Obama has drawn a line in the sand

Obama has drawn a line in the sand

Posted in the Keavy Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#1 Jun 14, 2013
Obama stated if chemical weapons were used in Syria the US will take action.

-3:00 am The Muslim world is waiting in fear to see what he's going to do.

-4:00 am The Muslim radicalist are starting to laugh and using more chemical weapons on women and children.

-5:00 am The Muslim brotherhood is backing Hilary for 2016. She picks Ahmadinejad for her running mate.

6:00 am The Muslim brotherhood strike Israel.

7:00 am Obama state planned parenthood can kill children up to three years old if their mother makes the choice.

8:00 am Obama allows the use of drone strikes for anyone seen stepping on a sea turtle eggs.

This is a joke right?
Ralph

London, KY

#2 Jun 14, 2013
..... then he promptly denied making the line and has no knowledge of those making marks in the sand. This is the first he has heard of this "line in the sand."
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#3 Jun 14, 2013
Ralph wrote:
..... then he promptly denied making the line and has no knowledge of those making marks in the sand. This is the first he has heard of this "line in the sand."
Then they blamed it on Bush! LOL
Historian

Cadiz, KY

#4 Jun 14, 2013
Blue Boy wrote:
Obama stated if chemical weapons were used in Syria the US will take action.
-3:00 am The Muslim world is waiting in fear to see what he's going to do.
-4:00 am The Muslim radicalist are starting to laugh and using more chemical weapons on women and children.
-5:00 am The Muslim brotherhood is backing Hilary for 2016. She picks Ahmadinejad for her running mate.
6:00 am The Muslim brotherhood strike Israel.
7:00 am Obama state planned parenthood can kill children up to three years old if their mother makes the choice.
8:00 am Obama allows the use of drone strikes for anyone seen stepping on a sea turtle eggs.
This is a joke right?
Before spouting off, maybe you should learn a little about the situation in Syria. First, Assad is not a "Muslim radicalist". He is a secular-nationalist. He is a Muslim, but a member of a small heterodox sect called the Alawites that are an offshoot of the Shi'ites. The Alawites are a minority in Syria. The Assad regime is supported by the better educated, more secular, businessman types. Shi'ite Iran supports the regime. So does Hezbollah, which is predominantly Shi'ite. What few Americans know is that Syria's Christians are also generally allied with the Alawites and support the secularist-natinalist Assad regime. Who are the rebels fighting against the Assad regime? Most come from the majoirty Sunnis, who are supported by fundamentalist Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, the home of Osama bin-Laden. Who else is fighting against Assad? al-Qaeda.

Now, do you understand why almost everyone who really knows anything about the complex tangle in Syria is reluctant to get involved and arm the rebels?
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#5 Jun 14, 2013
Historian wrote:
<quoted text>Before spouting off, maybe you should learn a little about the situation in Syria. First, Assad is not a "Muslim radicalist". He is a secular-nationalist. He is a Muslim, but a member of a small heterodox sect called the Alawites that are an offshoot of the Shi'ites. The Alawites are a minority in Syria. The Assad regime is supported by the better educated, more secular, businessman types. Shi'ite Iran supports the regime. So does Hezbollah, which is predominantly Shi'ite. What few Americans know is that Syria's Christians are also generally allied with the Alawites and support the secularist-natinalist Assad regime. Who are the rebels fighting against the Assad regime? Most come from the majoirty Sunnis, who are supported by fundamentalist Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, the home of Osama bin-Laden. Who else is fighting against Assad? al-Qaeda.

Now, do you understand why almost everyone who really knows anything about the complex tangle in Syria is reluctant to get involved and arm the rebels?
I understand just fine, the problem is Obama backed himself into a corner. Do you feel that was a wise move?
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#6 Jun 14, 2013
Historian wrote:
<quoted text>
Before spouting off, maybe you should learn a little about the situation in Syria. First, Assad is not a "Muslim radicalist". He is a secular-nationalist. He is a Muslim, but a member of a small heterodox sect called the Alawites that are an offshoot of the Shi'ites. The Alawites are a minority in Syria. The Assad regime is supported by the better educated, more secular, businessman types. Shi'ite Iran supports the regime. So does Hezbollah, which is predominantly Shi'ite. What few Americans know is that Syria's Christians are also generally allied with the Alawites and support the secularist-natinalist Assad regime. Who are the rebels fighting against the Assad regime? Most come from the majoirty Sunnis, who are supported by fundamentalist Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, the home of Osama bin-Laden. Who else is fighting against Assad? al-Qaeda.
Now, do you understand why almost everyone who really knows anything about the complex tangle in Syria is reluctant to get involved and arm the rebels?
Very good and informative post. Thank you for sharing that. I enjoy reading posts from those who actually know something. Again, to repeat, very good.
Lawdy Lawdy

Flat Lick, KY

#11 Jun 15, 2013
http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv340/cane...

Before spouting off, maybe you should learn a little about the situation in Syria. First, Assad is not a "Muslim radicalist". He is a secular-nationalist. He is a Muslim, but a member of a small heterodox sect called the Alawites that are an offshoot of the Shi'ites. The Alawites are a minority in Syria. The Assad regime is supported by the better educated, more secular, businessman types. Shi'ite Iran supports the regime. So does Hezbollah, which is predominantly Shi'ite. What few Americans know is that Syria's Christians are also generally allied with the Alawites and support the secularist-natinalist Assad regime. Who are the rebels fighting against the Assad regime? Most come from the majoirty Sunnis, who are supported by fundamentalist Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, the home of Osama bin-Laden. Who else is fighting against Assad? al-Qaeda.
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#12 Jun 15, 2013
Lawdy Lawdy wrote:
http://i697.photobucket.com/al bums/vv340/canetrilla/donk-of- the-day2.jpg

Before spouting off, maybe you should learn a little about the situation in Syria. First, Assad is not a "Muslim radicalist". He is a secular-nationalist. He is a Muslim, but a member of a small heterodox sect called the Alawites that are an offshoot of the Shi'ites. The Alawites are a minority in Syria. The Assad regime is supported by the better educated, more secular, businessman types. Shi'ite Iran supports the regime. So does Hezbollah, which is predominantly Shi'ite. What few Americans know is that Syria's Christians are also generally allied with the Alawites and support the secularist-natinalist Assad regime. Who are the rebels fighting against the Assad regime? Most come from the majoirty Sunnis, who are supported by fundamentalist Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, the home of Osama bin-Laden. Who else is fighting against Assad? al-Qaeda.
Thanks for the info but that doesn't discuss the line being drawn.
Lawdy Lawdy

Flat Lick, KY

#13 Jun 16, 2013
Blue Boy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the info but that doesn't discuss the line being drawn.
http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv340/cane...

Obviously this woman is Alawite. Hmm, reckon those are pressure cookers she packing under that dress?

Haha, sometimes those lines are drawn with a lot of curves.
Historian

Cadiz, KY

#14 Jun 16, 2013
Blue Boy wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand just fine, the problem is Obama backed himself into a corner. Do you feel that was a wise move?
President Obama has not "backed himself into a corner". His so-called “red line” statement, made in late May, was,“We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations.”

The key word is "systematic". Insofar as the publicly available information shows, there has been some isolated instances in which small quantities of chemical weapons, of unknown means of delivery, have been used. However, there has been no systematic use of chemical weapons. In a situation as chaotic as the one in Syria, it would be quite easy for a small number of chemical weapons in the form of mortar or artillery shells, grenades, etc. to be used without proper authorization.

Small unauthorized and/or accidental uses of poison gas happened in World War II. In one instance German Ju-88 bombers bombed an American Liberty ship in an Italian harbor that was carrying mustard gas shells. As a result a number of American seamen and Italian civilians were killed by the gas. In another incident on the Russian front, Germans overran a Soviet artillery battery that, unknown to the Germans, had poison gas shells stored on site. The Germans, who did not know what the Russian markings on the gas shells meant, broke open the ammunition storage, turned the Soviet gun around, and fired the gas shells at Soviet forces.

Quite clearly, the president did not back himself into a corner. Instead the "Syria hawks" like John McCain and the Israel Lobby is using his statement to force his hand on Syria.

