• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to Use Serbian Template in Syria

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just had to change a few letters around.... Serbia, Syria.... Iraq, Iran.... hmmmmm.

"In 1999, President Clinton used the endorsement of NATO and the rationale of protecting a vulnerable population to justify 78 days of air strikes."

Before going any further, I just want to be on record before the fact as a human being of planet earth and citizen of the criminal AmeriKan regime that I preemptively condemn the actions that are being telegraphed, and damn to hell for all eternity Obama and his coterie of War Cabinet criminals.

What is amazing to me is the insane psychopaths making policy think that they will be able to carry out a three-month bombing campaign with absolutely no consequences with Russia, China, and Iran.

Of course, WWIII is exactly what they have been working on and this will simply be the last act that will make it official in the official narrative of history. Only one problem. The "good guys" are going to lose this one.

"Kosovo could be example for action in Syria; Obama looking to ’99 NATO air war for guidance" by Mark Landler and Michael R. Gordon | New York Times, August 24, 2013

WASHINGTON — As President Obama weighs options for responding to a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria, his national security aides are studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.

Oh, he is going to SIDESTEP the U.N. like BUSH DID, huh?

[Excerpt]

Read more:
http://rockthetruth2.blogspot.com/2013/08/obama-to-use-serbian-template-in-syria.html

And not a word coming from the Progressive Marxist Left. Why is that?
 
Right. Obama wants to start World War III. And then lose it. On purpose.
 
Russia warns U.S. not to repeat in Syria past mistakes in region​


MOSCOW
Aug 25, 2013

(Reuters) - Russia warned the United States on Sunday against repeating past mistakes, saying that any unilateral military action in Syria would undermine efforts for peace and have a devastating impact on the security situation in the Middle East.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said its statement was a response to U.S. actions to give it the option of an armed strike against Syria.

It drew a parallel between reports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces had used chemical weapons and Washington's 2003 intervention in Iraq following accusations by then-President George Bush's administration that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"We once again decisively urge (the United States) not to repeat the mistakes of the past and not to allow actions that go against international law," the ministry said.

"Any unilateral military action bypassing the United Nations will ... lead to further escalation (in Syria) and will affect the already explosive situation in the Middle East in the most devastating way."


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Russia warns U.S. not to repeat in Syria past mistakes in region | Reuters

Will Obama blink, or follow through bring us past the brink.
 
Russia warns U.S. not to repeat in Syria past mistakes in region​


MOSCOW
Aug 25, 2013

(Reuters) - Russia warned the United States on Sunday against repeating past mistakes, saying that any unilateral military action in Syria would undermine efforts for peace and have a devastating impact on the security situation in the Middle East.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said its statement was a response to U.S. actions to give it the option of an armed strike against Syria.

It drew a parallel between reports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces had used chemical weapons and Washington's 2003 intervention in Iraq following accusations by then-President George Bush's administration that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"We once again decisively urge (the United States) not to repeat the mistakes of the past and not to allow actions that go against international law," the ministry said.

"Any unilateral military action bypassing the United Nations will ... lead to further escalation (in Syria) and will affect the already explosive situation in the Middle East in the most devastating way."


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Russia warns U.S. not to repeat in Syria past mistakes in region | Reuters

Will Obama blink, or follow through bring us past the brink.

I like this, either Obama will blink and be a spineless leader, or he won't and bring us "past the brink"

There is no right answer is there?
 
And not a word coming from the Progressive Marxist Left. Why is that?

please be clear wolf, what is it that democrats are supposed to be upset about? It wasn't clear. You mindlessly posted an another silly lying editorial that you accept as fact. Try to use whole sentences.
 
Right. Obama wants to start World War III. And then lose it. On purpose.
uing

He's created another Vietnam. I expect to see helicopters soon on rooftops in Afghanistan evacuating people.
 
If they have never been right before, Russia and China are right on Syria.
 
The liberal warhawks are groping around for a pretext they can call “legal” for waging war against Syria, and have come up with the 1999 “Kosovo war”.

This is not surprising insofar as a primary purpose of that US/NATO 78-day bombing spree was always to set a precedent for more such wars. The pretext of “saving the Kosovars” from an imaginary “genocide” was as false as the “weapons of mass destruction” pretext for war against Iraq, but the fakery has been much more successful with the general public. Therefore Kosovo retains its usefulness in the propaganda arsenal.

