• 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

Well if you believe the US at this point when they tell you how long a military engagement will last and cost, good for you.

Yeah. So, no, in fact, you are not able to demonstrate how a strike against Assads' IADs and CW networks would inflame the whole region in war?
 
I never said that it was a "straight black and white deal." There was legit dislike of Mubarak and the did want him out because he was a horrible leader who mainly looked out for US and Israeli interests and terrorized the people of Egypt rather than helped them.



Agreed.

Wasn't so much targeting you specifically as much as arguments that some have made that cant seem to make those distinctions...

But I think we both agree that the entire revolution was manipulated by the us, taking advantage of the sentiment that was already on the verge legitimately within the people.
 
Here's the problem with Syria. There are no good guys on either side. Assad is a tyrant but he is generally popular with most of the people living in Syria, except for the Islamists and the people he killed with poison gas. He's fighting a rebel army, which McCain mistakenly calls the free Syrian army, that is made up of a coalition of Islamists, AlQaeda, foreign fighters and relatives of the people that Assad gassed. They are involved in a civil war that has nothing to do with the United States.

Here's the problem with the United States. Our President took a side. Neither side is worthy of our support but now Obama has signaled his intentions. Then he let Putin gain the upper hand. Russia supports Assad and with Russian support Assad feels that he has the ability to tell Obama to stop giving material support to the rebels. Putin and Assad are banging Obama like a cheap screen door.

How did Syria and Russia get the upper hand? Obama doesn't believe in strength through power. He believes in negotiated peace without a consistent foreign policy that indicates America says it will do something and does it. Everyone in the Middle East understands that Obama is a weak leader and he has made himself look even weaker by rattling his saber and then throwing it into the lap of Congress, sending his dufus Secretary of State to go talk to the Russians in hopes of diffusing the actions that he controls. It's the most disjointed international effort I've ever seen.
 
Asad in charge is better than allowing AlQaeda to take charge. Asad protects the christians from the Muslims.
 
President Obama must promise not to arm rebel forces or Syrian dictator Bashar Assad will not hand over his chemical weapons, the embattled leader told a Russian state media outlet today while demanding that Israel also surrender its nuclear arsenal.

“When we see that the U.S. genuinely stands for stability in our region, stops threatening us with military intervention and stops supplying terrorists with weapons, then we will consider it possible to finalize all necessary procedures and they will become legitimate and acceptable for Syria," Assad told RIA News.

Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels, or no deal | WashingtonExaminer.com

Just saying, it would feel good to bomb him....
 
That's like not believing that the huge block of steel dropping from the sky towards your head isn't for real until it hits your head. You might consider a paradigm as your current reality.

This analogy is correct up to the part where seeing the steel should represent us seeing nukes from Israelites. Has anyone at least seen nuke missiles or so? Has there been a presentation of such of nukes from Israel?

Even if it is so the analogy is not about hitting anyone's head. It is about the steel hitting ground so as all would see the impact and believe it.
 
More on this please?

Mornin DDD. :2wave: The reason I said.....that was due to the French filing Enforceable action resolutions in the UN. Over 5 different countries that we know of. That in each the French has had to rely on the US for assistance to get whatever done. That they did not handle anything on their own. Plus then it is the French who jump into the MS Media Sources. AP, Reuters, and UPI.
 
What absolute ****. Also, the amount of Assad apologists on this board is frightening.
 
This is a no win situation for the US. If we help the rebels, we risk the extremists coming in. We should just mind our own business for once.
And under what category would you place Assad? All this talk about the potential for extremists to gain hold of power, all while an individual with access to large arms and chemical weaponry and robust ties to both Hezbollah and Iran, the two most prominent supporters of terror in the region, is slaughtering his own citizenry and displacing scores of refugees into neighboring allies. The idea that a relatively disjointed opposition could inflict the same amount of instability and damage to the region is quite frankly naive.
 
Here's the problem with Syria. There are no good guys on either side.

That's demonstratively false.

The Free Syrian Army is 80,000 strong, making it the largest faction in the Syrian opposition. It's made up of several secular, moderate Muslim elements that have even been fighting with more radical elements, like the Al Nusar front. To claim that there are no good guys is just plain wrong.
 
What do you mean. He said that the US must stop arming the terrorists in his country if they want his cooperation.
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.
 
