• 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!

Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition.

Montecresto said:
Well I'm an equal opportunity critic, I criticised both. Except I don't remember Bush arming the enemy he was fighting as Obama is, maybe I missed something and I really hate defending Bush.
Click to expand...

Well I didn't think Obama was fighting anyone in Syria. The BushII arming our enemies comes from rather large numbers of weapons unaccounted for in Iraq, the training of local police and military units often resulted in simply arming and training the local thug's militia which did fight against American troops.
 
Kal'Stang said:
My god....Obama arms terrorists and you STILL blame republicans. When the hell are you going to start blaming Obama?
Click to expand...

No, I said obama was actually republican and that is his fault. I did not take the blame away from him, I just said he is not what he says he is. Yes, arming people who will probably one day use those arms against us is notoriously republican though democrats look the other way and quietly allow those practices to continue to benefit the MIC. So yes I am blaming Obama for this and your complaint is unfounded. Please do not confuse a person saying something reasonable with support for everything Obama does merely because i do not lose any tiny bits of brain I have to mindlessly attack obama like he is the devil himself. One can disagree with Obama without being a mindless republicon hate machine. It is probably why the right thinks everyone on the left supports every move obama makes merely because they do not get as insane as the right when they disapprove.
 
notquiteright said:
Well I didn't think Obama was fighting anyone in Syria. The BushII arming our enemies comes from rather large numbers of weapons unaccounted for in Iraq, the training of local police and military units often resulted in simply arming and training the local thug's militia which did fight against American troops.
Click to expand...

The terrorists that Obama fought in A-Stan and Iraq have received preferential treatment elsewhere. Now they are our ally's. and the ban has been lifted so its ok to arm them. Must be ok for Syria and Iran to arm terrorist organisations to pursue their interests as well, I mean why not?
 
notquiteright said:
Well I didn't think Obama was fighting anyone in Syria. The BushII arming our enemies comes from rather large numbers of weapons unaccounted for in Iraq, the training of local police and military units often resulted in simply arming and training the local thug's militia which did fight against American troops.
Click to expand...

Reagan armed our enemies too then.
 
Montecresto said:
The terrorists that Obama fought in A-Stan and Iraq have received preferential treatment elsewhere. Now they are our ally's. and the ban has been lifted so its ok to arm them. Must be ok for Syria and Iran to arm terrorist organisations to pursue their interests as well, I mean why not?
Click to expand...

Well I know you really want to get in a snit over this. it has something for everyone- christians being killed, al-Queera and Lezzbooyahh! Even got those commies mingling in.

Is ANY of this coming as a news flash to you? fact is NO rebel group is 100% guaranteed saints. Pretty damn sure the guys 'elsewhere' are not the same guys in Afghanistan- that is mostly Nationalistic Taliban, they don't have an international agenda.
 
Kal'Stang said:
My god....Obama arms terrorists and you STILL blame republicans.
When the hell are you going to start blaming Obama?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




How about if we wait until Obama does something that can be proven to have harmed the USA before we blame him for anything?
And, yes I support applying the same standard to everyone. Now, in the past and in the future.
 
shrubnose said:
How about if we wait until Obama does something that can be proven to have harmed the USA before we blame him for anything?
And, yes I support applying the same standard to everyone. Now, in the past and in the future.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy to commit murder doesn't hurt anyone but you can still get arrested for it.
 
reinoe said:
Conspiracy to commit murder doesn't hurt anyone but you can still get arrested for it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




And those who arrest you can end up in jail themselves if they have no case.

Before you accuse anyone of anything, first get some mighty good proof.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Being the President does not confer upon you any diplomatic or military capabilities. Presidents don't suit up and check the battlefield. They don't know who to pay and who to drone. They are guided by their Intelligence officials who come up with notions using thousands of people doing who knows what using some algorithm.

The sad thing is that historically, most of what we do gets ****ed up. But then again, we won't know what they succeed at because its all secret stuff. So maybe the CIA has had hundreds of successes and we only know their failures.

Now, is there any corporate influence at work here? Probably not much for a mini-war like this. So presumably the experts told Obama that arming whomever would be a good idea. Is it a good idea? Only time will tell.
 
shrubnose said:
And those who arrest you can end up in jail themselves if they have no case.

Before you accuse anyone of anything, first get some mighty good proof.
[/B]
Click to expand...
Which is why we have no business being in the M.E. The best we can get is being "pretty sure" Assad used chemical weapons. There's still not 100% proof.
 
reinoe said:
Which is why we have no business being in the M.E. The best we can get is being "pretty sure" Assad used chemical weapons. There's still not 100% proof.
Click to expand...

we have had bussiness in the middle east way back when the marines went to the shores of tripoli to deal with marauding pirates.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
we have had bussiness in the middle east way back when the marines went to the shores of tripoli to deal with marauding pirates.
Click to expand...

Ok, that was poorly phrased on my part. We have no business trying to pick winners and losers in Syria's civil war.
 
tererun said:
No, I said obama was actually republican and that is his fault. I did not take the blame away from him, I just said he is not what he says he is. Yes, arming people who will probably one day use those arms against us is notoriously republican though democrats look the other way and quietly allow those practices to continue to benefit the MIC. So yes I am blaming Obama for this and your complaint is unfounded. Please do not confuse a person saying something reasonable with support for everything Obama does merely because i do not lose any tiny bits of brain I have to mindlessly attack obama like he is the devil himself. One can disagree with Obama without being a mindless republicon hate machine. It is probably why the right thinks everyone on the left supports every move obama makes merely because they do not get as insane as the right when they disapprove.
Click to expand...

So anything that you disagree with him about then he is "republican"? Because only republicans are bad? Sorry, Obama is a Democrat. Own up to it.
 
shrubnose said:
How about if we wait until Obama does something that can be proven to have harmed the USA before we blame him for anything?
And, yes I support applying the same standard to everyone. Now, in the past and in the future.
Click to expand...

He already has harmed the USA. The very fact that he is anti-gun in the States and yet freely gives guns to known terrorists IS harmful. And those are just the tip of the iceburg. US credibility was shot with Bush Jr and it has been even worse with Obama.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So anything that you disagree with him about then he is "republican"? Because only republicans are bad? Sorry, Obama is a Democrat. Own up to it.
Click to expand...

No, it is republican because that is the policy they have followed for a long time. We have these terrorists because reagan armed them and played a game there. We have things like iran contra. We have a history of selling arms under republican rule which will eventually come back and bite us. That history is based on american destabalization of foreign countries for political goals. It falls well within the lines of republican ideology. Still i am not saying dems are perfect. The republicans are right, they are nanny state people. Where as the republicans look for religious fascism in a sort of nanny state move, the dems are much more open about trying to be everyone's mother. From the soda ban to the recent attempt to put a waiting period on tattoos they have their own style of bad. There are lots of complaints about the left I agree with the republicans on. Welfare is a poverty trap. I do not agree we need to get rid of it, I think it clearly has a purpose of keeping people stuck on it and dependent on it which secures votes for the party that keeps it in place. But those are just examples and I am not trying to derail.

Your claims that the only reason I say this is because i want to attack republicans is silly. obama is very right. He would clearly fall into the realm of socially moderate republican. A few years back before the reps pushed so far right they left their social moderates out in the cold I would not have said this. He would have been a fiscally conservative hawkish dem. But moderate dems have gone so far right they are within what should be the moderate side of republicanism if the reps were not chasing down the loonies and going hard core white wing stupid.
 
reinoe said:
Which is why we have no business being in the M.E. The best we can get is being "pretty sure" Assad used chemical weapons. There's still not 100% pro
Click to expand...
of.
Click to expand...




I agree.

If we don't have proof that will stand up in court maybe we shouldn't be going to war.
 
Kal'Stang said:
He already has harmed the USA.
Click to expand...
The very fact that he is anti-gun in the States and yet freely gives guns to known terrorists IS harmful. And those are just the tip of the iceburg. US credibility was shot with Bush Jr and it has been even worse with Obama.
Click to expand...




You say that Obama has already harmed the USA, but you provide no proof of this.

Your word and what you 'think' means nothing to me

Therefore I will just ignore the worthless drivel that you have posted here.

And, by the way, President Obama will be staying in the White House until another Democrat takes his place in 2017.

Deal with it.

And have a nice day.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
specklebang said:
Being the President does not confer upon you any diplomatic or military capabilities.
Click to expand...
 Presidents don't suit up and check the battlefield. They don't know who to pay and who to drone. They are guided by their Intelligence officials who come up with notions using thousands of people doing who knows what using some algorithm.

The sad thing is that historically, most of what we do gets ****ed up. But then again, we won't know what they succeed at because its all secret stuff. So maybe the CIA has had hundreds of successes and we only know their failures.

Now, is there any corporate influence at work here? Probably not much for a mini-war like this. So presumably the experts told Obama that arming whomever would be a good idea. Is it a good idea? Only time will tell.
Click to expand...




Being the President of the USA does make you the Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. Military.

When voters decide who to vote for on election day, they should try to pick a person who has the ability to do the job, before he or she moves into the White House.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
You say that Obama has already harmed the USA, but you provide no proof of this.
Click to expand...
Obama is providing weapons and training to Al-Qaeda. This has been presented repeatedly in a multitude of threads.
 
For a President(no matter which alphabet letter they carry) a to provide weapons or anything else to anyone requires money to purchase these items. Congress controls the spending in this country. So at least half of this blame game belongs to congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom