• 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 will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

i think this allows us to understand once more why his north vietnamese captors nicknamed mccain "the canary"
one hell of a patriot [/sarcasm]

what a despicable comment
 
what a despicable comment

But it's completely true and it shows just to how low a level Americans will stoop for partisan politics.
For the first time since it's inception I find myself hoping that the teabagger party wins the day and finishes off that old canary this time for good. What a despicable traitor to his country and then he had the nerve to try to bury it and benefit from it.
 
I guess when it comes to the Liberal Radio Talk Shows the Syrian people aren't worth as much as the people of Iraq ...

Syria and U.S. Imperialism

"When U.S. imperialism engages in an attack on any government or movement, it is essential that the workers' and progressive political movements for change gather as much information as is available and take a stand.

It is cowardly to be neutral and rank betrayal to stand on the same side as the imperialist octopus, which seeks to dominate the world."

The Arab American News - Syria and U.S. imperialism

:shock:
NOOOO!!! Why the **** is it our business to get involved in a civil war!? I also suspect that the gov could just be totally making this **** up to get invovled. Also i suspect that we have already been arming them. Why the hell should we get on a side that allies itself with Al-Qaeda groups? This is so stupid.

I think many so called "Truth Tellers" are not all that great. Mike Malloy said he was LIHOP in response to a caller last week that the govmnt had orchestrated 9/11 and contradicting a statement he made previous about Cheneys direct involvement because he had to brush off a caller comment. Such is the state of gutless people. More people are concerned with their ego than with the truth of war crimes on civillians.

So if I may ask, what motivates you to do this writing?

Peace and Justice for the war victims like me?

At least Malloy admits hes sad, tired and fed up with his job as a host when he censors news and cuts off his callers.




The "trick" is in what ONE EMPHASIZES. I didn't see you commenting on any of these comments relating to actual events so I chose for you to possibly add to that discussion. CFR, NWO etc. But you didnt. Or the fact that Syria wa started by Obomber and the civillian and govmnt are innocent victims

Don't be too consumed with defending this or that nuanced opinion of the moment concerning COINTELPRO MEDIA while ignoring the big picture. Anyone can cut and paste info and rearrange it so as to appear as a genuine journalist/ activist. We dont all know about who is who in The COINTEL SPOOKS DEPT (why its called deep cover) they probably borrow from us grass roots like this site to appear real. Abby Martin literally had an entire podcast of late and it was word for word on some things i had just written, so she gets around too if it wasnt a complete coincidence. PRN is a complete mystery, sprang from nowhere maybe they are too. I was a big Ed Schultz fan too, and Randi Rhodes until they attacked the antiwar folk.

I set my personality aside in the interests of news, and educating the public, or else you become just ego or just "playing with your monkey mind" as the Bhuddists say.

There is another saying - "All babies, Bhudda babies" so stop the killing!

Emphasizing derision is not something I would make the focal point of my news coverage or website. I only critique in the interests of challenging the status quo of mass murdering people as "normal" American policy.

Keeping a running count of your list of alternative of COINTELPRO MEDIA (a good phrase many people sould use now that its so common) has become quite a task the news moves so quickly.


We are in this to save innocent human lives or else whats the point?
 
U.S. to increase military support to Syria rebels | Reuters

Just announced. The US has confirmed it has undeniable proof that Assad in fact used chemical weapons against his own people and, as a result, the US will begin supplying lethal military aid to the rebels for the first time since the war began 2 years ago.

About damn time.

Yes, let's continue to stick our nose where it doesn't belong, and fund overly violent factions. It's not like we should learn our lessons from history or anything, like that time we provided heavy air support to the Libyan rebels, and shortly after, they thanked us by murdering our ****ing ambassador in Benghazi. That was last year for ****s sake, and now we're just going to keep doing the same old **** we've been doing for at least half a century because we cling to the hope that it might work at some point in time.

Seriously, this is retarded. If they want to kill each other, it's not our problem. Their civil war is their civil war. It's not our fight, what part of that does nobody seem to ever understand?
 
Seriously, this is retarded. If they want to kill each other, it's not our problem. Their civil war is their civil war. It's not our fight, what part of that does nobody seem to ever understand?

The reality is, it's not a civil war but actually a religious war, Sunni vs. Shiite.
 
Yes, let's continue to stick our nose where it doesn't belong, and fund overly violent factions. It's not like we should learn our lessons from history or anything, like that time we provided heavy air support to the Libyan rebels, and shortly after, they thanked us by murdering our ****ing ambassador in Benghazi. That was last year for ****s sake, and now we're just going to keep doing the same old **** we've been doing for at least half a century because we cling to the hope that it might work at some point in time.

Seriously, this is retarded. If they want to kill each other, it's not our problem. Their civil war is their civil war. It's not our fight, what part of that does nobody seem to ever understand?

BTW the US started this war 2 years ago, then there was a thread everybody at this site posted in saying no to Syria involvement.

In fascism, disinformation, lies spin and hype draw focus from news issues. I see a lot of times human rights, casualties are swopt under the rug in favor of sensationalism, hype, nuttiness like from Alex Joiners Prison Planet cash cow. Norm Goldman thinks marijuana legalization is more important than Syria judging by coverage.

Thats a Dictatorship for ya.
 
The reality is, it's not a civil war but actually a religious war, Sunni vs. Shiite.

It's very much a civil war, since it's a rebel faction trying to overthrow a presiding government. Regardless, their issues are not ours. The UN can do something about it if they feel that international law has been breached to the point of requiring punitive action.
 
It's very much a civil war, since it's a rebel faction trying to overthrow a presiding government. Regardless, their issues are not ours. The UN can do something about it if they feel that international law has been breached to the point of requiring punitive action.

No matter where I stand, it looks pretty obvious, Sunnies vs. Shiites.
That's the way it's been for hundreds of years.

How many Shia do you see fighting alongside the rebels ? How many Sunnies do you see aligned with Assad ?

Why does Obama always back the radical Islamist ?

You would think Obama would have stepped back and took a look at the Middle East and said, "I caused the Middle East to become the basket case it is today ?" and just left it to the new big boy on the block to take on the problem, the Russians.
 
hfd said:
More governmental insanity. Please read.

CIA preparing to deliver rebels arms through Turkey and Jordan - The Washington Post

That seems to be new only in that we are openly doing it.

NATO vs. Syria | The American Conservative

Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi’s arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi’s army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the link back to Benghazi. I'm just surprised few have recognized it. Ask yourself these questions:

- Why did the U.S. retain a temporary consulate office in Benghazi when ever other nation had left? What was its purpose?
- What was the mop-up plan to collect all the loose weapons on the Libyan battlefield post-Ghadaffi?
- Where did those weapons go?
- Why the sudden arming by the U.S. along the Turkish/Syrian border when most of the refugees were going west not north?

You may find most of your answers here.
 
Last edited:
Judging from your response to me, I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was referring to. I was referring to those who weeks ago were criticizing Obama for not being a blowhard and commit toinvading Syria because of the red line comment he made last year, without careful deliberation and investigation.

In response to what I said, here's all that matters.

Obama's Syria Policy a Mess | The Weekly Standard


Not at all, I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm assuming those who criticized Obama weeks ago for not taking action before carefully investigating the evidence are now singing his praises, since the "red line" was apparently so important to them.

Of course, if they are not, then that would suggest hypocrisy, but I didn't say anything like that. You did, but I didn't.

Most of the criticism that I read about Obama and his "red-line" had nothing to do with any belief that we needed to commit forces. Rather, it was just one more display that the strutting rooster Obama, with all of his huffing and puffing, was once again shown to be a capon, and a lying one at that. He gives our foes a good laugh though.
 
Judging from your response to me, I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was referring to. I was referring to those who weeks ago were criticizing Obama for not being a blowhard and commit toinvading Syria because of the red line comment he made last year, without careful deliberation and investigation.

In response to what I said, here's all that matters.