On August 24, the New York Times reported that President Obama’s national security aides are “studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.” (By the way, the “air war” was not “in Kosovo”, but struck the whole of what was then Yugoslavia, mostly destroying Serbia’s civilian infrastructure and also spreading destruction in Montenegro.)

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archive...uses-past-crimes-to-legalize-future-ones.aspx
 
The "liberal warhawks" supported Somalia (Bush I), first gulf war (Bush I), Kosovo (Clinton), Afghanistan (Bush II) and Libya ( Obama) just so you know. So you should factor that into your 'rhetoric'. As far as your simplistic "imaginary “genocide” was as false as the “weapons of mass destruction” argument, Clinton received a lot of criticism for waiting "too long" to respond to Kosovo.

WMDs in Iraq was false on that we both agree. You'll need to back up that 'imaginary genocide' statement again remembering Clinton was criticized for waiting too long.

The late march on Kosovo | The Economist

and here's the funny part about Kosovo (if its possible to find something funny)

"The House vote supporting military intervention was hedged about with conditions and provisos: it required the president to explain the precise nature of American interests in Kosovo, the cost of intervention, his exit strategy, and so on."
 
I like this, either Obama will blink and be a spineless leader, or he won't and bring us "past the brink"

There is no right answer is there?

Then he shouldn't have painted himself into a corner.
 
Then he shouldn't have painted himself into a corner.

er uh wolf, I asked you to clarify one of your points. here it is again in case you forgot


please be clear wolf, what is it that democrats are supposed to be upset about? It wasn't clear. You mindlessly posted an another silly lying editorial that you accept as fact. Try to use whole sentences.
 
please be clear wolf, what is it that democrats are supposed to be upset about? It wasn't clear. You mindlessly posted an another silly lying editorial that you accept as fact. Try to use whole sentences.

Hmm..., Where did I make the claim that "Progressives" are supposed to be upset? I only made the statement that the Progressive Left has been silent on the issue. Inferring unlike their vociferous objections regarding Bush after they agreed by Congressional vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
 
Last edited:
I like this, either Obama will blink and be a spineless leader, or he won't and bring us "past the brink"

There is no right answer is there?



Not anymore. The pointless one has meandered into a blind alley and now he is left with nothing but bad choices.

The whole world knows this Rodeo Clown is a Empty Suit and somehow this fact escapes the brainless stenographers in the Main Stream media.

How are they hiding the fact that he is a blundering buffoon unable to marshall even one ally, not even Britain will support us with this fool in charge.

If we somehow get out of his administration without being invaded or embroiled in WW3, it will be a miracle.
 
The "liberal warhawks" supported Somalia (Bush I), first gulf war (Bush I), Kosovo (Clinton), Afghanistan (Bush II) and Libya ( Obama) just so you know. So you should factor that into your 'rhetoric'. As far as your simplistic "imaginary “genocide” was as false as the “weapons of mass destruction” argument, Clinton received a lot of criticism for waiting "too long" to respond to Kosovo.

WMDs in Iraq was false on that we both agree. You'll need to back up that 'imaginary genocide' statement again remembering Clinton was criticized for waiting too long.

The late march on Kosovo | The Economist

and here's the funny part about Kosovo (if its possible to find something funny)

"The House vote supporting military intervention was hedged about with conditions and provisos: it required the president to explain the precise nature of American interests in Kosovo, the cost of intervention, his exit strategy, and so on."



Past is prologue. In this case, there is no good reason to get embroiled in this civil war.

The Russians and the iranians will have sway here.

The fool in the White house has dithered away his opportunity. The only thing he can do now is the wrong thing. He has dithered his way into an array of bad choices. There is nothing good that he can do so he just might as well do the thing that will kill the fewest Americans.
 
Hmm..., Where did I make the claim that "Progressives" are supposed to be upset? I only made the statement that the Progressive Left has been silent on the issue. Inferring unlike their vociferous objections regarding Bush after they agreed by Congressional vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

er uh wolf, if you're going to attempt to play dumb about what you were posted then it would behoove you not to post the reason why you posted it. anyhoo, if you are unable to differentiate Bush lying about the intel to further his Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq and what's going on with syria, I cant help you.
 
er uh wolf, if you're going to attempt to play dumb about what you were posted then it would behoove you not to post the reason why you posted it. anyhoo, if you are unable to differentiate Bush lying about the intel to further his Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq and what's going on with syria, I cant help you.

