A Comment About the Times We Live In

From Pragmatic Obots Unite:

aleth

Interesting to watch these terrorist and their enabling media in action, but you know they white so it's all right. Go Koch brothers!!! POC gonna be fine but should interesting to see how the white left and right deal with a shut down. The GOP conduct is to ensure America never votes for a person of color ever again because America will be scared of going through this again. GOP will suffer no consequences as a result of gerrymandered districts, media cover up and an ignorant citizenry. GOP feel empowered because the fact remains that more than 60% of white folk voted for Romney..let that sink in. Their racial interest outweighed their economic interest and the GOP is a party that believes only the majority voice should win. How dare this black man upset the social order or disrupt the Washington Anglo Saxon consensus.

Yes, the whole thing from 2009 has been deliberate supported by corporations and the propaganda networks they own. The Romney loss was the last straw. They don't see America as theirs anymore since the "others" are now visible so they want to let it burn to the ground. They count on the fact that the President loves this country and the people that he negotiates with them to make sure the people don't suffer. However, the forget that he also has a last straw and a game plan. He like every other black folk know white people more than they know themselves because we watch you while you define us through your stereotypes. So shut it down and let even the old folk suffer so they know the consequence of electing radical Koch and Alec owned representatives.

It is sad that even in NJ folk gonna elect Chris Christie while he fucks us from behind and disrespects civics/ citizenry. The folks in NC are learning the hardway but I'm sure some think it will only publish the "colored" folk. But I will say one thing, an injustice to one is an injustice to all.

Between the domestic games to the international games especially seeing the Arabian pennisular v. Persian geopolitics, it's an interesting time to be alive. Let's see what Saudi arabia ( don't forget they are funding the rebels as they are majority Sunni- if u want to know why president Obama is weary of SA and rebels seed his anti war speech to get his view of SA royalty) and israel plan to destabilize and ensure diplomacy does not work with IRan. Never forget Yemen, Syria,Afghanistan,Iraq have been proxy wars between these two ideology of a widened Arabian pen v Persia. THe fight over the sphere of influence in that region that's been going on since the fall of the ottoman empire. The current us foreign policy does not see the Saudi Arabia- israel alliance as beneficial to us strategic interest, rather it sees it has creating more cost for the US ala Iraq war. What we are seeing is US taking care of US first I.e. if you say a nuclear Iran is dangerous for the region, then let's neutralize it because we will not be putting our troops there. If you say Syria is cray cray well Russia u don't want us to do anything, then take care of your buyer.

But as we can see, this is not what the players in the region want. They have no desire to see a competitive and open iran. Let's see how the hard lines with these two act and let's see how Russia reacts to Iran moving away from its strangle hold. Pssssss...Iran saw Putin drop the dice on Syria for self protection that it reconsidered its relationship along with the effect of the sanctions. There was already a strain the relationship with the 2010 sanction vote from russia. It should all be interesting watching US play both side, tell hard truths and shift course to the pacific. Oh BRazil...watch ur self as Russia has no loyalty to anyone.

It is an interesting time to be alive. Go Susan Rice, Hagel,KErry and the whole team Obama. I do not believe HIllary was good at her job as she was more interested in self promotion than performing at the will of the president. These people get it.

The Affordable Care Act is here to stay

Speaking from Largo, Md. Thursday morning, President Barack Obama promoted the benefits of his health care law before new insurance exchanges open for business next week.

President Obama Addresses the United Nations

President Obama and former President Clinton discuss Obamacare

President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton met in New York at the Clinton Global Initiative to discuss the Affordable Care Act's implementation, the opposition to the law, and the future of health care.

President Obama Marks the Anniversary of the Financial Crisis

After making a statement about the situation at the Washington Navy Yard, President Obama marks the anniversary of the financial crisis and the efforts over the last five years to stabilize the economy and get it growing and creating jobs again. September 16, 2013.

I'll ask again...what would this economy look like if you didn't have one political party that committed to ECONOMIC TREASON against this country beginning January 20, 2009?

