It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Syria and Obama’s Failing Foreign Policy

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2013 @ 03:17 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Thank you for taking the time to make such a informative post.

It seems that Obama has basically left us with no good options. I hate to see any country's people suffer but I do not expect "our soldiers" to give their lives for another country either. I sure am glad that I am not the one calling the shots, they have some very hard decisions in front of them.

posted on May, 12 2013 @ 04:42 AM
The validity of the analysis of the OP of course hinges on one's willingness to believe in the "Official Story" of "Obama's foreign policy".

I see 2 problems with this:

1) The idea that anything that is currently transpiring in the middle east is as a result of "Obama's foreign policy". Blulisht. Middle east foreign policy comes from the managers upstairs, not Obama - or any president. That's why presidents change, but the agenda continues.

2) The idea that the "Official Story" has ANYTHING to do with what the actual strategy is. Again, Blulisht.
This is a merely a narrative painted by the politicians and the MSM solely for the consumption of the gullible masses.

Here is an accurate analysis of the situation in Syria IMO:

posted on May, 12 2013 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

When you author a thread with thoughtful analysis that covers all the bases you leave little left to be added by the reader. Well written threads like yours often fade away quickly without getting the attention they deserve. I seldom have that problem!

Great work OtherSideOfTheCoin! Bump and S&F

By the way, one of your quotes had me rolling! It was hilarious to hear Obama criticize someone for not leading!! Pot meet kettle!

As you pointed out, it is Obama’s lack of leadership that got us to this point in Syria. His failure to listen to his people about Assad and his failure later to act to correct his initial mistake because of political pressures are partly to blame for why it’s such a mess there now. I don't know where we go from here but once again our government has created a ME problem. If oil is the big concern, as many here speculate, then we should be drilling for our own here rather than wasting tax dollars on Solyndra and Chevy Volts.

posted on May, 12 2013 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by seabag

When you author a thread with thoughtful analysis that covers all the bases you leave little left to be added by the reader. Well written threads like yours often fade away quickly without getting the attention they deserve

Thanks for dude, really appreciate it.

I think it would like to point out that when it comes to American politcis I am very much apolitical, in this instance I think Obama has screwed up big time.

Its just this dithering and unsure approach that he’s taking.

I found it reall pathetic when he sent John Kerry to go putin for help, who made him wait 3 hours before he would even speak to him.

The whole saga has been a foreign policy disaster.

posted on May, 12 2013 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by Martin75

It seems that Obama has basically left us with no good options. I hate to see any country's people suffer but I do not expect "our soldiers" to give their lives for another country either

That is essentially the problem now with Syira there are no good options left.

While yes I think that the dithering Ameircan Foreign policy has played a big role in this it would be wrong to just blame Obama there are lots of other players at work here. This thread is about just one of those players, America and how its policy has been misguided and is failing.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 03:33 PM
Instability anywhere in Mideast causes oil prices to go up. Oil prices going up mean big money for US oil refineries. US oil refineries donate big money to politicians.

Its a good score for the man you speak of and any other politician and their families the way I see it. A screw for us.

posted on May, 14 2013 @ 02:03 PM
You do have one major contradiction in your assessment:

America let’s face it only adopts a foreign policy that is in its own interests... When all is said and done this all comes down to America’s primary concern which is the stabilisation of the region

So why does America want to destabilize Syria and open up a power vacuum which will generate long term insecurity for the nation? With the recent revolutions in Egypt and Libya a stronger Muslim / Islam influence has risen to power an it is very likely that the same cultural influences will also gain strength here as well when the dust does finally settle.

I can understand that America is annoyed that it is not getting all it's own way in Syria, but there is a lot of cultural diversity and interests surrounding the nation with Russia, Middle East and Europe all struggling at its boarders and I expect very much within its own political processes as well.

The likelihood of having elections any time soon is highly unrealistic as the conflict continues and a basic level of security for the population cannot be maintained. If the US does really want security for the region then it should support Assad. There will still be elements of FSA and Al Nusra around that can evolve into political parties. Otherwise, if Assad does fall I am expecting the body count to get much higher before a new leader can rise in this very difficult and culturally diverse place.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:23 AM
reply to post by kwakakev

That is a very good point that you have raised but it is not a contradiction.

America has backed itself into a corner that dictates it has to support the Syrian National Council and by extension the FSA. The whole reason or doing this is to try to maintain some stability, its actually what’s contributing to this dithering foreign policy one the one hand American wants stability but its crippled by the fear that if it intervene its only going to make things even more unstable and the war is going to spill over.

The hope that the Americans have is that their “best case” is still going to come through, the rebel fighters will topple Assad and then the pro-western secular Syrian National Council will assume power over the country. That however is seeming less and less likely what I think is going to happen is that Syria is slowly going to turn into the Somalia of the Middle East. Assad falls, the Syrian National council takes over then they all start fighting with each other over who gains control and we have coup after coup.

Basically America is want to stabilise Syria quickly it is not seeking to destabilise the country but have stability only it wants that on its terms with the guys it likes in power and not some despot leader like Assad whose been killing his own people and who America has been very critical off or a bunch of Al-Qa’ida terrorists. No America wants the SNC in power because they will work with the west.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 08:09 AM
I think Obama is handling Syria masterfully. On the one side, there is the murderous dictatorship of the Assad regime. On the other side is the freedom hating Muslim extremist rebels (al Queda). Thus far, Obama has taken a position that allows this civil war to carry on; resulting in 1000s of deaths on both sides. I say "good riddance". Why intervene when we can simply let our enemies kill each other? We get the desired result (death and instability to the axis of evil) without spending a penny or sacrificing a single American life.

Well played Obama, well played!

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

With America's own policy on torture, indefinite detention without trial and system of capital punishment, I do find the humanitarian argument in this case has no moral standing and is actually quite offensive to what is really going on. All it does is put up a smoke screen to the real motivations and inhibit any real solutions to these humanitarian concerns as the political instability reduces the public security.

Russia has no problem with Assad in power, so in terms of the international community the views of the current leadership are just as fractured as Syria itself. The FSA just comes across as another western intrusion as with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. It is just the rest of the international community is getting sick and tired of this western aggression so a more low key approach is being taken.

With Russia already having a military port in Syria I do not consider what happens in Syria as America's prerogative. Sure America is big on foreign aid and I am not saying it does not have a role in the region, but if it wants to be top dog it is going to have some fighting to do. I find it highly unlikely that Russia is just going to give up its base no matter how bad the conflict gets.

As for the Israel / Iran component to this, it helps explain some of it. The national banking policy is also raising some flags as to why the FSA is getting its backing.

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 11:56 AM
For anyone who is interested

The Terrorists and Freedom Fighters of Syria

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 12:11 PM

Originally posted by MrSpad

For once I agree with something you have state, which is this.

Quick and direct US intervention would have helped topple the regime but, we all know how well that would go over in the US. Have his actions been what is best for the US? Yes, easly and that is why it has been followed be everbody esle. The US will inrevene just enough to make sure the next gov is pro western without costing any western lives. As we get closer to the end the more likely you will see some sort action from the west to show it has supported the rebels all along while at the same time under cutting the radicals chances at taking power

The American public would not have approved a "quick" intervention.

"Have his actions been what is best for the US? Yes.

Be specific. You just specified the US would not have accepted the quick intervention to help topple this regime, which is what the GOVT wants, which is the agenda Obama is in charge of so what is good for Obama is not necessarily good for the US. He makes more in campaign contributions than the tax payers pay him.

As for the rest of your statement, the US GOVT and its allies, Israel, UK, France, want these rebels bought, which is what they are currently doing with the eased embargos on arms and oil, so if Israel and it's allies are successful, they can put into place, again, the people they wish to push forward their agenda..." to show it has supported the rebels all along while at the same time under cutting the radicals chances at taking power"

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by openfire

I appreciate your response however it is really just a regurgitation of conspiracy theories this thread is based on what is accepted in the public domain.

so you may say that Obama is taking orders from up-stairs but regardless the points i have raised in the OP remain the same.

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:15 AM
For anyone interested i found this article today in the Washington Post that says:

Syria has become a global proxy war, in which every other participant is more invested than the United States. Russia, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — along with Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and now the Muslim Brotherhood — aid the forces that seem to serve their interests. U.S. support for the moderate opposition that began the Syrian revolution, in contrast, has been hesitant, late and restricted.

It is not that the Obama administration is doing nothing. Nonlethal aid has been dramatically increased. The United States is more active in ensuring that military aid from Turkey and Qatar doesn’t go to the most unsavory rebel groups, and the United States itself may even (according to some reports) be providing some covert military assistance.

W asington Post

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in