So you are claiming that the already proven liar {Barack Hussein Obama II) is telling us the truth? While casting aspersions you obviously have attempted to obfuscate both your ineptitude to grasp the situation in the Middle East and incompetence in Foreign policy. A unilateral strike without the authorization by Congress is not only criminally illegal but an Impeachable Offense. Just ask Joe (two shot) Biden.
 
Kosovo war was so different.
People were being raped, massacred, and kicked off from their lands. Miloshevic wanted to clean that area from Kosovo people.

In Syria, Assad is fighting rebels who were trained and came from outside. Is another picture.

Bush's war on Iraq was a big lie on main point.
But on that time, he made the cause in a way that he made 50 allies to follow him.

Obama lost Pakistan, Egypt, Libya.
He lost England and Canada as allies for Syria case. Many of allies doesn't want to follow him.
He lost also his credibility with allies with those stupid secret spies on them.
Due to his decisions, he made the US to look weak on the eyes of Russia. Something which never happen since Clinton/Bush.
Russia had respect for Bush, they knew they can't **** up with him.
With Obama ....... ooo they really see him like a kid.
 
So you are claiming that the already proven liar {Barack Hussein Obama II) is telling us the truth? While casting aspersions you obviously have attempted to obfuscate both your ineptitude to grasp the situation in the Middle East and incompetence in Foreign policy. A unilateral strike without the authorization by Congress is not only criminally illegal but an Impeachable Offense. Just ask Joe (two shot) Biden.

You avoided what I posted which was asking you to clarify your post. . And not so surprisingly used it as an excuse to post more of your delusional and lying spin.

Obama lost Pakistan, Egypt, Libya.
He lost England and Canada as allies for Syria case. Many of allies doesn't want to follow him.
He lost also his credibility with allies with those stupid secret spies on them.
Due to his decisions, he made the US to look weak on the eyes of Russia. Something which never happen since Clinton/Bush.
Russia had respect for Bush, they knew they can't **** up with him.
With Obama ....... ooo they really see him like a kid.

You started off okay but I take exception to "Obama lost Pakistan, Egypt, Libya" that statement simply makes no sense.

as far as "He lost England and Canada as allies for Syria case. Many of allies doesn't want to follow him", Syria has more to do with 'losing' allies than President Obama's leadership. Its easy to get allies when the job is easy. Syria wont be a win win like Libya and the case to attack is restrained by who we may be helping.

And lets face it, allies are more cautious about getting involved because of Iraq.

And sorry, your 'respect' for Russia's opinion is pretty funny. They didn't approve of Iraq. Why now is their opinion important to you?
 
You avoided what I posted which was asking you to clarify your post. . And not so surprisingly used it as an excuse to post more of your delusional and lying spin.



You started off okay but I take exception to "Obama lost Pakistan, Egypt, Libya" that statement simply makes no sense.

as far as "He lost England and Canada as allies for Syria case. Many of allies doesn't want to follow him", Syria has more to do with 'losing' allies than President Obama's leadership. Its easy to get allies when the job is easy. Syria wont be a win win like Libya and the case to attack is restrained by who we may be helping.

And lets face it, allies are more cautious about getting involved because of Iraq.

And sorry, your 'respect' for Russia's opinion is pretty funny. They didn't approve of Iraq. Why now is their opinion important to you?



Russia's support or opposition for any policy pivots on the amount of influence they hold over the situation. They hold plenty in that area and are allied with the other power in the region, Iran. This is a complete flip from the situation that obama inherited. The USA was preeminent, not we are absent. Great outcome, huh?

The USA is now irrelevant thanks to the least effective, most poorly planned foreign policy in the history of our republic. And that's saying something since we've had plenty of bad foreign policy. The difference is that in the past, we have sacrificed our principles in favor of economic gain and now we just sacrifice our principles in favor of nothing.

England and Canada used to be allies and beyond that we enjoyed a special relationship with them. Obama has systematically worked to destroy cooperation and friendship with both of these countries. As with so many of his ideas, he has succeeded in this to the detriment of the USA. Why he has done this escapes me.

The three middle Eastern Countries that you dismiss were all defacto US allies in that they fought against US enemies. By invading Pakistan and helping with the overthrow of Egyptian and Libyan governments, he undid decades of shaky stability in the region and has handed the region to the zealots of Iran backed by Russia.

In this, as in everything he has done, Obama has thrown out the baby with the bath water and we as a country are injured due to his short sighted, uninformed and politically motivated, pragmatic, look only at the next election approach to all things.
 
Back
Top Bottom