Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s security forces clashed with protesters in several cities yesterday...Is this a doctrine?
Clinton said the elements that led to intervention in Libya -- international condemnation, an Arab League call for action, a United Nations Security Council resolution -- are “not going to happen” with Syria, in part because members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is “a reformer.”
“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities... than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”
March 27, 2011
Hillary Clinton distinguishes Assad from Qaddaffi.
Syria is not Libya. I hope you can understand why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
120 comments:
I would love to know exactly WHO thinks Assad is a 'reformer' ....
Bashar Assad is a reformer? That's a fucking joke. He has more American blood on his hands than Qaddafi does and his goons murdered Rafik Hariri in Lebanon. Syria has been oppressing The Lebanese for many years now.
Bashar Assad is a much more dangerous enemy of America than Qaddafi and has been after since he took over Syria.
I am not in favor of a time-limited, scope-limited kinetic military action against Syria, but the inconsistency and hypocrisy of this administration is maddening.
Obama lied. Syrians died.
Is this a doctrine?
Belmont Clubt has good analysis:
"The answer he received from former State Department Nicholas Burns was essentially that of the drunk who searched for his lost watch under the streetlamp because that was where the light was. America is acting in Libya because that’s where the UN resolution is.
A cynic might be inclined to argue that President Obama’s operation in Libya serves the purpose of preemptively tying up US reserves. It supplies a relatively target easy to beat up on — admittedly a bad guy who looks and plays the part — so that if and when the heavy lifting is required elsewhere the Commander in Chief can justly say, “I already gave at the office”. In that way, if Assad decides to play Hama rules, the President can claim he is already preoccupied with protecting unnamed persons in the Eastern Libyan desert. You can avoid the big conflicts by embroiling youself in little ones."
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/03/24/the-budget-of-force/
"Obama’s Libya operation seemed disconnected from the principal powderkegs of the Middle East, which are Saudi Arabia and Syria. The fuze train burning toward Saudi Arabia comes from Yemen and Bahrain. The detonation wire going from Syria through Lebanon leads to Israel.
And Obama is in Libya."
If killing your citizens when they protest is now characterized as reform, then in leftard-land it's okay. Clearly leftards excuse killing ones own citizens for the greater good and calling those who do it as reformers. History has clearly seen and categorized who those reformers are and Assad joins that club.
Walk Softly and Carry a Big Shtick.
Not a doctrine.
We are fresh out of bullets.
Could not intervene if we wanted to.
But Assad is a reformer, in the sense that so far he has killed probably only about 100 protestors. His daddy killed about 15,000 at Hama.
I'll bet it was easier being Co-President.
I would love to know exactly WHO thinks Assad is a 'reformer'
Our internationalist gal-on-the-go, Hillary Rodham.
And this from a woman who once wore very comfortable sandals, hung around campus coffee houses, and issued high-minded quotes - now reduced to spewing nonsense.
"Is this a doctrine?"
No, this is raw incompetence at the very highest levels of government.
This is also what the world looks like without American leadership.
Assad is a what???
Can't you see the difference? What is going on is Syria is not an "organic" revolution, for whatever reason, while what is going on in Libya is. It is not material that people are dying in both places.
Steve G
Assad is a reformer? That'd be like saying Chicago's Daley family are reformers yet they have been in power for what 40 years?
Not to pick on Hillary! but thus epitomizes the BS that pols get away with when the press corps is nothing more than dutiful stenographers.
Maybe because Syria has no oil and Libya does?
Or because the Dentist of Damascus seems more civilized in his barbarity?
The Averted Eyes Doctrine?
police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.
And US policy is now very clear that we are coming down on all sides of the Libyan issue. Humanitarian in our efforts to drive out Gadhaffi by pressure and words only and supporting those in opposition to him regardless of their views, but only as a multi national effort under the auspices of the UN, as all crises should be handled.
Whew!
The Uh-Oh Doctrine.
“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities... than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”
Translation: The Assad regime is killing less people and using just guns not airplanes to do it.
Good God.
I'm all for picking off the low-hanging fruit, but that's all the Libyan adventure is. Nobody likes Quaddafi enough to stand up for him, so the UNSC resolution was achievable. There's also some momentum for change in the immediate vicinity, what with the events in Egypt and Tunisia. Finally, has has enough innocent American blood on his hands to make us feel good about bombing him.
Assad is way more dangerous, in large part because he is the front-man for Iran. Of course, going after him is essentially going after Iran, and no way Obama will try that on (neither did Bush, of course). Long and medium term, Assad is a way bigger threat to the region and US interests in it than Quaddafi. Quaddafi is mostly a threat to his own population.
WoW, a consistent view by everybody after 15 comments. Just waiting for one of our trolls to try and defend the Affirmative proposition.
Clearly leftards excuse killing ones own citizens for the greater good and calling those who do it as reformers.
yes, the Left has been making that point since the French Revolution in 1789,
On ne peut pas faire d’omelette sans casser des oeufs.
reinforced by their love of Lenin
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
The Democrats have been sucking up to Assad for years. Pelosi was flying over there when Bush was president and Kerry has been doing it lately as he tries to establish his cred to be Sec State in 2013. One of the lefty magazines has a big spread on his family this month.
He will be shooting at his people en masse if necessary. If he doesn't have the guts, the Iranians do. They will not give up their salient into the Mediterranean area easily.
Syria is not Libya, because Syria is a much bigger deal.
20 years ago, it was said that the difference between Hafiz Assad and Saddam Hussein was that Assad was equally bad, but sane, and that is still so. Attacking Syria would be on the scale of the Iraq invasion [either one], and even more so, since it would inevitably be considered confirmation that the U.S. is engaged on a "crusade" by the "Moslem world."
Of course he is a reformer. Has been trying to reform Lebanon for years. He would love to reform Israel.
"...since it would inevitably be considered confirmation that the U.S. is engaged on a "crusade" by the "Moslem world."
True, but whose mind will really be changed by that "confirmation" of a farcical historical parallel? The two percent of Mideast Muslims who don't already believe it?
Assad, like his father, has done all he could to spread his regime's power, mostly into Lebanon. Add to that the fact, mentioned by several here, that he's very happy to be an Iranian client (unlike dear old Dad) and Syria looks like far more of a threat than Libya.
Also, Syria could actually put up a fight, unlike Khadaffy (has he ever fought anybody other than Libyans?), although we would do to them what the Israelis usually do.
The process, however, would get some of our guys killed and I think even Little Zero knows that would end what little tolerance there is for his (and the Hildabeast's) idea of foreign policy.
Brad said...
I would love to know exactly WHO thinks Assad is a 'reformer' ....
The same pack of morons who thing Ayatollah Khameini is a moderate.
PS Just because Zero and Hilla say it won't happen doesn't mean it will stay that way. Joe Lieberman has suggested we go in.
I'm not sure what difference Congressional attitudes towards Assad should make. According to HR Clinton's interview with Jake Tapper, an "internationally authorized intervention" apparently doesn't need Congressional approval or involvment at all.
If only there were someone in this administration in a position of authority and with a background as constitutional law professor or something who could speak to the public and clear this all up...
How is it possible that reporters can listen to this bilge and not laugh out loud? And yes, the obvious follow-up question is who is stupid enough to believe Assad is a reformer and just what reforms are they basing their judgment upon.
"Clinton said the elements that led to intervention in Libya -- international condemnation, an Arab League call for action, a United Nations Security Council resolution -- are “not going to happen” with Syria, in part because members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is “a reformer.”
Let's analyze this stunning piece of rope-a-dope bullshit for a moment:
1) The Arab League isn't going to call for action in Syria because Congress believes Assad is a reformer? Huh?
2) The international community won't condemn Assad gunning down Syrians hungry for free elections? Because Congress thinks he's a reformer?
3) The UN won't pass any resolutions because Assad has Congress' stamp of approval?
Sounds like Bashar as Assad just got a license to kill from Hillary Clinton.
Keep in mind folks that Congress wasn't even asked what it thought of Qaddafi before Clinton and Obama started hurling the 120 Tomahawk ship-to-shore missiles which are unable, by the way, to distinguish between civilians and military personnel.
Obama and Clinton are war criminals. They launched an illegal war of choice against brown Muslims without getting what the Constitution requires: Congressional approval.
Republicans should impeach both of them and bring their asses before the Congress to answer for their war crimes.
Democrats would certainly do it if the situation were reversed.
Without Congressional approval, they're simply ordering our boys in the military to commit MURDER and those boys should REFUSE those orders because they are ILLEGAL and IMMORAL orders.
The "smartest" Congress that Syrian money can buy. What a joke.
Syria isn't Libya because Syria is a tougher nut to crack. Obama decided to go after Libya because he knew they couldn't fight back. Not so with Syria.
Syria will be able to have a "free hand" to do what they please without fear of US/NATO/UN/Whoever, intervention. Worst case scenario for Syria, we will "call for restraint".
All you people do is complain, whine, and moan. Look, the answer is simple. We need a leader. So just go to the Yellow Pages, look up leader, and hire one.
If you are looking for a certified leader maybe Angies List is a better choice.
Craigslist not so much.
Is Hillary Clinton still regarded as the smartest woman in the world?
Clinton foreign policy is determined by how much you contributed to the Clinton Library.
Obama's foreign policy is determined by those who actually give a shit enough have one...like the Clintons.
Winning
Yes AllenS- everywhere but here.
AllenS said...
Is Hillary Clinton still regarded as the smartest woman in the world?
Only by people who don't know her record as:
Education Czarina of Arkinsaw
Healthcare Czarina of the United States
Co-President of the United States
US Senator from Noo Yawk
Secretary of State of the United States
As everyone has noted, "Assad is a reformer" is a crock of State Department excrement.
Qaddaffi is a bumbling butcher (whose victims wind up just as dead) of limited strategic interest to the United States; getting rid of him will probably help the Arab League meetings run more smoothly & might ingratiate us with them (yeah, right - but these types believe that crap).
Assad isn't a bumbling butcher, his fingerprints are all over Lebanon & insurgency against our troops in Iraq, he's a willing agent (at least "ally") of the Iranians, he's committed to the destruction of Israel .... in short, he's much, much worse than Assad - but taking out Assad wouldn't be "easy."
Rather than just saying that, the Administration chooses to tell us Assad's "not a bad guy like Qaddaffi is."
I would love to see someone follow up with State - - - "Who are these people who think Assad's a reformer?"
And then, if names were named, go ask them whether they really believe that.
"Is Hillary Clinton still regarded as the smartest woman in the world?"
Let's review Hillary Clinton's statements to Congress on Libya a mere three weeks ago.
VOA: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the Obama administration is "a long way" from making any decision about whether to take part in a "no-fly zone" operation over Libya. At the same time, she said situation in Libya has the potential to descend into Somalia-like chaos.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says there may well be a role for U.S. and other countries’ military assets in delivering humanitarian assistance to those caught up in or fleeing the Libyan violence.
But reflecting a sense of caution shared by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Clinton is making clear the United States will not be rushed into joining in a no-fly-zone regime in Libya or other military intervention.
Clinton spoke at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing
That was just over three weeks ago, folks. That's right, three weeks ago Hillary Clinton was lying to Congress when she claimed the US was "a long way" from making any decisions about any military intervention.
Hillary Clinton LIED to Congress then participated in a conspiracy with Barack Obama to usurp Congress' authority to commit our troops to a war of choice.
War. Crime.
David,
We are fresh out of bullets.
Could not intervene if we wanted to.
I don't know if you've served, but, whenever I hear a statement like that, I can't help but chuckle to myself because, if the average civilian understood the sheer awesomeness of our military, they'd know we could do whatever we wanted, when we wanted, anywhere - we're just not that ruthless.
It's like when I see the scare stories comparing us with China - they're a joke. There is no comparison.
We, as citizens, are going to have to get a sense of perspective if we're going to lead. Viewing us, in any way, as deficient is inaccurate:
As a (feminized) people, we currently lack the will, not the way.
Bill Brasky said...
Syria isn't Libya because Syria is a tougher nut to crack. Obama decided to go after Libya because he knew they couldn't fight back. Not so with Syria.
Syria will be able to have a "free hand" to do what they please without fear of US/NATO/UN/Whoever, intervention. Worst case scenario for Syria, we will "call for restraint".
Correct because Syria is a client state of Iran.
Iran has these underground facilities that will be the real hard nut to crack.
See it depends on what your definition of "reformer" -is.
Reformer now means "head of a state that is the client of a state that has ________."
Also, Syria could actually put up a fight, unlike Khadaffy
Well, maybe. In 1982, it took the Israelis about 24 hours to completely disable Syria's air defenses and destroy 92 Syrian planes, pretty much their entire air force. At that time Syria had the best Russian weapons available.
Israel did not lose a single plane.
Perhaps things have changed, but I doubt it.
The problem is not that they will put up much of a fight. The problem is that we are out of resources to bring force to bear. Seriously overextended.
Right now we have two aircraft carriers, sailing in close formation, just at the entrance to the Straits of Hormuz. They are much closer to Iran than their usual patrol.
Some military bloggers are asking why. Very doubtful we are planning an attack. But are they concerned we might have to respond to something?
Having lived in Syria for nearly four years, I've something a bit contrarian to say:
Bashar Al-Assad isn't much of a reformer, but he's been a bit of a reformer, particularly on economic issues. He's done some de-nationalizing of industry, including banking. On the social front, back in 2001, when Daddy was still running things, he pushed for Internet access countrywide. That happened, though the Syrian Internet experience is even more tightly filtered than the Chinese or Saudis. His modernization plans did materially improve the plight of the average guy on the street, but not nearly as much as needs be done.
Something that doesn't get reported, but probably should, is that the Assad family is a member of a religious minority, the Alawi or Nusairi branch of Shi'a Islam. Some Muslims claim that the Alawis aren't Muslim at all, so heterodox their practices, but some weird Christian sect.
When Hafiz al-Assad came to power in the 1970s, he loaded the government and military with other Alawis and struck Sunni Islam as a requirement for government and military jobs. This was clearly in self-defense, of course, but it had the the collateral effect of protecting other minorities, both religious and ethnic. Christians, Druze, the handful of remaining Jews, and other, tiny Muslim sects. Included among these are the Armenians who, having fled Turkey in the early 20th C., settled in what is now Syria. They represent maybe 15%-17% of the population, particularly in the north.