Obama's Syria Policy a Mess | The Weekly Standard


Not at all, I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm assuming those who criticized Obama weeks ago for not taking action before carefully investigating the evidence are now singing his praises, since the "red line" was apparently so important to them.

Of course, if they are not, then that would suggest hypocrisy, but I didn't say anything like that. You did, but I didn't.

I'm assuming those who criticized Obama weeks ago for not taking action before carefully investigating the evidence are now singing his praises = hypocrisy. You said it, I didn't.
 
There are some talking secession but that's unlikely to happen. America needs a strong leader with respect for traditional values who can bring people together, but I can't yet see anyone yet who can do it. Another BHO clone, like Hillary, would destroy the country. The people can't afford to sleepwalk through another election.

Unlikely to happen right now. What about after 20 more years of this? 40 more years? Obama is the most divisive president in recent history. Bush pissed off liberals. Clinton ruined the reputation of the Presidency. Bush was weak. Reagan was divisive. Carter was a joke. Nixon was a criminal. JFK was a womanizer. How much longer can it go on?
 
Obama is without a doubt 'not' behind the action of arming Syria's terrorist fighters. It's just too patently obvious that there has not been any use of chem/bio weapons by Assad's regime
Ah, you must be privy to information the rest of us aren't.
Most of the criticism that I read about Obama and his "red-line" had nothing to do with any belief that we needed to commit forces.
Of course it was. I read constantly how not backing up the red line claim makes America weak. Now that the game has changed, I'd expect those same people to sing his praises and kiss his feet.

Rather, it was just one more display that the strutting rooster Obama, with all of his huffing and puffing, was once again shown to be a capon, and a lying one at that.
I don't even know how to respond to this obviously false statement.

I'm assuming those who criticized Obama weeks ago for not taking action before carefully investigating the evidence are now singing his praises = hypocrisy. You said it, I didn't.
You obviously have no idea what the word hypocrisy means. Consult a dictionary and then get back to me.

I DID say that.
Obama is the most divisive president in recent history.
:lol:
 
Ah, you must be privy to information the rest of us aren't.
Of course it was. I read constantly how not backing up the red line claim makes America weak. Now that the game has changed, I'd expect those same people to sing his praises and kiss his feet.

I don't even know how to respond to this obviously false statement.


You obviously have no idea what the word hypocrisy means. Consult a dictionary and then get back to me.

I DID say that.
:lol:

At this very moment..David Cameron is receiving Vladimir Putin at number !0..

Discussing the Syrian conflict...
 
Unlikely to happen right now. What about after 20 more years of this? 40 more years? Obama is the most divisive president in recent history. Bush pissed off liberals. Clinton ruined the reputation of the Presidency. Bush was weak. Reagan was divisive. Carter was a joke. Nixon was a criminal. JFK was a womanizer. How much longer can it go on?

It can go on until :
A) we give up on presidents and return to a king or dictator
B) we give up on corruption and hold people accountable
C) we can run this system as it is until it collapses under the weight of its own corruption.
 
No matter where I stand, it looks pretty obvious, Sunnies vs. Shiites.
That's the way it's been for hundreds of years.

How many Shia do you see fighting alongside the rebels ? How many Sunnies do you see aligned with Assad ?

Why does Obama always back the radical Islamist ?

You would think Obama would have stepped back and took a look at the Middle East and said, "I caused the Middle East to become the basket case it is today ?" and just left it to the new big boy on the block to take on the problem, the Russians.

You are siding with the Russians? They are simply being greedy mercenaries selling arms to a murderer.
Only Sunnis are radical islamists? Iran and Hezbolah are SHIA. They don't seem radical to you?
 
......... Of course it was. I read constantly how not backing up the red line claim makes America weak. Now that the game has changed, I'd expect those same people to sing his praises and kiss his feet.

Hardly. Rather it was one more example of Obama being a lot of hot air. In the hopes that maybe a few of those who blindly support him might WTFU.
 