Mark my words, if we get dragged into Syria, it will be the beginning of the 21st century's Vietnam.
Stray Dog

Cookeville, TN

#15 Jun 16, 2013
We need to stay out of Syria. Sarah Palin said this and I totally agree.

We’re talking now more, new interventions, I say until we know what we’re doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he’s doing … well, in these radical Islamic countries aren’t even respecting basic human rights, when both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, Allahu Akbar, I say until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say: Let Allah sort it out.”
Historian

Cadiz, KY

#16 Jun 16, 2013
Stray Dog wrote:
We need to stay out of Syria. Sarah Palin said this and I totally agree.
We’re talking now more, new interventions, I say until we know what we’re doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he’s doing … well, in these radical Islamic countries aren’t even respecting basic human rights, when both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, Allahu Akbar, I say until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say: Let Allah sort it out.”
Again, I repeat, Syria is not a "radical Islamic country." Far from it. There are only two countries that come close to fitting the description "radical Islamic": Saudi Arabia (Wahhabi-Sunni) and Iran (Shi'ite).

As for Ms. Palin, God help us if that stupid (expletive deleted out of respect for female dogs) ever gets to be president.
Stray Dog

Cookeville, TN

#17 Jun 16, 2013
Historian wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, I repeat, Syria is not a "radical Islamic country." Far from it. There are only two countries that come close to fitting the description "radical Islamic": Saudi Arabia (Wahhabi-Sunni) and Iran (Shi'ite).
As for Ms. Palin, God help us if that stupid (expletive deleted out of respect for female dogs) ever gets to be president.
Well, okay. I know where you stand. I'll write you off as another brain dead libtard.
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#18 Jun 16, 2013
Historian wrote:
<quoted text>President Obama has not "backed himself into a corner". His so-called “red line” statement, made in late May, was,“We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations.”

The key word is "systematic". Insofar as the publicly available information shows, there has been some isolated instances in which small quantities of chemical weapons, of unknown means of delivery, have been used. However, there has been no systematic use of chemical weapons. In a situation as chaotic as the one in Syria, it would be quite easy for a small number of chemical weapons in the form of mortar or artillery shells, grenades, etc. to be used without proper authorization.

Small unauthorized and/or accidental uses of poison gas happened in World War II. In one instance German Ju-88 bombers bombed an American Liberty ship in an Italian harbor that was carrying mustard gas shells. As a result a number of American seamen and Italian civilians were killed by the gas. In another incident on the Russian front, Germans overran a Soviet artillery battery that, unknown to the Germans, had poison gas shells stored on site. The Germans, who did not know what the Russian markings on the gas shells meant, broke open the ammunition storage, turned the Soviet gun around, and fired the gas shells at Soviet forces.

Quite clearly, the president did not back himself into a corner. Instead the "Syria hawks" like John McCain and the Israel Lobby is using his statement to force his hand on Syria.

Mark my words, if we get dragged into Syria, it will be the beginning of the 21st century's Vietnam.
So...you agree the comparison to Nazi Germany is relevant. I didn't say we should be in Syria that I recall. His words mean nothing to radicalist factions from this point on if it ever did.
Historian

Cadiz, KY

#19 Jun 16, 2013
Blue Boy wrote:
<quoted text>
So...you agree the comparison to Nazi Germany is relevant. I didn't say we should be in Syria that I recall. His words mean nothing to radicalist factions from this point on if it ever did.
No. I do not agree that the comparison to Nazi Germany is relevant. I never said so nor implied so. What I said about World War II had to do with the fact that in the chaos of war, some unauthorized use of weapons will happen. The German army was much more professional and better disciplined than the forces fighting in Syria. some of which are hastily armed civilians with little or no training. Yet on on at least two occasions the Germans, who were under strict orders not to use gas under any circumstances, caused an unintentional "use" of chemical weapons - in both cases weapons that belonged to the enemy. The instances of "use" in Syria may have been similar.

