24 total posts
The White House has announced it will ramp up support.....
.....for the rebels. They have not specified what form(s) that support will take. I'm guessing the CIA has already been heavily involved. I do not favor the notion of American ground troops. Air strikes would have to be very selective. I don't know which means of taking out chem/bio weapons are safe and which would only result in dispersing the agents in them. The Syrian people are not the problem and we don't want to change that.
Last night report
was that the support would be via arms to the rebels.....unfortunately, there are two factions........Iran's fighters with Assad and taliban with the rebels, and the leader of that taliban force is the same one that has sworn that after Assad falls, he is coming after the Americans.
So are we going to arm the very group that will come after us again like we did in Afghanistan against the Russian army? Deja vu all over again........
That group in Afghanistan.....
......only got angry with us after we up and left without helping them rebuild. That led to the formation of Al Qaeda. Yes, folks, we were working alongside bin Laden there.
It's a very difficult dilemma, isn't it. One of those (many) times when I'm glad I don't have to make the kinds of decisions that a president has to make.
That's one of the most....
...convoluted and reversed logic approaches to what can't even be called understanding of the situation I think I've heard to date. We don't own anyone a rebuild. Certainly not turncoats who bite the hand that already helped them. Failure to help some warring factions doesn't mean we by default then are helping one side or the other. It's not a difficult decision, because it's not our country, not our people, and not even those who adhere to the same principles we do. We should not be the permanent fence between dogs of the same breed which so desperately want to fight and kill each other, and anyone else they target at the time, even former aid givers.
When we go into a country and destroy their structure,
we can just leave and let them sort it out? Very Christian philosophy.
We also shouldn't help those that want to be free and have a democracy?
I know that the people in the Middle East don't have any history of democracy and definitely don't have the Magna Carta to fall back on so they get it wrong before they get it right. But, at least, they are trying.
The time to have gotten involved
in Syria was at the very beginning when we absolutely knew that the rebels were 'every day people' who actually wanted democracy and to get rid of a tyrant and murderer. Now, those people, in order to have SOME kind of help against Assad, have got the same types fighting with them and they will be taken over again by people who don't hesitate to kill their own in order to gain even more power. There's no way to sort them out at this point so you suggest we just arm them all and take whatever comes down the pike?
You have two warring factions that are now equal in their viciousness and thirst for blood and power....but only one side has the chemical weapons for now.....
As for your comment about how we destroyed their infrastructure and didn't stay to help rebuild.....we were asked to go in and push out the Russians......that's what we did. From what I understand, we never agreed to stay on and they only used that rebuild crap as an excuse to come after us, once they had decent weapons in their hands. Even if we had stayed and rebuilt, it wouldn't have changed the eventual outcome.....look at Iraq......too many lives were lost trying to do just that and all for nothing. When you have an entire people hate you no matter what you try to do to make their lives better, they don't want better.....they want you to die........period.
How can you possibly compare Afganistan '79 with Iraq???
In Afghanistan we helped drive an invading country out. In Iraq we WERE the invading country. Of course the locals didn't feel the same way about us in Iraq as they did in Afghanistan. Geez.
You're an idiot liberal, Josh
We helped drive an invading force out of Afghanistan by also giving the Taliban weapons that they didn't have......we were asked to help them BY THEM.......but we were not obligated to rebuild their country after we were asked to help destroy their already terrible infrastructure. As for Iraq......WE weren't the only country that went into Iraq, all based on the same intel and with bipartisan support in Congress, in case you have forgotten, and we are pretty much the only country that stuck around to actually help rebuild it and it was for nothing because the leaders there, although elected, chose to allow the Taliban and AQ thru Iran back into it. The PEOPLE actually welcomed us for a long time, Josh........it's the LEADERS there that have turned it back into a piece of crap and it's getting worse and turning into current Afghanistan.
Listening to you is like listening to BO on a stump apology tour. Everything is the USA's fault that factions in the Middle East hate us.......but they hated us long before Iraq.........and long before we were ever in any of their countries.
It was even called false by our own intelligence service but the Prez didn't want to hear that.
stated to actually be false until after we were already in Iraq......it was accepted as truthful by all of the countries that were in the coalition as well as all of Congress......the only person who suspected it wasn't reliable was Colin Powell but because he had no proof at the time, he agreed with the rest until the truth came out later. However, the reason it was deemed credible for a long period of time was because Saddam had proven he actually had and used chemical weapons against his own people and he continued for years after that event to vocally threaten to use them again and it was a ploy/lie in order to keep his enemies at bay, such as Iran. There was no reason to believe otherwise because he always kept the inspectors out and did so for years. It wasn't that the Prez didn't want to hear that, Diana....he had no reason to believe anything differently when the rest of the world was also convinced he still had them and knew he was capable of using them again.
We've been down this road too many times to keep debating it anymore.....and there actually WERE wmd's found when we got there......just not in the quantities we thought there would be. And Saddam was a wmd all by himself....just as Assad is today.
Yes, it was
And you really ought to refrain from "You're an idiot...." posts, Toni. As a former mod you ought to know better. That kind of name calling is the last desperate act of someone who has nothing more substantive to say.
But when you go out of your way to
insult me, it's okay because liberals are allowed to do things like that, right? When a Mod here decides I've crossed the line, my post will be removed. You don't like it when they stand, complain, Josh.......then I'll be able to point out all of your insults and we'll take your pissing contest to a whole new level, ok?
No WMDs found?
There's no arguing that Saddam had them at one time or another and, as I recall, one very important reason given for wanting to neutralize them was so they wouldn't get into the wrong hands. It was said to be important to the overall "war on terror", wasn't it? So, if they did exist, where did they go?
Of course he had them at one point
We know this because HE GOT THEM FROM US.
He did not have them when we invaded, nor (apparently) in the months leading up to it. Nothing was ever found except some rusted remnants from 20 years earlier.
Even Clapper believed and still does
But Josh. That doesn't answer the question
"Where did they go?" Any ideas?
He used them on the Kurds
No idea what percentage of his total stock was used on them. I know some were left to rust, which is the condition in which we found them.
Kuwait, Kuwait, Kuwait...
We don't own anyone a rebuild
I was mostly responding to James' post.
It's what happened. Look it up.
Not really a game changer some analysts think
Not that I want to see direct involvement but I'd have to say that the president's earlier comment using the term was quite an overstatement. It would have implied a major change rather than a policy tweak...or so I'd think. So offering a limited number and type of weapons to the rebel forces is his game changing action? Well, I hope it does something positive. Maybe if he's got a few weapons left over he could offer them to the law-biding residents of Chicago's urban gang controlled neighborhoods. That might be a game changer too.
And if Syria's chemical weapons were smuggled there by
Saddam, would we want these to fall into ownership of the current rebel forces should they be successful in overthrowing the dictator? I have to wonder if helping them now could make things worse later. Of course Bush would still be to blame...not for failing to find them but for letting them escape.