50th Anniversary of the 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing - An act of domestic terrorism that took the lives of four little girls

This past week was the 50th Anniversary of the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church, where 4 little girls were murdered. Melissa Harris-Perry looks back on that incident of domestic terrorism.

Segment 1



Segment 2



Segment 3

World War III Project - So Much Win In This Video

Love this video.... would be funnier if it didn't have a ring of truth.



Luckily... war with Syria (so far) may have been averted... but U.S. Administrations often find ways to sabotage these agreements so that they can do what they really want to do (in this case - regime change in Syria). Iran is the next showdown. We will be back on the brink in just a few months. The U.S. seems to be constantly on the brink of a war somewhere on the planet. When it comes to meddling around the world... the U.S. just can't get enough.


- Recovering Obama Supporter

Since the US, Russia have reached an agreement on Syria.....can the President get some credit?

From Smartypants:

Trust vindicated

I don't mind being called an Obamabot that much. Just like the President decided to embrace the label "Obamacare" that was initially meant as a slam, I suspect history will vindicate that supporting this administration was the right call.

What I've typically reacted to negatively is the idea that I blindly trust President Obama because the fact is - I have my eyes wide open and am watching a fascinating presidency unfold. Over time what has happened is that when I don't see the whole picture yet, I've learned to slow down my reactions and wait until I get more information. I also remind myself of who this man is that we've elected twice and how he's handled things in the past.

All of this came into play when it became clear that President Obama was considering a military strike against Syria because the Assad regime had used chemical weapons against his own people. I knew from watching him closely that he had rather boldly stood up to his own national security team when they united last fall to propose that the US intervene in the Syrian civil war. And so I was pretty confident that he had come to this position both reluctantly and thoughtfully. As I've said previously, my concerns were more about the efficacy of strikes rather than the ridiculous notion that this man was some kind of warmonger. And so I reminded myself of the process President Obama used when he made the decision to intervene in Libya and assumed he'd done the same thing this time.

I can't say that I ever really embraced the idea of military strikes against Syria. But what I can say is that I figured that President Obama was telling the truth about his intentions and that he'd made the best decision he could with the information he had. Doing so doesn't always mean success or landing on the perfect solution. No human is capable of always doing that. But its the best we can hope for from a president in an imperfect world.

There is still a lot of work to be done on Syria, but this morning I can see demonstrated proof that my trust in President Obama is vindicated. SoS Kerry has brokered a deal with his Russian counterpart to identify and destroy Assad's chemical weapons. What is specifically vindicated is not just that this administration had always been working behind the scenes on the "carrot" of diplomacy as an alternative to the "stick" of military intervention. If this deal goes through, it also proves that dealing with Assad's chemical weapons was ALWAYS the President's motivation in all this. That is a critical point because it shows that he is ushering in a new approach to US foreign policy.

About that Putin Op-Ed in the New York Times

I haven’t really commented on the NYTimes publishing the Op-Ed, because to be honest, I was just absorbing it.

Since January 20, 2009, I thought that I had seen all the ways that this President could be disrespected, but time after time, I have been proven wrong.

If anyone would tell me that any major newspaper, would publish an Op-Ed from the former head of the KBG who goes around the world murdering his opponents in plain sight, and allow him to lecture the United States, ABOUT ANYTHING, I just would have never believed it.

White folks are something.

They have lost their fucking minds.

Since the moment Barack Obama was elected President, they have lost their fucking minds.

They can’t stand it – neither the left or the right.

That this smart as hell, brilliant man and politician is President of the United States.

Read more »

President Obama Speaks on Syria

Racism in Online Dating: The New Jim Crow?

I pulled the profile shot above from a popular online dating site. This is the kind of nonsense that I have to deal with as a Black guy.

Now I wasn't interested in the person above, however, her sentiment is shared by 95% of non-Black women on the online dating sites. This individual was just bold enough to come out and say it. Most won't express it. They just do it passively by not contacting Black men or not responding. 

My attempts to date interracially have mostly failed.... have been able to do it a few times in my life... but for the most part I fail 90% of the time. Economics plays a huge role in that. Why would a non-Black woman want to date a guy like me (Black, a public worker-- so not earning very much money-- only slightly above avg looking...but told he's handsome, 40--- so Black and Old... ) when she can have a great White, Asian, Indian, or Hispanic guy...with more money, nice toys (cars, etc), and she can avoid all of the staring and ugly comments...and the backlash and embarrassment from friends and family? No one wants to be ashamed or embarrassed to bring a guy around friends & family. And perhaps most important to her... her babies won't be tainted... they won't have tainted skin (unfortunately there are people who think this way).

It is especially bad with Asian women. PBS and Independent Lens, recently took a look at this subject (See Video).  or see embed below:


The white male is synonymous with money and success. He doesn't even have to have much money or success... just having a white guy is a status symbol. (White men have it pretty good when it comes to the dating scene. I would be lying if I said I didn't envy that somewhat).

But there is a problem with the success angle (which could be a legitimate preference, although in my opinion it makes the women look completely shallow)... the problem is.... even when you take a black guys profile and correct for education (add a college education), and add a middle class income, and show that the guy is decent looking...and has a wide variety of interests, he will still face discrimination for being Black.

Well Brian, why don't you date Black women? I am open to dating women from all ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. But the fact is, I don't usually fit what Black women tend to look for. The interests and tastes of Black women tend to be different from my own...about 90% of the time. For example... I don't care much for rap music... I don't like to go to nightclubs, entertainment venues, or social gatherings that they may go to, and I would love to send Jay Z and Beyonce to Alcatraz...so that I never have to hear anything about them again. I think that's a good reason to reopen that prison. Throw most of the other rappers in there too. That would make me so happy. I just don't tend to get along with Black women (generally speaking). I find that Black women tend to want to reverse some of the traditional roles. They want to dominate the household and/or the relationship...and are extremely demanding. They have a hard time discerning what a good man is. Many don't seem to realize that they can be strong and proud while also being softspoken & kindhearted. They don't have to become men. But there are exceptions. There are Black women who make my mouth water... But strangely enough... I have found that a lot of the Black women who have even slightly caught my interest.....tend to prefer white guys. So I am always left at square one.

I dated one mixed race girl... who identified as Black (10 years ago). It never went past the first date. She thought it was strange that I paid for everything... opened doors and offered her a flower. (that is what she told me). She stated that she was not used to being treated like that.... so I guess being a gentleman scared her off. I haven't been on a date since that year (2003). There is this thing in the Black Community (God I hate that term)... an unwritten code that says if you are a gentleman.... you are soft...and well... you must be a punk. This is ingrained in the minds of most Black women. The old school gentleman of color is out of style and has been for quite some time (men like my father... my uncle on my mothers side... men who were men). Black women today (particularly those 21-35 give or take a few years) are trained to look for different traits and characteristics when determining what the ideal guy is. It has completely changed. Now a guy has to be over 6ft tall.... has to have tattoos, has to have this thing they call "swag" (just typing that was painful... completely hate the term)... and he has to be at least rough around the edges...and a criminal record won't hurt either. That is like a badge of honor...and women reward these men accordingly... these men literally get more offers for intimacy than they can handle. Again... not that I would be interested in those women.... but it irks me to see that. Then again... some of these women could be considered top tier... I have known, read about...seen plenty of good looking women of color... educated, etc... who still prefer a guy who fits a certain image. They want a 50 cent or Tupac clone.... or 50 cent or Tupac-lite.... for some, just 20 or 30% thug is enough to satisfy their twisted fantasies or their biological urges...and yes... biology plays a huge role in selection. A recent study concluded that women are basically tricked by biology into picking the wrong men....even when they know he's the wrong one... their sub-conscience (driven by hormones) drives them to make stupid choices. This would explain why women end up with the same types of men almost every time. But it's not just poor women w/ low education making these choices or who have these stupid dealbreakers.  

Needless to say... since I don't fit that image (the idiotic, aggressive, obnoxious rapper) I am not on radar screens of most Black women. Of course there are also the Black women who have the shallow physical standards -- as mentioned before the 6ft rule is a common one...often a dealbreaker. I stand about 5'6 or 5'7...so I am considered too short. But there is also income. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 50k-60k is often the absolute minimum you can earn to afford her. Some want the rapper clones...while others want the rich Black doctor or attorney.