Right now, if there is a brake preventing a headlong American rush into Syria, it is being applied by two brakemen: President Obama and the U.S. military establishment. Who is pushing for involvement? John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Saxby Chamblis, et al, with the Israel Lobby and Christian Zionists as cheering section. Why? Because Israel wants Syria to break up into sectarian fighting and chaos, and go the route of Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Somalia.
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#20 Jun 16, 2013
Historian wrote:
<quoted text>No. I do not agree that the comparison to Nazi Germany is relevant. I never said so nor implied so. What I said about World War II had to do with the fact that in the chaos of war, some unauthorized use of weapons will happen. The German army was much more professional and better disciplined than the forces fighting in Syria. some of which are hastily armed civilians with little or no training. Yet on on at least two occasions the Germans, who were under strict orders not to use gas under any circumstances, caused an unintentional "use" of chemical weapons - in both cases weapons that belonged to the enemy. The instances of "use" in Syria may have been similar.

Right now, if there is a brake preventing a headlong American rush into Syria, it is being applied by two brakemen: President Obama and the U.S. military establishment. Who is pushing for involvement? John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Saxby Chamblis, et al, with the Israel Lobby and Christian Zionists as cheering section. Why? Because Israel wants Syria to break up into sectarian fighting and chaos, and go the route of Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Somalia.
I'm sorry but you did make a comparison. 93,000 estimated dead and counting last I heard. When do you feel the need to get involved? What does it mean to draw a line that's not to be crossed? The Obama administration was who said on national television that there is conclusive proof of chemical weapons are being used so...I guess you need to take that up with them.
Historian

Cadiz, KY

#21 Jun 16, 2013
Blue Boy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry but you did make a comparison. 93,000 estimated dead and counting last I heard. When do you feel the need to get involved? What does it mean to draw a line that's not to be crossed? The Obama administration was who said on national television that there is conclusive proof of chemical weapons are being used so...I guess you need to take that up with them.
No. I did not make any comparion between Nazi Germany and Syria in the way that you seem to imply. I compared chaotic situations in war.

What is happening in Syria is a civil war. We had one once, remember? In our's President Lincoln's message to foreign powers was, "Keep out! It is our business, not your's."

That was generally U.S. policy concerning other people's civil wars until Korea, and the big, bloody exception that we should take as our lesson now, VIETNAM.
fact

London, KY

#22 Jun 16, 2013
I think Assad is going to keep killing his own people until the rest stop and go home. Then he will have them persecuted and assassinated probably including women and children so no seed remains to come back and try again.
I believe the one sure way to stop that from happening would be to take out Assad but what or who would step up and take his place? I dont think anyone really knows the answer yet.
The killing of innocents is a tragedy. The fighters themselves knew the score when they picked up a weapon. I believe the rebels should be receiving the same weapons and defense systems russia is giving assad along with trained personnel to operate them
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#23 Jun 16, 2013
Historian wrote:
<quoted text>No. I did not make any comparion between Nazi Germany and Syria in the way that you seem to imply. I compared chaotic situations in war.

What is happening in Syria is a civil war. We had one once, remember? In our's President Lincoln's message to foreign powers was, "Keep out! It is our business, not your's."

That was generally U.S. policy concerning other people's civil wars until Korea, and the big, bloody exception that we should take as our lesson now, VIETNAM.
So...what does it mean when a president draws a line?
Historian

Cadiz, KY

#24 Jun 16, 2013
Blue Boy wrote:
<quoted text>
So...what does it mean when a president draws a line?
The point is this: President Obama did not draw the line that you imply that he did.

I repeat, in his so-called “red line” statement, President Obama said,“We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations.”

There has been no "systematic" use of chemical weapons. There have been a few isolated incidents, with casualties numbering 100-150. In a vicious two-sided fight that has killed 93,000 people, on both sides, 100-150 casualties does not constitute systematic use of chemical weapons. In fact, the low number is evidence against systematic use. It strongly indicates small, unauthorized incidents. If chemicals were used systematically the casualty figures would be much, much higher.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Keavy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
some OLDER women are pretty. 4 min 40 something lady 8
slowest drive thru on earth burger king 1 hr Terrible 2
Looking for another partner 1 hr Kitty cat 13
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 hr Chris 150,013
help looking for place to rent 2 hr jbaker 1
Single Mom 2 hr Hbighorse 8
clinton crime family caught again breaking the law 2 hr libs always lie 1

Keavy Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Keavy Mortgages