It's Complicated: Obama to Aid Both Sides In Syrian Conflict

User avatar

“What I'm saying is, that if you haven't been in the Situation Room… Unless you've been involved in those conversations, then it's kind of hard for you to understand the complexity of the situation and how we have to not rush into one more war in the Middle East.”

-- President Obama in an interview with the Public Broadcasting Service.

Hours after explaining in a PBS interview that the Middle East was too complicated for average Amerikkan dummkopfs to understand, President Obama tacitly admitted it is also too complicated for him to understand as he announced his decision to send troops and arms to both sides in the 2+ year-old Syrian kinetic military action.

Noting that the US has "serious interests in Syria" (or was it Syrian interests in serious...whatever), a country whose primary export appears to be kinetic military actions, the president declined to elaborate as to what these interests are but observed that "Syria is not Iraq", as well as not being Afghanistan, Turkey, Chad, Borneo or North Dakota. About this time, the interview was interrupted for a PBS pledge break so the audience never got to find out what the Syrian interests in serious are.

But numerous smart analysts who assure us they have many impressive credentials explain that the president is caught between a rock and a hard place with regards to Syria. On the one hand, the existing government led by President Bashar Hafez al-Assad is supported by Iran and Russia and we don't want them to gain more influence in the region, which would happen if Assad prevails. On the other hand, al-Qaeda affiliated forces now make up 7 of the 9 main rebel groups opposing Assad's government and we don't want them to gain more influence in the region, either. Staying neutral is also not an option as then we would lose influence in the region no matter who wins.

The experts were unanimous in agreeing that arming and sending forces to both sides was the best move as it would assure Amerikka of being "part of the solution instead of part of the problem" in the Middle East and insure Obama's legacy as the bestest president yet forever. In addition, they explained, "BOOOOOSH!"

In making the announcement, the White House did not elaborate as to the nature of the aid each side would receive. Officials speculated the president could send the army to aid President Assad's side while sending the Navy and/or Air Force to aid the rebels since they have very little air or sea power of their own. It is presumed the government's side would have access to the air and naval forces of Iran and/or Russia.

"We want to be as fair as possible", said a spokesperson.

No time frame was announced for the mobilization of American forces but aids stressed that the conflict in serious... Syria was of the utmost importance in the president's mind. "It's on the top shelf of his IN box" noted press secretary Jay Carney as the president departed Washington for a month long trip to appear at numerous fundraisers and play several hundred rounds of golf.

User avatar
Comrades, let's face it - let's, right now, get to the point (even though, at this point, it doesn't make any difference) -

America is too wealthy. Especially the 1%, who continue to not pay their Fair Share™.

And that's the crux of the biscuit, my dear fellow travelers - that's why we elected Dear Leader in the first place, when it comes right down to it: somebody's got to find a way to get rid of all those unnecessary tax dollars.

Yes, I know - Comrade President Barackzebub Husseinovich Obama has gone on a gazillion or so multi-million dollar vacations, plus all that golf all over the place, plus Mooochelle and the Girls and THEIR more or less continual vacations, but it's just not enough.

As we all know, that's why Dear Leader gave the Misloom Brotherhood in Egypt all those F-16s and tanks and such. But it's STILL not enough!

Even an estimated 2.2 billion tax dollars spent last year alone on providing Obamaphones to the Occupy movement didn't get us there.

Which brings us to now.

The CurrentThinking™ (which eventually will lead to the CurrentTruth™) is that, by giving money and supplies to both sides in any given war, we'll finally be able to balance the budget and run out of money!

It's simply brilliant in its brilliant simplicity, comrades.

User avatar
So we can be for it and against it? This is simultaneously glorious and a disaster!

User avatar
Our exalted (Nobel Prize-winning, soon-to-be knighted) leader is only being true to the Party slogan, "War is Peace." Nothing brings the people's people together in a spirit of brotherly brotherhood better than a good old-fashioned war to end war. As to the ignorant proles' pathetic question of which side we are to be "on" and which we are to hate with every fiber of our being, I can answer with total certainty that it shall always and forever be...consistently the same ally and the same enemy.

(I do so regret that these comments are not regularly updated with current information, as I would not want to be found in error at some later date.)

User avatar
Tovarichi wrote:So we can be for it and against it? This is simultaneously glorious and a disaster!

Yes, Tovi!

It's the eternal dichotomy.
(i.e. BS)

User avatar
Just send them in on both sides with one a red team and one a blue team. Naturally, the blue team should win overseas just as it does at home, even if the side they are playing for loses.


User avatar
Tovarichi wrote:So we can be for it and against it? This is simultaneously glorious and a disaster!

Not only that, but if Comrade Kommodore Kerry ever runs for Dear Leader again, he can tell the assembled multitudes that he was against this kinetic military action while he was for it!