A better question is :How many children were killed in Shitcago since Obama took office?" and "Why isn't the UN doing a fucking thing about it?"

He has been accused of doing so. I haven't seen any evidence. Though the people who told me about the "terribly offensive" youtube video that caused a protest to get out of control in Benghazi resulting in the death of our Ambassador, now say they have a undeniable "circumstantial" case against him.

I have learned not to take things coming from the Middle East at face value. I have also learned not to believe the current presidential administration. Taking their word on something that happened in the Middle East during a conflict between Middle Easterners..... I think I will do as Mr. Obama has warned us in the past when we were attacked by Islamic militants,

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/20/obama-dont-form-opinions-on-boston-attacks-until-government-decides/#ixzz2dtmWs1FJ

Maybe, maybe not ...............
Just cuz BHO and Kerry said so doesn't make it so ...........................

You mean the ME could become unstable, violent, and inhospitable to secular government?

I think you are generalizing gd a little too much.  Calling a brutal dictator a bad guy doesn't equate interfering.

He can be wasted, now as for Mrs.Assad, nothing is off limits....

lulz

"HE STANDS IN WAY OF GREAT MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD ISLAMIST STATE. HE IS INFIDEL AND MUST BE REMOVED INSH'ALLAH."



-Barak Hussein Obama

This is the only justification Obama has got...he botched the situation so badly to this point, he has to remediate somehow.

Syria wasn't stable.

It was a sham built on force, and the population discovered the Emperor had No clothes.

I figured it was pretty straight forward and didn't require this.  Guess on GD it's not.

It seems to be Hussein redux.

And isn't it funny how now the libs aren't hating on Obama like they did with bush.  It's okay for their leader to do whatever he wants.

Yea I thought the same thing, fucking candy ass hypocrites. I think we should arm both sides, and then whatever side wins we bomb them back to the pre stone age.

He was a stabilizing influence in the Middle East.  Obama doesn't like stabilizing influences that stand in the way of his ideology.

LOL



Rafic Hariri is now perfectly stable, thanks to Assad.



 

Hezbollah is a Syrian proxy.





Granted they are not in exactly the same category as AQ, but they have a lot of American blood on their hands.





ETA: Might be better to say that Assad and Hezbollah are both Iranian proxies.
 

Have you watched any of the FSA "fun with weapons" videos?  A Wile E. Coyote style mishap with a captured 152mm Sarin shell or rocket is not out of the question.

Someone please show me the proof that he gassed his people, look at who had the most to gain.
It was the insurgents, that's who. I would think that gassing their own, or accidentally setting off their own chemical weapons was the cause of this. Not even Assad is crazy enough to let the gas fly with the UN there. there are reports just as credible as those in our own media that it was mishandled chemical weapons supplied by the Saudis that went off and not a military op of Assads
.
If the proof you have is what obummer is supplying, its as suspect as most of the intel before the Iraq war. As someone who has extensive training in NBC warfare , and in real life chemical disasters of the organophosphate kind, the videos appear to be total bullshit. also chemical inspectors going in cotton clothes to a suspected chem site attack, and not even using good precautions reeks of BS.
If you doubt it, look up persistency of chemical weapons, esp organophosphates. that shit is ridiculously easy to make, and just as easy to fuck up and release.

Would people who routinely behead people, butcher families in front of four year olds etc. be willing to do something like that, you bet. Plus what about all the liveleak videos showing the rebels launching their own chemical weapons at the Syrian army.

I have no love for Assad and his regime, but there doing a great job of killing each other without wasting American lives, Hell half our country is on welfare and we want to do the bidding of the ruling elite in the middle east. Let them solve their own problems, If Saudi Arabia wants something done, they can use all the military gear weve already sent them, they have the troops, and the money. we don't. there is not one thing there that is worth a drop of American blood.

