• 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!

Should the US Arm and Trian the Syrian Rebels?

Should the US Arm & Train the Syrian Rebels?


  • Total voters
    36
Russia's planes to Iraq have helped the Iraqis. They are slow moving and designed to take on ground troops. Already they have been used and are hurting ISIS. Then there is the Air Strikes by us.

Already the one main branch of the Syrian Rebels and with the most fighters 25k. (alleged and greatly reduced) Has now made an Alliance with ISIS. Yet this is who BO wants to give weapons too.

Also in this Coalition BO has given arms to Lebanon. Hellfire Missiles.....this to, is a major mistake. Now Hezbollah will use hellfire missiles on Israel. Not to mention Iran will get one.....so that it can be reversed engineered. Big time mistake by BO and his Team.

I can understanding wanting a coalition. But not giving to a government that arms terrorists.

If there is ever to be some semblance of peace in the ME, I feel like there needs to be some sort of paradigm shift on our part. Some reshuffling of the cards to get things going back in the direction it needs to go. If it means making deals with the devil (or devils in this case as it were) then so be it. It's just...

*Thinks for a moment longer, then decides Glassing is still the best idea*.

Glassing the entire ME has NEVER been an option! Defeating the Islamic State, is not truly desired, or possible. President Assad allowed a certain amount of Western culture and was quite tolerant of Christians. Just still waiting for rational policy in the ME.

Assad isn't a good guy, let's not mistake this. And all were doing by supporting him, rather directly or indirectly, is just setting up another Shah or Mubarak that will come back to bite us in 10 or 20 years. I'm telling you, Glass it all and be done with it. Aside from that, would be opening up the middle east to colonization, after all, it's not like there was a whole lot of terrorism around when the UK was running things. Or even the Ottomans going back that far.
 
Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

As you can see.....BO has known about them for quite some time. Now he wants to give money to these madmen. Both Democrats and Repubs want to fund them caring only about removing Assad.

The Sunni want Syria.....that's the bottomline. Syrian Rebels, means nothing. As the other Syrians aren't to interested in Sunni Rule and Governance.

There are too many people in decision making positions who don't seem to have a clue how that part of the world works. That part of the world only understands power. They see politics as nothing but a tactic to be manipulated to get what they want anyway. Absolute ZERO long term thinking from what I have read.

We seem destined to be fooled again.
 
Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

As you can see.....BO has known about them for quite some time. Now he wants to give money to these madmen. Both Democrats and Repubs want to fund them caring only about removing Assad.

The Sunni want Syria.....that's the bottomline. Syrian Rebels, means nothing. As the other Syrians aren't to interested in Sunni Rule and Governance.

True enough, and this has been policy for years now.


General Wesley Clark … said the aim of this plot [to "destroy the governments in ... Iraq, ... Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran”] was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”


Although, Russia and China have been pushing back on us.
 
Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

True enough, and this has been policy for years now.


General Wesley Clark … said the aim of this plot [to "destroy the governments in ... Iraq, ... Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran”] was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”


Although, Russia and China have been pushing back on us.

Was all of that from that conversation with Wolfowtiz? A policy by the way we never implemented...
 
If there is ever to be some semblance of peace in the ME, I feel like there needs to be some sort of paradigm shift on our part. Some reshuffling of the cards to get things going back in the direction it needs to go. If it means making deals with the devil (or devils in this case as it were) then so be it. It's just...

*Thinks for a moment longer, then decides Glassing is still the best idea*.



Assad isn't a good guy, let's not mistake this. And all were doing by supporting him, rather directly or indirectly, is just setting up another Shah or Mubarak that will come back to bite us in 10 or 20 years. I'm telling you, Glass it all and be done with it. Aside from that, would be opening up the middle east to colonization, after all, it's not like there was a whole lot of terrorism around when the UK was running things. Or even the Ottomans going back that far.

Except that we aren't supporting Assad, we've had a policy of regime change in Syria for 20 years, and we've been training and supporting the MB, AQ, Al Nusra infested separatists all along, gawd you're confused!!!!
 
Except that we aren't supporting Assad, we've had a policy of regime change in Syria for 20 years, and we've been training and supporting the MB, AQ, Al Nusra infested separatists all along, gawd you're confused!!!!

