• 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.

Obama is providing weapons and training to Al-Qaeda. This has been presented repeatedly in a multitude of threads.

Here's the sick thing, partisans DO NOT CARE, party is more important than country. And here's the other deal. This country is being destroyed from within, both parties contributing to it, in the end there's not a dimes thickness difference between them, but like their football teams its rah rah donkey or rah rah elephant. It just sucks brother.
 
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.

So Democrats are as innocent as the driven snow huh? They never once approved any of it? :roll: Whether you like it or not the democrats are just as guilty as Obama and Bush and Regan and every other President and congress critter that has voted to arm terrorists.
 
You say that Obama has already harmed the USA, but you provide no proof of this.

The proof is available to anyone with open eyes.

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

Then why respond to me?

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

Go for it.

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

Deal with it.

I don't care who is in the white house today or in 2017....as long as they are not a detriment to the US as a nation and its citizens.
 
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.

Right, which bolsters the claim in #76. Some have correctly called it what it is, treason (by its exact definition) and yet we have two or three congressmen calling for impeachment. This is a BI-PARTISAN destruction of our country. What gets me most on this one is that the military (on this board as well) aren't blowing a gasket on this. I would think their would be mutiny in the ranks but no, by and large just yawns, and oh ok al Qaida that killed my buddies and blew off my legs is our ally now working with us to topple president Assad, the guy that Kerry, Clinton and Pelosi all previously said was someone we can work with!!!! I'm telling you, someone needs to take this countries temperature.
 
I agree.

If we don't have proof that will stand up in court maybe we shouldn't be going to war.

And yet, Obama apparently wants to go to war? That is what his actions here have shown. Personally I thought that the object of attacking Syria, according to Obama anyways, was to stop its "use" of chemical weapons. And yet despite Syria saying that they will give control of their chemical weapons over to Russia if the US stopped arming terrorists, a peaceful way to difuse the situation, Obama has said that he will not stop. The only conclusion to this is that, once again, Obama has lied to American Citizens and to everyone on the national stage.

If you don't think that doesn't harm US credibility then what does?
 
What simply is astonishing to me is we (as in Americans) are not to be trusted with certain weapons and are forced into gun free zone, yet random militants and rebels (who get no so called background check) should have them in droves according to Obama. Simply doesn't make sense no matter how you slice it.
 
What simply is astonishing to me is we (as in Americans) are not to be trusted with certain weapons and are forced into gun free zone, yet random militants and rebels (who get no so called background check) should have them in droves according to Obama. Simply doesn't make sense no matter how you slice it.

But the rebels need to be able to protect themselves from their government because their government is bad...
 
But the rebels need to be able to protect themselves from their government because their government is bad...

I don't disagree with that, I just feel we as Americans should have them as well. To quote an overused quote (but an applicable one) "People shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of the people".
 
I don't disagree with that, I just feel we as Americans should have them as well. To quote an overused quote (but an applicable one) "People shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of the people".

I figured that...guess my Obama impersonation didn't translate well in text.
 
I figured that...guess my Obama impersonation didn't translate well in text.

It kinda did. This is just a sore subject for me, especially with Dems supporting the stance of gun-free zones, so I just wanted to be clear :)
 
I suppose this means ALL terrorist groups can be armed now. Corporations can once again sell their wares, should be good for our MIC, too.
If all it took was for a sitting PotUS to provide material support to a Middle Eastern terrorist group for all the laws in supporting terrorists to be null, then these laws would have been made null before Obama took office.

If you have a more specific point, than, "OMG! Obama is just like other PotUSes!" now is the time to bring it up.
 
If all it took was for a sitting PotUS to provide material support to a Middle Eastern terrorist group for all the laws in supporting terrorists to be null, then these laws would have been made null before Obama took office.

If you have a more specific point, than, "OMG! Obama is just like other PotUSes!" now is the time to bring it up.

There has been a ban in place prohibiting manufacturers, suppliers or individuals from doing business with organisations classified as terrorist groups, with hefty penalties for violation. So the question is, does the waiver that Obama signed lift that ban completely, or just give himself a pass to arm, train and provide material aid to known terrorist groups??
 
And yet, Obama apparently wants to go to war? That is what his actions here have shown. Personally I thought that the object of attacking Syria, according to Obama anyways, was to stop its "use" of chemical weapons. And yet despite Syria saying that they will give control of their chemical weapons over to Russia if the US stopped arming terrorists, a peaceful way to difuse the situation, Obama has said that he will not stop. The only conclusion to this is that, once again, Obama has lied to American Citizens and to everyone on the national stage.

If you don't think that doesn't harm US credibility then what does?




First, you need to post some ironclad proof that President Obama has lied to the American people.

Then, maybe, you might have a little credibility.

As of right now, based on your posts I have you pegged as a member of the far right, which I usually ignore.

As of right now, I have you pegged as a demagogic rabble rouser, with nothing to back up the malarkey that he spouts.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Last edited:
First, you need to post some ironclad proof that President Obama has lied to the American people.

Then, maybe, you might have a little credibility.

As of right now, based on your posts I have you pegged as a member of the far right, which I usually ignore.

As of right now, I have you pegged as a demagogic rabble rouser, with nothing to back up the malarkey that he spouts.

Oh yes! I'm really of the far right pretending to blame both republicans and democrats just so I can blame democrats. :roll:

And what do you call Obama claiming that we need to attack Syria so that Syria doesn't use any more chemical weapons and then when offered a peaceful solution which will prevent Syria from using those weapons he says no to it? A warmonger? A liar? Both.

BTW, you didn't need to add "rabble rouser" to the "demogogic" as by its very definition includes "rabble rouser". Just saying. :shrug: Other than that, think of me how you will. Don't really care.
 
Read a little history.

Reagan transferred arms to Iran in the Iran/Contra kerfuffle.

Iran promotes terrorism. Now do you get it?


You are absolutely right and Bush 11 gave training to MEK during a period that they were listed as a terrorist Organisation. Is that meant to exonerate Obama of his wrong doing? See this is why partisans share the blame and **** everything up. Like children, "well didn't your guy do it", its illegal people, why is this so difficult?
 
Last edited:
So let's see . . .

First Obama signs an order that all military equipment be left behind in Iraq so the terrorists can just pick them up off the streets.

Then he gets caught smuggling arms through Turkey and invents "the video did it" crisis.

Next, the smartest man in the room pretends he doesn't understand the definiton of the word "coup" so he can send arms to Egypt.

Now we waives off U.S. law as if no one will notice, once again picking and choosing which laws to obey.

I would say a definite pattern is apparent here, one that would cause the casual observer to ask, "which side is this guy on anyway?"
 
so let's see . . .

First obama signs an order that all military equipment be left behind in iraq so the terrorists can just pick them up off the streets.

Then he gets caught smuggling arms through turkey and invents "the video did it" crisis.

Next, the smartest man in the room pretends he doesn't understand the definiton of the word "coup" so he can send arms to egypt.

Now we waives off u.s. Law as if no one will notice, once again picking and choosing which laws to obey.

I would say a definite pattern is apparent here, one that would cause the casual observer to ask, "which side is this guy on anyway?"

bingo.
 
There has been a ban in place prohibiting manufacturers, suppliers or individuals from doing business with organisations classified as terrorist groups, with hefty penalties for violation. So the question is, does the waiver that Obama signed lift that ban completely, or just give himself a pass to arm, train and provide material aid to known terrorist groups??
Given that in recent years past, the chief of a PotUS's Defense Policy Board raised funds for a terrorist group* AND that we have held fundraisers for terrorist groups in the Washington DC Daughters of the American Revolution's Constitution Hall which were attended by members of Congress, I'd say that the scope and applicability of the laws is what it always has been.






* Same guy who tried to help a known front for the Chinese Military Intelligence buy the phone lines used by the USG and US military despite objections from the FBI and the NSA.
 
Given that in recent years past, the chief of a PotUS's Defense Policy Board raised funds for a terrorist group* AND that we have held fundraisers for terrorist groups in the Washington DC Daughters of the American Revolution's Constitution Hall which were attended by members of Congress, I'd say that the scope and applicability of the laws is what it always has been.






* Same guy who tried to help a known front for the Chinese Military Intelligence buy the phone lines used by the USG and US military despite objections from the FBI and the NSA.

I can't tell if I agree or disagree with that Simon, might you rephrase it please?
 
So Democrats are as innocent as the driven snow huh? They never once approved any of it? :roll: Whether you like it or not the democrats are just as guilty as Obama and Bush and Regan and every other President and congress critter that has voted to arm terrorists.

No, I never said they were innocent as the driven snow, just guilty in a different way. You are confusing the reality that republicans have more amusing derp with me liking the democrats.
 
Oh yes! I'm really of the far right pretending to blame both republicans and democrats just so I can blame democrats. :roll:

And what do you call Obama claiming that we need to attack Syria so that Syria doesn't use any more chemical weapons and then when offered a peaceful solution which will prevent Syria from using those weapons he says no to it? A warmonger? A liar? Both.

BTW, you didn't need to add "rabble rouser" to the "demogogic" as by its very definition includes "rabble rouser". Just saying. :shrug: Other than that,
think of me how you will. Don't really care.




I judge people by what they say and do, Not by who and/or what they say that they are.
 
You are absolutely right and Bush 11 gave training to MEK during a period that they were listed as a terrorist Organisation. Is that meant to exonerate Obama of his wrong doing? See this is why partisans share the blame and **** everything up. Like children, "well didn't your guy do it", its illegal people, why is this so difficult?




"Timmy did it too" never has been and never will be a valid excuse for doing bad things. Check with your mama on this.

I will not accept that excuse from anyone (Including Obama and any other Democrat.).
 
Last edited:
"Timmy did it too" never has been and never will be a valid excuse for doing bad things. Check with your mama on this.

I will not accept that excuse from anyone (Including Obama and any other Democrat.).


So I guess we agree. I thought you were excusing Obama. Cool.
 
Back
Top Bottom