I really have to shake my head in disgust at the mostly Liberal fools (along with the Neocon warmongers) who have fallen for all this Red Line or credibilty crap. The Legions of of blind followers who would follow the Pied Obama right over the cliff here possibly leading to a wider conflict. You are a conveinient tool for the powers that are pushing for this war. This has nothing to do with the use of WMD or dead civilians, they could care less, In fact there is a high possibility this whole thing was staged. Who can possibly believe this BS story or anything else Obama has said for that matter? Every other word is a lie.
Obamas aliegences arent with the American people and certainly not with the US military who he would send to war & possibly death all for Arab oil interests. Big Oil yea thats the Saudi & Qatari version. Follow the money trail and then it all makes sense.
This from the gateway pundit and I'd say I think it has some credibility.
Remember Kerry just said that the Gulf nations were gonna pay for our involvement and why do you think that is ....... so they can bring democracy to Syria ?
Posted by Andrea Shea King, the Radio Patriot
Is it really about chemical warfare? Really?
Then why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?
Michael Snyder at the Economic Collapse Blog reports:
“Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.”
And why is Saudi Arabia spending gobs to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”?
Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.
Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.
Nothing to do with chemical weapons. Ok, no prob. Anyone for a game of poker?
"What difference" "does it make?"
Nice spelling of incompetence, BTW.... some how that just seems so right....
Last edited by upsideguy; 09-05-13 at 12:06 AM.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
Contrary to what he says he did or didn't draw, here are his words exactly that was the inception of the use of red line in this instance:
So let me get this straight...We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.
Q So you're confident it’s somehow under -- it's safe?
THE PRESIDENT: In a situation this volatile, I wouldn’t say that I am absolutely confident. What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.LINK
It's pretty clear the "We" being referenced here is the United States. Go read the transcript and see exactly how you can spin it as "Congress" or "The International Community". The fact that "we" are telling it to "every player in the region" makes it clear that said "we" can not be those players in the region because those people are being told about the red line rather than being the ones doing the telling.
Additionally, if he's suddenly speaking on behalf of the entire national community as some world wide figure head then it begs to question regarding the repeated use of "my"; when did Barak Obama gain the authority to "change the calculous" for the International Community?
No, it's blatantly clear that the "we" that was making the statement was that administration on behalf of America. The President set the Red Line in this instance. He may've set it in line with the general international feeling, he may've set it in a way that matches what other countries felt, but HE set THIS COUNTRIES Red Line for Syria at that moment when declaring it to the world. No one else. Him.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.