• 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

Montecresto said:
Yes "new pleas" what's the point there? I posted the old pleas. Washington has been helping opposition to Assad in Syria since Bush. Jack, you failed in your attempts to dispute this and your looking worse for it all the time.
Click to expand...

There was no earlier meaningful assistance.:peace

And it's "you're."
 
humbolt said:
And again: Syrian rebels say they need heavy weaponry, not small arms, from U.S. - The Washington Post Please note the date.
Click to expand...

I didn't see a date, but this shows the opposition asking for heavier arms, and? I thought you were trying to disprove that Washington was helping them from the beginning. Covert help was there since before the March 2011 uprising and has continued right on through to today, with congress authorising overt help last summer. Point being, Help has been there all along.
 
Jack Hays said:
There was no earlier meaningful assistance.:peace

And it's "you're."
Click to expand...

Glad to see you finally concede that there was early assistance, even though it didn't meet with your criteria of meaningful.
 
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...

Here's your smoking gun Pero!



The cables, provided by the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks, show that U.S. Embassy officials in Damascus became worried in 2009 when they learned that Syrian intelligence agents were raising questions about U.S. programs. Some embassy officials suggested that the State Department reconsider its involvement, arguing that it could put the Obama administration's rapprochement with Damascus at risk.

Syrian authorities "would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change," read an April 2009 cable signed by the top-ranking U.S. diplomat in Damascus at the time. "A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programming that supports anti-[government] factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive," the cable said.

It is unclear whether the State Department is still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside at least through September 2010. While some of that money has also supported programs and dissidents inside Syria, The Washington Post is withholding certain names and program details at the request of the State Department, which said disclosure could endanger the recipients' personal safety.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-us-secretly-backed-syria-opposition/
 
Montecresto said:
I didn't see a date, but this shows the opposition asking for heavier arms, and? I thought you were trying to disprove that Washington was helping them from the beginning. Covert help was there since before the March 2011 uprising and has continued right on through to today, with congress authorising overt help last summer. Point being, Help has been there all along.
Click to expand...
You're simply refusing to understand. An AK-47 is no match for a tank, artillery and jet fighter aircraft. I personally have weapons of the caliber and nature of those we, or third parties supplied to the rebels. They are meaningless in the face of such fire power. Would you take on a tank with a 7.76 rifle? You could, and you would die. I don't think you understand the nature of the battlefield in Syria and what the rebels faced at the time you claim we were giving them meaningful aid. We gave them something to die with, and that doesn't constitute help. We might as well have been giving them sling shots.
 
Montecresto said:
Here's your smoking gun Pero!



The cables, provided by the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks, show that U.S. Embassy officials in Damascus became worried in 2009 when they learned that Syrian intelligence agents were raising questions about U.S. programs. Some embassy officials suggested that the State Department reconsider its involvement, arguing that it could put the Obama administration's rapprochement with Damascus at risk.

Syrian authorities "would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change," read an April 2009 cable signed by the top-ranking U.S. diplomat in Damascus at the time. "A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programming that supports anti-[government] factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive," the cable said.

It is unclear whether the State Department is still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside at least through September 2010. While some of that money has also supported programs and dissidents inside Syria, The Washington Post is withholding certain names and program details at the request of the State Department, which said disclosure could endanger the recipients' personal safety.


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

February 2012


Elliott Abrams: U.S. should back Syrian opposition with money and arms - Think Tanked - The Washington Post
 
humbolt said:
You're simply refusing to understand. An AK-47 is no match for a tank, artillery and jet fighter aircraft. I personally have weapons of the caliber and nature of those we, or third parties supplied to the rebels. They are meaningless in the face of such fire power. Would you take on a tank with a 7.76 rifle? You could, and you would die. I don't think you understand the nature of the battlefield in Syria and what the rebels faced at the time you claim we were giving them meaningful aid. We gave them something to die with, and that doesn't constitute help. We might as well have been giving them sling shots.
Click to expand...


The statement was made that "modest help" at the beginning would have given the opposition what they needed. I proved that that modest help was there.
 
Montecresto said:
Here's your smoking gun Pero!



The cables, provided by the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks, show that U.S. Embassy officials in Damascus became worried in 2009 when they learned that Syrian intelligence agents were raising questions about U.S. programs. Some embassy officials suggested that the State Department reconsider its involvement, arguing that it could put the Obama administration's rapprochement with Damascus at risk.

Syrian authorities "would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change," read an April 2009 cable signed by the top-ranking U.S. diplomat in Damascus at the time. "A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programming that supports anti-[government] factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive," the cable said.

It is unclear whether the State Department is still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside at least through September 2010. While some of that money has also supported programs and dissidents inside Syria, The Washington Post is withholding certain names and program details at the request of the State Department, which said disclosure could endanger the recipients' personal safety.


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

thanks
 
Somerville said:
It is interesting how the President's political enemies can so easily switch from saying the national news media is nothing more than the "propaganda arm" of the Administration and the Dems - never to be believed - but as soon as a story comes out that is the least bit negative about the President, they believe every word. And then the usual suspects amplify the noise with selective quotes and 'analysis'
Click to expand...

It's Robert Gates speaking not the media.

And there have been more than a few on the DP saying the same thing that Gates has confirmed.

Has Obama just once used the words of "winning" or "victory" when referring to Afghanistan ? NOT ###### ONCE !

Obama's rules of engagement in Afghanistan only favored the enemy and has caused our troops to bleed and die.

Dereliction of duty as CnC.

52% of the voters put a community organizer in the white House and after four years of failure they decide to give the loser a second chance.
 
APACHERAT said:
It's Robert Gates speaking not the media.

And there have been more than a few on the DP saying the same thing that Gates has confirmed.

Has Obama just once used the words of "winning" or "victory" when referring to Afghanistan ? NOT ###### ONCE !

Obama's rules of engagement in Afghanistan only favored the enemy and has caused our troops to bleed and die.

Dereliction of duty as CnC.

52% of the voters put a community organizer in the white House and after four years of failure they decide to give the loser a second chance.
Click to expand...

But Apache, everybody deserves a second chance!
 
Jack Hays said:
No. You did not. Why? Because there was no such help.
Click to expand...

I provided the proof from multiple credible sources. I'm sorry you reject them. That part I cannot help you with. Goodnight Jack!
 
Montecresto said:
I provided the proof from multiple credible sources. I'm sorry you reject them. That part I cannot help you with. Goodnight Jack!
Click to expand...

There was nothing serious to any of it. We missed our chance to make a difference. The idea that Department of State lunch money for opposition against an entrenched and ruthless dictator would matter in the slightest is laughable.:peace
 
Rainman05 said:
I thought it would be Bill Gates... other Gates' don't matter that much because it most likely is political motivated speech.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, sure it is, and, if a liberal did this to a conservative president, we'd never hear the end of it.
 
Somerville said:
It is interesting how the President's political enemies can so easily switch from saying the national news media is nothing more than the "propaganda arm" of the Administration and the Dems - never to be believed - but as soon as a story comes out that is the least bit negative about the President, they believe every word. And then the usual suspects amplify the noise with selective quotes and 'analysis'
Click to expand...

Partisan hacks at work.
 
Montecresto said:
I was just pulling on your landyard (or whatever you called that the other day, lol!)
Click to expand...

You're lucky it didn't set something off.

lan·yard noun \ˈlan-yərd\

Definition of LANYARD

1: a piece of rope or line for fastening something in a ship; especially : one of the pieces passing through deadeyes to extend shrouds or stays
2a : a cord or strap to hold something (as a knife or a whistle) and usually worn around the neck b : a cord worn as a symbol of a military citation
3: a strong line used to activate a system (as in firing a cannon)

Lanyard - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
APACHERAT said:
It's Robert Gates speaking not the media. And there have been more than a few on the DP saying the same thing that Gates has confirmed. Has Obama just once used the words of "winning" or "victory" when referring to Afghanistan ? NOT ###### ONCE !
Click to expand...

Gates can whine and moan all he likes but the reality is that the military leadership, including Gates, is incompetent. Their immediate response to the attacks on 9/11 would have made us the laughing stock of the global community if the joke wasn't so disturbingly bad. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a disaster. Afghanistan has been nothing but a waste of lives and resources with nothing to show for it. Why should anyone who has been paying attention throw a ticker tape parade knowing that they got us involved in two wars they didn't know then or now how to effectively wage or end? In terms of his boo-hooing about the level of oversight and "meddling"; the man is old enough to remember that if you leave the military alone for five minutes it will sell weapons to Iran to subsidize a coup d'etat in Nicaragua without authorization.
 
Montecresto said:
Partisan hacks at work.
Click to expand...

In reviewing this thread it occurs to me that we may have been talking past each other. When I referred to modest help I was referring to arms and combat support equipment. Nothing like that had been provided before, and we waited too long.:peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom