WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

President Obama still resisting significant U.S. intervention in Syria

The pressure mounts in Washington for President Obama to take a more forceful course in Syria -- on behalf of the rebels, of course.

The Chair of the House Intelligence Committee - Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI) says the time is now.

But as Liz Sly at The WASHINGTON POST reported only yesterday, Islamists among the rebels are already imposing Shariah law. In short, watch out for what might replace the Assad regime.

NATIONAL JOURNAL offers a comprehensive update...


Meanwhile, President Obama and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are now "best buds". To be sure, Barack and Bibi each have political reasons to project a positive relationship.

Netanyahu even declared President Obama was supporting Israel's right to defend itself "more than any other president". Could this be Bibi's way to box in Mr. Obama on Iran?

See this account in Britain's DAILY MAIL---


Posted at 8:01am on March 21, 2013 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Thu, Mar 21, 2013 8:08am

No, no, no the U.S. is not getting involved in Syria.

Thu, Mar 21, 2013 9:52am
He is, however, caving in to the Zionist Lobby, and abandoning the Palestinians and anything like a two-state solution. He's also making noises about an invasion of Iran to makes Israel happy.

Thu, Mar 21, 2013 2:58pm
I think we will position ourselves strategically into the Middle East Peace process and entangle ourselves further. That means Syria. We have a golden opportunity to play both sides, now that we are not as dependent on Mid East Oil. The tactics of the past were necessary, but we have now moved on.

I still think we should make Jerusalem a holy city, remove it from Israeli control, as is the Vatican, run it by Fundamentalist Christians, and by that, drive the Jews and Muslims together as allies and force them to work together against a common enemy.

Thu, Mar 21, 2013 4:27pm
Interesting idea, only the fundamentalists wouldn't buy it. They want the world to end. So, they think the Jews have to control Jerusalem, rebuild the Temple, reestablish the priesthood and restore the ancient Israelite religion. Then there will be a big war, lots of plagues and Jesus will come back. The sickos actually look forward to this.

What fundamentalists fail to get is that unlike them, Judaism is capable of evolution and growth. Even the ultra Orthodox don't want to turn the clock back 2,000 years. Judaism sees how you deal with people as more important than ritually killing and sacrificing animals. Fundamentalists think blood sacrifice trumps everything. And they loath life so much they want the world to end. Really sick.

Thu, Mar 21, 2013 7:28pm
Obama's coddling of the Palestinians today is totally disgusting. Shame on him for committing my tax dollars to a terrorist state which Israel should wipe off the map.

Fri, Mar 22, 2013 4:28am
Coddling? What have you been drinking? Try reading a newspaper sometime. He's been sucking up to Net and Yahoo and threw the Palestinians under a bus.

And if Palestine, fighting for its independence against outsiders moving in and taking over are "terrorists," then you must think American Indians were "savages." By your daffynition, George Washington and his buddies were "terrorists."

Fri, Mar 22, 2013 9:19am
Bill, one must keep in mind that to the Royalists and the British soldiers quartered on this continent. American Patriots were nothing more than terrorists... They shot at you from behind trees. They came out of the woods, burned down your plantation, and disappeared back into the woods, with impunity.

The definition of terrorism depends on who is doing the writing... It also depends on the rules of engagement within the conflict.

There is very little difference from a jihadist blowing himself and a car in front of a military base and killing innocent bystanders, and an American remote pilot sitting at his desk in Nevada, pressing the button to disable a living target, and killing innocent bystanders.

Depending solely on who is doing the reporting, either one can be listed as being the terrorist. So I would have to agree that George Washington's buddies could be consider terrorists, and for all of us... thank heavens they were...

Fri, Mar 22, 2013 11:04am
Agreed, Kavips. Also, let's not forget FDR and Churchill ordered massive bombing of civilian targets in Germany for the stated purpose of spreading "terror" in the population. Civilians weren't bystanders; they were targets. It seems they often are with drones today. Terrorist is a term only applied to somebody else and usually applied to someone fighting for anything not recognized as a legitimate government (like the Continental Army prior to the Treaty of Paris in 1783).

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 10:33am
To Kavips & Smith/Rice: The Palestinians have and always have had one agenda: To steal as much land as possible from Israel. Time for Israel to annihilate 'em!

