OBAMA TO ADDRESS UN AMID NEW MIDEAST STRIKES

President Obama has not only ordered airstrikes in Syria, but according to Breitbart but with a coalition consisting of

Obama extended the military action into Syria on Monday, joined by an unexpected coalition of five Arab nations. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates joined the U.S. in carrying out airstrikes, while Qatar played a supporting role.

May I now ask, why are we now militarily aligned with these countries to carry out air strikes in a civil war in Syria?

He said in 2007 that he was ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but still claims those are inherited, yes, he inherited them but he did nothing to change them.

But the growing U.S. military role in the Middle East will be the centerpiece of the president's sixth address to the U.N. General Assembly. It comes at a time when Obama had hoped to be nearing the end of the second of the two wars he inherited in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Isn't it quite interesting that the President chooses this timing to address the U.N. just as strikes are underway. And now he is sending American soldiers back into Iraq

Instead, the U.S. is plunging back into military action in Iraq, as well as Syria, where Obama long has tried to avoid involvement in a bloody civil war now in its fourth year. The airstrikes were aimed at not only Islamic State targets but also a new al-Qaida cell that the Pentagon said was nearing the "execution phase" of a direct attack on the U.S. or Europe.

Excuse me, but wasn't it Obama's promise to end it and make fun of George Bush at the same time the reason he was voted in? Apparently the job is too big for him. And here's the kicker...

Instead, when he speaks to the world body Wednesday, he will cast the U.S. as the linchpin in efforts to defeat Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, administration officials said.

Wasn't that mantra repeated since George Sr.? He's telling the world that the U.S. is the linchpin, and yet in his 2007 debate with John McCain, he incessantly said we need to go to war with Pakistan. Do people not remember this?

He received the Nobel Price for Peace, time to give it back.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I watched most of his speech…

I don't know who wrote that for him but they are living in a bubble. He was reading from TelePrompTers. I could tell because he only looks left and right while speaking, never center. No TelePrompTers there.

Weird how spell check rewrites teleprompter. They don't "prompt" either.

"We aren't the worlds occupiers", lol.

He also cited international law, national sovereignty, and justice several times.

In light of violating all that yesterday in Syria (one in a long list) i don't see how the world holds any reserve of credibility for what America is doing anymore.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: WarminIndy

I watched most of his speech…

I don't know who wrote that for him but they are living in a bubble. He was reading from TelePrompTers. I could tell because he only looks left and right while speaking, never center. No TelePrompTers there.

Weird how spell check rewrites teleprompter. They don't "prompt" either.

"We aren't the worlds occupiers", lol.

He also cited international law, national sovereignty, and justice several times.

In light of violating all that yesterday in Syria (one in a long list) i don't see how the world holds any reserve of credibility for what America is doing anymore.

And this is the unilateralism that people accused George Bush of.

Living in a bubble, yes. Now in the meantime Lois Lerner says she did nothing wrong. Eric Holder cheers the fact prison populations are lower. Jon Stewart still bashes Bush.

Let it be known to the world that not all Americans are in agreement about this and the only ones who do agree are mere Obama supporters with nothing else to hold on to except empty promises from their messiah. I wonder, did that guy on MSNBC still get tingles up and down his leg after today's speech?

In the meantime, Dinesh DiSouza has been arrested, for speaking out against the president. We now live in a country where Obama is so off limits from criticism that filmmakers are being jailed. And here I thought we lived in a free country.

They might as well have given the peace prize to Stalin.

a reply to: WarminIndy

They might as well have given the peace prize to Stalin.

Well, he did defeat Hitler. Not good enough? its easy to paint the truth because looking back we know more today about them than everyone did back then.

People of the future will say the same thing about todays leaders.


I'm looking for the part where Obama stumbles over, "Do unto others--".

a reply to: WarminIndy

Do liberals need any more proof? You are a fool if you think this president represents you. It is time to wake up just like the conservatives did during the last election.



The signing of the patriot act,endless nonstop wars,allowing banks into the government. How much more proof do you need?

a reply to: SubTruth

I saw a poll done by the washington post. He had 60% of the country's backing, and another 25% for air strikes only. There was only a small 15% of this country that didn't think going to war in Syria and Iraq was a good thing.

Obama is doing what Americans wanted.

Which wont change the fact he should have done it all legally.

I cannot find the exact one I saw, but here is what I did find as far as the new polls go:

L ink 1

Link 2

An Article in the New Yorker

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: WarminIndy

Do liberals need any more proof? You are a fool if you think this president represents you. It is time to wake up just like the conservatives did during the last election.



