Speaking today following his meeting with fellow Syria hawk French President Francois Hollande, President Obama insisted that “right now, we don’t think there’s a military solution per se to the problem.”
Obama insisted that he “always reserves the right to exercise military action” on Syria whenever he thinks its wise and is looking at “every possible avenue” for intervention in the nation’s civil war.
Though Obama presented his goal as being to “solve this problem,” US officials have made it clear the policy so far, centering on aid for some rebel factions, has been to keep the war stalemated in hopes that the US can squeeze some benefit out of it in negotiations.
President Obama attempted to sell war on Syria to the American public last year but failed, and has since insisted that he doesn’t really need permission to launch a future war on Syria when the mood strikes him.
'aid to some rebel groups.' Walking-a-fine-line my patooty. Was it about the last month or two AQ seizes a shipment ostensibly for his 'some rebel groups?' Whether they say 'whoopsie' after that is irrelevant; US 'whoopsie' is downright fungible… They don't belong intervening in Syria.
The US "policy" has been to fan the flames of war throughout the Middle East, especially when it comes to Shiite fighting Sunni. The US arms one side – and sometimes both sides – and whispers in their ears that "Hey, you can defeat "them" and we'll help you!!"
I've lost hope that reason and logic will prevail and the US will untangle itself from these policies that as far as I can see will reap only the world's enmity.
That is certainly what we did in Yugoslavia We whispered in the Muslims ear so they refused to go along with the peace deal and we bombed the Christians every time to stop the war .
Yep the Imperial President in post 9/11 world can launch any attack he feels like, without consent of Kongress or the people.
But when there are bigger guns behind the target, we see hesitation.
Obama finally said something with some truth to it, from his perspective there is no "military solution," who need "military solution" when Al-Qaeda is doing Obama's dirty work.
probably means they have something new cooked up.
"…has since insisted that he doesn’t really need permission to launch a future war on Syria when the mood strikes him."
Which is precisely true. Obama still needs to get a war going with Iran before the Israelis – and their rich American supporters who financed his political career – hang him and the only way to do that is to defang Syria and Hizballah in Lebanon. Russia shot down his last attempt to attack Syria, and the Iran negotiations were a resulting attempt to kick the can down the road until a new plan could be constructed to justify an attack. The latest propaganda attempt to justify intervention on the basis that "Al Qaeda in Syria is a threat to the US" is just part of the process of building up a new justification.
Nothing is over.
The "Al Qaeda in Syria" pretext will never work for several reasons…
First: this pretext would require a commitment of US/NATO + Israel ground forces…a commitment which seems more or less out of the question for several reasons. It also begs the question: is the US now willing to partner with Assad to push out Al-Qaeda? I don't foresee the legitimate government of Syria, meaning the so-called "Assad regime", agreeing to a US/NATO + Israel military operation of any kind in any way shape or form on Syrian soil. Additionally, I'm sure everyone is 'concerned' about 'Al Qaeda' in Syria–including Russia and Iran–it's not just the US. If it came down to it, I'm almost certain Iran would be more than willing to at least offer to send in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into these so-called "liberated" areas if necessary…assuming the legitimate Syrian government were agreeable to such a scenario. I'm also sure the Syrian government would much rather have the IRIC operating on Syrian soil rather than have some sort of NATO + Israel 'operation' bombing every square inch of the Country…including the Syrian government.
I'm not how well Israel would receive the idea of the IRGC officially operating neighboring Syria (whihc is another reason this pretext is going nowhere)..but, needless to say, Israel certainly doesn't have the political will to send ground forces into Syria simply in a feigned attempt to drive out their own mercenary terrorists…that's for sure…
That said, off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 other pretexts Obama could play with–and I agree this is certainly not "over"…
The "Al Qaeda in Syria" pretext will never work for several reasons…
First: this pretext would require a commitment of US/NATO + Israel ground forces…a commitment which seems more or less out of the question for several reasons. It also begs the question: is the US now willing to partner with Assad to push out Al-Qaeda? I don't foresee the legitimate government of Syria, meaning the so-called "Assad regime", agreeing to a US/NATO + Israel military operation of any kind in any way shape or form on Syrian soil. Additionally, I'm sure everyone is 'concerned' about 'Al Qaeda' in Syria–including Russia and Iran–it's not just the US. If it came down to it, I'm almost certain Iran would be more than willing to at least offer to send in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into these so-called "liberated" areas if necessary…assuming the legitimate Syrian government were agreeable and the so-called "International community" demanded. I'm also sure the Syrian government would much rather have the IRIC operating on Syrian soil rather than have some sort of NATO + Israel 'operation' bombing every square inch of the Country…including the Syrian government.
I'm not how well Israel would receive the idea of the IRGC officially operating neighboring Syria (whihc is another reason this pretext is going nowhere)..but, needless to say, Israel certainly doesn't have the political will to send ground forces into Syria simply in a feigned attempt to drive out their own mercenary terrorists…that's for sure…
That said, off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 other pretexts Obama could play with–and I agree this is certainly not "over"…
The "Al Qaeda in Syria" pretext will never work for several reasons…
First: this pretext would require a commitment of US/NATO + Israel ground forces…a commitment which seems more or less out of the question for several reasons. It also begs the question: is the US now willing to partner with Assad to push out Al-Qaeda? I don't foresee the legitimate government of Syria, meaning the so-called "Assad regime", agreeing to a US/NATO + Israel military operation of any kind in any way shape or form on Syrian soil. Additionally, I'm sure everyone is 'concerned' about 'Al Qaeda' in Syria–including Russia and Iran–it's not just the US. If it came down to it, I'm almost certain Iran would be more than willing to at least offer to send in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into these so-called "liberated" areas if necessary…assuming the legitimate Syrian government were agreeable and the so-called "International community" demanded. I'm also sure the Syrian government would much rather have the IRIC operating on Syrian soil rather than have some sort of NATO + Israel 'operation' bombing every square inch of the Country…including the Syrian government.
I'm not how well Israel would receive the idea of the IRGC officially operating neighboring Syria (whihc is another reason this pretext is going nowhere)..but, needless to say, Israel certainly doesn't have the political will to send ground forces into Syria simply in a feigned attempt to drive out their own mercenary terrorists…that's for sure…
That said, off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 other pretexts Obama could play with–and I agree this is certainly not "over"…
The "Al Qaeda in Syria" pretext will never work for several reasons…
First: this pretext would require a commitment of US/NATO plus Israel ground forces…a commitment which seems more or less out of the question for several reasons. It also begs the question: is the US now willing to partner with Assad to push out Al-Qaeda? I don't foresee the legitimate government of Syria, meaning the so-called "Assad regime", agreeing to a US/NATO Israel military operation of any kind in any way shape or form on Syrian soil. Additionally, I'm sure everyone is 'concerned' about 'Al Qaeda' in Syria–including Russia and Iran–it's not just the US. If it came down to it, I'm almost certain Iran would be more than willing to at least offer to send in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into these so-called "liberated" areas if necessary…assuming the legitimate Syrian government were agreeable and the so-called "International community" demanded. I'm also sure the Syrian government would much rather have the IRIC operating on Syrian soil rather than have some sort of US/NATO plus Israel 'operation' bombing every square inch of the Country…including the Syrian government.
I'm not sure, however, how well Israel would receive the idea of the IRGC officially operating neighboring Syria (which is another reason this pretext is going nowhere)..but, needless to say, Israel certainly doesn't have the political will to send ground forces into Syria simply in a feigned attempt to drive out their own mercenary terrorists…that's for sure…
That said, off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 other pretexts Obama could play with–and I agree this is certainly not "over"…
"…has since insisted that he doesn’t really need permission to launch a future war on Syria when the mood strikes him."
Which is precisely true. Obama still needs to get a war going with Iran before the Israelis – and their rich American supporters who financed his political career – hang him and the only way to do that is to defang Syria and Hizballah in Lebanon. Russia shot down his last attempt to attack Syria, and the Iran negotiations were a resulting attempt to kick the can down the road until a new plan could be constructed to justify an attack. The latest propaganda attempt to justify intervention on the basis that "Al Qaeda in Syria is a threat to the US" is just part of the process of building up a new justification.
Nothing is over.
The "Al Qaeda in Syria" pretext will never work for several reasons…
First: this pretext would require a commitment of US/NATO plus Israel ground forces…a commitment which seems more or less out of the question for several reasons. It also begs the question: is the US now willing to partner with Assad to push out Al-Qaeda? I don't foresee the legitimate government of Syria, meaning the so-called "Assad regime", agreeing to a US/NATO Israel military operation of any kind in any way shape or form on Syrian soil. Additionally, I'm sure everyone is 'concerned' about 'Al Qaeda' in Syria–including Russia and Iran–it's not just the US. If it came down to it, I'm almost certain Iran would be more than willing to at least offer to send in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into these so-called "liberated" areas if necessary…assuming the legitimate Syrian government were agreeable and the so-called "International community" demanded. I'm also sure the Syrian government would much rather have the IRGC operating on Syrian soil rather than have some sort of US/NATO plus Israel 'operation' bombing every square inch of the Country…including the Syrian government.
I'm not sure, however, how well Israel would receive the idea of the IRGC officially operating in neighboring Syria (which is another reason why this pretext is going nowhere)..but, needless to say, Israel certainly doesn't have the political will to send ground forces into Syria simply in a feigned attempt to drive out their own mercenary terrorists…that's for sure…
That said, off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 other pretexts Obama could play with–and I agree this is certainly not "over"…
Even if there WAS such a "solution" what gives us the right or the cause to exercise it?