• 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!

White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
WASHINGTON – An increasingly dire situation for Syria’s fragmented rebel movement is likely to prompt an immediate policy reassessment in the White House this week.
US President Barack Obama is to take meetings throughout the coming days in which he is expected to consider sending lethal arms directly to fighters in opposition to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. Government forces haveturned the tide in recent days with aggressive assaults on increasingly fractured rebel groups.

Assad’s reclamation of Qusair
– a city valued for its position on the supply route between the Assad-loyalist West and the heartland of the country and the city of Homs – represents a significant moment in the conflict that reminds some in Washington of the moments before forces of Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi were preparing to descend on rebel-held Benghazi during their 2011 civil war.


Read more @:
White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels | JPost | Israel News

Although i suspect that we may already be arming the rebels covertly, i do hope we stay out of this conflict all together with no aid for either side, but only going to civilians.
 
Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.
 
Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.

And how did that turn out for us?
 
And how did that turn out for us?

Fairly well, all things considered. Would have been better off I suppose if State hadn't gotten as involved as it did. Good After Action Review point for next time.
 
Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.

Well, we could do that. But how is that favorable to doing nothing ? Neither winner will be our friend. Let us observe the mutual attrition, and bide our time. Doing nothing is an appropriate choice for us.
 
Well, we could do that. But how is that favorable to doing nothing ? Neither winner will be our friend

That is correct, but destroying the Assad regime is in our interests. There are no good options here, but there are less worse-ones; and it's legitimate for us to push to ensure that they are the ones that come to fruition.
 
That is correct, but destroying the Assad regime is in our interests. There are no good options here, but there are less worse-ones; and it's legitimate for us to push to ensure that they are the ones that come to fruition.

I have yet to see any evidence what-so-ever that the replacement for the Assad regime will better serve our interests. That is not an endorsement, just an acknowledgement that they all suck. So why get involved at this point ? Let them sort it out, and let us see who is left in the end.
 
I have yet to see any evidence what-so-ever that the replacement for the Assad regime will better serve our interests.

They won't. They're just likely to be less effective at hindering them.

That is not an endorsement, just an acknowledgement that they all suck. So why get involved at this point ?

Because we're not in it to help al Nusra. We're in it to A) make good on the US guarantee that use of WMD against civilian populaces has consequences and B) reduce Iran.
 
Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.

Russia would get pissed off.
 
Fairly well, all things considered. Would have been better off I suppose if State hadn't gotten as involved as it did. Good After Action Review point for next time.

except State was involved from the start.. it was Amb. Stevens driving force behind use of force.
 
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels | JPost | Israel News

Although i suspect that we may already be arming the rebels covertly, i do hope we stay out of this conflict all together with no aid for either side, but only going to civilians.

I don't think Putin would be a happy camper.

Obama waited to long.

What I'm hearing, the Russians are very likely to put combat troops in Syria wearing blue helmets and will call themselves "peace keepers." I think they did something like that a while back in Georgia.

As we have seen over the past 4 years and 5 months, Obama isn't capable of making important quick serious decisions with in hours but it takes him months. Because of Obama's failed foreign policies in the Middle East, the Middle East is a basket case today. America is no longer the big boy on the block to fear in the Middle East. America is no longer a super power.

What we will likely see in four or six years from now, is one big Muslim Shia - Sunni civil war war from the northern Israeli borders to the Iranian border. Thanks Obama.
 
We're in it to A) make good on the US guarantee that use of WMD against civilian populaces has consequences and B) reduce Iran.

Seriously? You mean when the US ignored Iraq using chemical weapons in 1991? I can show you a video of Syrian rebels making and testing chemical weapons on rabbits.. You probably have to sign in to Youtube to see it. So don't jump the gun because nobody has a clue who did what in Syria yet.


If it's the US point to reduce Iran.. you don't overthrow Syria. You let the civil war go on tying up Iranian resources and you attack Iran in different ways (trade, cyber and such).
 
I

What I'm hearing, the Russians are very likely to put combat troops in Syria wearing blue helmets and will call themselves "peace keepers." I think they did something like that a while back in Georgia.
Uhhh source????
And if your talkign about the Golan Heights that was rejected by the UN

As we have seen over the past 4 years and 5 months, Obama isn't capable of making important quick serious decisions with in hours but it takes him months. Because of Obama's failed foreign policies in the Middle East, the Middle East is a basket case today. America is no longer the big boy on the block to fear in the Middle East. America is no longer a super power.

What we will likely see in four or six years from now, is one big Muslim Shia - Sunni civil war war from the northern Israeli borders to the Iranian border. Thanks Obama.
So what should have he dont differently? I hear this so often but i never get an answer..
 
Russia would get pissed off.

and that's bad because.......


Russia has been selling Syria portions of it's IADS network. Let's take advantage of this opportunity to test our weaponeering.
 
Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.

Heya CW. :2wave: For one it would be an act of war. 2. The Syrians are far more capable with their Military effectiveness than what Libya was and their Air defenses more extensive.
 
and that's bad because.......

Russia has been selling Syria portions of it's IADS network. Let's take advantage of this opportunity to test our weaponeering.

Russia wants a bit more time with one of its best customers. While the West supplying rebels will increase demand for Russian arms, a flat-out spanking by NATO would probably kill the addict before Russia gets right.
 