20 years is really stretching it. I know you want to put a lot of stock into the Wolfowitz thing, but Syria hasn't been that high on the priority list for a long time. Besides, my point is that if we were to do an about face, get altogether to fight ISIS and leave Syria alone, then said Shah example would happened. If we don't and instead we support the rebels, best case scenario falls somewhere between Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Was all of that from that conversation with Wolfowtiz? A policy by the way we never implemented...

Well, Iraq is gone, Libya is gone, were working on Syria and the neocons are always in the background talking about "bomb, bomb, bomb,--------bomb, bomb, Iran. I'm pretty sure we have operations in Somalia and Sudan.
 
20 years is really stretching it. I know you want to put a lot of stock into the Wolfowitz thing, but Syria hasn't been that high on the priority list for a long time. Besides, my point is that if we were to do an about face, get altogether to fight ISIS and leave Syria alone, then said Shah example would happened. If we don't and instead we support the rebels, best case scenario falls somewhere between Iraq and Afghanistan.

What problem has Syria been to their neighbours and us. What's wrong with leaving well enough alone. For Pete's sake, president Assad was friendly towards Christians, and there was a certain amount of Western culture in Syria, and women in Syria had better rights then women in Saudi Arabia. We should have supported president Assad from the beginning. There wouldn't be 170,000 dead civilians, there would have been no vacuum that benefited the Islamic State, and you remain confused.
 
There are 271,500 active members of the Iraqi military and another 528,000 in reserve. The total strength of ISIS is estimated to be a little more than 30,000 and that is between Iraq and Syria. If the Iraqi military cannot handle an untrained force of thugs that they outnumber by 10 to 1, then what is the point of helping them?
 
20 years is really stretching it. I know you want to put a lot of stock into the Wolfowitz thing, but Syria hasn't been that high on the priority list for a long time. Besides, my point is that if we were to do an about face, get altogether to fight ISIS and leave Syria alone, then said Shah example would happened. If we don't and instead we support the rebels, best case scenario falls somewhere between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sorry, but you remain confused.

Official Washington’s ever-influential neoconservatives and their “liberal interventionist” allies see President Barack Obama’s decision to extend U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State terrorists into Syria as a new chance to achieve the long-treasured neocon goal of “regime change” in Damascus.


http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/11/neocons-revive-syria-regime-change-plan/
 
There are 271,500 active members of the Iraqi military and another 528,000 in reserve. The total strength of ISIS is estimated to be a little more than 30,000 and that is between Iraq and Syria. If the Iraqi military cannot handle an untrained force of thugs that they outnumber by 10 to 1, then what is the point of helping them?



Those numbers are not correct.....its 30k in Iraq. 50K in Syria. The US doesn't have that much Intel in Syria to get the picture.
 
Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Today, Congress is determining if we should give funds to Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels. So that they can fight ISIS. The Problem is the Syrian Rebels are not able to be trusted. They have used Chems and all they care about is removing Assad. Even their top commanders are all for a government that would be acceptable With Sharia Law.

They will say and do anything to get backing and assistance.....they have also pledged against the US. At least 29 opposition groups. While it is understandable to have the need to take on ISIS. This is a mistake waiting to Happen. What say ye?

Two things as I see it. 1. We really do not know whom these rebels are, who they are aligned with and as you said, whether their primary goal is to fight ISIS or the removal of Assad. 2. If they are successful in overthrowing Assad, Syria will probably end up like Libya. A country in turmoil with different Islamic groups/tribes fighting each other for control. Stability in Syria will be out the window as it is now in Libya.

Perhaps we were better off with Qaddafi and the way I see, better off with Assad in power in Syria. Neither are or were nice guys. But both brought stability to their countries and limited the training grounds for terrorist. This is one of those, "Be careful, you just might get what you wish for, " situations.
 
If there is ever to be some semblance of peace in the ME, I feel like there needs to be some sort of paradigm shift on our part. Some reshuffling of the cards to get things going back in the direction it needs to go. If it means making deals with the devil (or devils in this case as it were) then so be it. It's just...

*Thinks for a moment longer, then decides Glassing is still the best idea*.



Assad isn't a good guy, let's not mistake this. And all were doing by supporting him, rather directly or indirectly, is just setting up another Shah or Mubarak that will come back to bite us in 10 or 20 years. I'm telling you, Glass it all and be done with it. Aside from that, would be opening up the middle east to colonization, after all, it's not like there was a whole lot of terrorism around when the UK was running things. Or even the Ottomans going back that far.


