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 ... Full Story
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...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#978948 Sep 9, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>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...
The turning point came in 1983, as the Reagan administration reevaluated its policy toward the Middle East. Note that it does not appear to have been deterred by a small matter such as Hussein’s propensity to massacre townspeople like those at Dujail.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/protected-cha...
WOW

Bronx, NY

#978949 Sep 9, 2013
Saudi Arabia’s “Chemical Bandar” behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria?Nothing the US claims about what happened in Syria adds up. We are being asked to believe an illogical story, when it is much more likely that it was Israel and Saudi Arabia who enabled the Obama Administration to threaten Syria with war.

The Obama Administration’s intelligence report on Syria was a rehash of Iraq.“There are lots of things that aren’t spelled out” in the four-page document, according to Richard Guthrie, the former project head of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. One piece of evidence is the alleged interception of Syrian government communications, but no transcripts were provided.

Just as with the Obama Administration’s speeches which all fall short of conclusively confirming what happened, nothing was categorically confirmed in the intelligence report. Actually it comes across more as a superficial college or university student’s paper put together by wordsmiths instead of genuine experts on the subject.

Going in a circle, the report even depends on “unnamed” social media and accounts as sources of evidence or data. Lacking transparency, it states that “there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel, videos, witness accounts, thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area, journalist accounts and reports from highly credible non-governmental organizations.”

OK REAL DAVE READ THIS
TSM

El Paso, TX

#978950 Sep 9, 2013
Germany/Russian intelligence indicates it was the Rebels not Assad that used these Weapons; why not 1, 00,000 dead no reaction by the US, Obama’s ‘Red Line’ remark (game changer) makes sense these Rebels would use Chemical Weapons to draw US in to this Conflict!!
WOW

Bronx, NY

#978951 Sep 9, 2013
An Israeli-Saudi-US conspiracy?
The US-supported anti-government forces fighting inside Syria are the ones that have a track record of using chemical weapons. Yet, Obama and company have said nothing.Despite the anti-government forces accusations that the Syrian military launched a chemical weapon attack on Homs at Christmas in December 2012, CNN reported that the US military was training anti-government fighters with the securing and handling of chemical weapons. Under the name of the Destructive Wind Chemical Battalion, the insurgents themselves even threatened to use nerve gas and released a video where they killed rabbits as a demonstration of what they planned on doing in Syria.

According to the French newspaper Le Figaro, two brigades of anti-government fighters that were trained by the CIA, Israelis, Saudis, and Jordanians crossed from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan into Syria to launch an assault, respectively on August 17 and 19, 2013. The US must have invested quite a lot in training both anti-government brigades. If true, some may argue that their defeat prompted the chemical weapons attack in Damascus as a contingency plan to fall back on.

However, how they came by chemical weapons is another issue, but many trails lead to Saudi Arabia. According to the British Independent, it was Saudi Prince Bandar “that first alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February 2013.” Turkey would apprehend Syrian militants in its territory with sarin gas, which these terrorists planned on using inside Syria. On July 22 the insurgents would also overrun Al-Assal and kill all the witnesses as part of a cover-up.

A report by Yahya Ababneh, which was contributed to by Dale Gavlak, has collected the testimonies of witnesses who say that “certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the gas attack.”

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#978952 Sep 9, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Ronnie And Saddam
How Secret Deals Under Reagan Secured
Saddam An Arsenal Of WMD
It was just before Christmas 1983 that Donald Rumsfeld, then US presidential envoy to Iraq, slipped quietly into Baghdad to come face to face with the man who would become one of America's greatest enemies within two decades.
The trip by the current US defence secretary, to pledge US support for Saddam Hussein, marked one of the lowest points of the entire Reagan presidency, and symbolically represents the real legacy of the "Great Communicator". For Reagan was a president who allowed the US to secretly arm the Iraqi dictator with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), supported Iraq's military expansion, turned a blind eye to Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran and thereby set in train the events that would lead to George W Bush's disastrous decision to invade the country in 2002.
While America was selling WMD to Iraq, Reagan was also telling Saddam to increase his brutal campaign against the Iranian fundamentalist regime, even while Iraqi poison gas was falling on Persian battlefields. The Reagan presidency made America complicit in Saddam's war crimes.
http://rense.com/general53/ronnie.htm
The good relations with Saddam began under President Carter.