Either way... it leaves me with interracial dating where the options are extremely few and far between. That's why i'm 40 and single. Being in St. Louis makes matters worse, because this is one of the most segregated metro areas in the U.S. (backed up by several reports/studies). Even the BBC recently did a story on segregation in present day St. Louis. This is one reason why I really hate St. Louis. I would, in all likelihood, have more success in a State like Texas (one of my adopted home States). I loved Texas for the few years I lived there growing up. Even back then (early 1990's) it seemed more socially progressive. I witnessed racism...but there were a lot of mixed race couples in my High School. Florida (another adopted home State) is far more diverse than the Midwest... especially Missouri. Even growing up in Kansas showed me a lot about different cultures, diversity, etc. That's where I had my first kiss.... (nope, she wasn't a Black girl).. And my first crush (a majestic, gorgeous Mexican girl for which I have seen no match to this day... she may have raised the bar too high). But Kansas...being in the Midwest...was perhaps an anomaly. Maybe it was just the community (a mixed race school and community may have altered my perception). But I am better off for having lived there during some crucial years growing up.

The racism in dating indeed seems to vary in terms of degree of ugliness depending on what part of the country you are in.

I am just hoping at some point, before I get too old, I can meet "the one". But I have already prepared myself for the likelihood that I will die alone. Have even started estate planning with that in mind. This stuff doesn't hit you until you start your estate planning. If you are in my situation and you are single... it will hit you like a ton of bricks.

Barack H. Obama: Worse Than Bush? Absolutely

Barack Hussein Obama, the man promising to bring change to Washington... who brought hope for a brighter future, who declared that under his watch, America was "turning the page" on a decade of war and would do "nation building at home", has turned out to be a complete fraud.

When I look at Obama's efforts to launch a war on Syria I am struck by the fact that I have never seen a President work so hard to get something done. Realizing that he does not have public support for another war in the Middle East, he has decided to try brainwashing the American people. He has indeed reached a new low. In the days to come, Obama will show Americans previously unreleased video and pictures of dead and dying women and babies from Syria (as if people don't know that there is a civil war there). This is straight out of Psych Ops 101. It is vile and disgusting as a policy. This is akin to anti-abortion activists showing pictures of dead fetuses. It adds shock value by playing on emotions, but it actually does little to advance their argument in any substantive way or to change facts that were already known. All of this effort to start a war? This is why I have no respect for this man whatsoever. Not anymore. In fact, I am ashamed I voted for him in 2008. I no longer tell people I voted...or who I voted for.

No one is disputing that some sort of chemical was released near Damascus on that day and people may have died. But the answer to the question of who did it and what the real impact was is still unclear and may never be determined. U.S. intelligence estimates seem to have inflated the number of dead (1400) in order to sell the idea of jumping into this war. All other news organizations (on the ground) and NGO groups (on the ground), reported far fewer fatalities. (100-200 or so). One of many reasons not to rush into this...and not to jump in at all. One of the many flaws in the Obama Administration's thinking on Syria is that they have created the false choice between doing nothing and war. There are several other options here that could provide a response that is appropriate (IF Assad was even responsible...and I am not convinced that he was...and will never be absent a confession from Assad himself). One response would be (as mentioned several times before) to provide more assistance to the rebels in Syria. While aiding rebels, there should be a simultaneous effort to bring about a political settlement. This is the recommendation of the U.S. military, which Obama has decided to ignore.

This brings me to the realization that not only is Obama not who I (and other Progressives) thought that he was..... that's of course bad enough. But he has turned out to be far worse. In my view, he is worse than Bush. For one, Bush didn't have on sheep's clothing. Bush was a wolf and everyone knew he was a wolf. He didn't wear a costume. Obama, on the other hand, had a sheep's costume that fit so perfectly that he was able to fool almost everybody. I always had my doubts and suspicions, but the Syria mess has confirmed everything for me once and for all. Although my view and support of Obama was already dwindling steadily... I would always try to hold out hope and I would try to suggest that perhaps what I was witnessing was an anomaly. But my suspicions were right all along. He's simply a weak puppet shared between the traditional Washington establishment and corporate America.

I have wondered over the last few weeks how things might be different if Obama were just as motivated and aggressive about launching a war on poverty, improving education, taking care of American Veterans, fixing infrastructure, fixing the economy, helping blighted urban communities (especially communities of color), pushing green energy, immigration reform and so many of the other needs we have here at home. I imagine he would be able to get a bit more done and would help more of our people (I consider the Dream Act folks and the undocumented who have been contributing positively to America as our people). But the Hip Hop President... Mr. Nobel Peace Prize... Mr. "we are turning the page" on war... only gets fired up, motivated and determined now? The only time he has been anywhere close to this cranked up is during his two election campaigns for President... and even then, he needed help to get fired up. The fact that Obama sold himself (quite successfully) as the anti-Bush, anti-war candidate (the Sheep's clothing) and now is selling another stupid war is one aspect that certainly makes him worse and more dangerous than his predecessor.

Another reasons why Obama is worse than Bush is because Obama sold himself as the logical, deliberative, candidate who would make wise decisions, wouldn't rush in, would listen to the American people and to his military commanders, and would always act in the best interests of the U.S. But I just don't see that in the case of Syria. He has abandoned that approach completely here. There seems to be little rational thought here. Instead, he is acting on emotion... because his manhood is being challenged... someone crossed his "red line"...and now he needs to prove he's not a punk. That may be the street code in Chicago and in the disappointing "Black Community", but it doesn't make much sense in the foreign policy arena. This is especially true when proving you are not a punk isn't in the best interest of the Country, and may only make the situation in Syria worse. He has gone completely irrational here.

Lastly, George W. Bush went against international public opinion, and against world leaders, but he had the support of his military and at least tried to make a case to the UN (although based on what we now know was completely bogus information). On the other hand, Obama -- the hawk in sheep's clothing.... (who once criticized Bush's foreign policy for its arrogance)-- has decided that he will go far beyond Bush's arrogance and will defy everyone... international public opinion, world leaders, the American people, The UN and the UN Chief, the Pope, and the military. I want to make this clear to people.... not even George W. Bush was this bad. Neither was George H.W. Bush or Reagan for that matter. At some point, George W. Bush could be reigned in. He, for the most part, listened to the military. Obama is defying all logic, going against benchmarks for action that he himself spelled out (must have broad international support for military action, will go to the UN, won't act without a broad coalition of countries, will wait for an official investigation, etc etc etc). I don't think the U.S. should be involved at all in Syria, but I did get a glimpse of hope from his pledge to stick to his own benchmarks....an effort he has now abandoned. This is what makes Obama worse than Bush. Not listening to the military....pushing them into a war that is opposed from private to General... makes his particularly dangerous. He appears to be a loose cannon.

I have mentioned before, in the commentary "America's Gravest Threat" (is itself...its own foreign policy) that the U.S. would not be able to fix its problems and take care of all of its other needs until there was a new foreign policy based on realism...and an understanding of the limits of American power. I said that the U.S. could not sustain the current path where we are the self designated policeman of the world. The U.S. could not take care of its budget issues with this kind of aggressive, interventionist, global cop foreign policy where it tries to control the Middle East and other parts of the world through military force. If the U.S. continues, it will not be able to fix its fundamental structural problems (debt, economy, economic inequality and competitiveness, etc) and will continue to decline. An excellent posting on Crooks & Liars supports my point. Members of Congress are using Syria as an excuse to cancel military budget cuts... bloating the debt and deficit even more...and in the end, harming ordinary Americans (because they always cut items that benefit ordinary Americans to make up for military spending. We the people are considered "discretionary".) 

I have learned more about Obama in the past few months than I have in the previous 5 or 6 years. I have seen all that I need to see. Obama, just like Bush, will be a liability to the nation and for every American. He will do (has already done) damage to this country.... it's just a matter of how much. We can only hope & pray that Obama's damage to us and to the nation are "limited".... as much as possible.

