Obama Bombs at G20

Most of the participants save the die hard French, who have a masonic order on every corner in Paris, and the lap dogs of England support Obama’s war plan, though the British parliaments vote against the bombing has effectively handcuffed any UK involvement in a Syrian attack.

Other G20 US lackeys like Canada, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Australia, although won't commit to the war effort, due give lip service to the BIG LIE that the Syrian regime did do the chemical attack even though there is no clear evidence that this is the case.

The good guys are China, Russia, India, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia and even Italy have demurred from the Coalition of the Dammed who want to spread war in Syria

Obama also bombed out on the human rights front where the anti Gay Putin was vulnerable but since Obama is a war monger and anti-freedom NSA, Snowden villain he received very little support from the people in St Petersburg who may otherwise have rallied to his side if he, Obama, wasn’t pushing war and anti-first amendment actions in the Snowden affair.

Obama Gets an Earful on Syria From Russian Human-Rights Activists

www.thedailybeast.com...

According to Webstser Tarpley the corrupt Obama’s speech was worn, languid, and listless like his first debate performance against Romney.

tarpley.net...

G20 members With sense
Argentina
Brazil
China
India
Indonesia
Italy
Mexico
Russia
South Africa

USA puppets
Japan
Germany
South Korea
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Australia
Saudi Arabia
France
European Union
Canada

I think you might be a little ignorant of how the world works.

While I don't think that anyone is disputing that he bombed it, I wouldn't say that Russia, China, et. al., are "good guys." They are simply supporting an agenda. Don't fool yourself into thinking that because they don't want Syria bombed, that they're concerned with your well-being.

reply to post by Willtell


I had to chuckle when I saw that the EU was onboard with Obama. Aren't many of it's members actively opposed to intervention?

If the EU wants to intervene, I say let them do it. Combined they have enough manpower and firepower to do so and it is a much shorter logistics tail.

I find that I am also ironically amused by the fact that I am siding with the common sense side of your list.

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
I think you might be a little ignorant of how the world works.

While I don't think that anyone is disputing that he bombed it, I wouldn't say that Russia, China, et. al., are "good guys." They are simply supporting an agenda. Don't fool yourself into thinking that because they don't want Syria bombed, that they're concerned with your well-being.

Precisely. There seems to be a ton of distractions out there, so, it is important for Americans to keep their heads about them.

It is safe to say that if a politician is behind it, then there's a massive lie treading water in the vicinity.

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
I think you might be a little ignorant of how the world works.

While I don't think that anyone is disputing that he bombed it, I wouldn't say that Russia, China, et. al., are "good guys." They are simply supporting an agenda. Don't fool yourself into thinking that because they don't want Syria bombed, that they're concerned with your well-being.

That begs the question we all should be asking ourselves: Who is?
(Answer: nobody.)

reply to post by Mr Headshot


I think that perhaps its also to do with the next step after Obama has launched his attack, of which he is remarkably quiet. Who will fire back and what will be the repercussions of that first rocket launch. Lets face it its not to win a war, just to slap Assad in the face. Assad has probably long moved out to safer places. Russia and China don't believe the evidence so far and neither does most of the world from a logical point of view.

Its also about whether someone might take the chance, whilst everyones backs are turned to Syria to bomb the Saudi oil fields. This would certainly slow the world's economies down. The Germans might be tactily ok'ing the bombing but is it because they would very much like their gold back from America? people aren't open or honest these days and politics are so bent now we are likely to only find out later. But if the lid lifts off, it won't be pretty and will be felt all round the world.

Israel has a huge vested interest in keeping hold of the Golan heights for the oil they hold, so I suspect its more to try to get Obama to shut up and go away that is on their agenda - but do we all want the oil controlled by Israel and Saudi, although they have been making strange bedfellows for some time.

I suspect Obama bombed simply because this is not a war fought in his own back yard but in a lot of other country's backyards and if is escalates it will spread like wildfire to say nothing of the vulnerable peoples or the oil fields that will big business cherishes so much.

reply to post by Mr Headshot


I believe you are ignorant of how reality works.

EVERYTHING is perspective; and contextual.
Therefore IN THIS context of bombing Syria those I designate as good guys are form, my perspective, GOOD only relating to this affair of the Syria war attack.

Understand?

I hope you do for then you have learned something.

reply to post by Willtell


hi Mr.willtell..you just say japan twice..in good and bad one..
and this war reason not just chemical attack but something more big..i dont know what but i sense like that..

reply to post by cheesy


You are correct. I made a mistake by listing Japan on the good side. I corrected it.
Japan is an ardent lackey to the USA. They always side with them.

Interesting how the G20 breaks down in this affair.
9-11

9 against the attack
And 11 for it.

The G20 use to be the G8, G9.

Sometime after 911, interestingly, it became the G9/11
9+ 11= 20

I am sure this means nothing, only a coincidence.

reply to post by Willtell


The president is an idiot.

Of course he bombed out.

Allot of other countries are pointing their fingers and laughing because of things like "Obamacare".

reply to post by Willtell


No, everything is not perspective. Dropping an atom bomb on Hiroshima was evil. Perhaps it was a better evil for America than sending thousands more American men to die, but it was still evil. Anybody who says that its evilness depends on perspective is plain wrong.

The countries you speak of in the OP may appear to be "good" because they don't want the bombing of Syria, but that does not mean that they are doing "good." Not by any means.


I just want to add that I'm not arguing with you, at least not in the spirit of the thing. I don't think Syria should be bombed by anybody. I think the whole thing is bogus. But that doesn't mean that I think any other country has good intentions.

reply to post by Mr Headshot


For fear of being redundant, I only responded to your rejoinder that I was classifying certain countries as ABSOLUTELY good. That was your implication. I intended no such thing.

Again, “GOOD” is only in the perspective of a particular context of the event(s) in question. That is my perspective.

Your analysis of the atomic bomb actually proves my point. Many people would disagree that the atomic bomb dropped on Japan was evil. I actually agree with you, but other perspectives don’t. Whether we agree with them or not is irrelevant to the fact that they have a perspective based on a context of the events surrounding the dropping of that bomb.

reply to post by Willtell


The atomic bomb was a good move.

It taught those commy backstabbers a lesson.

They liked it so much that now that have a pet rogue reactor which has probably given them more radiation then both those bombs we dropped.

reply to post by EvaMarie


They weren’t commies Eva, the Japanese were never communists.