Karma Train Has Stopped at Obama Station - Syria!

Arms will be given to the rebels to bolster up their chances for success. Is President Obama ready to commit the US to another war?

Did You Just Tell Me No Britian?


Should the US go in to Syria with France and Save the people from the Syrian President Bashar Assad?

See results without voting
President Bashar al-Assad
President Bashar al-Assad | Source

Seeking for the aid of allies in his quest to bring retribution to the Syrian nation for its atrocities towards its own people, President Obama faced rebuff from long-time ally The United Kingdom! The over one hundred years partner of the United States of America has turned its collective back on the USA when president Obama solicited the nation for its support to enforce international law in Syria.

Why have the Brits decided to go against its long held tradition of supporting America? The Karma train is now pulled into the Obama station.

During the Iraq War, President Obama and he Democratic party accused President Bush of unilateral action against Iraq even though he had over 40 nations supporting him including Britain. Though it was a fruitless mission to find weapons of mass destruction, Bush did not have to go in alone. He had, as mentioned before, over 40 nations at his side who collectively saw to the freedom of a nation of people despite not finding the weapons.

President Obama is now in the presidential chair seeking help without the traditional ally of Britain. It almost seems as if the idle words cried during the President's senatorial career return to echo in his ear that since he falsely accused his predecessor of unilateral behavior he would be put in a situation where he would have to consider the same issue--save President Obama's support is no were near that of former president George W Bush's international support.


Now, President Obama has the chance to liberate a nation of people who are being oppressed and killed. How many allies does he have? One! France!

France historically, has not been known for its support of American policy. Currently relations with the French are cordial. Above 50 %of Americans view France amicably and above 50 % of Frenchmen view Americans favorably.

It may be because of who is president in America.

Karma Train!

The nay-sayers of the Iraq War, basically the Democratic party, faced the same situation with Syria, but with a president allied to their party. Will there be cries that President Obama is acting unilaterally with only one ally to go into Syria?

This ally, France, is still actively against the Iraq War and its consequential outcome according to Geoffroy Clavel in his article for the Huff Post World; however, the French have the determination to see that Syria and other hotbeds of injustice around the world get some military action?

What is the Karma Train? President Obama faced possible unilateral action against a nation when he supported unfounded claims of unilateral behavior on Bush's behalf. Remember, Bush had over 40 nations supporting his action, which is clearly not a unilateral action.

Obama has made the statement that it is unacceptable about what is going on in Syria. With no international support, Syria is just another Iraq waiting to happen.

In the words of a great ancient American religious leader, "...that which ye do send out shall return unto you again, and be restored..."



Britain Said No to the US to Help Syria

  • A change in policy of over 100 years. Why?

France is on board to help Syria (And anybody else it seems!)

  • A chance from ten years ago! Why?

President Obama faced what he accused President Bush of doing, going unilateral.

  • The president did not act.

You Choose

Should America follow the British in this instance or follow France? Because it definitely is not leading.

See results without voting

What did President Obama do?

He could go into Syria with a small force so that he could follow through on his convictions and appease the international public but offending Russia or he could go in with the same gusto that President Bush did and risk offending the permanent members of he UN.

Either way, there are hard choices to make and people will die. The best choice costs the most lives initially but frees people for generations. The other choice saves lives initially but helps to perpetuate dominion by Syrian President Bashar Assad.

France has committed to help the rebel forces in Syria. Arms will be given to the rebels to bolster up their chances for success. President Obama chose not to commit the US to another war?

© 2013 Rodric Johnson

More by this Author


ikepius profile image

ikepius 24 months ago from Twittosphere: @ikepius

Finally, here is something that we can disagree on! Bush did not go to Iraq to stop Iraqis from killing each other... The evidence is that Bush killed more civillians than the Iraqis were capable of killing by themselves!! I will refrain from posting any links here, but I assure you the numbers are quite staggering.

The WMD debacle is also there: were did he get his information from?

Rodric29 profile image

Rodric29 24 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

I don't know if I disagree with you so much as I am misinformed. I know that many died in Iraq and are still dying because of events that started as far back as the Iran Contra. I believe that all of these events are connected and follow after each other. I am not certain how to convey my view in an appropriate way; so, I have not written about it.

President Bush is my favorite president. He had to make hard choices that hurt many families; but those same choices helped others. I am not sure if the end justifies the means in all cases. I read his biography. He is the only president for which I did. I assume that is why he is my favorite.

ikepius profile image

ikepius 23 months ago from Twittosphere: @ikepius

SO you think Bush made tough choices?

Maybe you are right. But has anything good come out of his choices.?

I think I highlighted some of the Social Consequences so now I will only point out how much the Region has been messed up. ISIS AND ALQAEDA should be practically thanking Bush now!

Its only a matter of time before Bush and his fellow War Criminals face the music!

Rodric29 profile image

Rodric29 23 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

I understand your pallor towards Bush and the ilk because of policies they put into effect that provided the environment for unhealthy weeds of hate flourish in the Middle East. It is important to remember that those policies did not begin with Bush and it continues with Obama right now!

Do you have any hubs you plan to write the show where Bush is a war criminal or is that just hyperbole? If there were charges that could be put against Bush I am sure they would have be listed by now.

I am trying to see your point of view. I am willing to consider well researched evidence. If you are expressing an opinion based on subjective dislike of Bush I can accept that as well. I would like to see the evidence of Bush's evil, not just accusations of such based on a subjective view of historical occurrences.

If I know where you are coming from, your position, which seems to be extreme Left in American politics, I can know how better to respond to you and we cam have a worthwhile dialogue here.

ikepius profile image

ikepius 23 months ago from Twittosphere: @ikepius

Hi Rodric! for some reason it seems they would not let me reply to this post! okay here it goes!

Please read a Wikipedia article titled 'Legality of the Iraqi Invasion'

also 'Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq' ... please read The Guardian article titled 'Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan ..'

Then please research the Chilcot report..

Then lets take it from there.

Rodric29 profile image

Rodric29 23 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

I will ikepius.

Rodric29 profile image

Rodric29 23 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

I read those articles and come to the conclusion that if the wars were illegal then the UN Secretary is to blame for not being forthcoming with condemning it in the face of the US and other nations who participated. If the wars were illegal, then Kofi Annon should stand accused of not fulfilling his role as UN General

Also, the difference with Syria and Iraq is that multiple nation went in with the Iraq War and only the US wants to go in with Syria.

ikepius profile image

ikepius 23 months ago from Twittosphere: @ikepius

Hi Rodric! You fail to recognise that the U.S is a very powerful country. Perhaps more powerful than Kofi Annan's U.N.

The major difference between Iraq and Syria is the fact that Bush wanted oil, and so made claims about W.M.Ds. Syria is in turmoil and Obama has good reason to go in, but no one will support him because nobody wants another Bush!

Rodric29 profile image

Rodric29 23 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Bush did not get any oil from the Iraqi invasion; so, why are you still claiming that he wanted oil? When did Bush drill for oil or take over any oil fields in Iraq? He went in with a coalition of nations and did exactly what the UN resolutions dictated.

Now, this is about support. Obama does not have support because of his unilateral decisions, especially the healthcare law. Nobody wanted it and we still got it! He forced it through and now it is failing just as predicted. It is more expensive to get coverage now than it was pre-health care law.

ikepius profile image

ikepius 23 months ago from Twittosphere: @ikepius

Oh yes he did!

Please read the following:


2. Iraq Invasion was about oil- The Guardian

3. Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil- CNN

SO my brother as a Christian you do know that listening to News Sources controlled by the Devil is the same as listening to the Devil. Do not be Deceived!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article