• 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!

Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

President Putin called the US out for arming and otherwise supporting the terrorists. Not just in his op-ed at the NYT, but consistently over president Assad's 2-1/2 year war on terror within his borders.

Does Putin have evidence?

Anyway, he's arming the terrorist.
 
I want some of what your taking to see all that. Fact is Putin and Assad are toeing the line after huffing and puffing.

:lamo

Russia pulled this exact same trick with us with Iran and Obama fell for it then too. Russia isn't even complying with its' commitments to destroy its' OWN chemical weapons, the likelihood of Assad keeping ahold of a portion of his stockpile while giving the Russians a portion approaches 100%, and we look like feckless weak-horses to friend and foe alike across the Middle East and indeed the Globe. Assad went from being the next guy to join Hitler on the ash heap of history to a partner for peace in the matter of a couple of weeks because it turned out that bombing him would have been unpopular, and so Obama backed down.

But why in the world would they toe the line? Putin just succeeded in staring down Obama in his own back yard, and Assad is fully aware that domestic political considerations will keep Obama from being willing to launch an actual strike against him, no matter what he does. Both of them know that Obama will now spend the next couple of months trying desperately to pivot to other subjects, and leave them free to do whatever they want in Syria. I'm a big fan of finding silver linings, but there is nothing about this that is win, dude.
 
Last edited:
President Putin called the US out for arming and otherwise supporting the terrorists. Not just in his op-ed at the NYT, but consistently over president Assad's 2-1/2 year war on terror within his borders.

russia is one to talk: it has been supplying weapons to the assad regime.
 
That is incorrect. He wishes to disarm and subsequently eliminate the opposition in his own country. Assad is in fact quite amiable towards terrorists and the elements that harbor them, so long as none dare question his rule.

President Assad has been fighting his own war on terror, as he and Putin have pointed out repeatedly. There's no "good" guys in the opposition. And the Assad government is the recognised legitimate government of Syria.
 
That is absolutely absurd. Not only your pigeon holing in the form of labeling the entire opposition as Al-Qaeda sympathizers and actors, but in ignoring the fact that Obama has made decimating Al-Qaeda perhaps the top priority of his foreign policy. If Obama was in fact hellbent on handing over the country to the opposition, he would have likely stepped up both financial and military aid to the rebels a great deal sooner. The reality is that Obama has attempted to maintain a relatively benign position throughout the conflict, to the disappointment of many.

Wow! You are in the dark. Terrorists have been put in charge in Egypt, Libya and he's trying in Syria.
 
President Assad has been fighting his own war on terror, as he and Putin have pointed out repeatedly. There's no "good" guys in the opposition. And the Assad government is the recognised legitimate government of Syria.

the people of syria don't view him as legitimate, that's the reason why they are rebelling against assad in the first place.
 
President Assad has been fighting his own war on terror, as he and Putin have pointed out repeatedly.

To the contrary, he's been waging war against opposition to his supreme rule. As pointed out previously, he is in fact quite comfortable with alligning himself with both supporters of and actual terrorist groups.

There's no "good" guys in the opposition.
A tired canard that serves only to excuse inaction. Given your blind faith in both Assad and Putin, I'd sincerely doubt your objectivity or accuracy on this matter.
 
President Assad has been fighting his own war on terror, as he and Putin have pointed out repeatedly.

How many civilians do you think Assad has killed?

There's no "good" guys in the opposition.

All evidence is against you. Where do you get this information?

And the Assad government is the recognised legitimate government of Syria.

Not by the US, France and England (among others).
 
:lamo

Russia pulled this exact same trick with us with Iran and Obama fell for it then too. Russia isn't even complying with its' commitments to destroy its' OWN chemical weapons, the likelihood of Assad keeping ahold of a portion of his stockpile while giving the Russians a portion approaches 100%, and we look like feckless weak-horses to friend and foe alike across the Middle East and indeed the Globe. Assad went from being the next guy to join Hitler on the ash heap of history to a partner for peace in the matter of a couple of weeks because it turned out that bombing him would have been unpopular, and so Obama backed down.

But why in the world would they toe the line? Putin just succeeded in staring down Obama in his own back yard, and Assad is fully aware that domestic political considerations will keep Obama from being willing to launch an actual strike against him, no matter what he does. Both of them know that Obama will now spend the next couple of months trying desperately to pivot to other subjects, and leave them free to do whatever they want in Syria. I'm a big fan of finding silver linings, but there is nothing about this that is win, dude.

i think some people would not see this as a defeat for American foreign policy.

some would call it strategic restraint

https://umdrive.memphis.edu/rblanton/public/POLS_7508_Fall_2012/ikenberry_institutions_IS_1999.pdf
 
President Putin called the US out for arming and otherwise supporting the terrorists. Not just in his op-ed at the NYT, but consistently over president Assad's 2-1/2 year war on terror within his borders.

