Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... f-refugees" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, the family flees Syria from an area where ISIS and the Kurds are fighting, and the children drown.

Remind me again...why did we willingly help to create a power vacuum in Syria?

Oh, and for more fun, Russia has sent an expeditionary force to Syria.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 68,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Russian jets in Syrian skies
Russia has begun its military intervention in Syria, deploying an aerial contingent to a permanent Syrian base, in order to launch attacks against ISIS and Islamist rebels; US stays silent."


So, what's Obama going to do now?

Cluck U wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... f-refugees

So, the family flees Syria from an area where ISIS and the Kurds are fighting, and the children drown.

Remind me again...why did we willingly help to create a power vacuum in Syria?

Two reasons:
1) Obama likes Islamist governments.
2) Obama wants a clear route for an oil pipeline from the Gulf States to Europe. He thinks he'll get it from an Islamist government in Syria.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Cluck U wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... f-refugees

So, the family flees Syria from an area where ISIS and the Kurds are fighting, and the children drown.

Remind me again...why did we willingly help to create a power vacuum in Syria?

Two reasons:
1) Obama likes Islamist governments.
2) Obama wants a clear route for an oil pipeline from the Gulf States to Europe. He thinks he'll get it from an Islamist government in Syria.

Yes...I'm sure these are it.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Two reasons:
1) Obama likes Islamist governments.
2) Obama wants a clear route for an oil pipeline from the Gulf States to Europe. He thinks he'll get it from an Islamist government in Syria.

Yes...I'm sure these are it.

Well, while CG reached a bit with the Obama part, the pipeline is a real issue.

And, as we've seen, Islamic governments, despite the hate filled rhetoric they tell to their own people, do like to sell their oil to those Western infidels.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yes...I'm sure these are it.

Well, while CG reached a bit with the Obama part, the pipeline is a real issue.

And, as we've seen, Islamic governments, despite the hate filled rhetoric they tell to their own people, do like to sell their oil to those Western infidels.

We do have a history of this.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Cluck U wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... f-refugees

So, the family flees Syria from an area where ISIS and the Kurds are fighting, and the children drown.

Remind me again...why did we willingly help to create a power vacuum in Syria?

Two reasons:
1) Obama likes Islamist governments.
2) Obama wants a clear route for an oil pipeline from the Gulf States to Europe. He thinks he'll get it from an Islamist government in Syria.

Obama has been supporting Islamists from North Africa to Southwest Asia.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yes...I'm sure these are it.

Well, while CG reached a bit with the Obama part, the pipeline is a real issue.

And, as we've seen, Islamic governments, despite the hate filled rhetoric they tell to their own people, do like to sell their oil to those Western infidels.

Gotta love their hypocrisy.

CitadelGrad wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Two reasons:
1) Obama likes Islamist governments.
2) Obama wants a clear route for an oil pipeline from the Gulf States to Europe. He thinks he'll get it from an Islamist government in Syria.

Obama has been supporting Islamists from North Africa to Southwest Asia.

Oh. I get it now.

CitadelGrad wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Two reasons:
1) Obama likes Islamist governments.
2) Obama wants a clear route for an oil pipeline from the Gulf States to Europe. He thinks he'll get it from an Islamist government in Syria.

Obama has been supporting Islamists from North Africa to Southwest Asia.

Is it because he's secretly a muslin hell bent on the destruction of America?

CitadelGrad wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Two reasons:
1) Obama likes Islamist governments.
2) Obama wants a clear route for an oil pipeline from the Gulf States to Europe. He thinks he'll get it from an Islamist government in Syria.

Obama has been supporting Islamists from North Africa to Southwest Asia.

Well, if you mean Obama's been knocking off secular governments ruled by more moderate Muslins by supporting so-called people's revolutions in order to try to, but so far failing to, replace those moderates with a bunch of crooked more pro-Western Muslins, then yeah, I see your point.

And if you mean that those efforts have been impeded by having the very predictable power vacuums filled by Muslin extremists, and that the presence of those extremists would then, "require" us to sell arms and provide support to the clowns we want to prop us as the supposed, "recognized" new government, which usually consists of a few wealthy Muslin ex-pats who made back door deals with our CIA and business leaders, then I get that point, too.

But if you are saying that Obama supports Muslin gubmints more than non-Muslin gubmints, then that's where we part ways. The Muslin part is simply a result of the pieces already in play in the area. It would be hard to support a Christian in one of those governments...heck, even in Thailand, you know, because the Muslins (and Buddhists) involved are a bunch of whack jobs who take discrimination to a whole other level.


Oh, but Muslinism is the religion of peace (I think I am required to say that).

Cluck U wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Obama has been supporting Islamists from North Africa to Southwest Asia.

Well, if you mean Obama's been knocking off secular governments ruled by more moderate Muslins by supporting so-called people's revolutions in order to try to, but so far failing to, replace those moderates with a bunch of crooked more pro-Western Muslins, then yeah, I see your point.

And if you mean that those efforts have been impeded by having the very predictable power vacuums filled by Muslin extremists, and that the presence of those extremists would then, "require" us to sell arms and provide support to the clowns we want to prop us as the supposed, "recognized" new government, which usually consists of a few wealthy Muslin ex-pats who made back door deals with our CIA and business leaders, then I get that point, too.

But if you are saying that Obama supports Muslin gubmints more than non-Muslin gubmints, then that's where we part ways. The Muslin part is simply a result of the pieces already in play in the area. It would be hard to support a Christian in one of those governments...heck, even in Thailand, you know, because the Muslins (and Buddhists) involved are a bunch of whack jobs who take discrimination to a whole other level.


Oh, but Muslinism is the religion of peace (I think I am required to say that).

I thought Muslinism was a religion whose adherents believe that you go to heaven if you wear garments made of recycled canvas boat sails.

Ivytalk wrote:
I thought Muslinism was a religion whose adherents believe that you go to heaven if you wear garments made of recycled canvas boat sails.

Nah, their followers eat that fruit and grain cereal...which I think is also Kosher. I hear it's healthier than drinking Kool-Aid.

Cluck U wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Obama has been supporting Islamists from North Africa to Southwest Asia.

Well, if you mean Obama's been knocking off secular governments ruled by more moderate Muslins by supporting so-called people's revolutions in order to try to, but so far failing to, replace those moderates with a bunch of crooked more pro-Western Muslins, then yeah, I see your point.

And if you mean that those efforts have been impeded by having the very predictable power vacuums filled by Muslin extremists, and that the presence of those extremists would then, "require" us to sell arms and provide support to the clowns we want to prop us as the supposed, "recognized" new government, which usually consists of a few wealthy Muslin ex-pats who made back door deals with our CIA and business leaders, then I get that point, too.

But if you are saying that Obama supports Muslin gubmints more than non-Muslin gubmints, then that's where we part ways. The Muslin part is simply a result of the pieces already in play in the area. It would be hard to support a Christian in one of those governments...heck, even in Thailand, you know, because the Muslins (and Buddhists) involved are a bunch of whack jobs who take discrimination to a whole other level.


Oh, but Muslinism is the religion of peace (I think I am required to say that).

Well..yeah. Use facts.

Why haven't our "leaders" learned that picking and choosing a side in the Middle East is a lose-lose situation. We either destabilize the region by ousting the moderates, thus creating the power vacuum which brings in the extremists, along with their hatred of the West OR we support the moderates which in turn fuels the passion of the extremists and does nothing to assuage their feelings of hatred towards anyone that isn't them (mostly the West.)


But, we have new diplomatic relations with Cuba, so that's good news.

Has Obama mishandled Syria? Probably, but at the end of the day, we don't have a winning hand there. We're damned if we do or don't. 9/11 happens and people harp that the reason for the terrorists was that we support democracy everywhere else but then let tyrants rule where there's oil. We then invade and get rid of the tyrant and then people say that we're destabilizing the region. We get out of the region and then people say that by leaving we're destabilizing the region. And then, Syria, which we hadn't touched really, blows up. If we go in, we'll be criticized for escalating the situation. We stay out, and now people criticize us for not stopping a humanitarian crisis. I think Obama has his faults, but someone's always going to complain no matter what we do in the Middle East.

C'mon, GF, it isn't as innocent as that.

We had a choice to stay out of Syrian.

Instead, we, the US of A, and specifically Obama, announced on every available world-wide communications network that we wanted Assad gone.

That is bad, but after all, Iran, and other backwards, dictator run (oh, the irony) countries, make those same proclamations about our leader.

The difference though is that we started to fund opponents to Assad and help them, strategically and militarily, through proxies and directly, with their efforts to overthrow him. Cripes, we've been funding Saudi Arabia to unleash their dogs of war on Syria, while claiming to want to stop ISIS & Co.

We essentially told the world that you can fvck with, and overthrow, a sovereign government...and we'll provide funding, supplies, and strategic assistance. Heck, we'll even directly (we're not hiding it anymore) train the rebels to fight to oust the Syrian government, have a neighboring country directly invade Syria to fight the supposed bad guys (ISIS)...while that same neighboring country ignored the efforts of ISIS to crossover their border.

Tie that in with our efforts in Libya, and a clownish political/media attempt to make it look as though we're actually trying to save innocent people, and you have a foreign policy that is a joke to any educated person on this planet.

Seriously, you simply can't make this stuff up. We're in Syria for no other reason, despite all denials and ridiculous attempts to make our efforts look altruistic, than to install a pro-western government that will provide us with their natural resources (and the resources of their neighbors).

Let's just call a spade a spade.

Cluck U wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
I thought Muslinism was a religion whose adherents believe that you go to heaven if you wear garments made of recycled canvas boat sails.

Nah, their followers eat that fruit and grain cereal...which I think is also Kosher. I hear it's healthier than drinking Kool-Aid.

Nope, that's mueslixism!

CitadelGrad wrote: 2) Obama wants a clear route for an oil pipeline from the Gulf States to Europe. He thinks he'll get it from an Islamist government in Syria.

All evidence is to the contrary of this.

CID1990 wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote: 2) Obama wants a clear route for an oil pipeline from the Gulf States to Europe. He thinks he'll get it from an Islamist government in Syria.

All evidence is to the contrary of this.

I agree it is an idiotic plan, but we are talking about Obama here.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw[/youtube]

From General Wesley Clark:

"...I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

-----

That interview was from 2007.. long before the US Backed destabilization of Syria began by funding the "Free Syria Army".. It appears the plan is total control of the middle east by removing heads of state who aren't total puppets.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdH4JKjVRyA[/youtube]