Comments on: Obama’s ‘best bad choice’ in Syria Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:37:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: SKYDRIFTER Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:27:08 +0000 The true fight in this picture is Israel’s battle to disarm all other governments in the region. The Obushma Administration has been generally effective, toward that end.

However, Syria and Iran are the most critical powers to defeat. Israel’s traditional proxy force (USA) is out of steam; Israel may have to take care of its own problems, for a change.

Now, Obama is exposed as an incompetent leader; and impotent, as well. With Obama negotiating with the Taliban, for peace in Afghanistan, America is quickly losing face with the entire world.

Obama has enough domestic problems top keep him busy for the rest of his term. With the mid-term elections approaching, Obama is under a nasty political spotlight. Syria needs to be handed back to the Israelis.

By: McTavish Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:56:37 +0000 America has effectively been pushed out of the Middle East & North Africa and have no policy of how to get back!….since the bombing in Beirut in 1983 they have been pushed back one step at a time and now are only in the little city states in Persian Gulf and in Saudi Arabia, Oman and Jordan and are rightly worried that Saudi Arabia might blow up (and it no doubt would!),…rest of these countries they have vacated and Iran is a major cause of this retreat, so defeating Iran is a key issue but they don’t know how to do this and if so what next? …..Even Turkey is getting more religious and that is generally sad and despite these protests the religious guys will win and dominate….The situation is so bad that Qatar (same population as Berlin!) is put forward as a front for many US initiatives.

US has no popular support among the people of the Middle East mainly due to uncontrolled and uncritical support of Israel.

In short I don’t wish to loose hope but am not terribly optimistic of US presence or ability to take a sensible position….The West has been giving arms to the rebels anyway otherwise they would not have been able to pull down aircraft and do much else. Americans tried to impose a prime minister on Syrian opposition so your remedy has been tried and failed as it was rejected by the ones who do the real fighting, namely those religious groups who do not like the US.

We shall see if the West shows any sense in trying to play along with this softer side of the Iranian society…historically they have not and don’t care for anything but IMMEDIATE interests as in the long term no one is in office! There is no US policy of note as to how to come to terms with the new “independent” Iran and your counterpart in the FT, Gideon Rachman rightly points out that: The west’s dominance of the Middle East is ending.

By: Rod007 Sun, 16 Jun 2013 20:59:09 +0000 I don’t know why anyone would think supplying arms would either be effective or the right thing to do. All that will happen is that it will cause more death and destruction. They should be targeting Assad individually. See for how these issues should be sorted in a more ethical and strategic manner.

By: changeling Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:17:43 +0000 Let’s be honest shall we? The U.S. military industrial complex needs another war in the waiting while the latest investment (Afghanistan)winds down. Got to keep the shareholders happy you know!

By: KyleDexter Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:09:45 +0000 David Rhodes is an Isreali Lobbyist bent on gettiing the US involved in wars to benefit Isreal. Mr. Rhodes, send your own children to die for Isreal. I for one am sick of it.

And honestly, who would you rather have, an enemy that is rational (the Shiites), or friends that will bite the hand that feeds them (the wahhabi’s).

The US is the worlds biggest sponser of state terrorism, from Apartheid Isreal to Wahhabi and truely fundamentalist Saudi Arabia. Instead of creating another Afghanistan, lets be real and realize that Isreal and Al-Qaeda are the real enemies that need to be neutralized.