The regime's stance on protecting and promoting religious minorities has been good for them, but also bad. The Sunni majority feels excluded from the largesse. Those Sunnis have a history of religious pogroms against the minorities (check Mark Twain's Innocence Abroad for his report on the aftermath of one). I can't think of a single reason to not anticipate reprisals against the minorities if the Syrian gov't should fall. I'm simply not hearing any non-sectarian or cross-sectarian messages from the protesters. Perhaps I'm just missing them. I'd be grateful for any links anyone can provide to dissuade me of this.
If the regime falls (and it should, sometime, both fall and be called to account), it will not be good news for the minorities. The Muslim Brotherhood has not demonstrated any religious comity with Egypt's Christian Coptic citizens, after all.
So, I wonder, is it better to do nothing and let minorities better survive, or to push for the regime's downfall if it results in pogroms? I sure don't have a solid answer.
David
So then you ought to appreciate the irony of this-
U.N. Resolution 1973.
no link Madawaskan.
Plus the French think his wife is super stylish.
wired.com
****
BTW, Iran has sent assassination squads to Syria. They had snipers on rooftops whom the protestors overwhelmed and captured. I imagine it is much easier to get foreign soldiers to fire on protestors and is better for the morale of the army.
Perhaps we could have avoided all of this had we merely the moral clarity to support the protestors in Iran when we had the chance. Instead Obama was intent on being the "Not Bush."
We can take action against Libya because it is not part of the Axis of Evil named by Bush. Those who make up that axis must be negotiated with unless Bush be proven right in his assessment of their nature. After all what would that say about Obama's vaunted intelligence if Bush were right? He was left with Afghanistan and Iraq but Syria or Iran would be conflicts of his own choosing.
We are left with a "policy" so incoherent that no two people in the administration can agree on any one thing at any one time. Gates will go out and say Libya is not critical to our interests while Hillary says the opposite. Absurd statements about Assad being a reformer will be uttered because what other fig leaf do they have? It is almost like there is some juvenile in the White House more concerned with vacationing and sports than in formulating a sensical foreign policy and making sure it is understood and implemented.
Interesting, John Burgess. What does your knowledge and experience tell you the US should do now?
(My take is that we have no options, having committed our resources elsewhere, so perhaps the question is irrelevant.)
george said...
BTW, Iran has sent assassination squads to Syria. They had snipers on rooftops whom the protestors overwhelmed and captured.
There is a story to that effect, but its sourcing is weak. We will have to wait and see if it's true.
A "reformer?" It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
David
The Yom Kippur War-1973.
I just think it's ironic that it's UN Resolution 1973...
"So, I wonder, is it better to do nothing and let minorities better survive, or to push for the regime's downfall if it results in pogroms? I sure don't have a solid answer."
Here's a solid answer for ya: Don't do a fucking thing.
Do nothing until the citizens of the United States grant permission to do something through their representatives in the United States Congress.
That's the fucking law.
Neither Hillary Clinton, nor Barack Obama, are AUTHORIZED to fire a single bullet at a Syrian unless and until the people of the United States grant them that authorization through their Congressional representation. If they do it without that authorization, then they're just murderers.
It's about time this fucking crowd learned that concept.
Crack@ ..".I don't know if you've served, but, whenever I hear a statement like that, I can't help but chuckle to myself.."
Me too. Same when people say we can't afford a particular engagement. Do they think the military operates for free in peacetime? The cost of bombs, bullets and fuel used in combat ops wouldn't add up to half a percent of our GDP. Of course, not using them could ultimately cost us 100% of our GDP.
Or because the Dentist of Damascus seems more civilized in his barbarity?
Ophthalmologist, not dentist.
Assad may be a schmuck, but his wife is definitely nail-able.
Peter
Where is AlphaLiberal to defend the war crimes of Barack Obama?
Or GarageMahal?
Or Somefeller?
Or Ritmo?
Where have all the flowers gone?
A few months after we pull combat troops from Iraq the Middle East erupts into chaos.
Gee, it's almost like they were waiting for us to leave.
So what's up here? Hillary wants the Syrian/Iranian alliance to prosper. Why? To keep the big clash of Iran/Syria with Saudi Arabia and friends brewing at full strength. That is the true Obama doctrine in operation. Obama wants to see a chaos created that requires Obama's UN force to intervene to re-establish peace. Only problem is that Obama's UN peace includes ending Israel's control over Jerusalem. Boy is Obama dumb.
BJM...
Correct. The power vacuums they're popping up all over the place.
Is this a doctrine?
"[J]ust because we can't help everywhere does not mean we can't help somewhere. "
"Or because the Dentist of Damascus seems more civilized in his barbarity?"