Yes, let's continue to stick our nose where it doesn't belong, and fund overly violent factions. It's not like we should learn our lessons from history or anything, like that time we provided heavy air support to the Libyan rebels, and shortly after, they thanked us by murdering our ****ing ambassador in Benghazi. That was last year for ****s sake, and now we're just going to keep doing the same old **** we've been doing for at least half a century because we cling to the hope that it might work at some point in time.

I always chuckle when people warn about getting involved in Syria by pointing to Libya. If only we could be so lucky in Syria. Libya was a resounding success compared to what we will face in Syria. Benghazi was unfortunate but it was largely an isolated event and is by no means indicative of the overall transition - unless you believe the White House narrative that it was a riot that got out of control. For most Americans, that's the only news they've read on Libya in the past year, so I can understand why people get that impression. But that's just ignorance.

Libya's NTC has already handed power over to the newly elected General National Congress. In the election Jibril's relatively secular National Forces Alliance won big against the more conservative islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya's economy has rebounded, jumping by over 50% last year. And polls show that Libyans have unusually favorable opinions towards Americans and the American gov't - they like us better than the Brits do. Benghazi notwithstanding, extremist jihadists are not going to find a sympathetic audience in Libya. Admittedly, it hasn't been all smooth-sailing and there have been some setbacks and bumps. Some of the militias enjoy their power too much and are refusing to disband and are tying to strongarm the democractic transition in their favor and the passing of the unfortunate Isolation Law, for example.

But none of these are intractable problems and the prognosis for Libya is pretty damn good. Not the case for Syria. Even the most unrealistically optimistic predictions for Syria fall far short of Libya. So, point all you want at Libya, that's only going to encourage me.

Seriously, this is retarded. If they want to kill each other, it's not our problem. Their civil war is their civil war. It's not our fight, what part of that does nobody seem to ever understand?

Actually, lots of people understand that. Most Americans take that position and don't want any involvement in Syria. It's the wrong position. We don't live in a vacuum. Even if you don't give two ****s about the humanitarian issues, foreign events inevitably affect us whether we like it or not. I'm not of the mind that we should sit back, cross our fingers, and just hope that things transpire in our favor.
 
I always chuckle when people warn about getting involved in Syria by pointing to Libya. If only we could be so lucky in Syria. Libya was a resounding success compared to what we will face in Syria. Benghazi was unfortunate but it was largely an isolated event and is by no means indicative of the overall transition - unless you believe the White House narrative that it was a riot that got out of control. For most Americans, that's the only news they've read on Libya in the past year, so I can understand why people get that impression. But that's just ignorance.

Libya's NTC has already handed power over to the newly elected General National Congress. In the election Jibril's relatively secular National Forces Alliance won big against the more conservative islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya's economy has rebounded, jumping by over 50% last year. And polls show that Libyans have unusually favorable opinions towards Americans and the American gov't - they like us better than the Brits do. Benghazi notwithstanding, extremist jihadists are not going to find a sympathetic audience in Libya. Admittedly, it hasn't been all smooth-sailing and there have been some setbacks and bumps. Some of the militias enjoy their power too much and are refusing to disband and are tying to strongarm the democractic transition in their favor and the passing of the unfortunate Isolation Law, for example.

But none of these are intractable problems and the prognosis for Libya is pretty damn good. Not the case for Syria. Even the most unrealistically optimistic predictions for Syria fall far short of Libya. So, point all you want at Libya, that's only going to encourage me.

I agree with you about Libya being a "success", doesn't mean it was right and it will probably have repercussions for decades to come.

However, with the extent of the lying and coverups surrounding Benghazi, there is very little that can be said with any certainty.

However, given the timeline with the talking points suggests that the whole situation was premeditated to some extent.



Actually, lots of people understand that. Most Americans take that position and don't want any involvement in Syria. It's the wrong position. We don't live in a vacuum. Even if you don't give two ****s about the humanitarian issues, foreign events inevitably affect us whether we like it or not. I'm not of the mind that we should sit back, cross our fingers, and just hope that things transpire in our favor.

I get the position of wanting to support the factions which will be a benefit to us in the long-term.

