Palin blasts Syria warmongers - Let Allah sort it out!

[compromise]

https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?fref=ts

LET ALLAH SORT IT OUT

“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” - Sarah Palin

* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.

* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”

* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?

* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?

* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.

* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.

* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.

* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.

- Sarah Palin

Great opinion piece by Palin. Was surprised she hinted the Iraq War was a failure.

[enhanced_deficit]

Wow, all this time I wrongly assumed she was a big supporter of Israel's security.

Insight: As Obama blinks on Syria, Israel, Saudis make common cause (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-israel-saudi-insight-idUSBRE9810CE20130902)
JERUSALEM/RIYADH | Mon Sep 2, 2013 8:52am EDT
(Reuters) - If President Barack Obama has disappointed Syrian rebels by deferring to Congress before bombing Damascus, he has also dismayed the United States' two main allies in the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia..

Israel's state-run Army Radio was more explicit: "If Obama is hesitating on the matter of Syria," it said, "Then clearly on the question of attacking Iran, a move that is expected to be far more complicated, Obama will hesitate much more - and thus the chances Israel will have to act alone have increased."

[compromise]

Wow, all this time I wrongly assumed she was a big supporter of Israel's security.

Insight: As Obama blinks on Syria, Israel, Saudis make common cause (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-israel-saudi-insight-idUSBRE9810CE20130902)
JERUSALEM/RIYADH | Mon Sep 2, 2013 8:52am EDT
(Reuters) - If President Barack Obama has disappointed Syrian rebels by deferring to Congress before bombing Damascus, he has also dismayed the United States' two main allies in the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia..

Israel's state-run Army Radio was more explicit: "If Obama is hesitating on the matter of Syria," it said, "Then clearly on the question of attacking Iran, a move that is expected to be far more complicated, Obama will hesitate much more - and thus the chances Israel will have to act alone have increased."

Isn't it a little collectivist to group all Israelis together? Many Israelis, including politicians, believe intervention in Syria would harm Israeli national security...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?426198-Likud-MK-Moshe-Feiglin-Obama-will-pay-for-complications-in-Syria-with-Israeli-concessions&p=5207014#post5207014

[enhanced_deficit]

Great opinion piece by Palin. Was surprised she hinted the Iraq War was a failure.

Is God upset now because Iraq war task He gave to Palin was a "failure" and now Obama is our "national leader" that she refuses to follow:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs



Isn't it a little collectivist to group all Israelis together? Many Israelis, including politicians, believe intervention in Syria would harm Israeli national security...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?426198-Likud-MK-Moshe-Feiglin-Obama-will-pay-for-complications-in-Syria-with-Israeli-concessions&p=5207014#post5207014

Do you agree with that? Would you also oppose US attacking Iran if it is close to getting same nuclear capacity as Israel's?

I'm sure there will be some Israelis who also oppose US attack on Iran for Israel's security. But majority in israel, Joe Lieberman, David Horowitz, John Hagee, Mccain, Rafael Cruz, Bill Krystal, AIPAC, CUFI and many others would disagree strongly.

[cajuncocoa]

Wow, all this time I wrongly assumed she was a big supporter of Israel's security.What she is, is a opponent of all things Obama. She would love to lead the cheers for this war, but unfortunately she finds herself on the wrong side of the party line this time.

[AuH20]

What she is, is a opponent of all things Obama. She would love to lead the cheers for this war, but unfortunately she finds herself on the wrong side of the party line this time.

Nope. This is about WW3. No sane person wants World War 3, aside from Benny Netanyahu, Prince Bendar and the Obama's Fabian Society. If this moron flings cruise missiles in there, all bets are off.

[Sola_Fide]

Weren't any of you around in the late 90's/early 2000's?

Republicans oppose foreign intervention when a Democrat is in office. This is not strange and they aren't coming around.

[KEEF]

Nope. This is about WW3. No sane person wants World War 3, aside from Benny Netanyahu, Prince Bendar and the Obama's Fabian Society. If this moron flings cruise missiles in there, all bets are off.
Unfortunately, I think a lot more people would be game for a WW3 aside from the yahoos you listed above. Alot of people are going to lose alot of power if the dollar is no longer the petrodollar of the world.
I have to agree with cajuncocoa on this. If a President Romney was presented with this same issue, your GOP mouth pieces (of shit) would be singing a different tune... I mean who would of thought guys like Hannity, and others like him, would be using Ron Paul stances as their talking points. When the GOP had a chance to win the Whitehouse, phrases like blow-back earned you instant condemnation in the GOP rank and file, handed a tin foil hat, and told not to research Thermite anymore.

[mz10]

Weren't any of you around in the late 90's/early 2000's?

Republicans oppose foreign intervention when a Democrat is in office. This is not strange and they aren't coming around.

You're right. It only makes a difference if we can use this anti-war rhetoric (however insincere it might be) to elect genuine anti-war Republicans into office, including Rand Paul for the presidency. Otherwise nothing will change.

[DonVolaric]

Unfortunately, I think a lot more people would be game for a WW3 aside from the yahoos you listed above. Alot of people are going to lose alot of power if the dollar is no longer the petrodollar of the world.
I have to agree with cajuncocoa on this. If a President Romney was presented with this same issue, your GOP mouth pieces (of shit) would be singing a different tune... I mean who would of thought guys like Hannity, and others like him, would be using Ron Paul stances as their talking points. When the GOP had a chance to win the Whitehouse, phrases like blow-back earned you instant condemnation in the GOP rank and file, handed a tin foil hat, and told not to research Thermite anymore. :)

[AuH20]

Unfortunately, I think a lot more people would be game for a WW3 aside from the yahoos you listed above. Alot of people are going to lose alot of power if the dollar is no longer the petrodollar of the world.
I have to agree with cajuncocoa on this. If a President Romney was presented with this same issue, your GOP mouth pieces (of shit) would be singing a different tune... I mean who would of thought guys like Hannity, and others like him, would be using Ron Paul stances as their talking points. When the GOP had a chance to win the Whitehouse, phrases like blow-back earned you instant condemnation in the GOP rank and file, handed a tin foil hat, and told not to research Thermite anymore.

The U.S. is in no condition to fight WW3. No manufacturing capacity on the mainland. Debt galore owed to questionable parties. Military forces are both physically and mentally wasted. Universally hated by a sizable portion of the globe. WW3 is a veritable death sentence.

[JK/SEA]

she must have sold all her military defense stocks.

[twomp]

The U.S. is in no condition to fight WW3. No manufacturing capacity on the mainland. Debt galore owed to questionable parties. Military forces are both physically and mentally wasted. Universally hated by a sizable portion of the globe. WW3 is a veritable death sentence.

It doesn't matter to our politicians as long as they have the love of Israel.

[compromise]

Do you agree with that? Would you also oppose US attacking Iran if it is close to getting same nuclear capacity as Israel's?

I'm sure there will be some Israelis who also oppose US attack on Iran for Israel's security. But majority in israel, Joe Lieberman, David Horowitz, John Hagee, Mccain, Rafael Cruz, Bill Krystal, AIPAC, CUFI and many others would disagree strongly.

I'm talking about Syria, not Iran.

[KEEF]

The U.S. is in no condition to fight WW3. No manufacturing capacity on the mainland. Debt galore owed to questionable parties. Military forces are both physically and mentally wasted. Universally hated by a sizable portion of the globe. WW3 is a veritable death sentence.
I and hopefully along with most of John Q. Public agrees with you on that. Doesn't mean that TPTB who bought and paid for all of our lovely leaders in DC might not think its a bad idea.

[twomp]

Do you agree with that? Would you also oppose US attacking Iran if it is close to getting same nuclear capacity as Israel's?

I'm sure there will be some Israelis who also oppose US attack on Iran for Israel's security. But majority in israel, Joe Lieberman, David Horowitz, John Hagee, Mccain, Rafael Cruz, Bill Krystal, AIPAC, CUFI and many others would disagree strongly.

He will get back to you on that question after he sees what Glenn Beck wants to do.

[LibertyEagle]

Nope. This is about WW3. No sane person wants World War 3, aside from Benny Netanyahu, Prince Bendar and the Obama's Fabian Society. If this moron flings cruise missiles in there, all bets are off.

Why does Saudi Arabia want WWIII?

[69360]

She is 100% right and used almost the exact wording I would.

[eduardo89]

I love your, Sarah.

This woman gets it.

[enhanced_deficit]

He will get back to you on that question after he sees what Glenn Beck wants to do.

lolz Beck is currently a peace monger and opposes US fighting wars for other countries security.



She is 100% right and used almost the exact wording I would.

You would say same I hope when Palin blasts Iran warmongers and opposes Obama's/neocons Iran attack fantasy.

[Cleaner44]

Wow, all this time I wrongly assumed she was a big supporter of Israel's security.

Insight: As Obama blinks on Syria, Israel, Saudis make common cause (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-israel-saudi-insight-idUSBRE9810CE20130902)
JERUSALEM/RIYADH | Mon Sep 2, 2013 8:52am EDT
(Reuters) - If President Barack Obama has disappointed Syrian rebels by deferring to Congress before bombing Damascus, he has also dismayed the United States' two main allies in the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia..

Israel's state-run Army Radio was more explicit: "If Obama is hesitating on the matter of Syria," it said, "Then clearly on the question of attacking Iran, a move that is expected to be far more complicated, Obama will hesitate much more - and thus the chances Israel will have to act alone have increased."

Bombing Syria will make Israel less safe in my opinion. The dream is to cleanly replace the Syrian government with a pro-Israel/pro-US government... but that isn't going to happen no matter what.

[enhanced_deficit]

Bombing Syria will make Israel less safe in my opinion. The dream is to cleanly replace the Syrian government with a pro-Israel/pro-US government... but that isn't going to happen no matter what.

Their ultimate goal is attacking Iran, removing pro-Iran, Christian friendly Asad regime and generally weakening potential allies of Iran ( iraq, Lebanon, Syria and even Turkey) by instigating civil wars violence is part of neocons mideast gameplan.

[alucard13mm]

Well. I gotta admit. Palin seems to at least did a little bit a homework. See her slightly better now.

[69360]

You would say same I hope when Palin blasts Iran warmongers and opposes Obama's/neocons Iran attack fantasy.

Yes.

I generally agree with Palin, not always.