Occupy Protests Syria

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2011 1:58 PM GMT
    http://badrachel.blogspot.com/
    "5,000 Syrians have been massacred by Bashar Assad since March, including 300 children. How are those sanctions workin’ out, Mr. Obama?"

    6543527701_6c643dc3c4.jpg

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2011 2:34 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidhttp://badrachel.blogspot.com/
    "5,000 Syrians have been massacred by Bashar Assad since March, including 300 children. How are those sanctions workin’ out, Mr. Obama?"

    How come you arent there socal? I dont see you doin much for em.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2011 2:43 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness saidhttp://badrachel.blogspot.com/
    "5,000 Syrians have been massacred by Bashar Assad since March, including 300 children. How are those sanctions workin’ out, Mr. Obama?"

    How come you arent there socal? I dont see you doin much for em.


    And when we bombed Lybia, Socal et al had a fit of apoplexy. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Obama Derangement Syndrome.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2011 2:51 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness saidhttp://badrachel.blogspot.com/
    "5,000 Syrians have been massacred by Bashar Assad since March, including 300 children. How are those sanctions workin’ out, Mr. Obama?"

    How come you arent there socal? I dont see you doin much for em.


    And when we bombed Lybia, Socal et al had a fit of apoplexy. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Obama Derangement Syndrome.
    I know.. I saw.. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2011 2:52 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness saidhttp://badrachel.blogspot.com/
    "5,000 Syrians have been massacred by Bashar Assad since March, including 300 children. How are those sanctions workin’ out, Mr. Obama?"

    How come you arent there socal? I dont see you doin much for em.


    And when we bombed Lybia, Socal et al had a fit of apoplexy. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    Continuing the pattern of making things up.

    Never commented much about Lybia, except it appeared Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a leadership from the rear mode. But overall, I had no problems with the implementation of the NATO command structure, except for its less effectiveness without the US in more of a leadership role.

    All your Obama Derangement Syndrome statement shows is you have absolutely nothing substantive to comment on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2011 3:42 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness saidhttp://badrachel.blogspot.com/
    "5,000 Syrians have been massacred by Bashar Assad since March, including 300 children. How are those sanctions workin’ out, Mr. Obama?"

    How come you arent there socal? I dont see you doin much for em.


    And when we bombed Lybia, Socal et al had a fit of apoplexy. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    Continuing the pattern of making things up.

    Never commented much about Lybia, except it appeared Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a leadership from the rear mode. But overall, I had no problems with the implementation of the NATO command structure, except for its less effectiveness without the US in more of a leadership role.

    All your Obama Derangement Syndrome statement shows is you have absolutely nothing substantive to comment on.


    So you claim to not have been in a fit of apoplexy over the bombing of Lybia and then proceed to launch into a screed about Obama's lack of leadership in said campaign?

    Yup. ODS all the way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2011 3:56 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness saidhttp://badrachel.blogspot.com/
    "5,000 Syrians have been massacred by Bashar Assad since March, including 300 children. How are those sanctions workin’ out, Mr. Obama?"

    How come you arent there socal? I dont see you doin much for em.


    And when we bombed Lybia, Socal et al had a fit of apoplexy. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    Continuing the pattern of making things up.

    Never commented much about Lybia, except it appeared Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a leadership from the rear mode. But overall, I had no problems with the implementation of the NATO command structure, except for its less effectiveness without the US in more of a leadership role.

    All your Obama Derangement Syndrome statement shows is you have absolutely nothing substantive to comment on.


    So you claim to not have been in a fit of apoplexy over the bombing of Lybia and then proceed to launch into a screed about Obama's lack of leadership in said campaign?

    Yup. ODS all the way.

    Funny how you don't give up grasping at straws. I had no problems with the action taken against Lybia, and, in fact, welcomed European countries taking on more of a role, given they are most impacted by Lybia. If anything, I thought Obama's role tended to impede its effectiveness as the NATO command structure with less US leadership involved proved to be less effective. If you call that apoplexy, you need to make a trip to the dictionary.

    But your real goal here is to deflect, to divert. What say you about Syria and Obama's so-called leadership, or do you prefer to bring up something else?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2011 4:27 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness saidhttp://badrachel.blogspot.com/
    "5,000 Syrians have been massacred by Bashar Assad since March, including 300 children. How are those sanctions workin’ out, Mr. Obama?"

    How come you arent there socal? I dont see you doin much for em.


    And when we bombed Lybia, Socal et al had a fit of apoplexy. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    Continuing the pattern of making things up.

    Never commented much about Lybia, except it appeared Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a leadership from the rear mode. But overall, I had no problems with the implementation of the NATO command structure, except for its less effectiveness without the US in more of a leadership role.

    All your Obama Derangement Syndrome statement shows is you have absolutely nothing substantive to comment on.


    So you claim to not have been in a fit of apoplexy over the bombing of Lybia and then proceed to launch into a screed about Obama's lack of leadership in said campaign?

    Yup. ODS all the way.

    Funny how you don't give up grasping at straws. I had no problems with the action taken against Lybia, and, in fact, welcomed European countries taking on more of a role, given they are most impacted by Lybia. If anything, I thought Obama's role tended to impede its effectiveness as the NATO command structure with less US leadership involved proved to be less effective. If you call that apoplexy, you need to make a trip to the dictionary.

    But your real goal here is to deflect, to divert. What say you about Syria and Obama's so-called leadership, or do you prefer to bring up something else?


    Please... John. It's time to give up the ghost. What NATO did in Lybia was among the most effective short term campaigns in our lifetime, despite all the hysteria from the right-wing about Obama's leadership.

    In terms of Syria, short of bombing or invading, it's unclear what more we can do, particularly since the Republicans in Congress can't even pass a tax cut for the middle class, and will no doubt hyperventilate if Obama proposes any action. And 30 "syrians" in a photo on a Brietbart affiliated blog is hardly proof of anything.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2011 5:30 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidPlease... John. It's time to give up the ghost. What NATO did in Lybia was among the most effective short term campaigns in our lifetime, despite all the hysteria from the right-wing about Obama's leadership.

    In terms of Syria, short of bombing or invading, it's unclear what more we can do, particularly since the Republicans in Congress can't even pass a tax cut for the middle class, and will no doubt hyperventilate if Obama proposes any action. And 30 "syrians" in a photo on a Brietbart affiliated blog is hardly proof of anything.

    You're obviously unfamiliar with the efficiencies of the NATO command structure with respect to the Libya operations, but you spew without any basis that it was among the most effective short term campaigns in our lifetime. Bloviating without basis. But it is a dodge, as I have not now, nor previously, severely criticized any of the activities, only pointing out improved effectiveness had the US been more proactive.

    With respect to Syria, I can agree with your statement that it is unclear, but would add, unclear to you and apparently Obama. I suspect Obama has been given some options, not all military, but given his penchant for non-involvement and appeasement, I'm sure he ignored the options.

    I will point out some options that he could have been taken, which would have not caused him to lose political capital, as that is the main motivation behind all that he does. They involve strengthening sanctions and taking aggressive, private actions to get Russian and Chinese support. Given the time for them to take effect, the continued killing of civilians is the price for his inaction.

    What he could have done with Russia before was to tie pulling out of the East European defense shield with concessions from Russia regarding sanctions on both Iran and Syria. Getting no concessions was a total failure, reflecting his Sunday school naivite that showing good will by unilaterally making concessions is effective. It is not.

    What the US could also have done with Russia is to privately advise that unless they support strong sanctions against both Iran and Syria, we would block their entry into the WTO. That opportunity passed, as Russia was invited to join a few days ago. Sad and pathetic. Had leverage been made privately, given the current weak state of the Russian government because of Putin's actions and the election irregularities, it is very likely we could have gotten them to cooperate.

    In the case of China, had Russia gone along there would have been increased pressure on China to do so as well, but we could also have privately threatened trade action. Although we are indebeted to them, they depend on commerce from the US to maintain their lifestyle.

    Bottom line is Obama will likely do nothing. He has already blown some options and there is no reason he will do anything that Axlerod has not approved of as helping his reelection.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2011 6:29 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidPlease... John. It's time to give up the ghost. What NATO did in Lybia was among the most effective short term campaigns in our lifetime, despite all the hysteria from the right-wing about Obama's leadership.

    In terms of Syria, short of bombing or invading, it's unclear what more we can do, particularly since the Republicans in Congress can't even pass a tax cut for the middle class, and will no doubt hyperventilate if Obama proposes any action. And 30 "syrians" in a photo on a Brietbart affiliated blog is hardly proof of anything.

    You're obviously unfamiliar with the efficiencies of the NATO command structure with respect to the Libya operations, but you spew without any basis that it was among the most effective short term campaigns in our lifetime. Bloviating without basis. But it is a dodge, as I have not now, nor previously, severely criticized any of the activities, only pointing out improved effectiveness had the US been more proactive.

    With respect to Syria, I can agree with your statement that it is unclear, but would add, unclear to you and apparently Obama. I suspect Obama has been given some options, not all military, but given his penchant for non-involvement and appeasement, I'm sure he ignored the options.

    I will point out some options that he could have been taken, which would have not caused him to lose political capital, as that is the main motivation behind all that he does. They involve strengthening sanctions and taking aggressive, private actions to get Russian and Chinese support. Given the time for them to take effect, the continued killing of civilians is the price for his inaction.

