• 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

Obama seeks $500M to train, equip Syrian rebels

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama asked Congress Thursday for $500 million to train and arm vetted members of the Syrian opposition, as the U.S. struggles for a way to stem a civil war that has also fueled the al-Qaida inspired insurgency in neighboring Iraq.

The military training program would deepen the Obama administration's involvement in the more than four-year conflict between rebels and forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad. If approved by Congress, the program would supplement a covert train-and-assistance program run by U.S. intelligence agencies.

The Syria program is part of a broader $65.8 billion overseas operations request that the administration sent to Congress Thursday. The package includes $1 billion to help stabilize nations bordering Syria that are struggling with the effects of the civil war. It also formalizes a request for a previously announced $1 billion to strengthen the U.S. military presence in Central and Eastern Europe amid Russia's threatening moves in Ukraine.

snip


WTH? He really doesn't have a clue.

If he had any intent for Iraq to remain stable, he wouldn't have pulled our troops out.
 
Well for some reason our people don't see it.....with this situation here. Its just throwing money away we don't have. Plus it will feed the terrorists.

Agreed.
 
If he had any intent for Iraq to remain stable, he wouldn't have pulled our troops out.

If US foreign policy had the interest of stability in Iraq, there wouldn't have been a war for oil sold on the false pretence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and OBL, al Qaeda or 9/11. Instability and and infighting is good for big oil, and bad for the citizens of the ME region. Foreign policy follows the sig line.
 
If US foreign policy had the interest of stability in Iraq, there wouldn't have been a war for oil sold on the false pretence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and OBL, al Qaeda or 9/11. Instability and and infighting is good for big oil, and bad for the citizens of the ME region. Foreign policy follows the sig line.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but commerce is the name of the game. And let me remind you that Saddam used WMDs to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people. Have you ever been to the middle east? I would be curious to know. It seems that people who have been there have a somewhat different perspective than those who just read it in the news.
 
Well, I hate to break it to you, but commerce is the name of the game. And let me remind you that Saddam used WMDs to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people. Have you ever been to the middle east? I would be curious to know. It seems that people who have been there have a somewhat different perspective than those who just read it in the news.

The US used WMD's to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, but then I didn't mention WMD in the post you quoted, did I? The false connection of Iraq and OBL, al Qaeda and 9/11. Ron Paul has been to the ME, he too has a different perspective than you. Are you insinuating that everybody who visits the ME walks away thinking that the US needs to engage in "regime change" in all the countries Gen. Wesley Clark revealed was in fact the Bush administrations plans? Btw, nice to see your candid about the cost of commerce.
 
What's $500 million between friends?

Friends?
dontknow.gif
 
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??
Which 'Big Business are you referring to? The only Big Business which appears to have influence with this president is GE, or some small ones he gave public money to during the 'Stimulus Plan' and the 'Green Energy' debacles.
 
Which 'Big Business are you referring to? The only Big Business which appears to have influence with this president is GE, or some small ones he gave public money to during the 'Stimulus Plan' and the 'Green Energy' debacles.

Here's a good place to start.

Military/Industrial Complex

And more here.

The business of war is profitable. In 2011, the 100 largest contractors sold $410 billion in arms and military services. Just 10 of those companies sold over $208 billion. Based on a list of the top 100 arms-producing and military services companies in 2011 compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 companies with the most military sales worldwide.

These companies have benefited tremendously from the growth in military spending in the U.S., which by far has the largest military budget in the world. In 2000, the U.S. defense budget was approximately $312 billion. By 2011, the figure had grown to $712 billion. Arm sales grew alongside general defense spending growth. SIPRI noted that between 2002 and 2011, arms sales among the top 100 companies grew by 51%.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/
 
Here's a good place to start.

Military/Industrial Complex

And more here.

The business of war is profitable. In 2011, the 100 largest contractors sold $410 billion in arms and military services. Just 10 of those companies sold over $208 billion. Based on a list of the top 100 arms-producing and military services companies in 2011 compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 companies with the most military sales worldwide.

These companies have benefited tremendously from the growth in military spending in the U.S., which by far has the largest military budget in the world. In 2000, the U.S. defense budget was approximately $312 billion. By 2011, the figure had grown to $712 billion. Arm sales grew alongside general defense spending growth. SIPRI noted that between 2002 and 2011, arms sales among the top 100 companies grew by 51%.


