• 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 seeks $500M to train, equip Syrian rebels

humbolt said:
Not immediately. That happens after ISIS bitch slaps the vetted rebels, takes their weapons and cuts their heads off. Then we'll have to bomb them. These things take time.
Click to expand...

I noticed this isn't such a hot topic for thr Left
 
JRSaindo said:
The more messed up the ME is, the easier to control. At least that is the White House modus operandi it seems.
Click to expand...

So what's our batting average so far? :lol: The only messed up ones seem to be us. Has Russia entered the picture yet on behalf of Iran?

Greetings, JRSaindo. :2wave:
 
DA60 said:
Jeez.

From now on there should be an end-of-Presidency vote by the country.

If 50% think he/she did less harm then good...he/she leaves office without penalty.

If 50-75% think he/she did more harm then good...he/she forfeits all their wealth and stays under house arrest for 20 years.

If more then 75% think he/she did more harm then good...they throw them in jail for life.


I am obviously not serious...but I am sick and tired of POTUS's ****ing up everyone and everything with zero negative ramifications when they are through.

There needs to be more accountability and responsibility...if they consistently mess up, they should be punished.

They don't like it...don't take the job.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that this is more than the POTUS. He also has the IRS and the Attorney General on side, and probably more. It will take a real house cleaning to rid the country of this corruption.
 
humbolt said:
No, I haven't, really. I read Krauthammer's comments, but I've sort of been waiting for it to be shot down in Congress. Understand, it's my view that if it doesn't affect domestic politics, Obama isn't interested. So I think it's largely a show to give Obama cover to do nothing. This might be a rare case in which he's correct in spite of himself. I don't know.
Click to expand...



This will just cause more of the Shia to rally to Assad as well. Not to mention Iran. Which as we see there they are toying with BO and his Team.
 
WCH said:
I noticed this isn't such a hot topic for thr Left
Click to expand...

Mornin' WCH. :2wave: Don't look like there will be much at all going forward for them. Just sayin. :mrgreen:
 
Montecresto said:
What could you possibly mean by that??
Click to expand...

There was a point where in the Syrian Civil War where large scale intervention, including military assistance with US assets was feasible. But now the FSA, the Syrians we could've sided with and actually gotten a democratic, somewhat western friendly nation out of have either been killed off or reduced in power.
 
MMC said:
This will just cause more of the Shia to rally to Assad as well. Not to mention Iran. Which as we see there they are toying with BO and his Team.
Click to expand...

Do you get the impression that BO likes being in the middle? I do.
 
MMC said:
It seems to have been going down this road for the last 20 years with our people. To much into living off the camera and getting facetime. Revelin in all the pomp and ceremony with each and every visit. Taking in all the so called meaningful compliments and living off that type of BS. Ego and I am somebody.

Have you seen any gains against these terrorists? al Nusra has reached the Golan Heights. What do you think their next phase will be? I don't think any can miss it.

Now under BO.....terrorism has grown, expanded, and morphed. Look how the Ansar al Sharia groups started. From Yemen and moved west and back home to Africa. Now they are springing up all over the place. The kicker is.....some of them are just like charitable organizations. No fighters and not about the violence. New confusion to the mix of things.

Its all moving westward.
Click to expand...

I agree with this caveat, terrorism expanded under Bush as well when we took a fight to Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq particularly not connected to OBL, al Qaeda or 9/11. One of the stated purposes of the 9/11 attacks was US presence in the region. Bush hugely expanded that and provided the motivation for recruits. I'm not deflecting from your criticism of Obama, I agree with it, however what I'm suggesting to you is that presidents come and go, while US foreign policy remains largely consistent. Whether our diplomats are dispatched to make peace or war, it will be on the merits of what's good for big business who rules the day. And that for a very long time now. You recall the oligarch in the late 1800's who stated (and I paraphrase, I'm sure), give me control of a nations finances and I care not who makes the laws. Which is to say, big money makes the laws, sets policy. This micro perspective of party finger pointing misses the big picture. But one can't reason with the partisan, to him, its always the other parties fault, very discouraging MMC.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
There was a point where in the Syrian Civil War where large scale intervention, including military assistance with US assets was feasible. But now the FSA, the Syrians we could've sided with and actually gotten a democratic, somewhat western friendly nation out of have either been killed off or reduced in power.


Well, first of all, aid in the form of CIA training camps in both Jordan and Turkey as well as small arms and intell was there from the beginning, and has not wavered, Obama is asking for money to continue this. Secondly, as to overt military intervention, you should recall that Obama tried that as well. Having dispatched Hillary Clinton on three occasions to the UN to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria. All three times she returned empty handed. This of course was due to both China and Russia vetoing all requests. And they did so because of the US/West having abused the resolution for use of force in Libya. The use of force in Libya was authorised to protect civilians, not regime change, which the Russians criticised from the start of the air strikes stating that the targeting was consistent with regime change, and not the protection of civilians!!

In addition to Obama failing to secure UN authorisation for the use of force in Syria, the UK pulled its support for military intervention, Obama couldn't get congressional approval at home, and!! 70% of Americans were against military intervention in Syria! So...........I suppose Obama could have been a belligerent and ordered our military in anyway, I'm sure the hawks would have loved that, but cooler heads did prevail in that instance at least.

In addition to all that, president Assad was the stabilising (albeit imperfect of course) force in Syria that Saddam Hussein was in Iraq that Gaddafi was in Libya. We have managed to kick the legs out from under all three of those countries, and all three of them are in serious trouble. Had president Assad been left alone at the beginning, he would have crushed the rebellion in its infancy and we wouldn't be talking about this. Instead, the US fanned the flames, provided early support breathing life enough into the insurgency until recruits could arrive from neighbouring countries and in due time president Assad's own war on terror has strung out over three years with 150,000 dead civilians as a result.

China and Russia, for their part, both correctly predicted that US interference in Syria would cause that conflict to spread throughout the region, which is precisely what we are seeing today.
Click to expand...
 
humbolt said:
Do you get the impression that BO likes being in the middle? I do.
Click to expand...

If Congress had any sense they would send him a Card with their response back.....Asking him if he was trying to be funny or serious.
 
MMC said:
If Congress had any sense they would send him a Card with their response back.....Asking him if he was trying to be funny or serious.
Click to expand...

Good Yoke!
 
Montecresto said:
I agree with this caveat, terrorism expanded under Bush as well when we took a fight to Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq particularly not connected to OBL, al Qaeda or 9/11. One of the stated purposes of the 9/11 attacks was US presence in the region. Bush hugely expanded that and provided the motivation for recruits. I'm not deflecting from your criticism of Obama, I agree with it, however what I'm suggesting to you is that presidents come and go, while US foreign policy remains largely consistent. Whether our diplomats are dispatched to make peace or war, it will be on the merits of what's good for big business who rules the day. And that for a very long time now. You recall the oligarch in the late 1800's who stated (and I paraphrase, I'm sure), give me control of a nations finances and I care not who makes the laws. Which is to say, big money makes the laws, sets policy. This micro perspective of party finger pointing misses the big picture. But one can't reason with the partisan, to him, its always the other parties fault, very discouraging MMC.
Click to expand...



One of the Stated Purposes by who? As terrorism ran rampant with the Clinton Administration, anything after that was playing catch up. That's not to say Bush isn't guilty either.

I agree with the Diplomats and Ambassadors that are sent. Official and Unofficial. But there is no way to get around whats BO's FP is doing and never was accomplishing.

I have never seen such sheer incompetence and with all that he has been doing to the military its stretched thin. There are only 4 Combat Brigades ready for anything at the moment. This just cannot make the grade and cover whats happening out there. From the Asian Pacific......Russia and the Ukraine.....Africa and Libya......then here!
 
MMC said:
One of the Stated Purposes by who? As terrorism ran rampant with the Clinton Administration, anything after that was playing catch up. That's not to say Bush isn't guilty either.

I agree with the Diplomats and Ambassadors that are sent. Official and Unofficial. But there is no way to get around whats BO's FP is doing and never was accomplishing.

I have never seen such sheer incompetence and with all that he has been doing to the military its stretched thin. There are only 4 Combat Brigades ready for anything at the moment. This just cannot make the grade and cover whats happening out there. From the Asian Pacific......Russia and the Ukraine.....Africa and Libya......then here!
Click to expand...

I appreciate your position, but respectfully reassert, US foreign policy is influenced by big business and what benifits big business, while the Bush's, Reagan's, Clintons and Obama's come and go. When you speak in terms of what's in the best interests of the citizens of the Middle East, indeed, US foreign policy in the region under obama is a disaster, however, when you consider the interests of the citizens of the ME, US foreign policy under Bush was a disaster. There is no respect for partisan politics and patting Bush on the back while slapping Obama in the face solves nothing. They both have projected disastrous policies in the ME. How will we ever see improvement like this??
 
MMC said:
One of the Stated Purposes by who? As terrorism ran rampant with the Clinton Administration, anything after that was playing catch up. That's not to say Bush isn't guilty either.

I agree with the Diplomats and Ambassadors that are sent. Official and Unofficial. But there is no way to get around whats BO's FP is doing and never was accomplishing.

I have never seen such sheer incompetence and with all that he has been doing to the military its stretched thin. There are only 4 Combat Brigades ready for anything at the moment. This just cannot make the grade and cover whats happening out there. From the Asian Pacific......Russia and the Ukraine.....Africa and Libya......then here!
Click to expand...

Here ya go, the reasons why "THEY" hate us, and for the 9/11 attacks. NOTE, you won't see anything about our values, freedoms, morals or any other such bull****!!!

The attacks of September 11, 2001 in the northeast United States were an organized terrorist act carried out by 19 hijackers, and organized by numerous members of al-Qaeda. Motives for the attacks were stated before and after the attacks in several sources, Osama bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States, and a fatwā signed by bin Laden and others calling for the killing of American civilians in 1998, are seen by investigators as evidence of his motivation.[2]

In bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[3][4] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia,[4][5][6] U.S. support of Israel,[7][8] and sanctions against Iraq.[9]

Motives for the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Montecresto said:
I appreciate your position, but respectfully reassert, US foreign policy is influenced by big business and what benifits big business, while the Bush's, Reagan's, Clintons and Obama's come and go. When you speak in terms of what's in the best interests of the citizens of the Middle East, indeed, US foreign policy in the region under obama is a disaster, however, when you consider the interests of the citizens of the ME, US foreign policy under Bush was a disaster. There is no respect for partisan politics and patting Bush on the back while slapping Obama in the face solves nothing. They both have projected disastrous policies in the ME. How will we ever see improvement like this??
Click to expand...



Well really Monte.....The US, and Western nations concepts don't come into being other than thru those in the ME.. Yes business and money is the name of the game. That's a given. But no matter who from outside the ME came into to wheel and deal. It didn't matter. Never did......it was just a means for those in the ME to play off of. Especially the Sunni and the Saud. As Nothing else came before their grand design. Same for the Shia other than the fact of being subjugated and dominated by the Sunni.


That piece on the Terrorists was recent and so it validates them working together despite any disagreement. Which they have been for some time.
 
MMC said:
Well really Monte.....The US, and Western nations concepts don't come into being other than thru those in the ME.. Yes business and money is the name of the game. That's a given. But no matter who from outside the ME came into to wheel and deal. It didn't matter. Never did......it was just a means for those in the ME to play off of. Especially the Sunni and the Saud. As Nothing else came before their grand design. Same for the Shia other than the fact of being subjugated and dominated by the Sunni.


That piece on the Terrorists was recent and so it validates them working together despite any disagreement. Which they have been for some time.
Click to expand...

Not certain I understand your point there bud?
 
If Iraq falls, I hope the Kurds manage to cut their own country out of it.
 
Montecresto said:
Not certain I understand your point there bud?
Click to expand...

That US and European's influence has always been secondary for those whom I Pointed out. They would have done this with any. Even those in the East.
 
Montecresto said:
I agree with this caveat, terrorism expanded under Bush as well when we took a fight to Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq particularly not connected to OBL, al Qaeda or 9/11. One of the stated purposes of the 9/11 attacks was US presence in the region. Bush hugely expanded that and provided the motivation for recruits. I'm not deflecting from your criticism of Obama, I agree with it, however what I'm suggesting to you is that presidents come and go, while US foreign policy remains largely consistent. Whether our diplomats are dispatched to make peace or war, it will be on the merits of what's good for big business who rules the day. And that for a very long time now. You recall the oligarch in the late 1800's who stated (and I paraphrase, I'm sure), give me control of a nations finances and I care not who makes the laws. Which is to say, big money makes the laws, sets policy. This micro perspective of party finger pointing misses the big picture. But one can't reason with the partisan, to him, its always the other parties fault, very discouraging MMC.
Click to expand...

That quote was from Mayer Amschel Rothschild ...the same people who trigger conflict to profit from not only financing both side but, rebuilding afterwards. They've been doing that for a very long time

Not sure how we counteract that sort of evil.
 
MMC said:
That US and European's influence has always been secondary for those whom I Pointed out. They would have done this with any. Even those in the East.
Click to expand...

I see. Well I can't disagree with that as I don't know about it.
 
Montecresto said:
Here ya go, the reasons why "THEY" hate us, and for the 9/11 attacks. NOTE, you won't see anything about our values, freedoms, morals or any other such bull****!!!

The attacks of September 11, 2001 in the northeast United States were an organized terrorist act carried out by 19 hijackers, and organized by numerous members of al-Qaeda. Motives for the attacks were stated before and after the attacks in several sources, Osama bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States, and a fatwā signed by bin Laden and others calling for the killing of American civilians in 1998, are seen by investigators as evidence of his motivation.[2]

In bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[3][4] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia,[4][5][6] U.S. support of Israel,[7][8] and sanctions against Iraq.[9]

Motives for the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



Do you think.....what Bin laden stated was his own gripes for his specic brand of AQ? As we know that Bin laded was being mentored by a couple Taliban members and the Z-man. Who's own visions go far beyond what Bin Laden's were.
 
MMC said:
Do you think.....what Bin laden stated was his own gripes for his specic brand of AQ? As we know that Bin laded was being mentored by a couple Taliban members and the Z-man. Who's own visions go far beyond what Bin Laden's were.
Click to expand...

Sure, why not. Btw, when you view OBL's list of grievances against the US (that I posted above) there's little wonder why the attack was forth coming and few patriots in America will admit it because they're too busy bashing Obama, covering for Bush, or bashing Bush, covering for Obama. But clearly OBL had far FAR more legitimate reasons for attacking the US than the US had for attacking Iraq, yet Bush lives while OBL, not so much. As I keep hammering, partisan support for wrong doing is the problem, which proves that the partisan isn't interested in what's right, but obtaining and holding power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom