• 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.

But therein lies the real problem. The United States itself is a "half job" these days with neither side agreeing on what should be done - and so it is with their 'Allies'. There will be more riots on American streets, more political advantages sought through dissension, more money being spent that has to be borrowed from nations watching from the sidelines, ever more enemies created, and all with the added uncertainty of not knowing precisely who the enemy is at the moment.

It's about time the United States, like other medium to large powers, assumed observer status rather than jumping into further uncertainly and its long term consequences. I realize where this might possibly lead for the Syrian people and the Middle East in general, but waiting would seem to be the only pragmatic thing to do at this time. No more blood and treasure wasted on a world that will only turn on Americans the first chance they get anyway.

its about time for the US to split into two, since it has two distinct ideologies which fundamentally oppose each other. How long till we have our own civil war?
 
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.

You could have some valid reasons for hoping that the US gets involved in Syria and those could be discussed here. But to rely on the trumped up charge of Assad's army using chem/bio weapons is definitely not one of them. There are just too many good reasons for all of us to not accept the claims.

Assad would be inviting intervention by the US by crossing Obama's red line. A foolish move when he clearly has the initiative over the terrorist side.

Would Assad risk that for the sake of killing a debatable number of something like 100 to 150, of which it appears aren't military and of military gain?

Carla Del Ponte of the UN investigative team was suspecting that the chem/bio weapons use appeared to be on the side of the terrorists before she fell silent?

This is just not passing the smell test but we do know that Wes Clarke blew the whistle on the US's intent to do Syria on it's way to Iran.

The best hope now is that Obama will continue to drag his feet on allout support. If he doesn't, the US will again find itself in a cocked up phony war for phony reasons. Nothing was apparently learned from Iraq!
 
The bolded is completely false. There has yet to be any evidence presented as to who used chemical weapons.

The bolded is not a true/false statement. It's a hypothetical. Saying it's false is nonsensical.

I just had a massive argument with JredBaron about this. We know that chemical weapons have been used, but we don't have any evidence of who used them.

YOU may not have evidence that Assad used them. Various governments are claiming they have intelligence that proves Assad used them. You don't have access to all (or probably any) of that intelligence, and so you are not in a position to make the claim that it is not known.

Besides. Personally, I think the use of chemical weapons is largely irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, the deteriorating situation in Syria crossed the threshold for intervention a long time ago and had nothing to do with chemical weapons use.
 
The bolded is not a true/false statement. It's a hypothetical. Saying it's false is nonsensical.



YOU may not have evidence that Assad used them. Various governments are claiming they have intelligence that proves Assad used them. You don't have access to all (or probably any) of that intelligence, and so you are not in a position to make the claim that it is not known.

Besides. Personally, I think the use of chemical weapons is largely irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, the deteriorating situation in Syria crossed the threshold for intervention a long time ago and had nothing to do with chemical weapons use.

Now that's being honest! You have immediately crumbled on your commitment that Assad's regime has been responsible for the chem/bio weapons use. Now any old reason will fill the bill!

Now we will see if you have the courage to get specific on that?
 
:lamo



. .

Well, you did crumble on your assertion that the chem/bio weapons use mattered didn't you! I was just hoping that you would stick with me on it and start in on giving some justifications that you have alluded to for US involvement.

Will this be an indication of how quickly the American people will crumble on the fake justification and will it mean that it's going to be acceptable to them regardless? I suspect that most Americans won't get all that involved but I also suspect that some real and substantial justification is going to be needed if the tea partiers don't run from their commitment to 'no more US wars'.

Rand Paul is being watched very closely now. He must be really hating that! This is too big to flipflop on so soon!
 
