Archive for the ‘Obama Foreign Policy’ Category
Why is Assad’s alleged killing of 1,400 Syrians so much worse than the slaughter of 800,000 Rawandans?
By Ben Hart
This was a genocide we actually could have stopped without much trouble.
When Pol Pot killed off one quarter of Cambodia’s population (about 2,000,000 people) in the mid 1970s, America also did nothing.
Actually, we were there when Pol Pot launched his slaughter of Cambodians, but we left.
We knew for certain that the Vietnamese Communists would slaughter hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese if we left Vietnam, but we left anyway.
So then why is the Assad regime’s alleged killing of an estimated 1,400 Syrians with chemical weapons so shocking that, apparently, we must launch a military strike against Assad?
Why is the alleged behavior of the Assad regime so much worse than what happens everyday in North Korea?
Is the Assad regime thuggish?
Of course it is — but no more so than the Iranian regime, or dozens of other regimes in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.
When compared to other examples of genocide and mass-slaughters of people by their own government, Assad is pretty small potatoes.
Why the selective moral outrage?
More than 14,000 Americans are murdered here every year — ten times the number of Syrians the Assad regime allegedly killed.
But we’re not hearing the same level of moral outrage from Obama over this.
14,000 murders inside the United States every year, apparently, is NOT a crisis. But 1,400 dead Syrians is an international crisis that justifies war.
I don’t get it.
Perhaps there’s another reason for military action other than the 1,400 dead Syrians — because this rationale for war (as argued by Obama) makes no sense at all.
Is there a strategic reason to get rid of Assad? Would this be in the interest of the United States?
It might if we knew Assad’s replacement would be an ally of the United States — or, at least not an enemy.
But every indication is the replacement would be Islamic fanatics allied with al Qaeda.
This is what happens when we get regime change in Middle Eastern countries these days. The corrupt, brutal thug is replaced by America-hating jihadists.
I find myself in rare agreement with the leftist former Congressman Dennis Kucinich who says the Obama Administration has become al Qaeda’s air force in the Middle East.
Obama didn’t like Egypt’s strongman ruler Hosni Mubarak — who was certainly a thug, but an ally of the United States. He also promised not to attack Israel. But Obama pulled the rug out from under Mubarak so he could be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.
We have now learned that the Iraq War was one big mistake.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was bad, terrible, brutal and all that. But he was a counter to the even worse and more dangerous Iran — which is why Ronald Reagan supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam also hated the fanatic Islamic groups, which is why he used mustard gas to kill off many of them.
As a result of toppling Saddam, Iraq will likely soon disintegrate into chaos — and ultimately be overrun by jihadists who hate America.
This will certainly also happen in Syria if we replace Assad.
It seems the very best we can hope for in the Middle East is countries run by authoritarian strongmen (in the mold of a Shah of Iran, a Hosni Mubarak, or even a Saddam Hussein) who certainly are brutal, but who at least keep al Qaeda and the America-hating jihadists from coming to power.
Obama says Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people poses a national security threat to the United States.
Assad, by the way, claims his regime did not kill those people — that they were killed by the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated rebels in a “False Flag” attack — as a tactic by the rebels to bring the Western world’s wrath down on Assad.
Killing a lot of innocent people and blaming it on the enemy is part of the al Qaeda playbook. There appears to be some evidence supporting this possibility here. It’s a civil war. Anything is possible.
Russia has been emphatic in saying we don’t have the evidence that Assad used these chemical weapons. Not that we need to take Putin’s word for anything. But Russia did warn us accurately in advance about the Boston Marathon bombers.
So the case against Assad on this is far from unanimous.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the Obama Administration is correct on this, that Assad killed the 1,400 with some kind of gas — perhaps sarin or mustard gas.
Obama says the purpose of military action against Assad is NOT for the purpose of causing regime change.
Then what is the purpose of military action? To deliver an extra firm spanking?
How many innocent Syrians will die as a result of this U.S. military strike?
Most likely, more than the 1,400 Syrians Assad allegedly killed.
Will killing a lot more Syrians make America a hero to Syrians?
I suspect not.
Does a U.S. military strike on Syria make any sense at all on any level?
The British Parliament thinks not, which is why it voted against joining Obama on this Syria project.
Syria is basically a Third World country — presents no military threat to the U.S. whatsoever.
When deciding whether or not to go to war, whether or not to replace a regime we don’t like, the rule should first be: Let’s make sure we’re not making the situation worse.
We have a habit lately of constantly making bad situations even worse.
America today is the most hated country in the world . . . because we are seen as the world’s most annoying busybody.
There are no good options in the Middle East. There are no good guys to support. The entire region is a cesspool.
We really need to start thinking about getting completely out of the Middle East. Just leave that Hell Hole alone.
Things are not going so well right here in America. The economy is a shambles. We’ve run up a $17 TRILLION national debt, with trillion-dollar yearly deficits as far as the eye can see.
We really need to focus on fixing our problems here at home instead of continuing to try to fix an unfixable Middle East.
Who the Hell Would Not Have Killed Bin Laden? It’s No-Brainer. But Obama Dithered for 16 Hours Over Whether to Give the Green Light to Let the SEALs Kill the Terrorist.
U.K. DAILY MAIL: Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.
Obama calls British Embassy the “English Embassy.” Does he know the difference between Great Britain and England?
But the media keeps telling us Rick Perry doesn’t know much
It’s also possible Obama was intentionally insulting America’s closest ally — in the same vein as returning the bust of Winston Churchill, giving the Queen an iPod as a gift, and revealing the U.K.’s nuclear submarine locations to the Russians.
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: It is gratifying to see President Barack Obama condemn the disgraceful storming of the British Embassy in Tehran by thugs acting at the behest of the Iranian regime. After all, Obama has been notoriously slow in the past to criticise the brutal actions of the Iranian government after initially extending the hand of friendship to it. But did he really need to make another embarrassing foreign policy gaffe while doing so?
In a press conference this evening, the president referred in stumbling fashion to the “English Embassy” in Iran instead of the British Embassy. One can only imagine the kind of howls of derision that would greet any presidential contender if that kind of basic error were made before, say, the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. You can watch the video above.
CBS: The hopes for Palestinian statehood received a one-two punch at the
United Nations on Wednesday with President Barack Obama saying no to statehood without direct negotiations and the French president proposing a time table to restart the talks, giving the Israelis and Palestinians one year to reach an agreement.
“Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN. If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now,” President Obama said.
Obama said in public what he is also saying in private — that a Palestinian state can only be achieved by the Israelis and Palestinians going to the bargaining table and tackling the hard questions that face them. But he stopped short of directly calling on the Palestinians to drop their plan to seek statehood recognition from the UN Security Council.
Palestinian Ambassasor to U.S. pledges that the new Palestinian state will be “Jew-free.”
DAILY CALLER: During a breakfast briefing hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on Tuesday, Palestinian Ambassador to the United States Maen Rashid Areikat reiterated his call to create a Jew-free Palestinian state.“Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future,” he said when asked by The Daily Caller if he could imagine a Jew being elected mayor of the Palestinian city of Ramallah in a future independent Palestinian state. “But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”
Last year, Areikat made a similar statement during an interview with Tablet magazine. Asked whether it would be neccessary to transfer and remove “every Jew” from a future Palestinian state, Areikat responded “absolutely.”
“I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state,” he said then. “I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.”
Here’s what Glenn Beck says about this whole fiasco
BARACK OBAMA SPECH TO UN: “And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine,” President Obama said at the UN.
“That is the truth. Each side has legitimate aspirations – and that is what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in each other’s shoes. Each side can see the world through the other’s eyes. That’s what we should be encouraging.”
Is this what Obama wanted for our U.S. ally? Mubarek defends himself in a cage at his death penalty trial
So this is what happens to you if you are a loyal ally of the United States when Barack Obama is President. The U.S. turns on you. You then end up in a kangaroo court show trial. You are then hanged by the neck until dead.
The 83-year-old Hosni Mubarak is now lying in a bed in a cage as his trial is being broadcast on national Egyptian TV. Either way, Mubarek looks like he’s on death’s doorstep.
Mubarek was far from being an ideal leader. But except for Israel, Mubarek was America’s best ally in the Middle East. Now he’s on trial for murdering the 800 anti-Mubarek protesters.
