Obama's Syrian Red Line

[dellinger63]

Apparently has been crossed (enough) that we will supply military aid to the rebels.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...sing-red-line/

On the very same day the rebels have pledged their loyalty to al Qaeda

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...ction/2075323/

If in the history of wars there was ever one we shouldn't get involved in, it is this one, yet we are now supplying military aid to al Qaeda loyalists.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Apparently has been crossed (enough) that we will supply military aid to the rebels.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...sing-red-line/

On the very same day the rebels have pledged their loyalty to al Qaeda

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...ction/2075323/

If in the history of wars there was ever one we shouldn't get involved in, it is this one, yet we are now supplying military aid to al Qaeda loyalists.

Uhuh, that has already been accomplished,i.e. G W Bush's invasion of a sovereign nation..Iraq...We should just stay out of Syria and let the two sides fight it out..

Watched most of Frontline tues nite, Syria Behind The Lines...interviews with both sides and both saying they are fighting for a free Syria..


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ind-the-lines/

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Uhuh, that has already been accomplished,i.e. G W Bush's invasion of a sovereign nation..Iraq...We should just stay out of Syria and let the two sides fight it out..

Watched most of Frontline tues nite, Syria Behind The Lines...interviews with both sides and both saying they are fighting for a free Syria..


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ind-the-lines/

Agree with you there and think there's an out for the President if our military aid support is limited to body bags.

[Danzig]

a continuance of bad foreign policy. not sure what's so magical about chemical weapons. wtf does it matter what they're using to kill each other?
should never have said a word back when obama first mentioned this 'line'. this is why i don't use ultimatums, or make threats-you might get stuck having to back it up, or suck it up.
of course, barack won't be the one actually backing it up. the enemy of my enemy could also be my enemy, but some in d.c. still think the enemy of their enemy is their friend. WRONG.
this is a mistake. but, hey, maybe this'll take the heat off the irs scandal. or is it the nsa scandal? fbi? there's suddenly so many, hard to keep track.

i'm not happy about this decision, haven't been since i first saw the story.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Hey, we have to do something with all the extra money we have laying around.

Obamanomics: As long as you spend it on war and/or spying they're not allowed to count it against the budget.

Doesn't matter who you're killing mind you, you just havta be killin' folks. And spying is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY!!! If you're against spying,why, you're...you're..... ANTI-AMERICAN!!!

Hey, maybe we can buy a whole bunch of more drones with our make believe money to give them away too.

then again we wouldn't be able to justify our meddling in Syria for the next 10 years if we did that....or maybe...


I love it when this grows on trees.

[geeker2]

Unlike my visit to the local massage parlor - this will not have a happy ending

[Danzig]

the president should lay out an explanation as to why we are getting more involved. why? for what purpose, to what end?
but then, he has a lot of explaining to do, about a lot of things.

[Danzig]

so....the president hell-bent on disarming his own citizens is also hell-bent on arming those in syria.
doesn't make a lot of sense.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so....the president hell-bent on disarming his own citizens is also hell-bent on arming those in syria.
doesn't make a lot of sense.

dan, you are a history buff...maybe i have my countries confused but i seem to recall some time back the Syrian gov't was referred to as the Western backed gov't of Syria..no?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

dan, you are a history buff...maybe i have my countries confused but i seem to recall some time back the Syrian gov't was referred to as the Western backed gov't of Syria..no?

i don't know, i'd have to look into it. wouldn't surprise me if it was. once upon a time, we were allies with saddam, and afganistan was our biggest recipient of foreign aid. our foreign policy SUCKS.

[Danzig]

looked into syria a bit, but don't see anything to indicate it was ever a western ally. it was established as a french mandate after ww1, and has had mostly trouble ever since. lots of upheaval, and then the assads took over, first the father and of course now his son. they were allies with iran during the iran/iraq war, and are foes of israel.

ww1, the gift that keeps on giving.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by bigrun

dan, you are a history buff...maybe i have my countries confused but i seem to recall some time back the Syrian gov't was referred to as the Western backed gov't of Syria..no?

Not sure how far back you have to go for friendly relations between the US and Syria. We were actually in a brief conflict with them between 1983 and 1984. You may remember this. This was when Jessie Jackson went to Syria to obtain the release of the young aviator Robert O. Goodman. He was shot down over Lebanon and captured by the Syrians and held by them for about a month until Jackson and others got him released.

Might be mistaken, but I think the Syrians did contribute a token force to armies opposed to Saddam in Desert Storm. Don't really think that should be construed as "pro-western." I think Saddam was just universally despised. Even by other Arabs.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so....the president hell-bent on disarming his own citizens is also hell-bent on arming those in syria.
doesn't make a lot of sense.

It actually makes complete sense, provided you understand the agenda.


>>>So now it's in your face, you see: Obama is arming terrorists. Not just any terrorists, but THE terrorists that Bush claimed justified the rise of the entire U.S. police state reach-down-your-pants spy grid security theater apparatus. Isn't it now obvious that the U.S. government runs al-Queda, 1984-style, to make sure America always has a boogeyman to invoke when justifying the destruction of civil rights and individual privacy?” <<<

http://rense.com/general96/navigating.html

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cal828

Not sure how far back you have to go for friendly relations between the US and Syria. We were actually in a brief conflict with them between 1983 and 1984. You may remember this. This was when Jessie Jackson went to Syria to obtain the release of the young aviator Robert O. Goodman. He was shot down over Lebanon and captured by the Syrians and held by them for about a month until Jackson and others got him released.

Might be mistaken, but I think the Syrians did contribute a token force to armies opposed to Saddam in Desert Storm. Don't really think that should be construed as "pro-western." I think Saddam was just universally despised. Even by other Arabs.

yeah, that was anti-iraq, not pro-western.


and karzai now has broken off peace talks with the u.s., and i completely understand that decision.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...h-taliban?lite

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't know, i'd have to look into it. wouldn't surprise me if it was. once upon a time, we were allies with saddam, and afganistan was our biggest recipient of foreign aid. our foreign policy SUCKS.

It all comes down to oil. If we'd actually get serious about putting real money into alternative, renewable, energy sources, we'd need the Middle East a lot less.

Doug once commented here that he wonders if, 500 years from now, history will describe Osama bin Laden as the man who brought down two empires- the Soviet Union and the United States. Very smart comment.

Though, in all fairness, the Bush Administration was determined to go into Iraq from the day they got into office. 9/11 was just the excuse.

[Danzig]

i think there's got to be more to this than oil. nato going after libya made me wonder too....is it all still european (and now, us included) imperial desires?
it's as tho we have become the old worlds mercenary army.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It all comes down to oil. If we'd actually get serious about putting real money into alternative, renewable, energy sources, we'd need the Middle East a lot less.

Doug once commented here that he wonders if, 500 years from now, history will describe Osama bin Laden as the man who brought down two empires- the Soviet Union and the United States. Very smart comment.

Though, in all fairness, the Bush Administration was determined to go into Iraq from the day they got into office. 9/11 was just the excuse

On that point, saw this the other day..watch the video..

Why Cheney is the Traitor, and Why we Can’t Believe Obama on Safeguards (The Ultimate Clip of Gov’t Lies) http://tinyurl.com/knn95e2

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think there's got to be more to this than oil. nato going after libya made me wonder too....is it all still european (and now, us included) imperial desires?
it's as tho we have become the old worlds mercenary army.

Imperial desires are about access to limited resources. We may not practice direct colonialism now, but we're still practicing economic colonialism.