Syria - the Big Lie Continues

[Reality Check]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ction.html

Obama's talking points are that there is nothing he can do in Syria.

The above article proves Obama is a liar once again.

But the Main Stream Media wants Obama re-elected so they repeat the lie over, and over, and over again.

"There is nothing Obama, or any American, can do in Syria" is the big lie the Media keeps repeating.

U.S. has done everything it can possibly do: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... &tag=strip

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 36881.html

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/syria/

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7411122n

[Trevor]

If intervention does occur, I would expect it to be about a month before the election, assuming the rebels can last that long. Based on the maps I've seen, they've lost a lot of ground, despite all of the defections.

[Reality Check]

If intervention does occur, I would expect it to be about a month before the election, assuming the rebels can last that long. Based on the maps I've seen, they've lost a lot of ground, despite all of the defections.

While U.S. intervention maybe one thing the U.S. could do, the rebels in Syria are just looking for a green light from Obama to allow the Gulf states and Turkey to supply them with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to end the slaughter.

Obama's answer has been, no, no and no until Obama get's re-elected. Obama cares nothing about women and children dieing in Syria, his re-election is all that is important to him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ction.html

[Trevor]

My concern would be that acting would turn this conflict into a much wider war, spreading all throughout the Middle East. Assad would not stand idle as we destroyed his air force and navy, which are much more formidable than what Libya had.

[Reality Check]

My concern would be that acting would turn this conflict into a much wider war, spreading all throughout the Middle East. Assad would not stand idle as we destroyed his air force and navy, which are much more formidable than what Libya had.

Again, you are speaking of the United States destroying the Syrian air force and navy. All the article speaks of is Obama refusing to even allow the gulf states and Turkey to supply the rebels anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to protect population centers from slaughter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ction.html

Assad is fighting for his life, not sure he would be launching any credible military attacks against other countries in the middle east and if he did it would be a suicide mission for his regime.

Iran might consider starting a wider war, but an early war with Iran, before Iran has nuclear weapons, is a much better thing, than a later war with a potentially suicidal Theocracy with nuclear weapons.

If Iran started such a war in response to the Gulf States arming Syrian rebels, even better. Public opinion and the UN Charter would support an attack against Iran at that point as part of collective self defense against an aggressor nation.

[Trevor]

Well, it isn't stopping Turkey or Saudi Arabia from supplying them, even though the former isn't doing as much as they normally would if we were willing to back them up.

The other side of this is that the American public does not want to get involved in another war. We're out of Iraq, we're leaving Afghanistan and all we seem to want to do is pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist.

If Obama does decide to intervene, I would expect it to be about a month before the election, assuming the rebels aren't defeated by then. There's a decent chance of that as things currently stand.