Seriously? You mean when the US ignored Iraq using chemical weapons in 1991?

Yup. However, we didnt' announce to the world that we would consider that a redline. We did so with Assad. The most important part of a threat is being able to back it up.

I can show you a video of Syrian rebels making and testing chemical weapons on rabbits..

Yup. Aren't we glad that nobody listened to CPWILL's advice oh, say, about 15 months ago, and went ahead and either destroyed or secured Syria's WMD stores? Hooray, now that country is becoming a failed state ruled by a hodgepodge of ethnic and religiously affiliated militias, international terrorist groups, and remnants of abusive state military forces, and chemical weapons are rattling around like a handful of blasting caps in an empty can of gas fumes :).

If it's the US point to reduce Iran.. you don't overthrow Syria. You let the civil war go on tying up Iranian resources and you attack Iran in different ways (trade, cyber and such).

Assad is in danger of winning this fight. that's why you see this thread and the reassessment that sparked it.
 
Heya CW. :2wave: For one it would be an act of war

Doesn't seem to have stopped us in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia.....

. 2. The Syrians are far more capable with their Military effectiveness than what Libya was and their Air defenses more extensive.

yeah? :)
 
I don't think Putin would be a happy camper.

Obama waited to long.

What I'm hearing, the Russians are very likely to put combat troops in Syria wearing blue helmets and will call themselves "peace keepers." I think they did something like that a while back in Georgia.

As we have seen over the past 4 years and 5 months, Obama isn't capable of making important quick serious decisions with in hours but it takes him months. Because of Obama's failed foreign policies in the Middle East, the Middle East is a basket case today. America is no longer the big boy on the block to fear in the Middle East. America is no longer a super power.

What we will likely see in four or six years from now, is one big Muslim Shia - Sunni civil war war from the northern Israeli borders to the Iranian border. Thanks Obama.

I don't know why it matters to anyone who doesn't live there. Let 'em sort it out among themselves. There's no way to impose a lasting peace- hell, there's probably no lasting peace possible, so just let the cage match happen and deal with whoever comes out on top. One looks pretty much like the others anyway.
 
Fairly well, all things considered. Would have been better off I suppose if State hadn't gotten as involved as it did. Good After Action Review point for next time.

Not really.....there was no end game to Libya by the West. Now the Country is the Wild Wild West. AQ has morphed into the Hydra. Ansar Al Shariah groups have Sprung up from Yemen to the Maghreb. They have increased in strength and more fighters. Weapons are all over the place. The TNC doesn't control Libya and all of it is spilling over into the surrounding Countries.
 
Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.

Rolling Syria back was the plan all along. And I agree, we don't need to, and shouldn't give the rebels weapons that they'll just turn around and use on us or the Israelis... or even in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey.
 
Last edited:
Uhhh source????
And if your talkign about the Golan Heights that was rejected by the UN


So what should have he dont differently? I hear this so often but i never get an answer..

The source ? Just scuttlebutt in the military community.

What should have Obama done differently ? He should have never ran for President in 2008. Or at least after becoming POTUS and finding out that the job of POTUS was bigger than he was, he should have said, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president."

Well it looks like you can never say again, " I never get an answer."
 
Not really.....there was no end game to Libya by the West. Now the Country is the Wild Wild West. AQ has morphed into the Hydra. Ansar Al Shariah groups have Sprung up from Yemen to the Maghreb. They have increased in strength and more fighters. Weapons are all over the place. The TNC doesn't control Libya and all of it is spilling over into the surrounding Countries.

Yup. There are no "good" options here, merely "less bad ones". Ghaddafi was going to wipe out an entire city of people, we were able to stop him at fairly low cost and without US casualties, taking out an opposition regime in the process. If we can take out Syria, we can remove a similarly brutal and bloody regime while our interests are served far more dramatically. Divesting Iran of a stable and solid Syrian ally, and removing her ability to use Hezbollah to freely project force into the region through that ally is a serious strategic boon for us.

Will some of the spin-off include groups that attack us in the future? Definitely. There is no "and then we all lived happily ever after" option in this pick-your-adventure book.
 
They won't. They're just likely to be less effective at hindering them.



Because we're not in it to help al Nusra. We're in it to A) make good on the US guarantee that use of WMD against civilian populaces has consequences and B) reduce Iran.


Problem here is.....Assad isn't using WMD over his entire population. Moreover another major problem is.....Assad is getting the Blame for the 80k that has been killed. Which is an absolute Outright LIE and false information that is being given to the World. Especially since the Rebels are responsible for over 1/3rd of the Deaths inside Syria. That would make the SUNNI no better than the Shia and responsible for 90% of the problems in the M.E.

Shouldn't we then Make sure we keep our Promise to World. Keeping the Sunni Muslims from Starting WWIII? Shouldn't we make sure that the Sunni Muslims understand completely when they screw-up. That we are coming to put the smack down on them as well. Regardless of Alliances.

Which means when they start s**t.....there are consequences to their actions. Shouldn't the Sunni Muslims be taught this lesson forcibly so that they can not only understand.....but Comprehend where they stand in the Real Big Picture of things.
 
Back
Top Bottom