Well that sectarian divide wasn't so caught up with each other back then. Had to many others to deal with. Plus the Persians weren't kissing Shia ass back then, nor any other Arab ass.

There is a Planet in the Habitable Zone and I believe those in the future called it......The Klingon Homeworld. We do have Rockets. Just sayin. :lol:
 
Well, Iraq is gone, Libya is gone, were working on Syria and the neocons are always in the background talking about "bomb, bomb, bomb,--------bomb, bomb, Iran. I'm pretty sure we have operations in Somalia and Sudan.

Sorry, but you remain confused.

Official Washington’s ever-influential neoconservatives and their “liberal interventionist” allies see President Barack Obama’s decision to extend U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State terrorists into Syria as a new chance to achieve the long-treasured neocon goal of “regime change” in Damascus.


Neocons Revive Syria ‘Regime Change’ Plan | Consortiumnews

What problem has Syria been to their neighbours and us. What's wrong with leaving well enough alone. For Pete's sake, president Assad was friendly towards Christians, and there was a certain amount of Western culture in Syria, and women in Syria had better rights then women in Saudi Arabia. We should have supported president Assad from the beginning. There wouldn't be 170,000 dead civilians, there would have been no vacuum that benefited the Islamic State, and you remain confused.

I know you want everything to be about some grand conspiracy, but it isn't. The proposed Wolfowitz doctrine (again, never enacted) was devised after the fall of the Soviet Union and was done so to prepare the US to face off against the rise of another superpower. At the time, the Soviet Union's allies in the ME consisted of said countries, and there was seen by him as a need to ensure that the next superpower that came didn't fill the void. Problem with your theory is that there is no second superpower, thus no reason. Also, back in the Cold War days, we did a better job of maintaining close times to countries we've toppled, which isn't something that we've carried over to today. Instead installing a puppet government, we let the people take over and do as they please. Come to think of it, I almost wish we did follow that doctrine, as maybe we'd have these countries better in line.

In any event, you keep painting a rosy picture for Syria, and seem to want to gloss over the whole reason that this civil war, (and come to think of it, Lybia as well, though there was the refugee crisis that was occurring that factored more into that response) If you recall, in the beginning, all the Syrian people wanted were democratic reforms and the protests were non-violent. But how did Assad respond to them? By murdering around 2000 of them, and arresting another 12000. Had Assad been the good guy you like to think he is, he could of worked with the protesters to an amicable solution. He's a tyrant, and I'm not going to blame them for wanting to rise up against him. Say what you will about the President's response to this crisis (And as I've said, I oppose supporting the rebels but to be clear, those are for selfish reasons), what he was doing was responding to murdering of innocent civilians when all they wanted was reforms. Bottom line, we didn't start this war, Assad and his brutal regime did.
 
Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Two things as I see it. 1. We really do not know whom these rebels are, who they are aligned with and as you said, whether their primary goal is to fight ISIS or the removal of Assad. 2. If they are successful in overthrowing Assad, Syria will probably end up like Libya. A country in turmoil with different Islamic groups/tribes fighting each other for control. Stability in Syria will be out the window as it is now in Libya.

Perhaps we were better off with Qaddafi and the way I see, better off with Assad in power in Syria. Neither are or were nice guys. But both brought stability to their countries and limited the training grounds for terrorist. This is one of those, "Be careful, you just might get what you wish for, " situations.

Heya Pero. :2wave: Well.....we know they want Assad gone. We also know their primary goal isn't to remove ISIS. As mentioned.....the Syrian Rebels have made an alliance with ISIS.

Which the point is.....they know what ISIS has done. Yet they still made a pact with them. They even know they beheaded our people. Yet they make an alliance with them....and want us to arm them.
 
Those numbers are not correct.....its 30k in Iraq. 50K in Syria. The US doesn't have that much Intel in Syria to get the picture.

The last CIA assessment put the total number at about 31k. Even if it were 30k in Iraq, my point still stands. If an active force of 271,500 trained military personnel cannot defeat a bunch of untrained thugs numbering around 30,000, then what is the point of helping them? If the Iraqi military is that weak and ineffective, then even if we killed every member of ISIS, some other bunch of Islamists would just rise up and take their place.
 
There are 271,500 active members of the Iraqi military and another 528,000 in reserve. The total strength of ISIS is estimated to be a little more than 30,000 and that is between Iraq and Syria. If the Iraqi military cannot handle an untrained force of thugs that they outnumber by 10 to 1, then what is the point of helping them?

So ISIS, a group that wants to kill everyone one of us just because we're not saying "Praise Allah", doesn't take over.
 
There are 271,500 active members of the Iraqi military and another 528,000 in reserve. The total strength of ISIS is estimated to be a little more than 30,000 and that is between Iraq and Syria. If the Iraqi military cannot handle an untrained force of thugs that they outnumber by 10 to 1, then what is the point of helping them?

Those numbers are not correct.....its 30k in Iraq. 50K in Syria. The US doesn't have that much Intel in Syria to get the picture.

Yep, and those swelling numbers in Syria are due in large part to the so-called moderate (though I've never believed they were, and have pointed it out all along) rebels joining the Islamic State ranks!
 
I know you want everything to be about some grand conspiracy, but it isn't. The proposed Wolfowitz doctrine (again, never enacted) was devised after the fall of the Soviet Union and was done so to prepare the US to face off against the rise of another superpower. At the time, the Soviet Union's allies in the ME consisted of said countries, and there was seen by him as a need to ensure that the next superpower that came didn't fill the void. Problem with your theory is that there is no second superpower, thus no reason. Also, back in the Cold War days, we did a better job of maintaining close times to countries we've toppled, which isn't something that we've carried over to today. Instead installing a puppet government, we let the people take over and do as they please. Come to think of it, I almost wish we did follow that doctrine, as maybe we'd have these countries better in line.

In any event, you keep painting a rosy picture for Syria, and seem to want to gloss over the whole reason that this civil war, (and come to think of it, Lybia as well, though there was the refugee crisis that was occurring that factored more into that response) If you recall, in the beginning, all the Syrian people wanted were democratic reforms and the protests were non-violent. But how did Assad respond to them? By murdering around 2000 of them, and arresting another 12000. Had Assad been the good guy you like to think he is, he could of worked with the protesters to an amicable solution. He's a tyrant, and I'm not going to blame them for wanting to rise up against him. Say what you will about the President's response to this crisis (And as I've said, I oppose supporting the rebels but to be clear, those are for selfish reasons), what he was doing was responding to murdering of innocent civilians when all they wanted was reforms. Bottom line, we didn't start this war, Assad and his brutal regime did.


Then why wasn't the Christians ever part of those beginning Demonstrations? Just why was the MB allowed to set up protests calling for Democratic Reform? In which many of them were exiled from Syria by Assad's Father. Which was after Pelosi and the Demos were running around at the End of Bush' term and calling Assad a Reformer. Also Assad gave Amnesty to those with no connection to the MB.

Also after the Sunni Rebels Suffered one of their first defeats.....they then went and attacked the Christians burning down their Churches and homes. Again they used Chems like Assad did. They don't care about the people.....and its been shown in their actions.

All that talking they do is front of the Camera is thru Al Jazeera and thru Sunni Communications and Broadcasting.
 
So ISIS, a group that wants to kill everyone one of us just because we're not saying "Praise Allah", doesn't take over.

They may want to spread radical Islam across the globe but that doesn't mean they can. Don't fall into the fear mongering trap. There have always been groups out there like ISIS and there will be for quite some time to come. The reason why we don't get hit with major terrorist attacks all the time is because those Islamists can't do it. If they could they would regardless of what we do in the Middle East. No one bats a 1000. This notion that the only thing that has kept us safe since 9/11 is being at constant war is absurd.

The fact is there is no reason the Iraqi military should not be able to defeat ISIS being that they outnumber them 10 to 1. If the Iraqi military is so weak and ineffective that it can't defeat a bunch of thugs like ISIS, then even if we go in and defeat them for them, the country's days are numbered anyway as there are tons of other Islamists that will take their place. Hell if Iraq is that weak it would not surprise me if Boko Haram didn't start looking at it.
 
Re: Should the US Arm and Train the Syrian Rebels?

Heya Pero. :2wave: Well.....we know they want Assad gone. We also know their primary goal isn't to remove ISIS. As mentioned.....the Syrian Rebels have made an alliance with ISIS.

Which the point is.....they know what ISIS has done. Yet they still made a pact with them. They even know they beheaded our people. Yet they make an alliance with them....and want us to arm them.

