Is Obama’s Syria posture ineptitude, fear of Islam, or betrayal?

Obama’s most recent approach to the Syrian situation is a demonstration of lacking any idea about the conduct of military conflicts. It could be that Obama’s Islamic exposure at his formative years makes him fear action againest Islam, or that he is simply unable to make hard decisions. His announcement of August 31, 2013 is tantamount to admitting moral defeat, and the lacking of leadership ability. This decision could cause carnage to a high level allies, and potentially members of the US military. The situation is alarming, let us all hope that does not develop to a major international conflict; since if it does, there is no question now that President Obama is not the man to lead this nation is either peace, or war.

Putting off action for weeks, just so he does not have to make harsh decision against a Muslim nation, is a cop-out. Syria already passed Obama’s redline, what is he waiting for?
Barak Hussein Obama proves again that he is not only America’s Commander in Chief (C.i.C.,) but that he is also America’s Capitulator in Chief (C.i.C.)
Telling Assad how far the United States will be willing to go, and giving the Syrian monster a few weeks to prepare, is tantamount to accepting [moral] defeat.

“PRESIDENT BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA TOOK FOUR AND A HALF YEARS TO SURPASS GEORGE W. BUSH, AND JIMMY CARTER AS THE UNDISPUTED WORST PRESIDENT IN CONTEMPORARY US HISTORY!
His present dealing with an international emergency caused him to pass George W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter.
For a warier to broadcast to the enemy that there “will not be boots on the ground,” or “a long term commitment,” is the epitome of stupidity. Giving the Syrians two weeks to prepare, and perhaps decide to use its chemical arsenal on US troops in the region, is outright dumb!
Further, more time for Assad’s chemicals can fall in the hands of terrorists.
Finally, the regime, an enemy of the United States, and the rebels, with elements of al Qaeda, is a rogue heterogeneous group who, if gained control of the chemicals would represent a danger to the whole “infidels (non-Muslim)” world, especially to the United States and its allies, Israel on top of the list.

Obama’s symbolic action in syria a betrayal of regional allies; would Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and US troops in the region be “punished” by Assad?

Should President Barak Obama elect for a symbolic action in Syria, and not take control of Syria’s chemical arsenal, the American President would be betraying Israel and other allies in the region.
Bahar al-Assad already said that US action would bring about retaliation, starting with Tel Aviv, Turkey, and Jordan will also likely feel Assad’s ire, as US troops in the region.

Humiliation is the least of our worries! This, Shawn, is a very serious matter not only for the United States, but also, for the whole “civilized” world.
Not to bore you audience more than necessary let me deal with the problem, and then follow with the background.
If President Obama does anything short of gaining control of Syria’s chemicals, if he only make a symbolic gesture by air strikes, he would be putting about a quarter of a million American troops in [an unnecessary] harms-way, while betraying our allies, starting with Israel, and moving on to Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq.
President Bashar al-Assad is already on record that United State action will result in missiles in Tel Aviv.
I must agree that President Obama is “between the Rock and the hard place,” but then whoever said that the job of President is an east job.
The main difficulty may well be that to control Syria’s chemical weapons and delivery systems would likely require boots on the ground, likelt a short-tern action, but never-the-less, the dreaded “boots on the ground.”
BACKGROUND:
Syria is rich with history, a major contributor to human knowledge and culture. The country has a large intelligentsia, one of the secular, nationalistic forces behind the present rebellion.
Since President Obama, and Hillary Clinton, after recovering from the Arab Springs fiasco, decided to stand on the sidelines at Syria when the revolt started. Those who started the rebellion expected Unites States support since their action was consistent with America’s policy of “democratization.”
Early on the rebels had a good level of success due to the element of surprise. While that was happening, Iran, including its surrogates Hezbollah, and Hamas, and with equipment, and advisers from Russia, gave Assad help. Since Assad was regaining his posture through help from Iran, and its Shii surrogates, Syria Sunni neighbors had to enter the fray on side of the rebels. The Sunni aid from Saudi Arabia, with some al Qaeda elements, changed the complexion of the conflict into a religious war.
Assad has the largest chemical weapons arsenal in the world, the regime also have delivery systems that can reach United States troops on the Gulf, in Turkey, in Jordan, and on the Mediterranean.
Short of United States control of Syria’s chemicals, a disaster is likely to occur, neither of the two warring parties in Syria are dependable parties to trust with Syria’s chemicals.

Syria: US boots on the ground vs Potential Body Bags!