The problem is that we have a track record of arming the factions that, once they get the goals we help them to attain then begin to act in their own best interests and usually that involves becoming our future enemies that need to be dealt with.

You are right that groups seeking power will fill the void, but it's far too common in this situation that our intentions backfire.

Since intervention has such a bad track record, maybe we should just sit back and cross our fingers... Save ourselves billions of dollars, thousands of soldiers, and maybe wind up with a result that will work to our benefit
 
I always chuckle when people warn about getting involved in Syria by pointing to Libya. If only we could be so lucky in Syria. Libya was a resounding success compared to what we will face in Syria. (1) Benghazi was unfortunate but it was largely an isolated event and is by no means indicative of the overall transition - unless you believe the White House narrative that it was a riot that got out of control. For most Americans, that's the only news they've read on Libya in the past year, so I can understand why people get that impression. But that's just ignorance.

Libya's NTC has already handed power over to the newly elected General National Congress. In the election Jibril's relatively secular National Forces Alliance won big against the more conservative islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. (2) Libya's economy has rebounded, jumping by over 50% last year. (3) And polls show that Libyans have unusually favorable opinions towards Americans and the American gov't - they like us better than the Brits do. (4) Benghazi notwithstanding, extremist jihadists are not going to find a sympathetic audience in Libya. Admittedly, it hasn't been all smooth-sailing and there have been some setbacks and bumps. Some of the militias enjoy their power too much and are refusing to disband and are tying to strongarm the democractic transition in their favor and the passing of the unfortunate Isolation Law, for example.

But none of these are intractable problems and the prognosis for Libya is pretty damn good. Not the case for Syria. Even the most unrealistically optimistic predictions for Syria fall far short of Libya. So, point all you want at Libya, that's only going to encourage me.

Actually, lots of people understand that. Most Americans take that position and don't want any involvement in Syria. It's the wrong position. We don't live in a vacuum. Even if you don't give two ****s about the humanitarian issues, foreign events inevitably affect us whether we like it or not. I'm not of the mind that we should sit back, cross our fingers, and just hope that things transpire in our favor.

Can you provide some links/sources to back this up (highlighted in red)? - because that is not what i read or heard about Lybia's situation so far.

Fallen.
 
You are siding with the Russians? They are simply being greedy mercenaries selling arms to a murderer.
Only Sunnis are radical islamists? Iran and Hezbolah are SHIA. They don't seem radical to you?

Both Sunnis and Shiites seem radical to me.

Since the 1980's I have always looked upon Islam as being a flawed religion. It has never been a religion of peace.

Islam respects those they fear. Islam don't fear Obama so they have little respect for Obama which means they don't respect America. Obama blew it big time with his failed foreign policies. Today the Muslim Brotherhood is in control of most of the Middle East. Al Qaeda when Obama took office in 2009 was confined to two parts of the world, Yeman and the Horn of Africa. Under Obama Al Qaeda base of operations have sread all over the Middle East and North Africa while Obama ran for reelection lieing to the American people that Al Qaeda was on the run and was being decimated.

America lost it's influence in the Middle East when Obama supported the "Arab Spring" and today the entire Middle East and North Africa are a basket case. Russia now is the big boy in the Middle East.

Pay attention to Russia and watch what they do. Putin doesn't respect Obama and looks at him as an incompetent fool, which he is.
That big bear to the north is out of hibernation.
 
Slyfox, you can't make an excuse and say you're not privy to the information on the fact that Assad hasn't used chem/bio. If you are unaware then it has to be because of your laziness in not following the story or a just plain dogmatic position that forces you to believe US propaganda.

Would you like to be informed and take part in the discussion from an informed position or are you happy with what you believe now? One of your best allies on this forum has already rolled over and said the chem/bio use doesn't matter. That was because the least bit of real information drove him to be embarrassed on his position. And so his position became, it doesn't matter because the US needs to assist the terrorist rebels in any case. That's a much more credible and believable position than yours.
So do you want to be taken seriously?
 
Back
Top Bottom