Another thing I want to clear up are all the warnings about us repeating history - presumably alluding to us supplying weapons to the Afghans. YOU are the ones who need to brush up on your history. The Mujahideen =/= The Taliban. The Mujahideen did not 'become' the Taliban. Just because they both look the same to you - bearded Afghan militants with AK-47s doesn't mean they are the same. They are completely different groups, formed for completely different reasons, fighting for completely different goals. The Taliban didn't even exist during the period in which we were supplying weapons to the Mujahideen. The Taliban is a Pakistan proxy that emerged from the madrassas in Pakistan. The fact that once the Soviets withdrew and the Mujahideen dissolved and some of the Mujahidden joined the Taliban is irrelevant because most of the Mujahideen did not. In fact many Mujahideen fought directly against the Taliban in the ensuing Afghan civil war - most notably Massoud who led the Northern Alliance.

The Taliban didn't seize power in Afghanistan because we gave stinger missiles to the Mujahideen. The Taliban seized power in Afghanistan because we turned our back on the region once the Soviet Union left because we felt we didn't have any critical interests in the region, leaving Pakistan to have its way with Afghanistan. Now THAT is a mistake we are threatening to repeat.
 
Well, you did crumble on your assertion that the chem/bio weapons use mattered didn't you! I was just hoping that you would stick with me on it and start in on giving some justifications that you have alluded to for US involvement.

Will this be an indication of how quickly the American people will crumble on the fake justification and will it mean that it's going to be acceptable to them regardless? I suspect that most Americans won't get all that involved but I also suspect that some real and substantial justification is going to be needed if the tea partiers don't run from their commitment to 'no more US wars'.

Rand Paul is being watched very closely now. He must be really hating that! This is too big to flipflop on so soon!

0449_gmujt.gif
 
Sorry, I'm not interested in getting into an insult match with you. Your replies to me are yours and reflect only on you. Thanks for the early heads up on your behaviour!

lookatyou.gif
 
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Republican party which at this point in history is split.
Judging from your response to me, I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was referring to. I was referring to those who weeks ago were criticizing Obama for not being a blowhard and commit toinvading Syria because of the red line comment he made last year, without careful deliberation and investigation.

What is his decision?
In response to what I said, here's all that matters.

What we know then from the administration’s public and on the record statements is this: the White House is going to do more than what it was doing before.

Obama's Syria Policy a Mess | The Weekly Standard


So youre assuming hypocrisy with no facts.
Not at all, I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm assuming those who criticized Obama weeks ago for not taking action before carefully investigating the evidence are now singing his praises, since the "red line" was apparently so important to them.

Of course, if they are not, then that would suggest hypocrisy, but I didn't say anything like that. You did, but I didn't.
 
the economist:

Syria: hard men prevail - The Economist

meet obama's new allies

A BLACK flag flies over the governor’s headquarters in Raqqa, a city of 250,000 people in Syria’s north-east which is the biggest so far that the rebels have captured wholesale from President Bashar Assad’s regime. It is also a base for Jabhat al-Nusra (Victory Front), an extreme armed opposition group in Syria with which al-Qaeda in Iraq recently claimed to have merged. But the group does not dominate Raqqa. At least four other rebel outfits, mainly Salafist ones whose members say they want to emulate the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, vie with a bunch of civilian councils for power over this tribal Sunni city, plastering its walls with rival graffiti. Yet in the eastern provinces as a whole, Jabhat al-Nusra has emerged as a hugely powerful presence. Among rebel fighters across the country it is probably the most effective single group.

By contrast, down the road in the gold-curtained living room of a small house near the city centre, members of a more moderate Islamist lot, al-Farouq, admit that they have grown weaker. They used to control the border crossing into Turkey at Tel Abyad, a prime piece of territory for arms and money, along with another crossing farther west. But that has since been grabbed away from them.

Sometimes Jabhat al-Nusra imposes itself on other rebels by force. Two months ago it tried to assassinate Abu Azzam, the local Farouq unit’s bear of a leader. In the event he had to flee to Turkey, while his men were left directionless and disorganised. Funds and weapons, which one Farouq member says only ever came in “injections just often enough to keep us alive”, dried up.

Raqqa offers a snapshot of what is going on among the rebels elsewhere in Syria. The more moderate ones are now a minority. On one side they have been squeezed by Salafist factions, especially in the rebel-controlled east. On the other, they have been pushed back territorially by the regime as it regains ground in the more populated west of the country.

For Western governments pondering whether to arm the rebels rather than merely advise them and provide non-lethal support, Jabhat al-Nusra is the biggest worry. By some estimates, it now has 6,000 carefully vetted men, mainly Syrians but under foreign leadership. Its global jihadist ideology justifies violence to bring about a nation where all Muslims unite. “Most groups are a reaction to the regime, whereas we are fighting for a vision,” explains one of its fighters.

Though Jabhat al-Nusra says it gets most of its weapons from the spoils of battle, it also enjoys murky sources of private funding, including regular payments from al-Qaeda in Iraq. Since it captured oil wells and grain silos, it has been able—more effectively than other outfits—to set up basic services and a rudimentary administration in the areas it controls, as well as sell off goods and oil for cash. It is probably the most disciplined of all its rivals.

Yet it is not only Jabhat al-Nusra which expresses extreme Islamist views. Though Ahrar al-Sham has more local aims, its comrades are also vehemently Islamist. So are many of the other forces that have gained ground among the rebels, thanks in part to Gulf backing. Rebel groups that echo more moderate and secular attitudes, for which Syria used to be praised, are smaller and less powerful.

A big problem for Western governments is how to decide which groups to back and how to funnel help to them. The rebels have built informal networks but still have no effective command structure. Since it was set up in December, their Supreme Military Command, led by General Salim Idriss, a Sunni defector from Mr Assad’s army, includes some able commanders but still lacks the cash and arms to match either the regime’s forces or Jabhat al-Nusra, which ignores the military command. Moreover, arms sent to one group could easily fall into the hands of another. Rebels often switch allegiance from one lot to another, often depending on its success.

The rebels are no angels either. Atrocities and kidnappings have been carried out by them, too. A leader of a group that broke away from Farouq recently horrified potential sponsors by being shown on a video biting a body-part of a member of Mr Assad’s armed forces who had been captured and killed. Corruption is rife among the rebels, sighs one of their commanders, berating his peers for shunning battles but wanting to “get a new car and a second wife”. And jealousy between rebel groups over the supply of cash and arms is fomenting strife between them. Earlier this month, two rebel commanders were assassinated in Raqqa alone. Rebels from more secular-minded or more moderately Islamist groups speak openly of a second war to come—against Jabhat al-Nusra.

these are the kind of people we are all grateful we do not have to fight beside, only ally ourselves with

more than 100 americans have been killed by our allies, whom we arm and train and fund, in obama's war, afghanistan, 62 in 2012 alone, 3 more just last week

Afghanistan Insider Attack Kills 3 Americans - HuffPo

are you sure this guy knows what he's doing
 
Judging from your response to me, I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was referring to. I was referring to those who weeks ago were criticizing Obama for not being a blowhard and commit toinvading Syria because of the red line comment he made last year, without careful deliberation and investigation.

In response to what I said, here's all that matters.



Obama's Syria Policy a Mess | The Weekly Standard


Not at all, I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm assuming those who criticized Obama weeks ago for not taking action before carefully investigating the evidence are now singing his praises, since the "red line" was apparently so important to them.

Of course, if they are not, then that would suggest hypocrisy, but I didn't say anything like that. You did, but I didn't.

Obama is without a doubt 'not' behind the action of arming Syria's terrorist fighters. His hand has been forced. It's just too patently obvious that there has not been any use of chem/bio weapons by Assad's regime and Obama is smart enough to know that. Everybody who isn't in denial should know the truth of course. If Assad was going to use chem/bio weapons then there would be solid incontrovertible proof such as hundreds or even thousands dying in the streets.

What a sick joke it will be if Obama goes down in history as another US president who started a phony war for phony reasons.
 
its about time for the US to split into two, since it has two distinct ideologies which fundamentally oppose each other. How long till we have our own civil war?

There are some talking secession but that's unlikely to happen. America needs a strong leader with respect for traditional values who can bring people together, but I can't yet see anyone yet who can do it. Another BHO clone, like Hillary, would destroy the country. The people can't afford to sleepwalk through another election.
 