Some 250,000 United States troops within Assad’s chemical weapons reach; can the US let that stand?

While Hillary Clinton policy was to “lead from behind,” at Arab Springs, an action to spread Sharia law in North Africa, Mrs. Clinton’s policy was to sit on the sidelines in Syria. By having the United States stay on the sidelines in Syria, the rebels lost their early lead, and Iran, with Hezbollah and arms from Russia shored up Assad.

The Saudis who were not willing Assad (a branch of Shii) go against the rebels (mostly Sunni) with al Qaeda gave the rebels some help, while al Qaeda is heavily infiltrated in the ranks of the rebels.

So, at this stage:

Assad has the largest chemical weapons arsenal on the planet.
Assad has “delivery systems,” that can reach 160,000 American troops on the Gulf
Assad has delivery systems that can reach US troops in:
Turkey
Jordan
On the Mediterranean

Should the US try “surgical” strikes in Syria they will likely hit Iranian and Hezbollah troops, with Russian technicians.
Surgical strikes will make Assad desperate, and “desperate people resort to desperate measures,” such as using chemical weapons on American in the region, the some 250,000 mentioned above.

The only way to keep Assad from using his chemical weapons
OR
To keep chemical weapons from falling into the hands of the rebels who are heavily infiltrated with al Qaeda
IS
US boots on the ground, and Very, Very, soon!

Shared with: http://www.zyomism.org

Islamic Conflict of Interest in Hillary’s State?

There is essentially no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy regarding Islam was flawed; beyond just incompetence. Insisting that Mubarak resign while nearly everyone in the know; realized; that his resignation would mean an early take-over by the Muslim Brotherhood. The support of Arab Springs appears on the surface as an unwitting; move to remove a dictator; it was; known to most season observers that move was designed advance the cause of Sharia law. Was Hillary Clinton over her head, or was Hillary Clinton being manipulated by those with Islamic sympathies. The same in Syria, how much conflict of interest was there in the Hillary Clinton State Department!

What a horrible background of Hillary Clinton is being exposed to the public. It seems that the lady from Arkansas likes to cover-up what she does, and in the case of Benghazi even to tell Congress that the three lives lost due to her incompetent management “did not matter any more.” What a callous human.
If Mrs. Clinton was more open, she might have realized that “leading from behind,” at Arab Springs was meant; to advance Sharia law in the region. She made that her own crusade causing irreparable damage to numerous North, and Central African countries, and to the Middle East.
There is another issue of concern in the special case of Huma Abedin, a practicing Muslim. Being at the right hand of Secretary Clinton who was managing efforts of the United States in Muslim countries, Abedin could represent a very serious problem. The Quran edicts that to be a Muslim your top priority, your uncompromising loyalty, must be only to Allah; it must bed unwavering!
The employment arrangement notwithstanding, how about the loyalty to Allah, versus that to the United States? This is no laughing matter. At a time when Secretary Clinton decided to have the United States stand on the sideline at the rebellion in Syria, a conflict generally between Shii (Assad’s side,) and Sunni (the rebels, Saudi, and al Qaeda,) how much did Abedin, the Muslim aide, have to do with the Secretary’s decisions?
Where there is smoke, there is fire!”

Shared with: http://www.zyonism.org

After Syria, a Nuevo MidEast, no Palestine, but a Kurdistan:

After Syria, a Nuevo MidEast, no Palestine, but a Kurdistan:
MidEast re-alignment: Two Lebanons, Kurdistan, but no Palestine:
Christians and Muslim in Lebanon are like water and oil; they are unable to co-exist. Lebanese Christians and the State of Israel would make good neighbored, Southern Lebanon that borders with Israel should be carved out of Lebanon and a Hezbollah-free Christian Lebanon should be established. The Golan Heights should remain as part of Israel, but have an international project, such as a large power plant with joint ownership by thew neighboring countries.
The Kurds in Syria, Turkey, and Iraq, do not get along with the national Muslims majorities in those countries. The present revolt in Syria, which also included skirmishes between Kurds and the national Muslims. All three countries in which they have their enclaves; when the new Syria emerges, the Kurds should get its own sovereign country had discriminated against Kurds.
Palestinians are an artificial creation, those Arabs that are called Palestinian, should be absorbed by the countries with which they have border. “West bank,” with Jordan; the Gaza strip, with Egypt.
Both history and present day regional stability considerations suggest that the re-alignment proposed here, with some “adjustments,” makes eminent sense.