Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
and then

US will supply weapons to "rebels"

68 posts in this topic

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/13/us-confirms-chemical-weapons-syria/2420763/

I think this is a decision that will be regretted in time. No easy choices here but under the best of circumstances - with REAL leadership in the oval office this would turn out badly...with what we now possess it's almost guaranteed to be catastrophe.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the Syrian rebellion is composed of many different groups. Your propaganda (and I think that is the correct word) seems to ignore this rather nontrivial detail.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the rebel groups even organized yet or are they still broken up into separate groups with some being rather pro-west while others are highly Islamic.

Personally I think the US should just stay out of this conflict for now, but I am not surprised by this decision. Once a person thinks about it, I know this ain't morally or ethically correct, but the best option for the west in general is to support nether side but not to let one side win either. Last I heard the rebels where starting to lose ground to Assad so supplying weapons to the rebels to keep them in the fight doesn't surprise me at all.

I know someone will probably comment on how evil I sound but the reality of the situation is that the only good option for the west is to keep this fight going since neither side is really pro west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is now supplying Al Quaeda with arms so that they can remove a secular dictator.... this is so crazy, it makes me sick to my stomach.

Here are Obamas new best friends in action:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/11/report-syrian-rebels-executed-a-14-year-old-boy-for-insulting-islam/

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the Syrian rebellion is composed of many different groups. Your propaganda (and I think that is the correct word) seems to ignore this rather nontrivial detail.

Yes, they are. But if you believe that secular, democratic forces are the dominant ones among them, I would like to sell a bridge in Brookly to you.

Have you not watched what happened in all the other Arab Springs, not to mention the Iranian revolution???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I watch what is going on around the world, I think with a more objective view than you. For one thing, I do not see the Iranian government as being all that bad. Nor what has happened in the Arab uprisings. It may all be less than perfect, but after all what is perfection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the Syrian rebellion is composed of many different groups. Your propaganda (and I think that is the correct word) seems to ignore this rather nontrivial detail.

Well, exactly. Things are always more subtle than those with agendas to pursue like to make out. Unfortunately, this means just as much that the "Rebels" might not necessarily all be the good guys wearing the white hats, just as much as the Syrian govt. might not always be the clear-cut 100% villain that the other side (and currently the White House) like to make out. It seems, though, that the short-term memory loss that means that Governments never learn from history seems to be getting worse and worse, and that the White House has forgotten already that when one intervenes in someone else's internal conflict, one is rarely met with gratitude from anyone.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the Syrian rebellion is composed of many different groups. Your propaganda (and I think that is the correct word) seems to ignore this rather nontrivial detail.

Hence my mention of our leadership. It would take truly cohesive, proven and very savvy leaders to pick through that mess and find the correct group to give weaponry to that would not only help their cause but also be kept from those who will turn those weapons back on us in a few months or years. And from this point forward, all those who blame America first will be able to point with pride at any debacle that happens and say see? America meddling in our business again.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly the West should have stayed out of all of the Arab Spring revolutions. The dictatorships they toppled were bad, but they brought stability to the region. We've seen it time and time again, with Mubarak, Gaddafi and Hussein, they truly were the lesser of evils in their respective countries. Now the Islamists in Egypt are turning on the Copts. The Islamists in Libya repaid American assistance by killing their Ambassador.

I fear for the moderate middle-easterners, who initiated the Arab Spring revolutions, who are invested in secular society, and who will suffer, if not today but one day in the future, due to Western intervention in the revolutions.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a country like the US can afford to not pick sides. They are so important that when they try to "stay out," they only succeed in making all sides their enemy. That is a guaranteed loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a country like the US can afford to not pick sides. They are so important that when they try to "stay out," they only succeed in making all sides their enemy. That is a guaranteed loser.

I think you are right but it sucks to be in a lose lose situation. If I had my way we'd send medicine and food to the suffering and let the rest get sorted as they see fit. It is NOT our fight.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And the usual ramping up of the propoganda from NSA, deliberately conflating the overall estimate of casualities with statements about use of chemical weapons, vague use of figures suggesting ten or twenty thousand casualities from chemical weapons alone, but not backed up by evidence, though I'm sure NSA and other agencies will be hard at work creating the "evidence". How long before Kerry is making some pompous speech to the UN Security Council similar to Colin Powell's outrageous concoction of lies in late 2002. NSA tell us that red lines have been broken, red lines recognized by "International community" (USA) for many decades. I wonder what the populations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos thought of these red lines when Operation Ranch Hand began in October 1962 http://en.wikipedia....tion_Ranch_Hand And I wonder what the relatives of all the dead and those still living and suffering because of the use of Agent Orange think of these red lines http://en.wikipedia....ki/Agent_Orange The number of casualities from Operation Ranch Hand make Halabja look trivial. The hypocrasy of USA never fails to amaze me.

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a country like the US can afford to not pick sides. They are so important that when they try to "stay out," they only succeed in making all sides their enemy. That is a guaranteed loser.

At the very least it could remove the motivation of Islamic extremists to target the United States. If it's Russia or China meddling in the Middle East they'll get the flak, in theory at least. Russia is Orthodox and China is Atheistic, so they both could quite easily take up the mantle of the Great Satan. Although the first step isn't withdrawing forces, it's energy independence. Get off of Middle East oil and eventually they'll run themselves out of money.