Obama wants Assad gone because he's hellbent on having Al-Qaeda in power in Syria. The Obama admin has been training Al-Qaeda, arming Al-Qaeda, and funneling money and information to Al-Qaeda.
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.
 
Frontpage magazine? Are you ****ing kidding me? :lamo

I would've accepted RT first.

Had you bothered to follow the link in the piece you would have read this.

While the U.S. already is providing money, equipment, training and limited weaponry to the Free Syrian Army (FSA), some U.S. military officials are growing increasingly concerned about the presence of extremist Islamic groups within the overall force. A U.S. military strike, even a limited one, could tip the balance in the civil war in favor of the rebels, they argue, potentially propelling these or other radical Islamic groups into a position of power in a post-Assad Syria.

No kidding. From NBC, no conservative bastion.
 
What absolute ****. Also, the amount of Assad apologists on this board is frightening.

I don't think it is Assad Apologists, more like anything to attack President Obama. Assad has ZERO say in this. This is a big boy discussion between Russia and the USofA. Assad will do as he is told or risk complete Isolation if they buck up against Russia. Putin is KGB not Military- the idea of a toe to toe slug fest makes him pee. His world is the behind the back, poison a target's tea crap. He does intrigue and propaganda far more than military action. Putin blinked and now with Con support here at home he is trying to cast himself as a peacemaker. He started out drawing a line at sea with his navy and now 'only wants peace'... :roll:

I had to laugh at the Cons trying to claim Obama should have entered Syria 2 1/2 years ago after the snit fit the Cons had over any support for NATO by USofA forces in Libya! Spare us the revisionist crap!

The choices have always been- support a known brutal dictator or support an uncertain power struggle for Syria. President Obama is assailed no matter what he does or doesn't do by the Cons in Congress. The average citizens wants no more Iraqs, like our citizens a generation ago wanted no more Vietnams. Not exactly a stage for success.

Exactly why President Obama stayed out until chemical weapons were used.
 
Had you bothered to follow the link in the piece you would have read this.



No kidding. From NBC, no conservative bastion.
Your article claimed that NBC themselves dispelled the notion of the existence of the FSA all together, when in fact the actual quote cited concerns about extremists within the FSA. Somewhat contradictory, yes?
 
That's demonstratively false.

The Free Syrian Army is 80,000 strong, making it the largest faction in the Syrian opposition. It's made up of several secular, moderate Muslim elements that have even been fighting with more radical elements, like the Al Nusar front. To claim that there are no good guys is just plain wrong.

Lovely supporting links there, Skippy.

The Free Syrian Army | Institute for the Study of War

http://www.euronews.com/2013/09/12/free-syrian-army-rejects-russian-chemical-weapons-proposal/
 
Your article claimed that NBC themselves dispelled the notion of the existence of the FSA all together, when in fact the actual quote cited concerns about extremists within the FSA. Somewhat contradictory, yes?


It's not contradictory to understand that the forces fighting against Assad include supporters of AlQaeda and foreign fighters. To me, that makes the term Free Syrian Army a myth. It's just a coalition of fighters who dislike Assad, foreigners and supporters of a terrorist organization. We are making the same mistake in Syria that we did in the 80's in Afghanistan when the mujahadeen including Bin Laden fought the Russians. The old axiom the enemy of my enemy is my friend is wrong and we should be very careful who we arm in a conflict that we have no business being involved in.
 
It's not contradictory to understand that the forces fighting against Assad include supporters of AlQaeda and foreign fighters. To me, that makes the term Free Syrian Army a myth. It's just a coalition of fighters who dislike Assad, foreigners and supporters of a terrorist organization. We are making the same mistake in Syria that we did in the 80's in Afghanistan when the mujahadeen including Bin Laden fought the Russians. The old axiom the enemy of my enemy is my friend is wrong and we should be very careful who we arm in a conflict that we have no business being involved in.

Get a load of this..

As rebels behead Assad's thugs in front of children, the question: should we really take sides in Syria's bloodbath? | Mail Online
 
This is a no win situation for the US. If we help the rebels, we risk the extremists coming in. We should just mind our own business for once.

I can understand the argument "not our problem, not our business, stay out."

I can't buy the argument "If we help the rebels, we risk the extremists coming in". Assad is a ruthless, brutal dictator who is already supported by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Are they considered "the good guys now?"

If not, why do people insist on using that particular argument?
 
Back
Top Bottom