NTL, Assad never told Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal, did he?
 
i think some people would not see this as a defeat for American foreign policy.

some would call it strategic restraint

https://umdrive.memphis.edu/rblanton/public/POLS_7508_Fall_2012/ikenberry_institutions_IS_1999.pdf


:shrug: sure. And those people would be free to describe to me the results of our "strategic restraint" following the 1983 Beiruit bombing and the pullout after the death of U.S. servicemembers in Somalia.

Actually, they could'nt. Because they wrote that paper in 1999, and the results of our strategic restraint crashed into the twin towers two years later.

Similarly, released papers from the people who took the hostages in Iran in 1979 have since revealed that they originally only intended to hold them for a few days to make a statement, figuring that by then the U.S. would have organized a response and it would be smater to avoid it... until our "strategic restraint" convinced them that no such respnose was coming (and much later, when it did, was disastrous). And so they decided to see what they could play out for.

"Strategic Restraint" is a nice way of saying "ceding the battlespace but not wanting to call it a retreat". "Tactical Withdrawal" is a similar phrase for "got driven back or chased out". It demonstrates that the United States needs no longer be taken seriiously as a threat, and so, we won't be.
 
Last edited:
President Assad has been fighting his own war on terror, as he and Putin have pointed out repeatedly. There's no "good" guys in the opposition. And the Assad government is the recognised legitimate government of Syria.


Oh really? When Assad armed, trained, equipped, and offered Al Qaeda in Iraq a strategic rest and support area in order to kill my friends, was that part of his "war on terror"?
 
So it is your contention that if the U.S. were to launch air strikes against Syrian IADS and CW related infrastructure, that Iran and Russia would enter into a formal state of war with the United States?


Oh, I don't know about that. I just know that there are enough interests with skin in the game in that region that what Putin says is more credible than anything coming from the White House.
 
Does Putin have evidence?

Anyway, he's arming the terrorist.


The evidence has been put up by AT LEAST a half dozen posters on this board in probably two dozen threads on this subject. But you keep ignoring it.
 
Oh, I don't know about that. I just know that there are enough interests with skin in the game in that region that what Putin says is more credible than anything coming from the White House.

So NO in fact, you have no credible way of demonstrating how U.S. strikes would have caused the region to erupt in war?
 
russia is one to talk: it has been supplying weapons to the assad regime.

President Assad's government is the recognised and legitimate government of Syria, whether the US or you like it or not.
 
The evidence has been put up by AT LEAST a half dozen posters on this board in probably two dozen threads on this subject. But you keep ignoring it.

So you cannot cite Putin's "evidence"?

How many civilians has Assad killed?
 
President Assad's government is the recognised and legitimate government of Syria, whether the US or you like it or not.

and what if the syrian people don't recognize Assad as legitimate?

Assad only inherited the role of leader from his father: they were/are both dictators.
 
the people of syria don't view him as legitimate, that's the reason why they are rebelling against assad in the first place.

This wasn't the popular uprising we saw in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere. President Assad has 70% support amongst the syrian people as recognised by NATO. This has been an extremist/militant uprising from the beginning and Putin has called the US and Obama out on it regularly and again in his NYT op-ed piece.
 
How many civilians do you think Assad has killed?



All evidence is against you. Where do you get this information?



Not by the US, France and England (among others).

Less than the US killed in Iraq, what's your point?
 
This wasn't the popular uprising we saw in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere. President Assad has 70% support amongst the syrian people as recognised by NATO. This has been an extremist/militant uprising from the beginning and Putin has called the US and Obama out on it regularly and again in his NYT op-ed piece.

care to offer evidence of that.

the only evidence i see is the people of syria who are dead, dying, wounded, greiving, and suffering.
 
President Assad's government is the recognised and legitimate government of Syria, whether the US or you like it or not.

Well, you can believe whatever you want, but...

The Syrian National Council (SNC)[1] is recognized by 7 UN members, the Republic of Kosovo and the European Union as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people in the midst of the Syrian civil war, with three of those being permanent members of the Security Council.

International recognition of the Syrian National Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
NTL, Assad never told Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal, did he?

If you have evidence disproving the op link, then I suppose not.
 
Back
Top Bottom