But that’s a big part of what governments do, including our own — kill people. Our government has certainly killed a lot of people (including innocent civilians) during the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. So should our Presidents be put on trial?
Mubarek’s trial in a cage and coming execution will certainly make it very tough to convince dictators and strongmen to exit power in the future — if this is what happens to them. Not that Mubarek was even a dictator by Middle East standards.
No wonder Muammar Gaddafi is fighting to the death to avoid this fate.
Obama’s foreign policy is so misguided, so incompetent that it borders on criminal. Who in their right mind would would to be an ally of the United States after this?
Hey, have you noticed that America is now in five wars and headed into five more wars — for a total of 10 wars?
Webster Tarpley explains what’s happening to Alex Jones
Webster Griffin Tarpley is well worth paying attention to.
Obama is blaming America’s financial woes on the fact that George W. Bush got America into two wars — one in Afghanistan and then in Iraq.
But by Webster Tarpley’s count, America is now in five or possibly even 7 wars, thanks to Barack Obama’s insane foreign policy. The wars America is now in include: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and low-level wars that are quickly escalating in Syria and Pakistan.
We are also on the brink of war with Iran, North Korea, Russian and China — which would total 10 wars. This would be World War III we’re heading toward, if we’re not already there, thanks to Obama.
Webster Tarpley is a graduate of Princeton, an investigative journalist, and author of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992), American Leviathan (1991) and Surviving the Cataclysm (1999), an analysis of the world financial crisis.
Tarpley is an expert on international terrorism. He directed an investigation, commissioned by the Italian government, into who killed Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro, concluding that Moro was murdered by the Red Brigades.
U.K. TELEGRAPH: Four months ago, when David Cameron led the international call for military intervention in Libya, the general assumption within government circles was that Col Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator, would realise the game was up the moment Nato warplanes began bombing his forces.
It did not seem to matter to Mr Cameron and his principal allies in the anti-Gaddafi campaign that the main purpose of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which provided the legal justification for military action, was to protect anti-Gaddafi rebels from the possibility of being massacred by forces loyal to their leader.
Together with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama, Mr Cameron demanded that the military offensive would end only when Gaddafi was removed from power, so confident was he in the operation’s likely outcome. At a stroke an operation conceived on the basis of liberal interventionism had been transformed into one determined to achieve regime change.
And it is to this end that Nato has undertaken a sophisticated bombing campaign designed as much to intensify the pressure on Gaddafi’s regime to give up its vice-like grip on power as to protect Libya’s civilian population. Apart from taking out Gaddafi’s air defences and launching thousands of raids against pro-Gaddafi forces, the campaign has increasingly targeted the regime itself, bombing the Libyan dictator’s Bab al-Azizia barracks and vital fuel supply lines.
Yet, more than three months into the Nato offensive, Gaddafi remains as resolutely in power in Tripoli today as he was when the first bombs were dropped in March. In recent days, we have seen the extent of the support he continues to enjoy when thousands of his own supporters turned out in Tripoli to hear an address by the Libyan leader.
GREAT NEWS! Egypt’s ‘secular’ leader is also a 9-11 Truther and Holocaust Denier . . . But he’s not as powerful as the even more radical Muslim Brotherhood
WASHINGTON TIMES: A leader of Egypt’s top secular party says the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were “made in the USA,” the Holocaust is “a lie” and Anne Frank’s memoir is “a fake” — comments sure to roil the post-revolution political debate in the Arab world’s most populous country.
Ahmed Ezz El-Arab, a vice chairman of Egypt’s Wafd Party, made the remarks in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times last week while in the Hungarian capital attending the Conference on Democracy and Human Rights.
He denied that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews during World War II.
ASSOCIATED PRESS: The House of Representatives on Friday rejected a resolution endorsing limited military operations in Libya, but fell short of cutting off funds for U.S. military action in the region.
The measures were largely symbolic–but showed a growing rift between Congress and the White House on presidential war powers, even within President Obama’s own party. Seventy-two Democrats joined the Republican majority to kill the resolution approving of the operations. During the second vote, 89 Republicans voted to continue the war funding.
This is the first time in 12 years that Congress has not voted to support a national military operation. The last instance was in 1999, when the House voted 213-213 on a resolution that would have approved of Bill Clinton’s military action in Kosovo.