US to arm Syrian rebels

[PLC1]

U.S. to Arm Syrian Rebels

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama authorized his administration to provide arms to rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, officials said Thursday, a major policy shift after the White House said it had confirmed that Damascus used chemical weapons in the country's civil war.

Does anyone here think this is a good idea? Why?

 

[Centrehalf]

I don't think it's a good idea.

 

[Texas_tea]

This is not a good idea ....

But, then again, name one policy, idea or action taken by Obama that has been good for this Country.

These weapons, just like in the Fast and Furious scandal will be used against Americans in the future. Just like the Benghazi scandal, Obama continues to arm his Muslim brothers against America.

 

[dogtowner]

he had little choice after the red line gaffe but no good will come of it.the"rebels" (whatever that represents) may get small arms frome us but Assad is getting serious hardware from Russia.

 

[Texas_tea]

he had little choice after the red line gaffe but no good will come of it.the"rebels" (whatever that represents) may get small arms frome us but Assad is getting serious hardware from Russia.

McCain is calling for "heavy weapons"....

US senator: Syrian rebels need heavy weapons

 

[PLC1]

McCain is calling for "heavy weapons"....

US senator: Syrian rebels need heavy weapons

and they just might get them. Meanwhile, Assad will get them from Iran and Russia, so we'll have a much larger war than we would have had as both sides are being armed by their backers.

but, why do we want to back either a dictator or a group sponsored by AlQaeda? Just who are the good guys in this conflict... oh. Now I see.

Arm them both, let them wipe each other out. If that works, we can try arming some of the gangs in the USA

 

[Texas_tea]

and they just might get them. Meanwhile, Assad will get them from Iran and Russia, so we'll have a much larger war than we would have had as both sides are being armed by their backers.

but, why do we want to back either a dictator or a group sponsored by AlQaeda? Just who are the good guys in this conflict... oh. Now I see.

Arm them both, let them wipe each other out. If that works, we can try arming some of the gangs in the USA

Obama has been arming the muslims all along.

I dare to speculate why. But, one thing is for certain, this like everything else Obama has done, will be bad for America.

 

[Cruella]

\
Arm them both, let them wipe each other out. If that works, we can try arming some of the gangs in the USA

Palin slams military intervention in Syria: 'Let Allah sort it out'

On the gang issue, they already have the guns. It's their victims who need to be armed.

 

[BigRob]

and they just might get them. Meanwhile, Assad will get them from Iran and Russia, so we'll have a much larger war than we would have had as both sides are being armed by their backers.

but, why do we want to back either a dictator or a group sponsored by AlQaeda? Just who are the good guys in this conflict... oh. Now I see.

Arm them both, let them wipe each other out. If that works, we can try arming some of the gangs in the USA

To be clear, not all rebel groups are affiliated or have stated any allegiance to Al Qaeda. In fact, there are literally thousands of "rebel" groups in Syria. Which ones will these arms go to? How will those groups get vetted? What "arms" are we ultimtaely going to send? What is the time line? These are important questions.

Obama has no other choice but to do this. After backing himself into a corner with the "red line" statement, he now must take this path.

 

[Gipper]

To be clear, not all rebel groups are affiliated or have stated any allegiance to Al Qaeda. In fact, there are literally thousands of "rebel" groups in Syria. Which ones will these arms go to? How will those groups get vetted? What "arms" are we ultimtaely going to send? What is the time line? These are important questions.

Obama has no other choice but to do this. After backing himself into a corner with the "red line" statement, he now must take this path.

And yet you have asserted that BO is very intelligent...well you thought he was smart because he beat your beloved Neocon Romney...who is a bigger dumbass than BO...like most R politicians.

BO has a choice. Do nothing. It is none of our business. And you have cited good reasons why we should do nothing. The weapons will end up the hands of anti-American Islamists.

History tells us what often happens in revolutions. Usually the most ruthless group takes power...because they ruthlessly kill all opponents. And we all know al qaeda and it's aligned elements are extremely ruthless.

We are helping Sharia take hold in Syria. How nice.

 

[BigRob]

And yet you have asserted that BO is very intelligent...well you thought he was smart because he beat your beloved Neocon Romney...who is a bigger dumbass than BO...like most R politicians.

What are you even talking about? Obama ran a great campaign, that is a simple fact. But campaigning is not governing. I certainly would never equate the two....you apparently do.

BO has a choice. Do nothing. It is none of our business. And you have cited good reasons why we should do nothing.

He had that choice until he publically declared a "red line." (off script if its to be believed) After he did that, he now has to do something.

The weapons will end up the hands of anti-American Islamists.

There is certainly that potential, and it is probable that some will. We are going to have to be extremely careful about what we send, and who we send it to. Currently it seems that we are not planning to send many meaningful weapons over there -- which is probably not a bad move.

History tells us what often happens in revolutions. Usually the most ruthless group takes power...because they ruthlessly kill all opponents. And we all know al qaeda and it's aligned elements are extremely ruthless.

Being "ruthless" doesn't automatically equate to being an al qaeda extremist. If Obama is choosing to send limited, basically meaningless arms, to rebel groups in an effort to look like he is doing somehing after his "red line" statement, then I am on board with that.

We are helping Sharia take hold in Syria. How nice.

There is that potential, but there is currently equal potential that we are doing the exact opposite. It will all depend on how competently and effectively this program gets run -- and what the end goals are.

 

[Iolo2]

The idea of arming Al Qaida to kill Christians and other minorities, under the belief that this will aid the Saudis against Iran and help 'Israel' expand its empire is extremely naïve, which is why morons like Cameron support it.

 

[Gipper]

What are you even talking about? Obama ran a great campaign, that is a simple fact. But campaigning is not governing. I certainly would never equate the two....you apparently do.



He had that choice until he publically declared a "red line." (off script if its to be believed) After he did that, he now has to do something.



There is certainly that potential, and it is probable that some will. We are going to have to be extremely careful about what we send, and who we send it to. Currently it seems that we are not planning to send many meaningful weapons over there -- which is probably not a bad move.



Being "ruthless" doesn't automatically equate to being an al qaeda extremist. If Obama is choosing to send limited, basically meaningless arms, to rebel groups in an effort to look like he is doing somehing after his "red line" statement, then I am on board with that.




There is that potential, but there is currently equal potential that we are doing the exact opposite. It will all depend on how competently and effectively this program gets run -- and what the end goals are.

Obama ran a great campaign...really? I could not disagree more. He won because Romney ran a shitty campaign. How a president with BO's horrendous economic record gets re-elected, is an historic first. Hoover, Carter, Bush I all failed in their efforts at re-election with similar economic conditions. BO's first debate debacle should have sealed the deal for Mitty. But, due to Neocon foolishness and incompetence, he chose to follow a strategy that failed miserably. And the Rs have failed to learn from his mistakes.

Regarding Syria, there is no American interest requiring involvement, even a Neocon like you can't find it. BO was foolish to establish the line in the sand and could have easily backed away or denied reports of chemical weapons usage by Assad. The ME has long been a powder keg of extremism, thanks to radical Islam. America should stay out of a region full of fanatics. Little good can come from our intervention.

 

[Texas_tea]

He had that choice until he publically declared a "red line." (off script if its to be believed) After he did that, he now has to do something.

When has Obama ever "had" to do anything?

Less than 150 people were killed by these chemical weapons yet over 90,000 have been killed by Assad since the civil war broke out.

Now, we are going to send arms to the Al Qaeda supported rebels whose leader is actually seen in a video eating the hearts of their enemies on the battlefield?

Something is seriously wrong with the American government under Obama.

THIS IS NOT AMERICA!

And, you say you are on board with this????

 

[Cruella]

If Obama gives them weapons, it's only going to prolong the "civil war", more people will be killed, and more people will become refugees. All the refugees running into Turkey and Jordan are only going to disrupt those countries even more. 1 in 5 people in Jordan are now refugees from Syria, and Jordan doesn't have the resources they need to take care of their own people.