So if Saddam was the threat you seem to be trying to convince he was, why didn't Democrats stand behind Bush 100% after they stood behind Clinton 100% in 1998 to overthrow his regime?

Your side created the angst about fighting the present evil in the world today because of your short-sightedness about Saddam.

The enemy has eyes and ears too. They saw and heard a weakened and divided America thanks to you and your liberal pals screaming Bush was the war criminal.

Let it go.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#978953 Sep 9, 2013
The Republican hypocrisy on Syria is just amazing. Imagine that Mitt Romney were president. Romney took a far more hawkish line than Barack Obama did on Syria during the campaign. He wanted to arm the rebels, supported in-country cover ops, and so on. So if Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons during President Romney’s tenure, there’s every reason to think he’d be pushing for action too. And what, in that case, would Republicans now temporizing or opposing Obama be doing in that case? They’d be breathing fire, of course. There’s a lot of chest thumping talk right now about how a failed vote will destroy Obama’s credibility. I guess that may be to some. But to anyone paying attention, the credibility of these Republicans is what will suffer, and the vote may well come back to haunt some of them in 2016.

Some Republicans are, to their credit, taking the position consistent with their records. John McCain stood up to those people who looked like they were about two feet away from his face at that town hall meeting last week. Lindsey Graham deserves more credit, since he’s facing reelection and is being called “a community organizer for the Muslim Brotherhood.” On the other side, Rand Paul and the neo-isolationists are probably taking the same position they’d take if Romney were president, although we can’t be completely sure. If Romney were in the White House, by 2016,“was so-and-so tough on Syria?” would probably be a top litmus test (unless, of course, things got really terrible over there). I could easily see Paul declaiming on the unique evil of chemical weapons that just this once required him to break from his noninterventionist views, but as things stand he at least is taking the position with which he is identified.

But most of them? Please. The Gold Weasel Medal goes to Marco Rubio, as others such as Tim Noah have noted. Back in April, Rubio thundered that “the time for passive engagement in this conflict must come to an end. It is in the vital national security interest of our nation to see Assad’s removal.” Removal! Obama’s not talking about anything close to removal. So that was Rubio’s hard line back when Obama was on the other side. And now that Obama wants action? Rubio voted against the military resolution in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.

Ted Cruz? Just in June, Cruz wanted to go into Syria and rough ’em up.“We need to develop a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out.” Now? Syria is a distraction from, you guessed it, Benghazi. He said last week:“We certainly don’t have a dog in the fight. We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as al Qaeda’s air force.”

There are many others. These two are worth singling out because they want to be president, and their craven and brazen flip-flopping on one of the most important issues to come before them in their Senate careers is more consequential than the flip-flopping of some time-serving senator no one’s ever heard of. But the whole picture is contemptible.

....What a bunch of relentless hypocrites they are, making a decision as weighty as this purely on the basis of their hatred of Obama.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09...

Since: May 11

Gettysburg, PA

#978954 Sep 9, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Your premise that if Syria falls that Al Qaeda will run Syria & have access to its weaponry is false.

If Syria used chemical weapons to the magnitude reported, then there must be action.

You can hide shivering under your bed instead of admitting that is the correct action.,

lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#978955 Sep 9, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Oh please. You go follow that person on Twitter; did you see his handle? it's all in Arabic. You've probably entered a terrorist network. What the hell is wrong with you people? Does it ever end?
Questioning his birthright, questioning his legitimacy, questioning his parents, religion...you're disgusting.
BTW, it was George Bush who was accused of having members of the Muslim brotherhood in his cabinet, your new BFF David Horowitz reported on it; look into it, Grover Norquist...
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#978956 Sep 9, 2013
Buroc Millhouse Obama wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Oh fkoff, you're all anti American traitors, move to Russia.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#978957 Sep 9, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
The turning point came in 1983, as the Reagan administration reevaluated its policy toward the Middle East. Note that it does not appear to have been deterred by a small matter such as Hussein’s propensity to massacre townspeople like those at Dujail.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/protected-cha...
point is, the US has a Credibility Problem with the international community by holding the US to a double standard and what is going on in Syria is no different that what took place in Iraq when the US was involved when Iraq was gasing Iran.

CIA Files Show U.S. Played Role in Iraq’s Chemical Attacks on Iran

By Margaret Hartmann

8/26/13

The United States appears to be moving closer to taking military action in Syria over President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons, but a new report in Foreign Policy shows that the U.S. government wasn't always so vehemently opposed to the use of such tactics. According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials, the U.S. government had evidence that Iraq was using chemical weapons in 1983, but concealed those facts as Iran tried to prove that to the United Nations. Even worse, toward the end of the war, the U.S. shared information with Iraq about Iran's military position that it knew was likely to lead to a chemical attack. As Foreign Policy puts it, the new revelations are "tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched."

Long before the U.S. decided that both nations were were part of an "Axis of Evil," it was determined to see Iraq defeat Iran, even if it meant looking the other way as Saddam Hussein gassed his enemies and his own people. When Iraq began using mustard gas in 1983, the U.S. government wasn't sharing intelligence with Hussein, but CIA reports show that top Reagan administration officials were regularly updated on the attacks. Nothing was done to prevent them either, though U.S. officials knew about Iraq's efforts to produce the weapons and the locations of its chemical plants. One CIA document stated, "If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border."

The U.S. changed its policy on sharing intelligence with Hussein in 1987, when CIA satellite images revealed that the Iranians had uncovered a hole in Iraq's defenses near Basrah, and were building up troops and equipment nearby. A Defense Intelligence Agency report warned that if Iran captured the city, Iraq would lose the war. President Reagan reportedly read the document and scribbled in the margin, "An Iranian victory is unacceptable."

Top officials decided to share information on Iran's strategy with Iraq, providing satellite imagery and reports on the Iranian military's abilities. Soon after, Iraq launched sarin attacks that killed thousands.

For years, U.S. officials have defended themselves by saying that throughout the war, Iraq never announced it would use chemical weapons. Retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 attacks, told Foreign Policy, "The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/...

Since: May 11

Gettysburg, PA

#978958 Sep 9, 2013
WOW wrote:
<quoted text>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
I don't profess to know it all. Only that I obviously know more than you & most the right whiners posting here.

http://www.opcw.org/the-opcw-and-libya/direct...
WOW

Bronx, NY

#978959 Sep 9, 2013
Obamas Very Presidency Took Away Freedom Of Speech If you think about Disagreeing with the Powers that be who Obama FRONTS FOR you will be BRANDED, Obama is not a communist he is put in place to justify dictatorship in the world starting with AMERICA he is not black he is not white he is not muslim he is not christian he is not american he is not kenyan who is he and how did the american people Elect him with all these questions all the cover stories who is obama he is not a man of PEACE as we can see
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#978960 Sep 9, 2013
Study Suggests Southern Slavery Turns White People Into Republicans 150 Years Later

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/09/2...
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#978961 Sep 9, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
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...
good...Muslims taking care of Muslim terrorists...

Since: May 11

Gettysburg, PA

#978962 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?
The statement I made said "safer".

Perhaps you should remove your head from your ass & learn to read.
WOW

Bronx, NY

#978963 Sep 9, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
The turning point came in 1983, as the Reagan administration reevaluated its policy toward the Middle East. Note that it does not appear to have been deterred by a small matter such as Hussein’s propensity to massacre townspeople like those at Dujail.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/protected-cha...
SONICFILTH IT'S 2013 and OBAMA is president stay on point stay current because you do not like to speak about the KKK and the DEMOCRATS forget reagan he is dead long gone talk OBAMA stop the BIGOTRY AND RACISM

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 min waaasssuuup 230,163
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 25 min Aloha 1,526
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 34 min Pearl Jam 306,259
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 1 hr squeezers 458
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Bruin For Life 27,929
Old UK WildCat Picture Signed by Adolph F.Rupp+... (Apr '07) 22 hr Local man 40
Do you hate UK Wildcats, we DO :-) (Apr '11) Wed Geoscientist 50

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE