• 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!

Gates - Obama Fed Propaganda

Jack Hays said:
Not then.
Click to expand...

YES, AND, Not only then long before then. "Regime change" in Syria has been a long term US foreign policy goal for Syria. As soon as the uprising began, the US exploited it as an extension of the Arab Spring, although it never was.

The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-us-secretly-backed-syria-opposition/
 
Montecresto said:
YES, AND, Not only then long before then. "Regime change" in Syria has been a long term US foreign policy goal for Syria. As soon as the uprising began, the US exploited it as an extension of the Arab Spring, although it never was.

The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.


WikiLeaks: U.S. secretly backed Syria opposition - CBS News
Click to expand...

Completely false. That was fluff of no consequence. I'm talking about the necessary materiel to take down a dictator.
 
Jack Hays said:
Too late.
Click to expand...

No. From the beginning, you, are wrong and you're not reading the reports!



Covert US War Hands Syria to Al Qaeda

http://open.salon.com/blog/stuartbramhall/2013/12/12/covert_us_war_hands_syria_to_al_qaeda


From a 2006 article!!!!

Report: U.S. secretly cultivating Syrian opposition to Assad
TIME: Classified document includes proposals for using upcoming Syrian elections to undermine Assad regime.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-u-s-secretly-cultivating-syrian-opposition-to-assad-1.207707
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
What's your point there humbolt.
Click to expand...
If you look at the timeline for Syria and the timeline for Libya, you will see that we had no initial interest arms-wise in supplying the Syrian uprising at the time it would've made the most difference. In fact, we were busy leading from behind in Libya at that very time.
 
humbolt said:
If you look at the timeline for Syria and the timeline for Libya, you will see that we had no initial interest arms-wise in supplying the Syrian uprising at the time it would've made the most difference. In fact, we were busy leading from behind in Libya at that very time.
Click to expand...

Note all the links I've posted above, taking the covert operations supporting opposition to Syria's president back to the Bush administration!!
 
Jack Hays said:
Unfortunately none of that's true.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it is true, but thankfully it didn't work. Don't know why you would be denying these reports, I mean I do know why, but you look very dishonest.
 
Jack Hays said:
Completely false. That was fluff of no consequence. I'm talking about the necessary materiel to take down a dictator.
Click to expand...

Taking down dictators is not what the US does best, though it has been done. Propping them up is where the expertise comes to play.
 
rocket88 said:
Well why doesn't Obama just instruct the media to tell it his way? I mean, since they're just his propaganda arm and what not...
Click to expand...

do you ever actually address what is being discussed?
 
Montecresto said:
Note all the links I've posted above, taking the covert operations supporting opposition to Syria's president back to the Bush administration!!
Click to expand...

None mention meaningful material support, so other than glad handing them to the battle field, nothing was offered. This has been well covered by the media. Small arms do not pose a threat to tanks, artillery and air power. I'm not trying to prove you wrong - just pointing you to the truth. Our best opportunity, and maybe our only opportunity to allow a non-extremist overthrow of Assad was squandered. The window was not open for a terribly long time and we missed it.
 
Montecresto said:
That's when overt help arrived! We've been through this jack. I proved to you that covert help was there all along! It doesn't fit your meme so you have to reject the proof. And again, president Assad stands!!
Click to expand...


Nothing meaningful before that.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nothing meaningful before that.
Click to expand...

Well in your opinion, but you didn't read the reports I posted or you would have seen how meaningful it was, but with Russian opposition, Assad stands.
 
Montecresto said:
That's when overt help arrived! We've been through this jack. I proved to you that covert help was there all along! It doesn't fit your meme so you have to reject the proof. And again, president Assad stands!!
Click to expand...

One of the most popular ways a president can get arms to someone covertly or even when congress has forbid it is have another country give them arms. For example if we wanted to arm A, we talk to B and get them to give A some of their weapons, then we give B so much military aid so they can buy newer and more arms from us replacing the ones they gave A.

This little game has been going on for a long, long time. There are numerous other ways, but this one seems to get the most use. Was it used to arm the Syrian Rebels, I don’t know. Perhaps one of these days Wikileaks or Snowden may release something on it or not.
 
Perotista said:
One of the most popular ways a president can get arms to someone covertly or even when congress has forbid it is have another country give them arms. For example if we wanted to arm A, we talk to B and get them to give A some of their weapons, then we give B so much military aid so they can buy newer and more arms from us replacing the ones they gave A.

This little game has been going on for a long, long time. There are numerous other ways, but this one seems to get the most use. Was it used to arm the Syrian Rebels, I don’t know. Perhaps one of these days Wikileaks or Snowden may release something on it or not.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, I've posted several credible sources to that. Including Wikileaks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom