Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know we laid out this red line, but now what exactly are we supposed to do? I know the regime their is very bad, but are the people under attack any better?
The way the President(s) and our Congress has been acting these past many decades,
just call the US, the invaders
BTW, whose "we"? Did the American people really lay out this red line, or was it
simply Obama and certain members of Congress.....and
guys like Lieberman, whose not even an elected official anymore,
drumming for war.
Folks need to remember who actually should be giving the approval to
declare war; the American People....
My guess is that you are a provacateur, sent here to drum up support to get us into another war. That's why I called you a shill, probably from the Pentagon, CIA or Blackwater type corp.
Truth is, the majority of native Syrians support their President, and the jihad is at the behest of our gov't. The globalists are threatened by nationals that seek to preserve their sovereignty, and not comply to demands of the US and NATO.
This is the same false information that got us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
The former U.S. National Security Adviser (and a top Obama foreign policy adviser) admitted that the U.S. created, organized and armed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan – including Bin Laden – to fight the Soviets. (The Mujahadeen eventually morphed into Al Qaeda.)
And the U.S. has backed the most dangerous and radical Muslim terrorists for decades.
Agreed completely.
I saw a short interview on CNN about 1 year ago with American woman married to Syrian man and living in Damask. She said almost all Syrians support Assad. I was very surprised they aired this.
BTW, I don't get why some people here say that to be anti-war is to be anti-American. Think what sort of people get bonuses from wars the USA is running. These are not average Joe and his family members. They are and will be paying for wars in favor of the small group of military and military-industrial elites.
IMO, America would be in much better shape having excellent productive base, strong exports, positive trade balance and no state debt (or at least small). Then we would not need to print the ridiculous amounts of paper money and support the value of dollar and it's world reserve currency status by countless wars/international conflicts. If the US will now give up it's role of Earth policeman, we are screwed.
To make a argument that America should not pursue any clarification on this issue because of sequestration is ridiculous.
Americans should not be inconvenienced by waiting in a airport to catch a flight, because we dont have the money to investigate further if Syria used a poisonous gas on their own people? Is that your contention?
Some might argue that it is none of our business. Some might further argue that if the good people in that region are upset by Syria then they should be the ones to react.
I would argue that this nation simply can not afford to involve ourselves in every dispute that flares up.
How many of our soldiers lives should we dedicate to ousting the current leader in Syria? I would argue that Syria is not worth 1 American life, just as Somalia was not worth 1 life, nor was Libya.
The reason Assad hasn't fallen yet is that most Syrians support him. The entire world with the exception of two or three countries wants him to fall and what's stopping that is that the Syrian people and army have for the most part stayed loyal. The guy's resume is pretty impressive:
- He kept Syria a secular country - the only one in the Middle East - and Syrian Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, Shi'ites, and Druze were all equal under the eyes of the law. With the obvious exception of Lebanon, Syria is the only Arab country that ever had a Christian Prime Minister and a Christian Minister of Defense. Assad for example is an Alawite, but his wife is a Sunni. Religion is absent from politics and Syria served as an example for many of the secular movements across the Middle East.
- Healthcare and education are completely free in Syria, and no one was an exception. Even Palestinian refugees, who tend to be treated horrendously by all Arab countries hosting them, have it good under Assad and enjoy all the benefits that Syrian citizens enjoy as well.
- Until the start of this war, Syria was a very independent nation. They maintained a very minimal foreign doubt, which is remarkable.
I'm obviously not condoning the violence in Syria, but most casualties have been inflicted by the rebels. Most rebel groups are Islamic extremist organizations with ties to Al-Qaeda whose sole purpose for bringing down Assad is to end the secular society and introduce an Islamic state. The damage these rebels have done to Syria is disgusting. They've blown up mosques and churches, committed suicide/car bombings in civilian districts, and in areas they've taken control over from Syrian troops, the rebels have began forcing women to stay indoors, forbidding them from driving, and making those who do come outdoors wear burqas.
I've also noticed that the majority of the people who went out to protest the Syrian government in March 2011, as well as those who spoke out against them for the longest time, have since thrown their support back behind Assad. There is no Syrian revolution anymore. Right now there's a war between Syria and Islamic extremists coming from Syria and all over the world - from Albania to Afghanistan.
It's important to take all articles written about the Syrian conflict with a grain of salt. Notice how any article written about Syria quotes Syrian opposition sources. For example, one New York Times article might say, "Syrian troops have massacred 20 civilians in the Daraa district, according to Syrian activists." Or according to the Syrian opposition, Syrian rebels, or the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (a Syrian opposition tool disguised an organization that cares about human rights). Of course these sources are going to do everything to make Assad and the Syrian government and army look bad.
In the middle of March, there were reports that chemical weapons were used in the city of Aleppo. The government blamed the rebels, the rebels blamed the government. The United States said it had evidence chemical weapons were used, but remained quiet. Soon after, the USA forgot about it. Turns out the chemical weapons were most likely used by the rebels and the USA didn't want to acknowledge it, so they just pretended it never happened.
Yes, Assad is a dictator, but he's not a brutal dicator like Saddam Hussein. Anyone who understands Syria realizes he'd never use chemical weapons on his own people. The guy is a very modern leader. He could have just dropped bombs on all revolting towns in 2011 and squashed the rebels from the start. Rather, he's had his troops fight on the ground, and thus has lost 25,000 men as well as his own brother-in-law in violence, just to minimize civilian casualties.