Most of the Syrian Rebels are either AQ or ISIS or has ties to AQ and ISIS. The moderate Islamist Rebels are very small if they really existed. Secular Islamist Rebels, even the name of the moderates makes me wonder. Perhaps it is a name chosen by them because that is exactly what we want to believe.

Isn't it ironic that the Obama administration is participating and organizing or trying to all these regime changes.
 
Then why wasn't the Christians ever part of those beginning Demonstrations? Just why was the MB allowed to set up protests calling for Democratic Reform? In which many of them were exiled from Syria by Assad's Father. Which was after Pelosi and the Demos were running around at the End of Bush' term and calling Assad a Reformer. Also Assad gave Amnesty to those with no connection to the MB.

Also after the Sunni Rebels Suffered one of their first defeats.....they then went and attacked the Christians burning down their Churches and homes. Again they used Chems like Assad did. They don't care about the people.....and its been shown in their actions.

All that talking they do is front of the Camera is thru Al Jazeera and thru Sunni Communications and Broadcasting.

You are talking about what things have evolved to. Again, I'm not arguing we should support the rebels at this point, as that well is very much tainted. All I know is that in very beginning, when this civil war could of been averted, Assad chose to drop the hammer as he has always done because he's a Dictator who loves to abuse his power. It's only because of what that Rebels have become that I say we shouldn't support them. Still, that doesn't change the lesson from history, that if you support a dictator's government (either directly, or indirectly by not providing help when needed) it will come back to bite you in the ass like it did with the Shah.

Oh, and Bush also told us what a great friend Putin was.... how did that turn out?
 
They may want to spread radical Islam across the globe but that doesn't mean they can. Don't fall into the fear mongering trap. There have always been groups out there like ISIS and there will be for quite some time to come. The reason why we don't get hit with major terrorist attacks all the time is because those Islamists can't do it. If they could they would regardless of what we do in the Middle East. No one bats a 1000. This notion that the only thing that has kept us safe since 9/11 is being at constant war is absurd.

The fact is there is no reason the Iraqi military should not be able to defeat ISIS being that they outnumber them 10 to 1. If the Iraqi military is so weak and ineffective that it can't defeat a bunch of thugs like ISIS, then even if we go in and defeat them for them, the country's days are numbered anyway as there are tons of other Islamists that will take their place. Hell if Iraq is that weak it would not surprise me if Boko Haram didn't start looking at it.

First off, Afghanistan and 9/11. That's all I need to say in regards to why it's not good to let a Islamic State exist. We let it happen once, and look what happened.

Back to Iraq though. Iraq's problem isn't so much a conventional one as it is a political one. The whole reason ISIS was able to move with relative ease through Iraq's territory is because they came through the Sunni-held territory in Iraq. Over the past few years, since the US left (and all influence along with it), the Shiite Regime in Baghdad have been treating the Sunni worse then ****. So when (Sunni) ISIS came in, they were seen more as liberators than conquerors. In truth, many Iraqi Army positions were abandoned in the wake of their advance, as they didn't want to fight for a country that didn't represent them.

And yes, I know what that means, and is why I'm still open the possibility of making the ME one giant crater.
 
First off, Afghanistan and 9/11. That's all I need to say in regards to why it's not good to let a Islamic State exist. We let it happen once, and look what happened.

The 9/11 hijackers were almost all Saudis. They trained in American flight schools. They didn't need the Taliban in Afghanistan to pull it off.

Back to Iraq though. Iraq's problem isn't so much a conventional one as it is a political one. The whole reason ISIS was able to move with relative ease through Iraq's territory is because they came through the Sunni-held territory in Iraq. Over the past few years, since the US left (and all influence along with it), the Shiite Regime in Baghdad have been treating the Sunni worse then ****. So when (Sunni) ISIS came in, they were seen more as liberators than conquerors. In truth, many Iraqi Army positions were abandoned in the wake of their advance, as they didn't want to fight for a country that didn't represent them.

And yes, I know what that means, and is why I'm still open the possibility of making the ME one giant crater.

Yes, its a politically corrupt and ineffective state. The world is full of Islamists looking to take advantage of such weakness. Once again, what is the point of helping them if they can't defeat ISIS? Defeating ISIS won't make Iraq a model of democracy and good governance, it will just move one bunch of Islamic thugs out so another can take its place.
 
Back
Top Bottom