To Bring You Another War Politicians in Washington Suddenly Find Ways to Cooperate

As I Have Always Said... Americans Love Their Wars... War Is America's Favorite Pastime.

Have you noticed how these jackasses in Washington have suddenly found a way to work together to support war? It's as if someone lit a fire under their asses. This Congress has been one of the least productive in American history... because the divide has been too great and the House (led by the GOP) has been on a mission to block Obama's every move....no matter what he has wanted to do. It had become a reliable formula...that if Obama wanted something... Boehner and the House (and sometimes the Senate) would find a way to block it just because Obama wanted it. When it has to do with improving the lives of Americans, a jobs bill, investing in infrastructure, student loan relief, green energy, immigration reform, improving education, managing the debt, helping the poor/most vulnerable, & all of the other business that Americans need their representatives to attend to... they have never been able to find the time or the willingness to get anything done. Also... they say they couldn't come up with the money anyway. But when the issue is war (something both Parties love to support.... because it's the national fetish)...then all of a sudden these shysters are shuffling around... scrambling... making committee agreements in the Senate in record time, finding time for meetings, are cooperating & working together just fine. Furthermore.. finding the money is suddenly no problem. Unbelievable.

American citizens have made it clear that they don't want this. But they are being ignored. Yet all of a sudden members of Congress are cooperating. It just goes to show you, that when it has to do with the needs of ordinary Americans...members of Congress couldn't care less about taking care of their responsibilities. But when it's something that THEY want, they find a way to get it done (even in the face of public opposition). The U.S. is a sick, sad Country indeed.

Why Syria is Important, The I-Word, and Why Obama Supporters Should Be Angry

I have a strong anti-war bent.... especially when the U.S. is playing global cop and American soil has not been or isn't being attacked. I have to challenge nonsensical foreign policy regardless of whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. I make no apologies.

I often clash with Democrats on the issue of war. In fact, this is the main issue of contention that I have with Democrats. As mentioned on the twitter feed... this is the reason why I could never be a Democrat. When it comes to war, there is little difference between the two parties. Democrats love war just as much as the Republicans do. The only difference is... Democrats have a different name for their BS, illegal, nonsensical wars - they call them "humanitarian interventions". "Humanitarian Interventionism" is where the U.S. pretends to be concerned about the plight of civilians in order to frame an excuse to attack, intrude on, and shape other countries. It's just a different play on what the Neo-Cons do. Unfortunately Obama is listening to the pro-war members of his Cabinet... Susan Rice (a truly monstrous pro-war Democrat... please do your research on this woman)....and John Kerry among others.

I brought up impeachment because others have been impeached for far less. In this case, Obama is taking the extraordinary step of going against the military. We have had Presidents go against the military when the military wanted war...and the civilians had doubts (Kennedy... Cuban Missile Crisis, etc etc). But it is almost unprecedented for a President to push for war when the military doesn't think it's a good idea. This is highly unusual. The military couldn't be any clearer... If they speak any louder, it would be mutiny...but they are doing all they can to shout that this is not a good idea. They are even starting to break protocol. See reports here and here. A President that disregards the advice of commanders to this degree... is reckless. I don't care if it's Barack Obama. The fact that he's the first Black President means nothing to me, especially in this scenario. In fact, if anything....I would want & expect even MORE caution from Obama. Not even Bush was quite this reckless. When pushed hard enough, he would eventually listen to top Generals and the Secretary of Defense. Robert Gates was an anchor for him in the final years of his Presidency. This wasn't as true for Bush in the early years of his Presidency... Rumsfeld was a joke...and no one really challenged the political idiots after 9/11. Few were brave enough to do it.... but there were a few (Adm. William Fallon & Gen. Paul Eaton for example). But later on... they were able to reign the Neo-Cons in. The opposite is happening in the Obama Administration. Early caution is now giving way to pro-war mania. He has handed his foreign policy over to hawks like Susan Rice. Anything that happens once the U.S. fires the first shot... is his fault....and we as taxpayers and citizens will pay the consequences one way or another... (outcomes are all varying degrees of bad). You can't take back that first shot. Once this war is launched... there will be pressure for deeper involvement. Afghanistan, Iraq II, Libya...all started out this way...with just a little bombing. Events will then drag the country in further (and that's under the best scenario....assuming a larger war doesn't erupt). That brings me to the final point...