I think you are right but it sucks to be in a lose lose situation. If I had my way we'd send medicine and food to the suffering and let the rest get sorted as they see fit. It is NOT our fight.

No matter how the US acts it's going to face criticism. If they withdrew everything, they'd receive criticism for abandoning their friends. But remember Kissinger "America has no friends, America only has interests." These ME nations, with the exception of Israel, are not friends, they are interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How convenient ... when you're in the midst of trouble. A good war cry always helps to unify the country.

This operation will fail, of course, and it will not prevent what is to come, because this is a war cry far above the heads of both the secular and non-secular minds in Washington.

If the Russians will not agree now to take possession of the chemical weapons in Syria, then you have an enemy far greater than Assad on your hands.

All Christians left in Syria should flee to Lebanon now, then go as far west as you can, or if you can't go west, then go south of the Golan Heights. Don't go to Jordan or Turkey. If you're in Jordan or Turkey, leave and go west as far as you can. All Christian aid organizations now working in Jordan or Turkey should abandon the camps, and take the Christians with you. Get them out. The Catholic Church should put some of their great wealth to good use, and assist in this endeavor.

If I lived in Lebanon and had permanent residence there, I would sit tight for now, and if you can, take in any Christian refugees from Syria, and the camps in Jordan and Turkey, who manage to get to Lebanon.

Israel and the U.S. must secure the chemical weapons in Syria if Russia won't agree to do it, but I doubt this will succeed without Russia's help, because Assad will likely try and hide them. Russia, on the other hand, could perhaps pressure Assad to give them up in exchange for something else. Surely there must be a crystal ball in Moscow, if nothing else.

It's pointless to arm the rebels now. In fact, arming them is the worst thing you could do, because they'll use the leftovers against Israel.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Russians will not agree now to take possession of the chemical weapons in Syria, then you have an enemy far greater than Assad on your hands.

This can only be done when it is certain that there will be no interference from rebels, or even desperate government forces looking for some gotterdammerung. Assad will need assurances about his survival, and there is nothing from the west that shows any interest in this, a rather stupid standpoint in my opinion. If the special groups needed to remove chemical weapons go in during current situation, then the possibility of an attack on those groups is too great. Rebels will make mischief and try to create a disaster, knowing that to do this they would have to engage Russian forces and so inflate the situation to a very dangerous level. And btw, I don't think there is a crystal ball in Kremlin, but I am certain there are "balls"...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Assad is in control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This can only be done when it is certain that there will be no interference from rebels, or even desperate government forces looking for some gotterdammerung. Assad will need assurances about his survival, and there is nothing from the west that shows any interest in this, a rather stupid standpoint in my opinion. If the special groups needed to remove chemical weapons go in during current situation, then the possibility of an attack on those groups is too great. Rebels will make mischief and try to create a disaster, knowing that to do this they would have to engage Russian forces and so inflate the situation to a very dangerous level. And btw, I don't think there is a crystal ball in Kremlin, but I am certain there are "balls"...........

How reassuring for all who will be dead as a result of them proving the size and strength of same....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How reassuring for all who will be dead as a result of them proving the size and strength of same....

And the point of that comment? You country is the rougue cannon in world affairs, not mine.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is now supplying Al Quaeda with arms so that they can remove a secular dictator.... this is so crazy, it makes me sick to my stomach.

Here are Obamas new best friends in action:

http://www.washingto...nsulting-islam/

It makes me sick to my stomach as well.

The propaganda is coming in thick and fast in Britain about the developments...

They are also talking about the US inching towards declaring a no-fly zone over Syria..

Though how they could do that without Russian and Chinese approval through the UN, I don't know.

FFS....now we are going to openly arm Islamic terrorists in Syria...

Have our political leaders gone insane?

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the States has taken one side in the conflict so clearly, it is going to be very difficult for it to avoid involving itself further and further should that side start to lose, and an involvement of American forces is not hard to predict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a country like the US can afford to not pick sides. They are so important that when they try to "stay out," they only succeed in making all sides their enemy. That is a guaranteed loser.

So, who should L.B. Johnson have supported, Ngô Đình Diệm, who was responsible for persecutions of Buddhists and the resultant infamous self-immolations? Or Hồ Chí Minh ?

Both sides committed war crimes, and for the U.S.A. it all worked out so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It worked out okay for the US. Yes the country got its fingers burned, but in the process learned a few things. The real loser from the US involvement, of course, was the Vietnamese people.

I think the expression "war crimes" is redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the States has taken one side in the conflict so clearly, it is going to be very difficult for it to avoid involving itself further and further should that side start to lose, and an involvement of American forces is not hard to predict.

they must be ramping it up because the Assad forces were making some significant headway dealing with the 'rebels'...

I agree...the US, (Britain etc)...will not back down now.

They will try to remove Assad no matter what the human cost and future dangers of having a hard-line Islamic government in power there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It worked out okay for the US. Yes the country got its fingers burned, but in the process learned a few things.

By burnt fingers, you mean 58,000 dead U.S. soldiers, and 300,000 wounded.

By working out ok, you mean a lost war, no objectives met and humiliation on the world stage.

But you didn't answer the question. By your maxim, that the U.S. is too big not to intervene in foreign conflicts, I asked if therefore the U.S. should have necessarily propped up a corrupt leader like Diem who also persecuted Buddhists?

I can't believe you would agree with that.

360_bh_self_immolation_0119.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.