The signing of the patriot act,endless nonstop wars,allowing banks into the government. How much more proof do you need?

Umm, I am a Conservative of the Constitution Party. I know he does not represent me, but he seems to represent the people at the private party he is attending this evening in New York. At least we have taxation with representation, it's just not applied equally, with the middle-class bearing more weight, the government paying every special interest organization and pretending that the health care system works.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: SubTruth

I saw a poll done by the washington post. He had 60% of the country's backing, and another 25% for air strikes only. There was only a small 15% of this country that didn't think going to war in Syria and Iraq was a good thing.

Obama is doing what Americans wanted.

Which wont change the fact he should have done it all legally.

I cannot find the exact one I saw, but here is what I did find as far as the new polls go:

L ink 1

Link 2

An Article in the New Yorker

If you will look again who he aligned us with in these air strikes....

When Kuwait asked for our help in 1990 and George Sr. answered, Kuwait didn't seem to have a problem then. And then there was the whole debacle over the USS Cole, which Clinton never answered because he was focused on the civil war in Yugoslavia.

I want Muslims to take care of the Islamic problem in their own countries instead of fighting each other endlessly and then dragging everyone else in on it. But no, they have to drag their problems here. And then when we say we don't want the Islamic problem then we are called intolerant.

See, there IS an Islamic problem, it's called fathers who train their sons to be little mujahaddin. The rest of the Islamic world doesn't even say anything about it. If jihad is a personal struggle, then why isn't it being taught? No, you don't need bombs and rifles to fight a personal struggle, but since this has never been about a personal jihad, then it is an Islamic problem.

If you, as a muslim, do nothing because you feel powerless to answer the Islamic problem, then don't cry when there will be a president of Pakistan or Iran who won't think twice about using nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein didn't think twice when using mustard gas on Khurds, and who said it was wrong? Not Saudi Arabia, not Palestine, not Iran, not Afghanistan....the United States did.

If you think Islam is a religion of peace, then you need to be preaching it at them, not us. And if you think the Islamic problem is justified, then I will warn you now, there WILL come a president or world leader who WILL bomb their Muslim neighbors out of existence. It's coming and then it will be too late.

Do you really think that Syria didn't have an Islamic problem? Be realistic. WHO allowed Muslims to run rampant in Syria? Was it the Christians? Was it the Jews? Was it the Muslim leaders? Who?

WHO is allowing the Muslims to run rampant in India? The secular Indian government is saying they don't want it there. WHO is allowing it Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan?

WHO has training camps set up to teach young men to be mujahaddin?

It's going to happen that a nuclear war will ensue because all the mujahaddin can't control themselves and feel the need to blow other people up because they aren't good Muslims. And that's an Islamic problem. So either fix the problem or say nothing about it, because this choir is getting tired of the preaching from you guys. But here's the deal, when it does happen, whose side will you have to choose?

There won't be much of WWIII, because ten nuclear bombs in the right places will end the problems. It's coming and you need to wake up to the fact that because Muslims allowed the Islamic problem to continue, Muslims have only themselves to blame.

Let's hope to God our next president doesn't choose that course. But we can't stop India or China or even Russia.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The "problem" in Syria was dealt with very effectively until "someone" (wont name names) started providing them adequate funding and training so that they could destroy Syria and turn it into a little Islamic state.

Until "someone" decided they didn't want Assad in power... there was no problem in Syria since to be a member of a terrorist organization was under penalty of death. There was PLENTY of religious freedom there. Unless you were a terrorist.

The rest of it.. you have your opinion and I have mine... but what we will agree on is that I DO NOT THINK its anyone's business to take care of but middle easterners themselves.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: WarminIndy

The "problem" in Syria was dealt with very effectively until "someone" (wont name names) started providing them adequate funding and training so that they could destroy Syria and turn it into a little Islamic state.

Until "someone" decided they didn't want Assad in power... there was no problem in Syria since to be a member of a terrorist organization was under penalty of death. There was PLENTY of religious freedom there. Unless you were a terrorist.

The rest of it.. you have your opinion and I have mine... but what we will agree on is that I DO NOT THINK its anyone's business to take care of but middle easterners themselves.

See the problem now?

Black September, remember that little event that originated in Jordan with operatives from Syria?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Hafez Assad is long dead. What does that have to do with this?

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: WarminIndy

Hafez Assad is long dead. What does that have to do with this?

It didn't begin with Assad.

It clearly didn't end with Assad.