    What he could have done with Russia before was to tie pulling out of the East European defense shield with concessions from Russia regarding sanctions on both Iran and Syria. Getting no concessions was a total failure, reflecting his Sunday school naivite that showing good will by unilaterally making concessions is effective. It is not.

    What the US could also have done with Russia is to privately advise that unless they support strong sanctions against both Iran and Syria, we would block their entry into the WTO. That opportunity passed, as Russia was invited to join a few days ago. Sad and pathetic. Had leverage been made privately, given the current weak state of the Russian government because of Putin's actions and the election irregularities, it is very likely we could have gotten them to cooperate.

    In the case of China, had Russia gone along there would have been increased pressure on China to do so as well, but we could also have privately threatened trade action. Although we are indebeted to them, they depend on commerce from the US to maintain their lifestyle.

    Bottom line is Obama will likely do nothing. He has already blown some options and there is no reason he will do anything that Axlerod has not approved of as helping his reelection.


    John - You're just being silly. The entire right-wing savaged Obama for the Lybia mission as thoroughly as they have tried to deny him credit for taking out Osama bin Laden.

    You then move into mind reading, presuming what Obama does or does not know, was or was not advised of, in your relentless and hypocritical attempts to find fault with both action in Lybia and non-action in Syria. Perhaps if I thought you actually cared about the Syrian people, I'd be tempted to take you more seriously. But you've long ago proven a complete lack of interest in the well-being of Americans, so why would anyone think you care about Syrians?

    You regularly disdain International organizations and laws, except when they suit your narrow political agenda. This is just another instance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2011 6:47 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidPlease... John. It's time to give up the ghost. What NATO did in Lybia was among the most effective short term campaigns in our lifetime, despite all the hysteria from the right-wing about Obama's leadership.

    In terms of Syria, short of bombing or invading, it's unclear what more we can do, particularly since the Republicans in Congress can't even pass a tax cut for the middle class, and will no doubt hyperventilate if Obama proposes any action. And 30 "syrians" in a photo on a Brietbart affiliated blog is hardly proof of anything.

    You're obviously unfamiliar with the efficiencies of the NATO command structure with respect to the Libya operations, but you spew without any basis that it was among the most effective short term campaigns in our lifetime. Bloviating without basis. But it is a dodge, as I have not now, nor previously, severely criticized any of the activities, only pointing out improved effectiveness had the US been more proactive.

    With respect to Syria, I can agree with your statement that it is unclear, but would add, unclear to you and apparently Obama. I suspect Obama has been given some options, not all military, but given his penchant for non-involvement and appeasement, I'm sure he ignored the options.

    I will point out some options that he could have been taken, which would have not caused him to lose political capital, as that is the main motivation behind all that he does. They involve strengthening sanctions and taking aggressive, private actions to get Russian and Chinese support. Given the time for them to take effect, the continued killing of civilians is the price for his inaction.

    What he could have done with Russia before was to tie pulling out of the East European defense shield with concessions from Russia regarding sanctions on both Iran and Syria. Getting no concessions was a total failure, reflecting his Sunday school naivite that showing good will by unilaterally making concessions is effective. It is not.

    What the US could also have done with Russia is to privately advise that unless they support strong sanctions against both Iran and Syria, we would block their entry into the WTO. That opportunity passed, as Russia was invited to join a few days ago. Sad and pathetic. Had leverage been made privately, given the current weak state of the Russian government because of Putin's actions and the election irregularities, it is very likely we could have gotten them to cooperate.

    In the case of China, had Russia gone along there would have been increased pressure on China to do so as well, but we could also have privately threatened trade action. Although we are indebeted to them, they depend on commerce from the US to maintain their lifestyle.

    Bottom line is Obama will likely do nothing. He has already blown some options and there is no reason he will do anything that Axlerod has not approved of as helping his reelection.


    John - You're just being silly. The entire right-wing savaged Obama for the Lybia mission as thoroughly as they have tried to deny him credit for taking out Osama bin Laden.

    You then move into mind reading, presuming what Obama does or does not know, was or was not advised of, in your relentless and hypocritical attempts to find fault with both action in Lybia and non-action in Syria. Perhaps if I thought you actually cared about the Syrian people, I'd be tempted to take you more seriously. But you've long ago proven a complete lack of interest in the well-being of Americans, so why would anyone think you care about Syrians?

    You regularly disdain International organizations and laws, except when they suit your narrow political agenda. This is just another instance.

    My hypothesis was only that Obama was given some options. But maybe not. All your ranting is covering up your lack of knowledge of international relations. But of course, that never stops you, does it now? icon_lol.gif