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 12:30pm
MrPizza: The West Bank and Gaza do not belong to Israel. If anyone stole land it was Israel who stole those lands from the Palestinians. Their "agenda" is independence. Americans should be able to relate but apparently their hatred of Muslims trumps that.
Annihilate? When you wrote that, Satan gave Adolph a big glass of ice water.

Mike from Delaware
Sun, Mar 24, 2013 3:51pm
Mrpizza: Come on, rethink your last statement [no matter who did what, I truly can not see Jesus saying to annihilate those folks]. That would be condemning those folks to Hell and I just can't see Jesus doing that, especially as he wants to reach all those folks too with the Gospel message of love, mercy, peace, and salvation.

I'm with Billsmith on this one. From what I've read, when the British who were the colonial power in what was Palestine gave Israel land that the Jews were to buy at reasonable rates from the Palestinians back then in 1948. This didn't happen, if what I read was correct. The Israelis just took it and never paid for the land. Someone with better knowledge of the 1948 start of the state of Israel might be better able to shed some light on this. IF that indeed is correct then the Jew's action's wern't a good honorable start for their new nation to do as one of their first acts as a nation, to "swindle" the former land owners [why the British didn't step in and insist Israel follow through with the agreement is another question I'd like answered]. Thus if all of this is true then we have a better understanding as to some of the hatred the Palestinians have for the Jews in Israel.

Not to mention how today's Palestinians have been treated by the nation of Israel during the past 64 years.

No, Israel's hand's are not clean in this, granted neither are the Palestinians; but painting one side evil and worthy of being destroyed or annihilated and the other side as being pure as the driven snow, the good guys who are worthy of "Carte Blanche" treatment as we overlook any atrocity they commit is a bit hypocritical from where I'm sitting.

Again, I'm not totally sure if my "facts" are correct, so if someone knows the facts, please feel free to update or correct my errors.

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 7:34am
Britain held Palestine as a mandate form the League of Nations after World War I. As recounted in Lawrence of Arabia, the Palestinians and other Arabs were promised an independent state in return for helping Britain and France fight the Ottoman Turks (allied with the Central Powers). Britain and France reneged on the agreement.

After World War II, the UN partitioned Palestine, splitting off the West Bank and Gaza from the territory used to form Israel. MikeFromDelaware is correct that this land was taken from Palestinians living there without their consent and without compensation.

Were the Palestinians treated justly? No. Did they have the right to fight back? Seems like they had as much right as American Indians and far more the American Colonists.

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 8:03am
Billsmith: Thanks for filling the missing pieces of the puzzle.

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 10:04am
MikeFromDelaware: You're welcome.

Here's another piece. In 1951, Iran elected a democratically-elected government. In 1953, the US deposed this government and put the Shah on the throne. Why, since the US talks about bringing free elections and democracy to the world? Because the government wanted to nationalize the oil fields in Iran. The oil companies pushed the Eisenhower administration to overthrow the elected government (claiming it was "communist"). People in Iran hated the Shah (and his dreaded secret police). He was brutal, tyrannical and avaricious. He committed wholesale murder and plundered the country for himself. People in Iran blamed the US for all this and so they started hating the US, too. Eventually, Iranians overthrew the Shah and the US gave the Shah sanctuary and would not allowed him to be tried for his "crimes against humanity." This made Iranians really mad, so they took over the US embassy.

Given this history of "involvement" by superpowers, it is not surprising that Iran might seek to be able to defend itself against superpowers armed with nuclear weapons, and might resent dictates from outsiders.

A little more history. As a student of scripture, you may recall that it was Babylon (Iraq) that conquered Judea and deported the elites. Jews get their name from Judea and the tribe of Judah. It was Persia (Iran) that let the Jews go back.

The Northern Kingdom of Israel had earlier been conquered and its elites deported by Assyria (Syria). The Romans later called this territory Samaria and the remnants of the Northern Kingdom and Northern tribes were called Samaritans. Now, some claim on Biblical grounds that Jews are entitled to the entire territory of what was called Canaan and therefore are entitled to Gaza and the West Bank. On Biblical grounds, the land was already divided up in ancient times and Jews are only entitled to territory associated with Judea.

PS: If you read the Torah, you'll see the Tribe of Levi did not receive any land. They formed the priestly class and were to receive tithes from everybody else instead of land. Tithes go to clergy, not to god. Levi was a small tribe and formed maybe two percent of the total population, so if they got 10 per cent of the income from 98 per cent of the population they did very well.

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach