• 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!

US provides aid to Syrian rebels

hfd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
675
Reaction score
104
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
US training Syrian opposition forces in Jordan for months, sources say | Fox News

"The training program, first reported by the Associated Press, involves classes of about 50 to 60 secular Syrian fighters led by about 100 American trainers, a number that was capped by the Jordanian government. The program is part of a bid to bolster forces battling President Bashar Assad's regime and stem the influence of Islamist radicals among the country's persistently splintered opposition."


Why are we doing this? Do we know who the 'Syrian' rebels are? Far away and long ago we got involved in another Civil War in SE Asia. And, if things are so dire fiscally, how can we afford this?
 
Why are we doing this? Do we know who the 'Syrian' rebels are? Far away and long ago we got involved in another Civil War in SE Asia. And, if things are so dire fiscally, how can we afford this?

Yeah, we should just let another 100k die and Assad can remain king.
 
Yeah, we should just let another 100k die and Assad can remain king.


How do we know how many have died? Do we really need to be involved in Civil Wars? With all the bleating about the need for government revenue can we afford it? And finally, how do we know that the anti-Assad folks are any more reasonable than he?
 
How do we know how many have died? Do we really need to be involved in Civil Wars? With all the bleating about the need for government revenue can we afford it? And finally, how do we know that the anti-Assad folks are any more reasonable than he?

The article claimed the fighters are secular, it seems the US government has more intel than you. Yes, we really need to be involved in dictators slaughtering their own people, we are morally obligated circumstance and context permits intervention. I don't care what we can afford, the US standard of living is too damn high. Well, when the transition government, under the guidance of the UN, starts bombing their own people with the airforce, then we know they are just as bad.

You don't seem to be seeing the big picture here. The UN supporting the transitional government instead of Iran supporting a dictator. Which do you think is better?
 
The article claimed the fighters are secular, it seems the US government has more intel than you. Yes, we really need to be involved in dictators slaughtering their own people, we are morally obligated circumstance and context permits intervention. I don't care what we can afford, the US standard of living is too damn high. Well, when the transition government, under the guidance of the UN, starts bombing their own people with the airforce, then we know they are just as bad.

You don't seem to be seeing the big picture here. The UN supporting the transitional government instead of Iran supporting a dictator. Which do you think is better?

We were also told that the 'fighters' in Libya were secular. I see a big picture here. We are involved in a Civil War. We don't need to be doing that. Governments over the years have killed their own. Hell, we did it. Remember? I take it you supported the actions against Saddam. After all, he killed his own.
 
We were also told that the 'fighters' in Libya were secular. I see a big picture here. We are involved in a Civil War. We don't need to be doing that. Governments over the years have killed their own. Hell, we did it. Remember? I take it you supported the actions against Saddam. After all, he killed his own.

Ok, dude, that's a bunch of crap that really has nothing to do with the topic, except when you blurt somewhere in the middle "We don't need to be doing that". Aside from that childish and, I believe, wrong claim, is there anything in there that I should address?
 
Ok, dude, that's a bunch of crap that really has nothing to do with the topic, except when you blurt somewhere in the middle "We don't need to be doing that". Aside from that childish and, I believe, wrong claim, is there anything in there that I should address?

We are doing what has gotten us in trouble over and again. We are spending money we don't have on a foreign adventure. Please point out where my claims are wrong.

BTW: Perhaps you missed this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/w...play-key-role-in-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Syrian rebels tolerate extremists despite fears from the West - Your Middle East

There's more if one looks around. You did support taking out Saddam, correct?
 
We are doing what has gotten us in trouble over and again. We are spending money we don't have on a foreign adventure. Please point out where my claims are wrong.

BTW: Perhaps you missed this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/w...play-key-role-in-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Syrian rebels tolerate extremists despite fears from the West - Your Middle East

There's more if one looks around.

I didn't miss any of that. We cannot allow a dictator to bomb their own with the airforce. Not in Libya and not in Syria.
 
The rebels are not so squeaky clean and although the country is a disaster there are better ways of helping the innocents than by providing aid and arms for the rebels.
 
The article claimed the fighters are secular, it seems the US government has more intel than you. Yes, we really need to be involved in dictators slaughtering their own people, we are morally obligated circumstance and context permits intervention. I don't care what we can afford, the US standard of living is too damn high. Well, when the transition government, under the guidance of the UN, starts bombing their own people with the airforce, then we know they are just as bad.

You don't seem to be seeing the big picture here. The UN supporting the transitional government instead of Iran supporting a dictator. Which do you think is better?

I agree with your intent, however we (the US) doesn't make a difference because our military is always judged and general consensus dictates the wars we fight.

We could go in and kick ass, but we don't because people will cry about it and some will even go as far as self immolation or resort to domestic terrorism (Bill Ayers) which I personally find contradictive considering it's like screwing for virginity.

I suppose my point is that if we want to make a change in the world then we should do it right instead of screwing around.