Why is there such a concern about Syria?

Syria is one of the top 10 or so tripwires in the world (regions or countries) where the global implications of military action...and the risks of a wider conflict are extremely... extremely high...off the charts high. The cost/benefit is completely inverted in the negative direction... calling for no military action. This is not like the U.S. going into Grenada...and rescuing hostages... or going into Panama, or going into Somalia. For example... if the U.S. would have gone into Rwanda to stop the genocide... the global implications would have been low... and the overall risk would have been low. (This is why Clinton should have taken some kind of action...). The U.S. leading the int'l community into Rwanda...to at least save SOME lives... would have been a good intervention....with low risk.... and very low risk on the global implication chart, while being high on the reward side. Liberia.... another example of a low global implication risk... high on the reward (saving lives). Haiti... (which Clinton tried to influence unsuccessfully) is another example of a relatively low risk to the U.S. Darfur would be a mid-range risk.... and it's not clear what impact U.S. action would have had there... but the U.S. would have at least saved some lives.

But Kosovo for example...was another extremely risky endeavor. The International implications/risks of involvement were extremely high. No surprise that it didn't go well...and almost sparked a Russia-NATO conflict. Technically...(what many don't understand) is that there was a Russia-NATO confrontation in that war... but luckily the crisis did not turn into a shooting battle...and no lives were lost. But Russian troops stormed into Kosovo & physically seized the main airport to try to prevent or deter the NATO operation (unprecedented in the history of NATO). The point here is... NATO planners and U.S. policymakers were so clueless that they apparently didn't expect this (one of those unintended consequences. The bombing of the Chinese embassy...another unintended consequence. The killing of scores of civilians...another unintended consequence. Rallying the population around Milosevic... and civilians turning against the U.S. ...an unintended consequence. The operation - intended for a week or two- taking almost 3 months...sapping what little support existed for it... one of those unintended consequences...almost sparking WW III.... just another unintended consequence). The U.S. doesn't seem to anticipate these 'unintended consequences' very well and it shows that planners really don't have a grasp of these complex situations. This is why Gen. Dempsey made that point so strongly in his assessment of military action against Syria. Kosovo was one of the most dangerous situations since the Berlin standoff. That conflict was ill advised... and Clinton was reckless to go into the then Yugoslavia, further fracturing that country. There, just like in Syria, there was a civil war that the U.S. had no business getting involved in. Very high risk... with little return. The cost/benefit/risk on Kosovo screamed...'don't go in militarily!'. The aftermath required a decade of occupation by NATO troops...and billions of tax dollars & Euros spent. The U.S. is still feeling the fallout from that conflict.

There are a few places on the globe that carry this high global implication risk...and Syria is one of those sensitive places. These locations have the potential to spark a regional/global conflict...with widespread loss of life...and diplomatic chaos....and a huge risk to citizens...not to mention the monetary costs. Other examples are the Korean Peninsula, Russia-NATO, Russia-Black Sea, Russia-Eastern Europe/Caucuses/Georgia, Kashmir (India/Pak), India-China border, Suez Canal, Iran, China-Taiwan, China-Japan (land disputes)...and a few more.

Syria sits in a very sensitive location between four so-called U.S. "allies". Sits in Israel's neighborhood...and borders NATO. Yet Syria also hosts the Russians... who maintain a military base there...and who have special forces (advisors) fighting to save Assad right now. Russia has also dispatched naval vessels and materials to the Mediterranean in preparation for a possible showdown. It is not 100% clear what the Russian plans/reaction will be. China also supports Syria (but China is less likely to get involved). Russian and Chinese military commanders have been quoted as saying they may assist...but no one knows what they really mean.

The U.S. is also making the mistake of getting Turkey involved... why the Obama Administration would want to get a border State involved (where a war between the two could break out...forcing further U.S. involvement) makes no sense. There were good reasons why the U.S. didn't want Israel involved in Gulf Wars I & II. One of those reasons was that leaders did not want to spark an all out war between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Israel.