So, with such circumstances, count me as a supporter of Assad.
Last edited by Virtual Insanity; 05-04-2013 at 11:57 AM..
In the real world it appears that the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels are the ones responsible for having used chemical weapons against the Syrian government. It was the Syrian government who initially accused the U.S.-backed rebels of using chemical weapons, and asked the UN to investigate the attack. This triggered the Syrian rebels and later the Obama administration to accuse the Syrian government of the attack.
A very revealing New York Times article quotedU.S.-backed Syrian rebels admitting that the chemical weapons attack took place in a Syrian government controlled territory and that 16 Syrian government soldiers died as a result of the attack, along with 10 civilians plus a hundred more injured. But the rebels later made the absurd claim that the Syrian government accidentally bombed its own military with the chemical weapons.
Interestingly, the Russian government later accused the United States of trying to stall the UN investigation requested by the Syrian government, by insisting that the parameters of the investigation be expanded to such a degree that a never-ending discussion over jurisdiction and rules would eventually abort the investigation.
Thus, yet another secular Middle Eastern government — after Iraq and Libya — is being pushed into the abyss of Islamist extremism, and the shoving is being done by the United States, which The NewYork Times discovered was funneling thousands of tons of weapons into Syria through U.S. allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. We now know that these weapons were given to the Islamist extremists; directly or indirectly, it doesn’t matter.
Even after this U.S.-organized weapons trafficking was uncovered, the Obama administration still has the nerve to say that the U.S. is only supplying “non lethal” aid to the Syrian rebels. Never mind that many of the guns that the U.S. is transporting into Syria from its allies were sold to the allies by the United States, where the weapons were manufactured.Now, many politicians are demanding that Obama institute a “no fly zone” in Syria, a euphemism for military invasion — one country cannot enforce a no fly zone inside another country without first destroying the enemy Air Force, not to mention its surface to air missiles, etc. We saw in Libya that a no fly zone quickly evolved into a full scale invasion, which would happen again in Syria, with the difference being that Syria has a more powerful army with more sophisticated weaponry, not to mention powerful allies — Iran and Russia.
This is the real reason that the U.S. military is not aligned with the Obama administration over Syria. Such a war would be incredibly risky, and inevitably lead to a wider conflict that would engulf an already war-drenched region, creating yet more “terrorists” who would like to attack the United States.
Looks like we are in the process of deploying troops, where is the media?
Quote:
In testimony before the US Senate Armed Forces Committee on Wednesday, top US defense officials announced that they are deploying 200 troops of the 1st Armored Division to Jordan. They will establish headquarters near the Syrian-Jordanian border and plan for a rapid build-up, involving 20,000 or more US troops, awaiting orders from the White House to invade Syria.
A US invasion force would reportedly include Special Forces troops and regular units preparing for operations inside Syria, as well as air defense units guarding against possible retaliatory Syrian air strikes on Jordan.
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the Senate committee that these deployments are part of “robust military planning for a range of contingencies,” carried out by the United States and its European and Middle Eastern allies.
As US officials admitted, invading Syria would likely involve the United States in a regional war throughout the Middle East. Hagel said that a US intervention in Syria “could have the unintended consequence of bringing the United States into a broader regional conflict or proxy war.” He noted that this “could embroil the US in a significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment.”
He detailed the streams of cash Washington is pouring into the anti-Assad opposition, including $117 million for “communications and medical equipment” as well as undisclosed US State Department and US Agency for International Development funding. Hagel explained, “The goal is to strengthen those opposition groups that share the international community’s vision for Syria’s future and minimize the influence of extremists.”
Hagel was apparently referring to Washington’s fears that ultra-right Islamist terrorist groups active in the opposition and funded by the United States’ Middle Eastern allies could take over Syria, should the Assad regime collapse. The Al Nusra Front, the military spearhead of the US-backed opposition in Syria, recently swore loyalty to Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The Obama administration and the Democratic Party, having come to power in 2008 with cynical and false appeals to popular opposition to the Iraq war, is pursuing similar policies, with total contempt for popular opposition to war in the US and Middle Eastern population.
In pursuing regime change in Syria, US imperialism is seeking to impose its hegemony on the entire Middle East. Besides Syria, it is targeting and trying to isolate Syria’s main regional ally, oil-rich Iran, which has emerged as the strongest regional power in the Persian Gulf. It also hopes that by eliminating Assad, it will cut off the flow of arms and money to forces and groups in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories opposed to Israel.
Some might argue that it is none of our business. Some might further argue that if the good people in that region are upset by Syria then they should be the ones to react.
I would argue that this nation simply can not afford to involve ourselves in every dispute that flares up.
How many of our soldiers lives should we dedicate to ousting the current leader in Syria? I would argue that Syria is not worth 1 American life, just as Somalia was not worth 1 life, nor was Libya.
I dont' know, but Israel has the luxury of being able to count on our support, as was made evident last time the Palestinians rained rockets into Israel. If it was a proxy hit, and if US had decided to take Assad out, then what better way to do it than with Israel's help?
I saw a short interview on CNN about 1 year ago with American woman married to Syrian man and living in Damask. She said almost all Syrians support Assad. I was very surprised they aired this.
You better say it if you live in Damaskus and want to live.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