Of course geo-politics is crazy stuff any way.
 
I didn't miss any of that. We cannot allow a dictator to bomb their own with the airforce. Not in Libya and not in Syria.

Why is that? It is an internal matter and none of our business.
 
The article claimed the fighters are secular, it seems the US government has more intel than you. Yes, we really need to be involved in dictators slaughtering their own people, we are morally obligated circumstance and context permits intervention. I don't care what we can afford, the US standard of living is too damn high. Well, when the transition government, under the guidance of the UN, starts bombing their own people with the airforce, then we know they are just as bad.

You don't seem to be seeing the big picture here. The UN supporting the transitional government instead of Iran supporting a dictator. Which do you think is better?

We already know they are bad.....they have massacred Christians. The Rebels don't even acknowledge the Oppositional leadership. They wont back the Free Syrian Army Faction. Jabhat al-Nusra has the backing of most of the Rebels. The Muslim Brotherhood is also involved. Moreover Qatar and the Saud are bankrolling their Sunni Brothers. Yet Neither one.....the Saudi or Qatar themselves would dare attack Syria. Both could team up and it wouldn't matter. Knowing they would get their azzes kicked and stomped on. Let their Azzes pay for all their Sunni brothers. Let them be the ones to get all involved as it should be. It's their War, on the bottom line with Sunni and Shi'te.

Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group.....

Rebel groups across Syria are defying the United States by pledging their allegiance to a group that Washington will designate today a terrorist organization for its alleged links to al-Qaeda.

A total of 29 opposition groups, including fighting "brigades" and civilian committees, have signed a petition calling for mass demonstrations in support of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist group which the White House believes is an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The petition is promoting the slogan "No to American intervention, for we are all Jabhat al-Nusra" and urges supporters to "raise the Jabhat al-Nusra flag" as a "thank you".

Although Jabhat al-Nusra remains separate from the Free Syrian Army, many FSA leaders now recognise its strength and order their forces to cooperate with it.

Even mainstream opposition activists expressed anger at what they claimed was America's last-minute attempt to "muscle in on their revolution".

"It is terrible timing on the part of the United States," said Mulham Jundi, who works with the opposition charity Watan Syria. "By calling Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists, the US is legitimising the Syrian regime's bombardment of cities like Aleppo. Now the government can say it is attacking terrorists."

The rise of Jabhat al-Nusra represents the Americans' worst fear – they refused to arm the rebels earlier in the conflict to avoid weapons falling into the hands of jihadists, only to find that in their absence, jihadi groups well-funded by supporters in the Gulf have risen to prominence.

The West attempted to rectify this at the weekend by backing the formation of a new FSA command structure at a meeting in Turkey. Its new leadership, which sidelines former commanders such as Gen Mustafa al-Sheikh and Col Riad al-Assad, includes senior figures without a regime background. Many are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or even more radical Salafi movements, but are thought to be men with whom the West "can do business".....snip~

Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group - Telegraph
 
US training Syrian opposition forces in Jordan for months, sources say | Fox News

"The training program, first reported by the Associated Press, involves classes of about 50 to 60 secular Syrian fighters led by about 100 American trainers, a number that was capped by the Jordanian government. The program is part of a bid to bolster forces battling President Bashar Assad's regime and stem the influence of Islamist radicals among the country's persistently splintered opposition."


Why are we doing this? Do we know who the 'Syrian' rebels are? Far away and long ago we got involved in another Civil War in SE Asia. And, if things are so dire fiscally, how can we afford this?

From what I understand it is not the U.S. military doing the training and the training is either those whom we know are not AQ or terrorist or we are training the Jordanians so they can in turn train the Syrian opposition to Assad.
 
Why are we doing this? Do we know who the 'Syrian' rebels are? Far away and long ago we got involved in another Civil War in SE Asia. And, if things are so dire fiscally, how can we afford this?

I dont know, a lot of conservatives who are apologists for Bush and the Iraq war would say "That Saddam was evil and massacring his own people so we had to throw him out". Well wouldnt one say that "Assad is evil and is massacring his own people so we have to help the rebels throw him out"?
 
foreign interventionism is seldom a worthwhile venture. I have a feeling the Syrian conflict is going to get much worse before things improve. Which is terrible considering how bad things have gotten already.
 
I dont know, a lot of conservatives who are apologists for Bush and the Iraq war would say "That Saddam was evil and massacring his own people so we had to throw him out". Well wouldnt one say that "Assad is evil and is massacring his own people so we have to help the rebels throw him out"?

Well, looking back there is quite a lot of liberals and progressives that were Apologists for all sorts of Military Engagements. Which usually happens anytime they deal with anything Outside the US. Let alone Iraq. Basically due to always being screw ups, making mistakes and misreading Foreign Policy. Just can't get it together when it comes to where the Big Boys Play.

Like not recognizing that it is evil to massacre one grouping of people, while only recognizing; the evil massacring.....by another. Then defend those whom have no defense.
 
Well, looking back there is quite a lot of liberals and progressives that were Apologists for all sorts of Military Engagements. Which usually happens anytime they deal with anything Outside the US. Let alone Iraq. Basically due to always being screw ups, making mistakes and misreading Foreign Policy. Just can't get it together when it comes to where the Big Boys Play.

Like not recognizing that it is evil to massacre one grouping of people, while only recognizing; the evil massacring.....by another. Then defend those whom have no defense.

Are you saying liberals and progressives always make mistakes when it comes to war? Did you forget the 8 years of the Bush foreign policy?
 
Are you saying liberals and progressives always make mistakes when it comes to war? Did you forget the 8 years of the Bush foreign policy?

Did you forget NAM and that 56k? Think anything can possible ever compare? Did ya forget their latest screw up with Libya? Their mistakes with the Russians. Getting outplayed by the French as well as those Sunni Arabs.

Now How about defending those that massacre others who have no weapons.....yet defend them Staunchly in the UN?
 
Did you forget NAM and that 56k? Think anything can possible ever compare? Did ya forget their latest screw up with Libya? Their mistakes with the Russians. Getting outplayed by the French as well as those Sunni Arabs.

Now How about defending those that massacre others who have no weapons.....yet defend them Staunchly in the UN?

What the flying **** are you talking about
 
What the flying **** are you talking about

I am talking about Rice and Clinton, McCain, Graham as well as Obama defending these Sunni Rebel Arabs that are out massacring Christians. As well as killing any Shia Arabs. U know which New Dictator for the Sunni will be taking Assad's place once they can drive him out.
 
I am talking about Rice and Clinton, McCain, Graham as well as Obama defending these Sunni Rebel Arabs that are out massacring Christians. As well as killing any Shia Arabs. U know which New Dictator for the Sunni will be taking Assad's place once they can drive him out.

Ok.. We will just have to wait and see what happens. I agree we should not be getting involved in any civil war on any side.
 
Did you forget NAM and that 56k? Think anything can possible ever compare? Did ya forget their latest screw up with Libya? Their mistakes with the Russians. Getting outplayed by the French as well as those Sunni Arabs.

Now How about defending those that massacre others who have no weapons.....yet defend them Staunchly in the UN?

Libya was an overall resounding success if you compare it to Iraq. If you look at the amount of effort in terms of dollars and lives the United States spent on regime change in Iraq vs Libya, you'll see a clear difference. Iraq also suffers far more terrorism post war than Libya does, Iraq is also much more unstable than Libya is today. And if you look at what the United States got for its blood and money, Iraq has clearly been much less friendly to US interests than Libya has been.
 
Libya was an overall resounding success if you compare it to Iraq.

really? How many American Ambassadors got murdered in Iraq?

In fact Iraq become a failure when the majority of the troops pulled out, Afghanistan, which Obama claimed was the important war, is also a failure. The US is in retreat and the world knows it.

Libya will go Islamic, like Egypt, as will Syria. Iraq will go nuclear and so will all those other Islamic States with whom it becomes aligned.

This is what happens when people elect a know-nothing President whose opinions are better suited to the faculty lounge at a local high school than in the real world.
If you look at the amount of effort in terms of dollars and lives the United States spent on regime change in Iraq vs Libya, you'll see a clear difference. Iraq also suffers far more terrorism post war than Libya does, Iraq is also much more unstable than Libya is today. And if you look at what the United States got for its blood and money, Iraq has clearly been much less friendly to US interests than Libya has been.

It's a failed policy. What does it matter it its an expensive failed policy or a cheap failed policy?

Good people with good intentions died, and are still dying, while American leaders cut, obfuscate, and run. You can now ask yourself what they died for and whether good men and women would ever defend their country again when such political betrayals consistently await them..
 
Libya was an overall resounding success if you compare it to Iraq. If you look at the amount of effort in terms of dollars and lives the United States spent on regime change in Iraq vs Libya, you'll see a clear difference. Iraq also suffers far more terrorism post war than Libya does, Iraq is also much more unstable than Libya is today. And if you look at what the United States got for its blood and money, Iraq has clearly been much less friendly to US interests than Libya has been.

Libya is no success, and not even if you can compare it to Iraq. The TNC is there in name only. The Berbers will not accept rule by the MB. Also Right now Libya is the Wild Wild West with whats happening there. Which is why the most have pulled their Ambassadors out of the Country. Which doesn't even count AQ resurging like they are all around Africa. As for Iraq.....that's why Kerry is over there warning them to not allow the Iranians to use their Air Space.....huh? Plus the sectarian killing hasn't stopped. The Whole issue with the Kurds has not been dealt with. Plus Maliki is purging the Sunni Arabs any chance he can get and take.

Also there is no reason to make any excuses for the Sunni Arab Rebels no matter what Countries that Are being given to them by those in the West.
 
Back
Top Bottom