10 companies profiting the most from war

Okay, so Lockheed Martin and Boeing are the worst offenders it seems. What do you propose we do about these two?
 
Okay, so Lockheed Martin and Boeing are the worst offenders it seems. What do you propose we do about these two?

How does ten equal two? And those ten are just the BIGGEST profiteers of war. I realize its difficult for you to accept that big business influences US foreign policy, but USATODAY laid it out clearly. Read the article and be a part of the solution not the problem.
 
How does ten equal two? And those ten are just the BIGGEST profiteers of war. I realize its difficult for you to accept that big business influences US foreign policy, but USATODAY laid it out clearly. Read the article and be a part of the solution not the problem.

I named the top two offenders out of the ten. What do you say we do about them? If you want to list the top ten and offer a solution to them then do it but it seemed two would be easier for you to handle.
 
I named the top two offenders out of the ten. What do you say we do about them? If you want to list the top ten and offer a solution to them then do it but it seemed two would be easier for you to handle.

I can handle all ten. Actually there's hundreds of companies that are profiteers of US offensive actions abroad. USAToday was only highlighting the top ten beneficiaries. The solution though is quite simple, in fact I thought a man such as yourself would have figured it out by now. There are a couple of your fellow republicans, politicians, that have. Ron and Rand can tell you all about it.
 
I can handle all ten. Actually there's hundreds of companies that are profiteers of US offensive actions abroad. USAToday was only highlighting the top ten beneficiaries. The solution though is quite simple, in fact I thought a man such as yourself would have figured it out by now. There are a couple of your fellow republicans, politicians, that have. Ron and Rand can tell you all about it.

I'm not having the discussion with them. You brought up this list and I asked you what you would do about just two of the companies. Well, what would YOU do??
 
I'm not having the discussion with them. You brought up this list and I asked you what you would do about just two of the companies. Well, what would YOU do??

I suppose you mean, if I were president. If so, my foreign policy in the ME would be aimed at stability for the region that would be a benefit to the citizens of that region as opposed to the policy of destabilisation that we have seen for better than three decades which has led to multiple US military actions in the region resulting in big profits for the companies that comprise the US military industrial complex, and not just the two you mention or the ten that my article mentioned.
 
I suppose you mean, if I were president. If so, my foreign policy in the ME would be aimed at stability for the region that would be a benefit to the citizens of that region as opposed to the policy of destabilisation that we have seen for better than three decades which has led to multiple US military actions in the region resulting in big profits for the companies that comprise the US military industrial complex, and not just the two you mention or the ten that my article mentioned.

The world was never 'stable' and it's folly to think that it was.
 
If Romney had been elected we would still have troops in Iraq, and this wouldnt be happening.

Right! Which is why he failed in his bid for the WH. Americans didn't want their troops to still be there. See how that works?
 
The world was never 'stable' and it's folly to think that it was.

"folly" LMAO. I said I would aim for stability, much of the world is stable. But US foreign policy for the Mideast has been instability, for decades now, or exceedingly incompetent administrations back to back, or both.
 

US foreign policy in the Middle East has been INSTABILITY for decades. This is nothing new. Americans are just too stupid to do anything about it, just look around DP.


Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
America has been supporting militant Islamic groups since Carter. Wtf is wrong with people??
 
US foreign policy in the Middle East has been INSTABILITY for decades. This is nothing new. Americans are just too stupid to do anything about it, just look around DP.


Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Insulting all Americans certainly isnt going to encourage people to listen to your argument. Additionally, the West in general has had policy of intervention and destabilization for decades now. Can't pin it all on America even though y'all push America into the World Police role.
 
"folly" LMAO. I said I would aim for stability, much of the world is stable. But US foreign policy for the Mideast has been instability, for decades now, or exceedingly incompetent administrations back to back, or both.

For decades the Fascists, Nazis, Communists and various other dictators were murdering hundreds of millions of people in China, Africa, Asia, Europe, South America and Central America. The Americans were the leaders who put an end to these international atrocities. Any 'stability' the world now enjoys is in large part due to American sacrifices and their 'incompetent' leadership.
 
Back
Top Bottom