Hillary had Quaddafi's kid Khamis over for a spot of tea a few weeks ago, according to the Washington Post (an outfit not normally prone to Hillary bashing).
Washington Post: "At the time of the January visit, State officials held a mild view of Khamis al-Gaddafi, calling him a reformer ..."
So, Hillary calling Assad a "reformer" is pretty rich.
This word "reformer." I do not think it means what they think it means.
"Where have all the flowers gone?"
They have gone to Madison to fight Hitler by making cute and funny signs.
Peter don't take this the wrong way-but you've got the fast fingers.
Let's ask Joe Biden, the next vice-presidential candidate, what he thinks of the Obama Doctrine and then all laugh at him when he doesn't have a ready answer.
Maguro wrote:
Bashar Assad is a reformer?
NO, no, no. Assad is an OPTHAMOLOGIST. Your intel sucks, Hillary. Sort that out.
David said...
Also, Syria could actually put up a fight, unlike Khadaffy
Well, maybe. In 1982, it took the Israelis about 24 hours to completely disable Syria's air defenses and destroy 92 Syrian planes, pretty much their entire air force. At that time Syria had the best Russian weapons available.
Israel did not lose a single plane.
Perhaps things have changed, but I doubt it.
Our luck is at least one will go down, even if it's mechanical failure, as franglo tried to minimize the danger yesterday. And this assumes we have the same ROE as the Israelis, which is asking the moon.
It's not that our guys are bad, but the geniuses at State, the White House, NSA, and, some at least, in the Pentagon go all wee-wee when you use the kinds of words the Israelis use.
Ya know: kill, destroy, obliterate...
george said...
We are left with a "policy" so incoherent that no two people in the administration can agree on any one thing at any one time. Gates will go out and say Libya is not critical to our interests while Hillary says the opposite
And this is when they're sitting next to each other.
Why we won't attack Syria.
Assad's wife is fucking smokin' hot:
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Rule5_Asma_AlAssad_302.jpg
Contrast that stunning woman to this noted Lebanese:
http://www.therightperspective.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Helen_Thomas.jpg
Rialby said...
Let's ask Joe Biden, the next vice-presidential candidate, what he thinks of the Obama Doctrine
"It's a big fucking deal."
Here's an oldie but goodie about the smartest woman in the world:
An airplane was about to crash; there were 5 passengers on board, but only 4 parachutes.
The first passenger said, "I am President Obama, the chosen one. The world needs me, I can't afford to die." So he took the first parachute and left the plane.
The second passenger, Hillary Clinton, said, "I am the Secretary of State. And I am the smartest woman in American history, so America's people don't want me to die." She took the second parachute and jumped out of the plane.
The third passenger, John Kerry, said, "I'm a Senator, and a decorated war hero from the Army of the United States of America ." So he grabbed the parachute next to him and jumped.
The fourth passenger, ex-President George W. Bush, said to the fifth passenger, a 10-year-old schoolgirl, "I have lived a full life, and served my country the best I could. I will sacrifice my life and let you have the last parachute."
The little girl said, "That's okay, Mr. President. There's a parachute left for you. America's smartest woman took my schoolbag.
He's done some de-nationalizing of industry, including banking.
Terrific. We do a snatch & grab, bring him back here, give him Geithner's job.
The strange shape of the Assad head gives it a back-off aura the Big O respec's.
Obama's motivations can be understood very simply: his interest in getting rid of a regime is inversely proportional to either a) how friendly it is toward Israel or b) how capable it is of striking Israel.
Mubarak = friendly toward Israel = had to go.
Assad = adamantly hostile towards Israel = blank check for violence
Ghaddafi = incapable of striking Israel = had to go
Iran = next door, warming up, and openly bragging about how they intend to erase Israel from the map = blank check for violence.
For some reason, Obama has absolutely no problem with despotic regimes where genocide of Jews is official policy. I wonder why that is? Probably because he spent twenty years clapping and cheering along with Reverend Jeremiah "Jews Are The Cause of All The World's Problems" Wright?
Ann Althouse wrote:
Is this a doctrine?
Yes, as far as I can see, it is. This is the way it goes.
1- Arab League country suffers popular protests.
2- Obama Administration observes.
3- Dictator starts counterprotest. Some killings occur.
4- Obama Administration observes, issues weak statements about "freedom and democracy".
5- Situation in Arab country escalates. Lack of USA involvement motivates other Arab countries to protest.
6- Dictator gets nastier. Morgues fill up.
7- Obama Administration observes, mildly says it's on the side of protesters, but that the dictator is a "valued partner" in the region.
8- Dictator makes a last desperate stand, loses, is toppled.
9- Obama Administration congratulates the protesters, and says it was with them all along.
Note, that if the Obama Administration senses it can score points with the international community, 9 may be changed to "dithered for 3 weeks, then allowed the French to become lead attackers in an intervention, whilst China and Russia glowered, souring relations further."
Ladies and gentlemen: The Obama Doctrine.
Cheers,
Victoria
Lincolntf wrote:
Walk Softly and Carry a Big Shtick.
Also, Joan Rivers' new show in Vegas.
Almost Ali wrote:
And this from a woman who once wore very comfortable sandals, hung around campus coffee houses, and issued high-minded quotes - now reduced to spewing nonsense.
In that case, I can think of no better training ground for learning to spew nonsense, than the campuses of America's colleges in the late 1960s.
Rule 5 the Dictator's Wives
See you don't want to collapse the House of Dior.
And now you know why Galliano it's designer went on his pro Hitler tirade.
A lot of people forget just how "inspiring" the Baader Meinhof Complex was and the Raid on Entebbe which took a refueling stop where?
Benghazi.
And hardly anyone remembers the terrorist cell responsible for that:
Rz.
Revolutionary Cells (German: Revolutionäre Zellen, abbreviated RZ) was a German left-wing political militancy of self-described "urban guerillas" who were active from 1973 to 1993. According to the office of the German Federal Prosecutor, the RZ claimed responsibility for 186 attacks, of which 40 were committed in West Berlin. The RZ is perhaps most famous internationally for hijacking an Air France flight in cooperation with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and diverting it to Uganda's (then under the control of dictator Idi Amin) Entebbe Airport, where they were granted temporary asylum until their deaths at the hands of Israeli soldiers during a rescue operation.
*******
And you wonder why Germany *abstains* itself.
Bomb Syria , and then Iran and North Korea, and Cote dIvoire and Cuba and. Barhein and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Argelia and
By the time you get rid of every dictator in the world
Ironrailsironweights wrote:
Assad may be a schmuck, but his wife is definitely nail-able.
Nailable Mrs Assad is the the British-born daughter of a cardiologist who has a practise in London, worked at JP Morgan, and is the mother of three children, two of whom are potential dictator material: Hafez, Zein and Karim.
She ranks slightly below Queen Rania of Jordan, and Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser of Qatar, in the Middle Eastern ruling hottie category.
(You could include the former Miss Lisa Halaby, now Queen Mother of Jordan, Noor...but she's getting a bit long in the tooth)
"Obama has absolutely no problem with despotic regimes where genocide of Jews is official policy."
That's because he's a Nazi and anyone who is a member of the Democrat Party is also a Nazi.
Assume the position of political pretzel - sad but predictable. This was inevitable - intervention for you but not for my other brother!!! I have two brothers both named Dicatator in Chief. Looks good on them. Cheers.
Assad is “a reformer.”
And Barack Obama is a "fiscal conservative".
Truly vomit-inducing.
Crack Emcee wrote:
I don't know if you've served, but, whenever I hear a statement like that, I can't help but chuckle to myself because, if the average civilian understood the sheer awesomeness of our military, they'd know we could do whatever we wanted, when we wanted, anywhere - we're just not that ruthless.
It's like when I see the scare stories comparing us with China - they're a joke. There is no comparison.
Awesome reply, Crack.
I am reminded, though, that the Russian armed forces in World War I dwarfed any of the other armies, with over 1,000,000 men ready to fight, 1,000,000 in reserve, and 1,000,000 troops waiting to be drafted. They lost (if you call the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk losing) due to lack of leadership, and the lack of will to carry on the fighting by the greater populace.
Coincidentally, what we have today in the USA.
But Assad is a reformer, in the sense that so far he has killed probably only about 100 protestors. His daddy killed about 15,000 at Hama.
...and 241 American servicemen in Beirut.
If any family in the Middle East deserves a rain of JDAMs, it is the Assads.
George wrote:
Perhaps we could have avoided all of this had we merely the moral clarity to support the protestors in Iran when we had the chance. Instead Obama was intent on being the "Not Bush."
If the situation in the world really blows up, look no further than the lack of support from the Obama Administration, to the Iranian protesters, way back in December 2009.
vbspurs said...
I am reminded, though, that the Russian armed forces in World War I dwarfed any of the other armies, with over 1,000,000 men ready to fight, 1,000,000 in reserve, and 1,000,000 troops waiting to be drafted. They lost (if you call the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk losing) due to lack of leadership, and the lack of will to carry on the fighting by the greater populace.
Coincidentally, what we have today in the USA.
Respectfully disagree to this extent, mum.
WE have the will.
The Lefties and President Wee-Wee don't.
Syria does not have oil and Libya does?
Oh jeez, we are not supposed to admit that!
When a country is beset with many a grave internal problem a unscrupulous leader will START A WAR TO DISTRACT THEM FROM THE PROBLEMS.
And that is what Obama, Hillary, and Gates have done.
Syria is NEXT!
Momar Qadaffy was caught wearing shorts and flip flops in Tripoli, and that is never acceptable for a gentleman.
The Assads may not have a lot going for them, but they never wear shorts in public.
Posted earlier: "In 1982, it took the Israelis about 24 hours to completely disable Syria's air defenses and destroy 92 Syrian planes, pretty much their entire air force. At that time Syria had the best Russian weapons available. Israel did not lose a single plane."
The US lacks the Israeli backbone. We always let our enemies run away to fight another day.
She ranks slightly below Queen Rania of Jordan, and Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser of Qatar, in the Middle Eastern ruling hottie category.
I would agree with that ranking. Princess Salma of Morocco also ranks quite high.
Of course, I cannot make a conclusive judgment as to the beauty of these ladies without knowing about the presence or absence of something else. And it's a safe bet that there's not a one in a quadrillion chance we'll ever find out.
Peter
Edutcher wrote:
WE have the will.
The Lefties and President Wee-Wee don't.
To the extent that you mean that Americans don't run away from any fight, you got that right, my dear Edutcher.
However, seeing the dispirited reaction to the Iraq conflict by Americans, just before the Surge, depressed me.
It was so easy for mainstream media and pop culture loudmouths to turn public opinion, almost weakening our national resolve to be there. Not just for the greater public, but recruitment quotas were way down. There's only so much barrage of negativity Americans can take.
Ironrailsironweights wrote:
I would agree with that ranking. Princess Salma of Morocco also ranks quite high.
Great pic! Her reddish, curly locks reminds me of the anthropological theory that Celts were originally a migrant tribe from North Africa.
Princess Salma wouldn't look out of place in Riverdance.
(There's also the ex-Princess Haya of Jordan, King Hussein's daughter -- now married to the ruler of Dubai. Pretty lady)
Heck, yeah! Q-Daffy had bank transfer receipt to those politicians he considered "bought."
Now they won't ever see the light of day.
Assad? You mean you didn't notice Israel keeps him alive? When they wanted to be "threatening" ... they had IDF planes flying so low over his summer palace, that all the palace's windows shattered.
You bet. The reason is that he's an Alawite. And, the majority of Syria are fire breating dragon SAUD'S! (They go by the name "Sunni," sometimes.) But they are who they are! They fund worldwide terror. And, Iran put a clamp on what they were gonna "claim" in Irak.
Gulf War #1, ditto. The kuwaiti's all went to London. Stayed at the finest 5-star hotel, sucking up tea. (Then, the elder Bush left Saddam in place.) For a good reason!
Stupidly, we entered Irak. They hate our guts! And, the Shi'a, enemies of the Saud's own a lot of real estate in Iraq. Maliki ran to Iran. (Full of Shi'a.) And, that's how you get this whole thing going.
Basically, even Donald Rumsfeld said it: "Let them shoot & kill each other."
That's about the only complaint going, on why we threw Tomahawks at Tripoli.
What's ahead for our politics?
Why not just focus on the stinko economy. And, like Rush says: Take the fight to Obama.
Side issues are a waste of time. If it's not going to turn into CATNIP, it's going to turn into being a wash.
Loved Rush's comments, when a caller asked him to "come out and support" one of the republican candidates, now (to save people lots of money). And, Rush said, NO WAY. Because no one in the lot really turned him on as having the potential to win the race in 2012.
it's should equal "its" .
The reason that the United States won't take out Assad is that that would break the ring around Israel and above all else the ring around those goddamned Jews must tighten! Right, Hillary? Right, Barack! Right, Samantha? Right, Hussein! Right, Susan? Right, Master! Altogether now: we've got to get THOSE GODDAMNED JEWS!!!
Whoa. Princess Salma FTW.
It's the Obama Doctrine: screw our allies and enable our enemies.
I can't believe none of Alhouse's crack Historians of Academia have mentioned that Syria's controlling political party is The Baath Party.
Square that with the word on the street that Iranian's Revolutionary Guard were called in to "quiet" the protesters, as they did in Iran.
Slightly OT. One war, many fronts.
Libya is looking more like the Afghanistan template every day. The anti-government forces have retaken Ras Luna with the assistance of tactical air, which would mean western special forces on the ground with laser designators. Look for the already mobilized U.S. Marines or the Black Watch to seize the Libyan national water system and protect it as the people's patrimony using Ospreys.
Obama may be stupid but the U.S. military isn't.
wv: vellybe: got to be kidding, it may vellybe
members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is “a reformer.”
Who exactly thinks this? I want confirmation. This is the woman who has ears that hear gunfire at odd times. Perhaps those same ears imagined the "reformer" remarks.
"Reformer" may be dubious but there's something to be said for not letting the mullahs demand he throw a blanket over his old lady.
Nothing in the Islamic world is getting reformed until the bastards ruling from the mosques are sent packing.
"Libya is looking more like the Afghanistan template every day. The anti-government forces ...
... are al Queda trained terrorists.
Barack Hussein Obama is actually helping al Queda take over Libya.