And who cares if Qatar just discovered huge deposits of natural Gas. we don't need it. we don't need anything from them. Except for them all to repay the billions weve spent the last 12 years fighting their fight. they can never replace the lost American lives. and heres a clue for some of you, they already hate us, so fuck them

And there it is.



Well said.



 

IF those numbers are accurate (which I still highly doubt, given the source), would you really put that past some of the extremists in the FSA?  They have already lost tens of thousands in this war and they are losing.  Successfully framing Assad and bringing down the might of the US military on him would likely win the war for the FSA.  This is a brutal civil war, the rebels know what Assad's going to do to them if he wins, so what do they have to lose?

Not to sound too tin-foiley here, but this whole series of events sure is playing well into the hands of the FSA.  If they win it will be Egypt all over again, except they won't get thrown out of power after trying a hostile takeover.

This....

That poor woman has been through hell. I volunteer to provide her with shelter and to comfort her in so many special, special ways.

if the rebels win, Egypt will look like a preschool compared to the coming Sharia law, and ungodly religious shit they will pull. The rebels are truly depraved and have no souls, they are worse than the ruling scumbags by far. let them kill each other till none are left to fight. we don't have to do anything but wait and watch.

Zero makes Zero look like a weak asshole.  



 

Right. he is a certified asshole at war with certified assholes. Got it.

Based on the history that you have presented we had  more of a reason to attack Syria during the Iraq War than we do now and although he is no good he happens to hate the Muslim Brotherhood and the various extremist groups supporting the rebels.


Both groups are certainly only ever going to be enemies of the United States, both groups will will certainly cost american lives in the future, why would we hinder the abitliy for either of them to continue lkilling each  other?

Future killers of Americans are killing each other and we're going to interfer with that.

While they are currently doing our work without risk to american lives we are going to serve americans up for them to target? we are going to destroy relationships with other nations and renew the vigor of islamic hated against the US. Because alledgedly Bashar gas a couple of hundred people with weapons he's had for 30+ years, we are going to kill far more than that.

Secular government (by ME standards) appear to be obama's target.  Egypt, Libya, Syria.  

Can't imagine what he's up to.

Also, it helps to remind ourselves that these ME countries don't operate according to our normal, they have always had, and will always have heir own definition of normal.  That's why democracy will never work for them,

I think he is bad because his name is the same as the bad guy in that Call of Duty game.

Blew your own argument out of the water......who stands to gain and lose from the use of  NBC weapons in Syria...especially after Obama's ill advised ultimatum?

Did the world bank get their claws in there yet?

clearly syria was the shining example of stability, hence the civil war.

syria=hez b'allah=iran.  

the alawites take their orders from tehran.

beruit bombing?  iran
khobar towers?  iran
EFPs?  iran.

sadr army?  iran?

iran and its proxies should be spanked early and often.

and if we want to keep an endless civil war going, good.

So our enemies are killing each other with great vigor.  I still fail to see the down side for us.  By all means Syria, continue.

And apparently he finally found where Saddam buried all those chemical weapons that were moved to his country.



 

It's really very simple.  A Democrat does not like him.

Pretty much this.  Zero was talking him up early in his administration as an olive branch to Iran.  You see how persuaded they were to be civilized.  

In government terms, there are no good guys in that neighborhood there who aren't wearing yarmulkes.

Someone's got to do it.

What difference does it make anyway?.

Hillary

This "woman" (and I use the term loosely) has a good answer for everything....and it's the SAME answer...

Because he is a bloodthirsty dictator, an ally of Iran and a suporter of hezbollah terrorists perhaps?

Who is killing AQ, an organization that would if in power, become a bloodthirsty dictator, and ally of our worst enemies, and would continue to actively field terrorists.  


In my experience, it is often wise to think of one enemy killing another enemy as a good thing.

He's toxic but he isnt alone among other state and non state actors in the region. The OP asked why is he so bad.
?

He's certainly bad; but he's definitely[div style='text-align: left;']
not our problem at the moment.


Edited to make it clear I am in agreement with you.