Obama is without a doubt 'not' behind the action of arming Syria's terrorist fighters. His hand has been forced. It's just too patently obvious that there has not been any use of chem/bio weapons by Assad's regime and Obama is smart enough to know that. Everybody who isn't in denial should know the truth of course. If Assad was going to use chem/bio weapons then there would be solid incontrovertible proof such as hundreds or even thousands dying in the streets.

What a sick joke it will be if Obama goes down in history as another US president who started a phony war for phony reasons.

US says Assad used chemical weapons

BBC News - US says it will give military aid to Syria rebels

It seems the 'sick joke' President is crossing that line in the sand.
 
Never has the US gotten itself into such patently obvious lies in order to justify war in the ME. Or in this case so far just leading up to war that will surely become inevitable. The claims of Assad using chem/bio weapons are easily proven as false! The US just better hope that it has Carla Del Ponte in their bag by now or that could prove very embarrassing.

But on the positive side, Dems will be against it is appreciable numbers. But the wild card being played this time around is that the baggers/libertarians are going to have to oppose it too in order to maintain their credibility. And the really good part is that they may be in a position to win the day on the Repub side!

Will they have what it takes to overrule McCain and his warmongering ilk?
 
warmongering ilk:

The highest-profile spur for action came on Tuesday: Former President Bill Clinton, speaking in New York, cast Syria in road-not-taken terms, implying that Obama faced a moral crossroads comparable to the one Clinton himself faced when he decided to not to intervene during the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s.

At meetings this week, Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel concluded that a more direct U.S. intervention — one that includes arming the rebels or possibly imposing a no-fly zone — was needed to stem the tide of Assad victories in the past two weeks.

Administration officials described a vigorous internal debate, capped off by a Hagel-Kerry meeting Thursday without Obama — that exposed significant divisions within Obama’s team. Donilon and Hagel, while not opposed to stepped-up action, were less eager for a more aggressive response than Kerry and Donilon’s successor, Susan Rice.

Syria chemical weapons: President Obama's forced hand - POLITICO.com
 
Never has the US gotten itself into such patently obvious lies in order to justify war in the ME. Or in this case so far just leading up to war that will surely become inevitable. The claims of Assad using chem/bio weapons are easily proven as false! The US just better hope that it has Carla Del Ponte in their bag by now or that could prove very embarrassing.

But on the positive side, Dems will be against it is appreciable numbers. But the wild card being played this time around is that the baggers/libertarians are going to have to oppose it too in order to maintain their credibility. And the really good part is that they may be in a position to win the day on the Repub side!

Will they have what it takes to overrule McCain and his warmongering ilk?

The ilks will battle it out but at this point its difficult to tell which ilk will win.
 
There are reports that the Syria No Fly Zone and bombings will start this month. There is a reason the Pentagon pushed back at the Syria No Fly Zone story … because the decision has been made.

Pentagon pushes back against Syria no-fly zone report - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

The Preznit Obomber, serial fascist and Nazi butt pipe, will set in motion a chain of events in Syria which he will not be able to undo. First off, the No Fly Zone has been completed, and then the bombings will rain down from U.S. fighter planes which Israel already has done. Next, the thousands of American troops will be necessary to battle a huge ground war taking years, with horrific casualties. Then, when the battle becomes a stalemate, the U.S. will have to have new American army recruits to keep the quagmire going. Iran will destablize the war will broaden into mass carnage, sanctions, disease, starvation and conflagration. World opinion will solidify against Obomber the fascist and the U.S. Nazi aggressors disregard for human life on a mass scale in Syria as was the case in Iraq. The U.S. will lose after having exhausted options and available U.S. troops stationed nearby.

Here is a video of what the Obama secretly funded, trained terrorists in Syria are really doing the last two years hidden from the American people but once you get past the COINTELPRO MEDIA censors like the NYT, CNN, NBC, PBS, NPR, etc.

WARNING GRAPHIC



:shock:
NOOOO!!! Why the **** is it our business to get involved in a civil war!? I also suspect that the gov could just be totally making this **** up to get invovled. Also i suspect that we have already been arming them. Why the hell should we get on a side that allies itself with Al-Qaeda groups?
This is so stupid.

Because, DemSocialist - its like I've been saying for over two years, Obama isnt about principled leadership, hes about continuing the NeoCon doctrine for more oil wars and pure greed. The only principle to the NeoCon war machine is is more treasure and conquest. These threats are all just manufactured from abroad, thats why the FBI gets caught staging terror threats 95% of the time. The NeoCons decided they want all the marbles and they dont care who they kill to get them, innocents, non-threatening countries, whoever. And Obama has been groomed to carry out the Cheney Energy Policy by the NeoCons and the CFR.



 
Syria is a distraction

Obama has finally decided to arm Al Qaeda to take the attention away from all his corruption and scandals

Comical and embarrassing
 
Because, DemSocialist - its like I've been saying for over two years, Obama isnt about principled leadership, hes about continuing the NeoCon doctrine for more oil wars and pure greed. The only principle to the NeoCon war machine is is more treasure and conquest. These threats are all just manufactured from abroad, thats why the FBI gets caught staging terror threats 95% of the time. The NeoCons decided they want all the marbles and they dont care who they kill to get them, innocents, non-threatening countries, whoever. And Obama has been groomed to carry out the Cheney Energy Policy by the NeoCons and the CFR.







Heya Kane
yo2.gif
.....yeah I mentioned them trying to reopen TAP line almost a year ago. ;)

I doubt they reopen it tho.....it would have to be totally rebuilt.
 
Heya Kane
yo2.gif
.....yeah I mentioned them trying to reopen TAP line almost a year ago. ;)

I doubt they reopen it tho.....it would have to be totally rebuilt.

:mrgreen::peace

Obama has been groomed to carry out the Cheney Energy Policy by the NeoCons and the CFR types (i.e. - Bill Clinton, Hillary, Zbigniew Brzezinski) It was reported that Henry Kissinger was giving orders to Jim Jones, Obamas National Security Adviser during Baracks first term. Kissinger is also CFR. Even though the CFR works hand in glove with the State Dept., the CFR is funded by the Ford Foundation (and we all know who that is). Occasionally, we get to hear excerpts from the “Bilderberg Minutes” and so these Elitist, criminal and bloodthirsty globalist NWO groups go on on planning all these wars, like the G-8 where Obama went over the globalist war plans like Syria which was moved to Camp David instead of Chicago last time because Obama didnt want “Stop NATO” and other Anti War Groups making a riot over Syria /Af-Pak and embarrass him before the election.
 
But most of the rebels have sworn allegiance to Al Qaeda.

I think Obama's decision has more of an objective of distraction from the IRS targeting conservatives, Obama's dereliction of duty and allowing four Americans to be murdered in Benghazi, warrantless searches of phone records and having the NSA snoop and pooping on all Americans.

I kinda of remember President Clinton doing the same thing when cum stains were discovered on some girls dress, Clinton blew up an aspirin factory and a Chinese Embassy.

Putting aside the vitriol and anti-Democrat knee-jerk reflex action, I have to agree it might be a mistake. Looks to me like the pattern is, overthrow a dictator, have an election, vote in an Islamic republic, kiss reason and sanity good-bye.
'Course, reason and sanity weren't there in the first place but at least sane, reasonable people can deal with a dictator.
 
What is his decision?

Obama's Syria Policy a Mess | The Weekly Standard

"So is the White House arming the rebels or not? There’s been confusion since yesterday afternoon when Sen. John McCain said on the Senate floor that Obama “will announce that we will be assisting the Syrian rebels by providing them with weapons and other assistance. I applaud the president’s decision.” Shortly after, McCain retracted his remarks, explaining that “the president has not made the final decision on arming.” Afterward, McCain’s spokesman, Josh Rogin reported, said the senator had been told by reliable sources that Obama was planning to arm the rebels."

i think this allows us to understand once more why his north vietnamese captors nicknamed mccain "the canary"
one hell of a patriot [/sarcasm]
 
Back
Top Bottom