Syria has dangerous weapons and they possess significant capabilities to attack other Countries in the region. Syria also possesses Ship killing weapons (best way to describe them). The U.S. could very well lose ships/and or personnel.

There are many unintended consequences here....which is one of the reasons why commanders are so concerned. For example... the Russians have a fleet of naval ships operating in the area. There could be an accidental confrontation/war due to a miscommunication.

As the commanders have pointed out... an attack would make it more likely that the U.S. would have to get more deeply involved... and that would likely include an invasion with American troops at some point (that could be immediately or 2,3, or 5 years down the road... but bad no matter when). If Syria starts lobbing bombs across borders.. a ground assault will likely need to be ordered. There is also the risk of Iran joining in (Iran has some of its special forces troops/militia in Syria right now). Syria sits in a very dangerous, sensitive spot. It's not just a matter of shooting off some missiles and that's it. The U.S. has to be prepared for the fallout from that...and the bad potential is enormous... not worth the risk at all. Ironically...the Syrian people don't even want a U.S. attack. They don't want anymore war than what they already have. This is the feeling of Syrians in Syria... and expats here in the U.S. Obama & Co. didn't even think to ask them. They are all panicked right now. Obama isn't helping them... The talk of war is terrorizing them, stressing them, and traumatizing them even further. They know what happened with Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan...and how life in those countries worsened after U.S. military intervention. They know... because Syria took in tens of thousands of refugees from Iraq. They know the stories. They saw the aftermath for themselves. This attack and subsequent attacks could bring more harm to civilians than the alleged chemical attack...which I am not convinced was carried out by orders of Assad or his Army. Risking more harm to Syrians makes no sense... if in fact the U.S. really is concerned with civilians [tongue in cheek] (and of course it's not... it's more concerned with sending a message to Iran...and with Obama saving face).

An attack will likely worsen the situation (this is the assessment of the U.S. military) not improve it.

Lastly... this will be an illegal war.

I spelled out...pretty convincingly... in "Obama's War On Syria: Not just Illegal, But Reckless" why this war would be illegal, a bad idea, and not in the best interests of the U.S. It does not meet the requirements that the President himself stated that he would have..and suggested that he would hold himself to. (He lied!!!). Again, this war is about saving face... making a point...and sending a message to Iran... but it isn't worth that. That shouldn't be a reason to go to war. Obama is putting the U.S. on the line... including American troops... the rebounding economy... our security...all of it... on the line, just to make a point. Nonsensical when there are other ways to deal with the issue. Supporting rebels...and keeping a distance (as the Generals have advised) while pushing for a political settlement is the best option.

Americans want the focus to be on domestic needs. This is a President who proclaimed that America was "turning the page on a decade of war" and that we needed to do nation building at home...as opposed to launching wars. He is going back on his own core promises. It's unforgivable. It was the last straw for me... although I was headed there for some time.

I am pretty much anti-Obama at this point...and I am ok with that. I will make no apologies. Have lost readers...twitter followers... (But I don't care).

My Obama commentary from here on out will not be nice and friendly. Not holding back anymore. I have given this President 5 yrs... the kind of Presidency/legacy...that he proclaimed he wanted and that others had envisioned... a Presidency bringing substantive change to politics in Washington.... just hasn't panned out...and won't pan out.

Furthermore, most of what Dr. West and Tavis Smiley have stated about this President on the domestic front has turned out to be true (although I still don't agree with everything that they have said or the way they have framed their arguments). But overall... they have been mostly right. This President has no real domestic agenda... let alone a vision for people of color or the urban poor... (those who brought him to prominence). On both domestic policy...and foreign policy, Obama has turned out to be nothing more than a puppet for the traditional powers that be in Washington. Not the change agent that people (myself included) were hoping for. Syria is just the latest in a string of examples that make this truth painfully clear.

You say you are disappointing with me... But I say... you should be even more disappointed in HIM...in Barack Obama. Where is your outrage?

I would be highly upset at this point if I campaigned for him.