/s

I keep asking myself… what if Obama had backed the rebels in Iran and over turned that government, what would we be dealing with today?

Probably, a much different looking outcome over all.

Dominoes can fall in two directions.

Dictators who want to fight a war don’t even have to go over a single border… they can have a cozy fight right at home whenever the first crack of weakness shows.

Syria needs to reform into a tiny autocratic state going out about 10 miles beyond Damascus. That should only mean a few small nuclear labs and continued drug smuggling to support it from its agents in Lebanon. Of course that would leave the rest of the provinces to figure it out on their own… you gotta wonder what the Kurds in the eastern part of Syria would opt for… and if the regime falls this is one of the major outcomes that would be in the offing. Not immediately, but in the immediate future.

The road to peace does, indeed, go through Damascus. With much blood as peace then rolls right on through the place.

Change I can support! Not much hope, though, but lotsa change….

This is due to propaganda that was shoved down our throats during Hillary’s run at the presidency. Remember ‘the smartest woman in the world’? Just as with little Bammie, the liberals carefully construct a narrative of brilliance around their leaders, when in reality they are nothing of the sort. In the case of both little Bammie and Hillary, they are of pretty average intelligence, in positions that demand far more.

Syria, Iran = active threats to Israel.

Egypt, Libya = not active threats to Israel.

GarandFan on April 26, 2011 at 10:14 AM

No drones. This is a job for an assassin.

The difference between Syria and Libya is that Syria is harder to get to and has more allies nearby.

Count to 10 on April 26, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Bingo! Syria has a rather large and well-equipped military. Throw in the fact that even Israel, which regards Assad as a hemorrhoid, is concerned about what replaces him, and you have a no-win.

Remember, Assad and Syria’s ruling elite are Alawis, who are not considered Muslims by the Wahhabi lobby. Yes, they have made Lebanon a quasi-puppet, but Assad doesn’t have gradiose dreams of a caliphate, for example.

Given Egypt’s cloudy prospects right now, I can easily see how Syria could be much, much worse–especially with a stable regime in Tehran (thanks, 44) roiling the waters.

If you in the past were aligned with the US, he is against YOU!

If you are now, or in the past, have directly worked against American interests you’re his BFF’s!

There is not one ally he hasn’t stabbed in the back while simultaneously, at a minimum given a pass(see Iran & Syria)to your actions. In some cases he outright assists our enemy’s as they work against us, see Chavez & Zalaya vs. Democratic Honduras.

Quite simply we have put an enemy in the Oval Office, is any surprise that things are not going particularly well at the moment?

Obma is The Manchurian Candidate President!

Only the adage, if true, that God protects fools, drunks and children, can possibly save us now. And even then, the odds are not that good.

Why you say?

Vaclav Havel (Who actually desereved a Nobel) summed it better than I can possibly hope to.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/04/028900.php

Let’s have a foreign policy quiz this morning. In fact, let’s set this up as a media quiz, which means that if you’re a member of the Obama administration, there are no wrong answers. What does a “reformer” do when the people under his dictatorship strong central government erupt in protest against his regime? Does he (a) agree to hold immediate elections to form a truly representative government, (b) ask the UN to mediate the dispute, or (c) shoot unarmed protesters one at a time until that gets boring, and then send out tanks and troops to suppress dissent?

The answer is letter 5: 42! Hey, there are no wrong answers.

Mark my words.

Will the UN act on Syria? Will Obama even go as far as he did in Egypt by demanding Assad’s removal, even though Hosni Mubarak hadn’t fired a shot on dissenters at the time? Or is this administration still more interested in keeping this “reformer” in place?

They won’t lift a finger. They can’t because A)Libya was attacked over European oil, not civilian casualities and B)Obama knows he can’t do anything to Syria and risk any further political fallout. The left(particularly the anti-war crowd) has already sacrificed whatever shred of credibility they had left by looking the other way with Libya. They won’t do that if another country is attacked.