Barack Obama, our next President

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ... Read more
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#978928 Sep 9, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Conservatives anti President Obama seem pro Syria and root for evil to hit America.
Conservatives are opposed to use of their tax dollars to support Al Qaeda, in Syria and elsewhere.
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#978929 Sep 9, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Filled with hatred for President Obama she does no see.
Obama is gonna start World War III. What a dumbass! Who elected this ass clown??

The War Mongering Sickness and Poison of Unconscious Plantation Liberalism.

It's the culture...
WOW

Bronx, NY

#978930 Sep 9, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Conservatives anti President Obama seem pro Syria and root for evil to hit America.
If Bush had Racism as his support he would be as great in your mind as Obama is to you because they have done the SAME things in their PRESIDENCY but Bigots and Racists are on OBAMAS side bush didnt have that kind of Support Wjite Folks had no Qualms about calling Bush Evil now Hollywood is scared to be Anti-War of fear of being Called Racists COWARDS is What they are and the NAZI POWERBROKERS OF HOLLYWOOD HAVE WARNED THEM MORGAN FREEMAN GOT OFF WITH ONLY A MILLION DOLLAR FINE REMEMBER

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#978931 Sep 9, 2013
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush played Congress for fools. Telling them he would seek U.N. approval if they would approve a military action, then going it alone. All you have to do is research the outrage and revulsion that followed his decision which was expressed by members of Congress to see that they felt betrayed.
Bush lied, soldiers died.
The outrage by certain Democrats who knew exactly what everyone else knew at the time they supported military force in Iraq was only for political and personal gain when it was to their advantage to let Bush hang in the wind.

Your weasels lied to you. No one else. Not Bush...not the UN...not the Intel everyone was privy to - including the weasels.

Since: May 11

Gettysburg, PA

#978932 Sep 9, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Anti-ship weaponry has advanced a long way in the past 40 years, dufus. Just how dumb are you?
"... safer."
You seem to be admitting that sailors won't be safe when Obama uses them to help Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood take over Syria. All it takes is just one of the anti-ship missiles launched to hit just one ship, and Obama has a planeload of corpses he can do a photo op with when he pretends to be sad about Americans getting killed. Just how dumb are you?
The term safer is comparative, dipstick.

In Vietnam, were troops safer on the ships than the troops on the ground.

Yet another question you are running from because you are afraid to answer it.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#978933 Sep 9, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, sheep dip.
You said l Qaeda was behind the chemical weapon attack.
You avoided ( as usual) the question: If Al Qaeda has chemical weapons, why haven't they used them on their attacks the past few years?
It a simple GD question, why are you afraid of answering it?.
... idiots.

Putis said Al Qaeda was behind the chemical weapons attack.
Obama said Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack.

Which of the above two people habitually lie to you?
Why would you expect Obama to not be lying now?

That may have been all the chemical weapons smuggled to them.
However, after Obama starts a war with Syria, Al Qaeda will be able to get the entire stockpile of chemical weapons there.... which brings us back to the question you've been running away from since Obama threatened to start a war:

Do you support the Obama plan to get Americans killed starting a war with Syria so Al Qaeda can acquire the chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria?

If Obama has always habitually lied to you, why on Earth would you think he's not lying now?

Obama is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Only an idiot would expect him to obey Congress, and not obey the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama thinks he can start a war and nothing will happen to him.
What do you think? Do you think Obama can start a war and get away with it?
WOW

Bronx, NY

#978934 Sep 9, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Conservatives are opposed to use of their tax dollars to support Al Qaeda, in Syria and elsewhere.
Thats what they want a debate on Lib/ Con lets all be Decent Citizens of the world who speaks out against WRONG no matter what PARTY, RACE, RELIGION,NATIONALITY

Since: May 11

Gettysburg, PA

#978935 Sep 9, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Al Qaeda just received the chemical weapons from their people in Libya.
Libya had no sarin stockpiles.

Next you will claim Sadam moved his WMDs to Libya?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#978936 Sep 9, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Assad knows he would lose a war with Israel (again).
So, why are Obama and his Muslim Brotherhood masters too stupid to figure that out?
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#978937 Sep 9, 2013
RAFAH, Gaza Strip — The ­Egyptian military has launched what appears to be a campaign to shut down, once and for all, the illegal but long-permitted tunnels that provide a vital economic lifeline to the Gaza Strip and supply tax revenue to the Islamist movement Hamas.