There's a terrorist war, all right. And it's against America. And Barack Hussein Obama is leading it. And he's winning.
"Obama may be stupid but the U.S. military isn't."
I'm going to have to disagree with you here, bub.
There are some US military commanders currently executing illegal, immoral and unauthorized orders from a rogue CIC acting without Congressional authorization.
That's fucking stupid.
"....As a (feminized) people, we currently lack the will, not the way."
3/27/11 2:47 PM
This is truer than people realize Crack.
“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities ... than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”
Dammit! She's using the Chewbacca Defense!
It's simple:
Indiscriminate strafing - bad.
Indiscriminate sniping - reform.
vbspurs said...
Edutcher wrote:
WE have the will.
The Lefties and President Wee-Wee don't.
To the extent that you mean that Americans don't run away from any fight, you got that right, my dear Edutcher.
However, seeing the dispirited reaction to the Iraq conflict by Americans, just before the Surge, depressed me.
It was so easy for mainstream media and pop culture loudmouths to turn public opinion, almost weakening our national resolve to be there. Not just for the greater public, but recruitment quotas were way down. There's only so much barrage of negativity Americans can take.
See your point, mum, but let me point out that, try as they might, the Establishment Media never turned Americans against the campaign in Iraq the way they wanted; they way they did during 'Nam.
That the Republicans got trounced in '06 was due to other factors besides Iraq which also affected Dubya's ratings.
That said, when given the choice, the country still re-elected the Man from Crawford over the guy with a cluster on his Purple Owie.
Sec. Clinton says that Congress thinks Assad's a reformer and therefore no military action will be taken?
So now the White House is concerned about consulting with Congress before acting?
This is ad hoc policy making. There's no guiding principles behind it.
But..."Obama is Awesome!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec
they way they did during 'Nam
It must irk the Left that they couldn't, don't you think? I think this is due to not being able to be able to attack (ever again), troops.
If they ever tried the Babykiller routine again, they'd silence themselves politically for a generation.
Chef Mojo wrote:
Whoa. Princess Salma FTW.
She's just lovely. Although at first blush, in that pic, she has a passing resemblence to Gloria Estefan.
Hey, the Moors left their imprint in Spain, after all.
Who exactly thinks this? I want confirmation. This is the woman who has ears that hear gunfire at odd times. Perhaps those same ears imagined the "reformer" remarks.
Alas, Jason, I can very well imagine someone like Dick Lugar or John McCain or Lindsey Graham saying that, just to be all "moderate".
Well, maybe not Johnny Mac. He does seem to know his foreign affairs better than many RINOs. Better than Joe Biden, come to that.
David wrote: "We are fresh out of bullets.
Could not intervene if we wanted to."
We have not even begun to fight. I'm in Afghanistan right now and I can say that we have a lot more capability than we choose to use.
For starters, we can take this war seriously and stop the constant rotation of people in and out. If we were serious about this war, we would stay in place until the fighting is over.
We have lots of soldiers in Europe. They aren't needed there anymore. Europe is wealthy enough to defend itself from Russia, and we still have a massive nuclear arsenal if needed.
The reserves are only partially mobilized. The Marines have an entire division ready to go in fairly short notice, but they only send one battalion overseas at a time.
We have cadres of an additional Marine division that can be filled with some effort.
Instead, we're in the middle of three wars and we're reducing the Marines size.
Nah, we're not short on bullets or people. We're short on the will to win wars.
Uninstalling dictator in progress ... ███████████████████████████ 99% complete #Sirte
Obama has benefited financially from Tony Rezko, a Syrian who received millions from Lebanon. See the link at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-01-29/news/0801280659_1_antoin-tony-rezko-wired-
Obama also sent a very early contact to Syria, in Feb 2008. See http://www.nysun.com/foreign/obama-adviser-leads-delegation-to-damascus/71123/
Why would he attack a benefactor?
Ut said...
There's a terrorist war, all right. And it's against America. And Barack Hussein Obama is leading it. And he's winning.
With tigers blood and warlocks.
Hey, was this a 3am moment?
Not a doctrine, but a rationalizaton for having no clear policy.
I'm having trouble getting my head around this. Isn't it clear that the whole idea of Congress declaring war, is that Congress decides whether or not we should go to war? That the president cannot just run around starting wars (though perhaps he may act in an emergency)?
I'm not so into impeachment, but what could be a more impeachable offense than starting a war that is not the will of the rest of us? A war, for goodness sake!
Do Obama and Clinton think that their real checks and balances come from the United Nations? As long as they okay it, they're fine. That's like, treason. Or something.
"There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer." -- Hillary Clinton, Mar. 27, 2011 (http://bit.ly/erAir7)
Ms. Clinton spoke truthfully if she can name at least one member of congress from each party who visited Syria during the last year and said Assad is a reformer. That's two names.
What are the two names?
Post a Comment