Obama is not to blame for events in Syria and Iraq

Well, I'm not the left, and I wasn't critical of Bush. Are you defensive about Bush?

 

I was struck by one sentence in your post. "Throughout the years, as the carnage continued in Syria, Obama repeatedly opined about the evils of the killing while repeatedly refusing to take actions that could have ended it."

What would you have Obama do?

That is the same type of statement said on Fox news, their commentators and generals, whenever they speak of Syria. Yet, invariably, they all fail to explain what Obama should have done. One exception, recently O'Reilly said that Obama should have sent in troops. Yeah, right, that would have been in 2011 or early 2012 as the civil war began and the U.S. was just getting out of the disaster called Iraq. Had Obama done that, he wouldn't have been impeached. He would have been lynched.

Please answer my question. I am very curious about your answer.

 

Obama is being criticized for not doing more, especially in 2011 and 2012 when this all began. Now, according to you, he is to be criticized for doing too much. Which is it?

Margot2 is talking about a full-fledged commitment of American troops. Supplying our allies and supporting them by air is not an invasion.

 

That does not answer the question. That is exactly what the commentators on Fox News say. Saying who Obama should have listened to doesn't explain what he should have done in Syria.

Give it another try if you can. What should he have done in Syria when this all began, 2011-2012?

 

Iran and Russia can have Syria. Tell me, what is wrong with that? Review this part of the OP before you answer.

The course Obama chose was prudent. Critics today are saying that Russia and Iran now control the region. Think about it. Is that a bad thing? Look at the chaos in Iraq, the months long battles for Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul. Syria is a failed state. Who wants it? Aleppo is a human tragedy. Major cities, transportation hubs, railroads, and bridges have been destroyed throughout Iraq and Syria. In both countries Islamic terrorists attack mosques, churches, market places, and other soft targets with tremendous loss of innocent life. The terrorist attacks are a daily occurrence.

Ask yourself a question. Do we really want any part of that?

 

So, you are criticizing Obama for doing too much. His critics, Republicans and conservative pundits, are criticizing Obama for doing nothing. Which is it? Are you blaming him for supporting our allies in Syria? Actually, I am. We should get the hell out of Syria. Iran and Russia can have the place. How do you feel about that?

 

We were talking about the Shia being the majority in Iraq. Reading is fun and mental. Do try and keep up with what is being said. This way you wont make such a mistake and look like you don't know what youre talking about.

The Russians were ran out of Iraq and weren't backing Saddam when we were. Nor did they back Iran to much at that time.

 

Obama should have done nothing in Syria. Containing Syrias problems should have been our priority. Iraqs border with Syria should have been secured to contain ISIS. Intervention in middle-eastern blood feuds, and uprisings only result in failed states which descend into chaos and terror. Obama bears responsibility for ISIS taking hold in Iraq. Bush created the power vacuum in Iraq, and Obama inherited the commitment to ensure it's fragile political stability, and security. Iraq is his failure, not Syria.

 

That changes up nothing as to what I stated concerning the Peep. You should read those links I gave you.


Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy.....

In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

More than two years of violence have radicalized the armed opposition fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, leaving few groups that both share the political vision of the United States and have the military might to push it forward.

Among the most extreme groups is the notorious Al Nusra Front, the Qaeda-aligned force declared a terrorist organization by the United States, but other groups share aspects of its Islamist ideology in varying degrees.

The Islamist character of the opposition reflects the main constituency of the rebellion, which has been led since its start by Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority, mostly in conservative, marginalized areas. The descent into brutal civil war has hardened sectarian differences, and the failure of more mainstream rebel groups to secure regular arms supplies has allowed Islamists to fill the void and win supporters.

The religious agenda of the combatants sets them apart from many civilian activists, protesters and aid workers who had hoped the uprising would create a civil, democratic Syria.

When the armed rebellion began, defectors from the government’s staunchly secular army formed the vanguard. The rebel movement has since grown to include fighters with a wide range of views, including Qaeda-aligned jihadis seeking to establish an Islamic emirate, political Islamists inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood and others who want an Islamic-influenced legal code like that found in many Arab states.

Another prominent group, Ahrar al-Sham, shares much of Nusra’s extremist ideology but is made up mostly of Syrians.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/wo...anted=all&_r=0


Part two.



As extremists rose in the rebel ranks, the United States sought to limit their influence, first by designating Nusra a terrorist organization, and later by pushing for the formation of the Supreme Military Council, which is linked to the exile opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition.

Although led by an army defector, Gen. Salim Idris, the council has taken in the leaders of many overtly Islamist battalions. One called the Syrian Liberation Front has been integrated nearly wholesale into the council; many of its members coordinate closely with the Syrian Islamic Front, a group that includes the extremist Ahrar al-Sham, according to a recent report by Ms. O’Bagy, of the Institute for the Study of War.

In the past, United States officials saw the Islamist groups’ abundant resources as the main draw for recruits, said Steven Heydemann, a senior adviser at the United States Institute of Peace, which works with the State Department.

“The strategy is based on the current assessment that popular appeal of these groups is transactional, not ideological, and that opportunities exist to peel people away by providing alternative support and resources,” he said.

Mr. Heydemann acknowledged, however, that the current momentum toward radicalism could be hard to reverse.

We all want an Islamic state and we want Shariah to be applied,” said Maawiya Hassan Agha, a rebel activist reached by Skype in the northern village of Sarmeen. He said a country’s laws should flow from its people’s beliefs and compared Syrians calling for Islamic law with the French banning Muslim women from wearing face veils.....snip~ same link.

 

Get our soldiers killed for what purpose.
Oust Assad? Is it worth American blood and death for this reason. IMO, Hell NO.

 

Obama is to be blamed for continuing the same failed policies of Bush, Jr.
Similar to Vietnam becoming Mr. NIXON's War because NIXON continued the failed policies of LBJ.

The alternative to all is just, leave, get out. No advisors. No troops.
Oh if only we got out of Vietnam in 1968 as opposed to so many years later.
Now we trade with Vietnam.


Moi


r > g

View attachment 47057
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

Note what I have been telling TCassa.....if BO would have listened to Maliki and stayed on point with Iraq. AQIL would not have been able to make the move into Syria.

Then he should have never fallen for the Sauds play to remove Assad. Never should have armed the Sunni rebels. Check out post 109.

 

I think when things were weighed the needs back home really needs some attention and a diversion is badly needed,
a confusion did arise for commitments was already made and with such intentions proxy support suggestion was furnished for Syria.

 

The tragedy here is that 9/11 and terrorism were not why we invaded Iraq. We created more misery & terrorism through that than we combated.

 

We have been a part of it all along. It may take some time to understand the consequences but allowing Russia and Iran to partner up is against historical American interest in that region. We had a responsibility and we shirked it. Now we will live with the results.

 

Yup I Agree,
I think that is all about, "I will punch you in the face because you insulted my daddy" scenario.

 

From the Demo Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche Pac.



[video=youtube;VfyDgDTu0Go]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfyDgDTu0Go[/video]

EIR's Jeff Steinberg sits down with Virginia State Senator Richard Black to discuss the reality on the ground in Aleppo, Syria vs. the lies permeating the Western press. Having recently returned from a tour of Syria, including a meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Black is committed to educating his fellow Americans about how U.S./UK strategy of regime change is destroying this once prosperous, non-belligerent and progressive country......snip~

 

You have a point, but you don't have to shout.

 

You are saying everything except answering the question. It is 2011 or 2012, what should have Obama done? Not what he didn't do. This is about the civil war that has been going on for five years. AQI and ISIS are a different subject. Besides, it is not an issue of Obama listening to al Maliki. It is about al Maliki listening to Obama. But, that, too, is a different subject.

 

No Maliki shouldn't be listening to Obama and followed the will of the Iraqi people and who they voted into Office. What part did you miss with not getting involved in Regime change with the Saud and Sunni?

What part about not arming the Sunni Rebels and Terrorist groups confuses you.

 

Now we're talking about Syrian rebels?

Look, there's a situation in Iraq that reflects the political climate of that country. The Iraqi government did not want US troops in their country because said troops presence was highly unpopular among the Iraqi people, and the government feared an uprising. The uprising that did occur was a deeply rooted tension between the Sunni people and the Shia government. What ultimately needs to happen is Iraq needs to regain their ability to protect themselves, which is not possible without addressing the political tensions they are facing from within.

The Iraqi government was already given billions in military aid from the US government, including 58 helicopters from us, and then another 100 from Russia, but the end goal isn't for the US and Russia to keep Iraq standing, the end goal is for Iraq to stand on its own. Not enough helicopters isn't the problem

Now in regards to Syria, the missed opportunity was when Russia offered to have Assad replaced, and the west neglected it. Obama's attempts to aid the Syrian rebels only made things worse

 

He should be next on the gallows.

 

STOP!!!
The Russians and before the USSR had and has much more influence as you think!

Syria and the Assad regime is since over 60 years ally of USSR, followed by Russia. The complete military of them is “Made in USSR / Russia”!
Iraqi Army under Saddam was 98% “Made in USSR” or from whom do you think were all the T-72, T-55, BMP AFV’s, Scuds, Mig-29 etc. etc. etc. he used in 1991 and 2003 and which were slaughtered by the US Forces?
Iran is since they are hostile with the USA in close relationship with USSR and Russia… and who is again supporting the build of the so disputed nuclear plant please?

Of course I understand that you and many other US people like to blame BO for everything and he is much liked target for all bad things to blame!
But it was not BO who made this criminal attack war against Saddam in 2003 and who showed total incompetence after it. It was not BO who kicked all international laws in the ass … laws where the USA made embargos in the past if anyone else are not following!

It was the will of majority of US people that this “Vietnam 2” in the ME should be ended and the boys should come home asap… and so what is wrong when a President follows the will of his people?

And about the rest … things have changed man! They started to change with thanks to George W. Bush Jr. and in my opinion BO realized this at least, including the Iran Deal, which was overdue to do!

And again: Should have BO stayed in full force in Iraq and should he have made a full scale invasion onto Syria? Yes, or no in your opinion?

 

Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy.....snip~


What do you think that means on creating a dilemma with the Syrian Policy? That's Right.....the Iraqi people did not want our troops in their country. Yet they were willing to accept the largest embassy ever made, and all that comes with it.

When Maliki asked for the Helicopters it was when Daesh/AQIL had become a problem not just for the Iraqis. But for the Kurds and Syria. Which was at the same time that Maliki wanted drone strikes to hit them. BO peep backed off. That dilemma became the main reason why the West failed with their policy.



In the past, United States officials saw the Islamist groups’ abundant resources as the main draw for recruits, said Steven Heydemann, a senior adviser at the United States Institute of Peace, which works with the State Department.

“The strategy is based on the current assessment that popular appeal of these groups is transactional, not ideological, and that opportunities exist to peel people away by providing alternative support and resources,” he said......snip~


They got this part completely wrong. It wasn't transactional. It was ideological all along.

Oh and the bit about the Russians offered to have Assad replaced was only brought out by the Finnish Diplomat who thought that the Kremlin backed it. Yet Lavrov always maintained that Assad should be allowed to run in any re-election that that the Syrian People would be the ones to decide. That was despite Churkin saying that an elegant way should be found so that Assad would step aside.

The Russians never gave any indication that they would be willing to force a resolution to remove their ally. Again.....BO should have never listened to the Saud nor the MB. Yet he did.....and he only blamed Assad for the killing of the Syrian People. Despite the Christians standing with Assad. Along with those that do not want to see the Sunni gain power in Syria.

 

Nah, he can take the blame for what he did, just not what Obama has done.