The operation seems to be part of an effort to cripple Hamas, which rules the coastal enclave bordered by Egypt and Israel. The group is an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, whose ­standard-bearer held that country’s presidency before being ousted from power this summer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_ea...
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#978938 Sep 9, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Filled with hatred for President Obama she does no see.
Good point.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#978939 Sep 9, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
The term safer is comparative, dipstick.
In Vietnam, were troops safer on the ships than the troops on the ground.
Yet another question you are running from because you are afraid to answer it.
Your ability to read and understand the English language has improved somewhat. You actually realized "safer" as comparative. But, you're still too ignorant to know the difference between "safer" and "safe".
Here's why:
Anti-ship weaponry has advanced a long way in the past 40 years, dufus. Just how dumb are you?
You seem to be admitting that sailors won't be safe when Obama uses them to start a war with Syria and help Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood take over there. All it takes is just one of the anti-ship missiles launched to hit just one ship, and Obama has a planeload of corpses he can do a photo op with when he pretends to be sad about Americans getting killed. Just how dumb are you?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#978940 Sep 9, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Libya had no sarin stockpiles.
Next you will claim Sadam moved his WMDs to Libya?
Do you support the Obama plan to get Americans killed starting a war with Syria so Al Qaeda can acquire the chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria?

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#978941 Sep 9, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh brother, take another hit jefro
I mean you can believe this or not. Not sure what to think myself.

And, yes, this is an Al Jazeera blog site, but maybe you should just take a peek at it considering the Director of Research at the Brookings Doha Center, Shadi Hamid, tweeted out about the Egyptian media depicting Obama as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/egypt/egypti...

Here's the tweet that Hamid sent out and responses in Arabic.

https://twitter.com/mlnahas/status/3733822654...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#978942 Sep 9, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82...
oil. just like Bush.
US Protected Iraq at UN from Iranian Charges of Chemical Weapons Use

Posted on 08/28/2013 by Juan Cole

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/protected-cha...
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#978943 Sep 9, 2013
MOSCOW — In a surprise move, Russia promised Monday to push its ally Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.

The announcement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov came a few hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that Syrian President Bashar Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of “every single bit” of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.

If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus,” Lavrov said.

Al-Moallem said his government was ready to host the U.N. team, and insisted that Syria is ready to use all channels to convince the Americans that it wasn’t behind the attack.

He added that Syria was ready for “full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_ea...
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Newington, CT

#978944 Sep 9, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh brother; fetch almight, whatever, dbwrider, no surprise, etc. all of them.
If there are that many, then you should easily be able to easily provide a link as an example of one of them rooting for Russia.

Otherwise, you are just doing the typical disingenuous, lying Obama voting liberal routine.
WOW

Bronx, NY

#978945 Sep 9, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Libya had no sarin stockpiles.
Next you will claim Sadam moved his WMDs to Libya?
You speak as a KNOW IT ALL YOU ARE not how do you know for sure who had what and who did what it almost as if you would like us to believe you have more information or access than anyone else you have ONE POINT OF VIEW thats It Protect the GLOBAL AGENDA
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#978946 Sep 9, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
In the 1980s, the Islamic revolution in Iran changed the entire strategic landscape in that region. America's ally in the Persian Gulf, the Shah, was swept aside overnight, and no one else was on the horizon to replace him as the guarantor of U.S. interests in the region.
With the Shah ousted, Saddam Hussein had ambitions to position himself as the new strong man of the Middle East.
He condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and signed an alliance with Saudi Arabia to block the Soviet-backed attempt to take over North Yemen. In 1979, he also allowed the CIA which he had once so virulently attacked to open an office in Baghdad.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Carter began to look more favorably toward Saddam Hussein as a potential counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini and as a force to contain Soviet expansionism in the region.
That's where it all started.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...
Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82...

oil.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#978947 Sep 9, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ability to read and understand the English language has improved somewhat. You actually realized "safer" as comparative. But, you're still too ignorant to know the difference between "safer" and "safe".
Here's why:
Anti-ship weaponry has advanced a long way in the past 40 years, dufus. Just how dumb are you?
You seem to be admitting that sailors won't be safe when Obama uses them to start a war with Syria and help Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood take over there. All it takes is just one of the anti-ship missiles launched to hit just one ship, and Obama has a planeload of corpses he can do a photo op with when he pretends to be sad about Americans getting killed. Just how dumb are you?
We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons,” he said.

Lavrov said that he has already handed over the proposal to al-Moallem and expects a “quick, and, hopefully, positive answer.”

His statement followed media reports alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who discussed Syria with President Barack Obama during the group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg last week, sought to negotiate a deal that would have Assad hand over control of chemical weapons

The Russian move comes as Obama, who has blamed Assad for killing hundreds of his own people in a chemical attack last month, is pressing for a limited strike against the Syrian government. It has denied launching the attack, insisting along with its ally Russia that the attack was launched by the rebels to drag the U.S. into war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_ea...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 16 min God worships Israel 71,941
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 51 min Pride of GA 52,704
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 57 min RJS 8,010
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr Guru 186,856
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 7 hr Cold Front 69,605
amy april 17 11 hr duke86 2
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 12 hr PEllen 99,354
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]