• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

ecofarm said:
Some member claimed Al N is 6%. I don't remember who, pretty much a random person, but it's good enough to counter total idiocy.

You got a number?
Click to expand...

So you have no source...noted.


Have a nice day.
 
I think Barack is lying through his teeth.

Assad has turned it around - to some extent.

And as long as he doesn't use chemical weapons, America will stay away.

So, he decides to use chemical weapons on such a small scale as to be virtually useless strategically...but just enough so that America has the excuse it needs to start arming his enemies?

I HIGHLY doubt it.


Where is this evidence Barack - you incompetent, macroeconomic imbecilic, totally untrustworthy, Constitution ignoring, control freak?


I bet he has nothing.

He is just desperate to turn the media away from his pathetic presidency.

Impeach this dickhead.


Don't have enough evidence?

Then tap his phone line and get it.


And btw - I am neither Dem or Rep.
 
Last edited:
I wonder is that a wise decision..i think that's gonna worsen the situation..but nevertheless the government knows what is better..so we should all leave it upon them.
 
The U.S. may have blown up the idea of a peace conference that it had co-sponsored. The anti-Assad movement had all but rejected talks and the possibility of receiving arms will increase its incentive to try to settle the conflict on the battlefield. The result will likely be a prolonged intensity of a sectarian conflict that has claimed some 93,000 lives. Furthermore, Russia is unlikely to be indifferent to the U.S. and possibly British and French arms supplies and will likely go beyond its existing arms commitments to the Assad regime. No matter the outcome, U.S. interests are not likely to materially benefit. There remains no concrete indication that a successor regime in Syria would be more hospitable to U.S. interests, more willing to seek peace with Israel, or that it would exclude the extreme elements that are an integral part of its coalition. Iran, also, is unlikely to shift course from its pursuit of regional hegemony. Hezbollah would lose an arms supply corridor, but one can't rule out a rapproachment aimed at Israel.
 
the_recruit said:
U.S. to increase military support to Syria rebels | Reuters

Just announced. The US has confirmed it has undeniable proof that Assad in fact used chemical weapons against his own people and, as a result, the US will begin supplying lethal military aid to the rebels for the first time since the war began 2 years ago.

About damn time.
Click to expand...

Didn't Saddam Husein use them against his own people in Iraq on a much grander scale while 150 Syrians are claimed to have been killed? Obama has opened the coffin now. Why are we getting in to this quagmire over the deaths of 150 people? Is this a threat to our national security? Didn't we just get done screaming about the mistake in going to Iraq? Are we making great strides in Afghanistan? Is Obama willing to go toe to toe with the Russians? We just refuse to learn from the stalemate in Korea and the abomination of Viet Nam. This government laughs at sending our young troops to the slaughter while none of them have any hint of service in the military themselves barring McCain and a couple others.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Do we need more of this: Al-Qubeir massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?
Click to expand...
No we dont and you've made my point for me, both sides are bad actors and the best thing would be for us to stay out. Let the Saudis & Turks supply them. The thought of our own weapons ending up in Al Qaeda hands to someday possibly be used against the American or even Israeli people is unacceptable and if it ever did happen they're blood would be on Obamas hands the same way its on his hands for Fast & Furious scandal.
 
Fallenangel said:
I've got some questions for the "rebel" supporters here;

A. What is the name of the moderate or/and secular group that you want to support?
B. How much support this group has among the overall Syrian population?
C. Let's say this group "wins" and they manage to establish "democratic" elections in Syria, who do you think would win in these elections?
D. How you are proposing to control the arms distribution (destination) after they would be given to the field commanders on the ground?

Cheers,
Fallen.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. I heard this morning MSNBC anmed "some" group we in our righteous might plan to support. I never heard of them and neither has anyone else. Even if I had heard of them I would be my home 50% are linked to causes that hate America. How many young Americans have to fall for these bullshet political quagmires sent to war by filthy scumbag politicans that at the time of their youth never joined any military service because they are afraid to get hurt. We now have stepped back in to the shet pile of another cold war and this time Putin is running the show and he is no Gorbachov.
 
ecofarm said:
I bet you think it's gonna be WW3. The Russians will get the Chinese and then Iran will nuke us.

No, dude, we're gonna tear the **** out of that scumbag regime and Putin can suck a dick.
Click to expand...

Wanna bet!?
 
DA60 said:
I think Barack is lying through his teeth.

Assad has turned it around - to some extent.

And as long as he doesn't use chemical weapons, America will stay away.

So, he decides to use chemical weapons on such a small scale as to be virtually useless strategically...but just enough so that America has the excuse it needs to start arming his enemies?

I HIGHLY doubt it.


Where is this evidence Barack - you incompetent, macroeconomic imbecilic, totally untrustworthy, Constitution ignoring, control freak?


I bet he has nothing.

He is just desperate to turn the media away from his pathetic presidency.

Impeach this dickhead.


Don't have enough evidence?

Then tap his phone line and get it.


And btw - I am neither Dem or Rep.
Click to expand...

Naaaw!!! Obama would never lie about this, after all he's so truthful on everything else
 
One would think that we have enough experience in involving ourselves in the Civil Wars of others not to do it again. I guess not. And how does the administration know who the 'good' rebels and those who support terrorists organizations? Do they wear different colors like the gangs? Has Syria attacked the United States lately? If we are so concerned about how things happen internally in foreign countries, why haven't we invaded Mexico? People are dying there all the time. Oh wait, we did get involved didn't we? Gun running, I forgot. And this wonderful administration who is going to save the world is the same one who wants to know what kind of books I read or the content of my prayer.

It's the same mentality that gave us the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. It's the same mentality by the same people who wanted to know why Robert Bork grew a beard, delved into his movie rental history, and asked him if he was an atheist. And before some here bring up Iraq please go back and research the likes of Hillary, Kerry and others and their comments about Hussein.
 
Iron Yank said:
No we dont and you've made my point for me, both sides are bad actors and the best thing would be for us to stay out.
Click to expand...

I have to question why on earth we should sit back and let thousands of people be killed by their own government, which evidently has used chemical weapons against them.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I have to question why on earth we should sit back and let thousands of people be killed by their own government, which evidently has used chemical weapons against them.
Click to expand...

Soviet Union
China
Cuba
Cambodia
Uganda

There are more, but, hopefully you get the idea. BTW: Hussein used chemical weapons against his countrymen. I take it you had no problem with the Iraq war.
 
donsutherland1 said:
There remains no concrete indication that a successor regime in Syria would be more hospitable to U.S. interests, more willing to seek peace with Israel, or that it would exclude the extreme elements that are an integral part of its coalition.
Click to expand...

Who cares? There are no guarantees in life. As long as the new regime doesn't slaughter its own by the tens of thousands and gas them, it's a win. Not everything one does must be of direct benefit to oneself. Sometimes, one's just gotta do the right thing.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
You think I'm okay with what happened then?



Removing Saddam Hussein from power was a great thing.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your position. But, what gives us the the authority to become involved in what is a Civil War? Again, Vietnam should have answered that once and for all.
 
hfd said:
But, what gives us the the authority to become involved in what is a Civil War?
Click to expand...

The authority? Not sure it has to do with authority, just seeing where tragedy has unfolded and having the humane responsibility to respond.
 
hfd said:
Soviet Union
China
Cuba
Cambodia
Uganda

There are more, but, hopefully you get the idea. BTW: Hussein used chemical weapons against his countrymen. I take it you had no problem with the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

I have problems with us sending Americans soldiers into Iraq, not supporting rebels who opposed Saddam. The Russians and Iranians are sending arms to Assad, we need to counter that.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The authority? Not sure it has to do with authority, just seeing where tragedy has unfolded and having the humane responsibility to respond.
Click to expand...

So you are of the opinion that we should police the world?
 
hfd said:
I appreciate your position. But, what gives us the the authority to become involved in what is a Civil War? Again, Vietnam should have answered that once and for all.
Click to expand...

There is a difference in sending arms and not troops. Why is it OK for Russia and Iran to be involved and not us?
 
hfd said:
So you are of the opinion that we should police the world?
Click to expand...

Police it? No, just do something when such a tragedy like this occurs.
 
iguanaman said:
I have problems with us sending Americans soldiers into Iraq, not supporting rebels who opposed Saddam. The Russians and Iranians are sending arms to Assad, we need to counter that.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. It worked out really well in Vietnam didn't it? Would you send grunts into Syria?
 
hfd said:
So you are of the opinion that we should police the world?
Click to expand...

Policemen are bodies not weapons. We must not let others overpower the will of the people of Syria, it sets a terrible precedent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom