometime soon, to show he means business.

In short, it's developed that Obama is going to have to level somebody over something somewhere to show his strength and to shut people up

It's now in the direct and immediate interests and the national security of the United States that Prez Obama do so. His opponents and relentless critics have made it to be so.

Are you serious? Really? Obama now needs to seek out someone to "level" to save face in the "interests and the national security of the US?" (As an American, it's not in my interest that Obama find someone to "level.")

Who will this somebody be who pays the price of being leveled for Obama's mistakes? Just anybody so that Obama doesn't lose face? How barbaric.

Sorry, but Obama made his mistakes, and to me he now looks like Putin's beotch.

[Baloo22]

What is the world to do when UN human rights team tries to indict Assad and possibly Putin on war crimes? It you have read anything by Pinheiro and Del Ponte you know it's coming. They have a list of about 20 names and she said those supplying Assad with weapons are just as guilty.

What is going on is a temporary ruse by Putin to sway Public opinion and quietly behind the scenes Russia will supply Assad stronger weapons and help Iran develop nuclear. This all points to bigger more serious problems down the with Israel, Saudi et al. Russia does not care as they no US is impotent now to do anything.

All of this constant hammering away at Prez Obama being weak and a wimp are affecting perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses among governments and non-state actors of both Prez Obama and of the United States.

Both our allies and our adversaries are getting from everywhere and from all directions that Prez Obama and the United States are weak and can be successfully challenged on any front concerning almost anything, perhaps everything. Terrorist Jihadist groups of all kinds everywhere are seeing and hearing all of this commotion that Obama is a pansy, is confused and is weak and feeble as a leader and as the commander in chief.

Which means Prez Obama is going to have to take an absolutely firm and strict stand on some issue, somewhere, about something, to hammer somebody really hard and with great force and devastation in order to put an end to the constant drivel about his being a weak and confused wimp.

Prez Obama's most severe critics are forcing him to come out swinging on some issue against somebody, somewhere, sometime soon, to show he means business.

In short, it's developed that Obama is going to have to level somebody over something somewhere to show his strength and to shut people up

It's now in the direct and immediate interests and the national security of the United States that Prez Obama do so. His opponents and relentless critics have made it to be so.

So after sorting through all this blather, let's see if I understand this. So now Obama is going to have to blast somebody to prove he has balls. He has to do this to "put an end to the constant drivel about his being a weak and confused wimp." and to "shut people up". And he is forced to do it because his "severe critics are forcing him to come out swinging" and "His opponents and relentless critics have made it to be so."

Of course, none of this has anything to do with his conduct or the performance of his administration. It cannot possibly have anything to do with his incompetence or his rapid-fire motor-mouth. Are you sure that it is not Bush's fault?

[F430murci]

Well, the Jihadists of the "Religion of Peace" are at it again! Now, I don't believe that these cats are part of the Assad governement, but are these the "really bad guys", the "somewhat bad guys", or the "moderate bad guys" ??

"Islamic Terrorist Attack In Kenyan Upscale Mall; Muslims Allowed To Leave, Non-Muslims Shot"

"Islamic terrorists attacked an upscale shopping mall this morning in Nairobi, Kenya. Muslims who could recite an Islamic prayer were allowed to leave, and the non-Muslims ordered to stay were shot. Including the children. Reports, so far, say at least 22 people have been killed and 50 wounded by 10 Islamic gunmen using Ak-47s and grenades."

The real bad guys. Haha, they are all bad guys and Assad us perhaps one of the worst the world has ever known. Drop the politics and prejudice and look at the truth.

[Publicus]

What is the world to do when UN human rights team tries to indict Assad and possibly Putin on war crimes? It you have read anything by Pinheiro and Del Ponte you know it's coming. They have a list of about 20 names and she said those supplying Assad with weapons are just as guilty.

What is going on is a temporary ruse by Putin to sway Public opinion and quietly behind the scenes Russia will supply Assad stronger weapons and help Iran develop nuclear. This all points to bigger more serious problems down the with Israel, Saudi et al. Russia does not care as they no US is impotent now to do anything.

All of this constant hammering away at Prez Obama being weak and a wimp are affecting perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses among governments and non-state actors of both Prez Obama and of the United States.

Both our allies and our adversaries are getting from everywhere and from all directions that Prez Obama and the United States are weak and can be successfully challenged on any front concerning almost anything, perhaps everything. Terrorist Jihadist groups of all kinds everywhere are seeing and hearing all of this commotion that Obama is a pansy, is confused and is weak and feeble as a leader and as the commander in chief.

Which means Prez Obama is going to have to take an absolutely firm and strict stand on some issue, somewhere, about something, to hammer somebody really hard and with great force and devastation in order to put an end to the constant drivel about his being a weak and confused wimp.

Prez Obama's most severe critics are forcing him to come out swinging on some issue against somebody, somewhere, sometime soon, to show he means business.

In short, it's developed that Obama is going to have to level somebody over something somewhere to show his strength and to shut people up

It's now in the direct and immediate interests and the national security of the United States that Prez Obama do so. His opponents and relentless critics have made it to be so.

So after sorting through all this blather, let's see if I understand this. So now Obama is going to have to blast somebody to prove he has balls. He has to do this to "put an end to the constant drivel about his being a weak and confused wimp." and to "shut people up". And he is forced to do it because his "severe critics are forcing him to come out swinging" and "His opponents and relentless critics have made it to be so."

Of course, none of this has anything to do with his conduct or the performance of his administration. It cannot possibly have anything to do with his incompetence or his rapid-fire motor-mouth. Are you sure that it is not Bush's fault?

National security has been placed at risk by this constant drumbeat that Obama is a weak and feeble wimp of a commander in chief. Perhaps American lives are now at greater risk.

Prez Obama has to assert the national security interests of the United States which everyone agrees are in serious jeopardy because of the constant drumming that tries to portray Prez Obama as an incompetent, weak and feeble commander in chief.

Prez Obama has to act in the interests of the United States and to save American lives against its enemies who haven't been so emboldened since Nikita Khrushchev badly misjudged Prez Kennedy at the Vienna summit and made the gross error to decide he could get away with placing nuclear missiles in Cuba. That of course turned out very badly for Khrushchev

Kennedy had no choice but to stand up to Khrushchev and stare Khrushchev down until the Soviet leader blinked. The present circumstance for Prez Obama and the national security of the United States is much the same. There's no Khrushchev and Cuba is not at issue here, but someone somewhere already has created a circumstance that will be ripe for the picking.

The excesses of the constant drumbeat of heavy criticism against Prez Obama has placed at risk the national security of the United States. The president has to act and to act forcefully, definitively, decisively. At this point he has no choice but to act and to act forcefully.

[SinglePot]

Apparently Assad's dog has died from poisoning.

Internal opponents of Obama argue like women.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

Edit: More posts deleted. This topic is about Syria, not the US budget. Stop bickering and stay on topic.

[Scott]

Well, the Jihadists of the "Religion of Peace" are at it again! Now, I don't believe that these cats are part of the Assad governement, but are these the "really bad guys", the "somewhat bad guys", or the "moderate bad guys" ??

"Islamic Terrorist Attack In Kenyan Upscale Mall; Muslims Allowed To Leave, Non-Muslims Shot"

"Islamic terrorists attacked an upscale shopping mall this morning in Nairobi, Kenya. Muslims who could recite an Islamic prayer were allowed to leave, and the non-Muslims ordered to stay were shot. Including the children. Reports, so far, say at least 22 people have been killed and 50 wounded by 10 Islamic gunmen using Ak-47s and grenades."

The situation in Kenya is off-topic. For those who are interested they can read and post in this thread:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/669553-text-kenyan-president-kenyatta-addresses-nation-on-nairobi-mall-attack/#entry6848687

[Scott]

This will be the last public warning. Continued off-topic posting about US politics will earn you a suspension. This topic is about Syria. It's not about the US budget, it's not about the US President, etc., etc., etc.