PDA

View Full Version : Over 132 million of our tax dollars have gone to these douchebags.



Dolphins9954
10-03-2012, 07:59 PM
pvhlRi-x8Pg


Yeah I see this ending real well. Stop the wars and stop supporting terrorism while supposedly "fighting it".


http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/28/3838726/clinton-offers-45-million-to-syrian.html

Dolphins9954
10-06-2012, 09:55 AM
FSA Rebel: "We won't stop until Al-Qaeda flag raised over White House."


bL58pyB7kYM

Hit the CC button for translation.

SkapePhin
10-06-2012, 10:05 AM
pvhlRi-x8Pg


Yeah I see this ending real well. Stop the wars and stop supporting terrorism while supposedly "fighting it".


http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/28/3838726/clinton-offers-45-million-to-syrian.html

Worked out great in Afghanistan during the Cold War!

Dolphins9954
10-06-2012, 10:10 AM
Worked out great in Afghanistan during the Cold War!

Makes you wonder what the goal is. Either our policy makers are completely incompetent or instability is the ultimate goal.

TheWalrus
10-06-2012, 10:46 AM
Makes you wonder what the goal is. Either our policy makers are completely incompetent or instability is the ultimate goal.

Syria is a client state of Iran and buys most of their weapons from Russia. Instability does serve a US National Security interest, especially where Iran is concerned. But $132 million is a pretty paltry sum, to be honest. We were spending, what? Half a billion in Afghanistan by the time it was over? More than that, I think, and that was the 80s.

But that aside, does anyone really believe we'd be better off with al-Assad running Syria than one of these rebel groups? I know with what's gone on in Libya and even Egypt there seems to be some nostalgia for ruthless dictatorships but I can't support that line of thinking. We obviously can't help everyone in every situation and not all countries are ready for democracy but al-Assad shouldn't even be on this planet, much less running a country. Some of the stories that have come out of Syria are so heinous I truly believe that, given a gun and the opportunity, I would kill him myself, which is not something I say lightly.

Dolphins9954
10-06-2012, 10:56 AM
Syria is a client state of Iran and buys most of their weapons from Russia. Instability does serve a US National Security interest, especially where Iran is concerned. But $132 million is a pretty paltry sum, to be honest. We were spending, what? Half a billion in Afghanistan by the time it was over? More than that, I think, and that was the 80s.

But that aside, does anyone really believe we'd be better off with al-Assad running Syria than one of these rebel groups? I know with what's gone on in Libya and even Egypt there seems to be some nostalgia for ruthless dictatorships but I can't support that line of thinking. We obviously can't help everyone in every situation and not all countries are ready for democracy but al-Assad shouldn't even be on this planet, much less running a country. Some of the stories that have come out of Syria are so heinous I truly believe that, given a gun and the opportunity, I would kill him myself, which is not something I say lightly.

Dictator or Jihadists?


In the end it's not our business and like Libya/Afghan will only cause more harm than good. Taking sides with jihadists has never worked out well for us. And the last thing we should do is support them and give them money. It's funny because Obama requested and signed NDAA into law. Which gives him the authority to indefinitely detain Americans for supporting terrorism. Meanwhile over 132 million dollars are going to terrorists in Syria. Our policies make no sense. It's riddled with double standards and total hypocrisies. Syria is the prime example of it.

CedarPhin
10-06-2012, 02:13 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/world/middleeast/rebels-say-wests-inaction-is-radicalizing-syria.html?_r=0

TheWalrus
10-06-2012, 02:40 PM
There are no easy answers in Syria, certainly. First off, I don't think the West really thinks the rebels really can win. Where the rebels in Libya could count on a much more sparsely populated terrain to help maintain strongholds, Syria is much smaller and more populated, which means the rebels are constantly taking and losing and taking and losing the same ground.

If the US really wanted to do something about Syria, they'd also have to go it alone. Russia sells arms to Syria and has blocked everything that moves in the Security Council. China's own political issues means they automatically block the support to any dissident movement anywhere in the world. The presence of Iran and the delicate situation around their nuclear program also complicates the matter. Plus, there's the fact that the ruling party in Syria is largely Christian, which obviously has local implications and makes it far less likely for members of the ruling party to leave the country or surrender, since they know they'll be killed. And... perhaps this sounds callous but I think it's fair to ask what the US really has to gain beyond the humanitarian component. The potential benefit of an indebted oil rich nation does factor into these things. People don't want to admit it or perhaps don't realize it but natural resources are and always have been a vital national security interest.

So basically you've got a civil war where major world powers are invested in ensuring the brutal ruling party stays in power, a complicated global political situation, and very little to gain. I feel for the rebels in Syria. I really do. Whatever I think of their tactics or the potential for them to establish a jihadi society, it's hard not to sympathize with people who've been oppressed and raped and assaulted for so long just trying to establish some self determination.

Dolphins9954
10-06-2012, 03:36 PM
There are no easy answers in Syria, certainly. First off, I don't think the West really thinks the rebels really can win. Where the rebels in Libya could count on a much more sparsely populated terrain to help maintain strongholds, Syria is much smaller and more populated, which means the rebels are constantly taking and losing and taking and losing the same ground.

If the US really wanted to do something about Syria, they'd also have to go it alone. Russia sells arms to Syria and has blocked everything that moves in the Security Council. China's own political issues means they automatically block the support to any dissident movement anywhere in the world. The presence of Iran and the delicate situation around their nuclear program also complicates the matter. Plus, there's the fact that the ruling party in Syria is largely Christian, which obviously has local implications and makes it far less likely for members of the ruling party to leave the country or surrender, since they know they'll be killed. And... perhaps this sounds callous but I think it's fair to ask what the US really has to gain beyond the humanitarian component. The potential benefit of an indebted oil rich nation does factor into these things. People don't want to admit it or perhaps don't realize it but natural resources are and always have been a vital national security interest.

So basically you've got a civil war where major world powers are invested in ensuring the brutal ruling party stays in power, a complicated global political situation, and very little to gain. I feel for the rebels in Syria. I really do. Whatever I think of their tactics or the potential for them to establish a jihadi society, it's hard not to sympathize with people who've been oppressed and raped and assaulted for so long just trying to establish some self determination.


Syria is a clusterF that we should avoid like the plauge. There are many hands involved there from the Saudis, Mossad, Qatar, CIA and Russia. I agree it's easy to feel sympathy for oppressed people. But unfortunately the jihadist element with the rebels is something that can't be ignored like it was in Libya. When the rebels are doing things indiscriminate killings, terrorist attacks, throwing people from buildings and pledging to hoist the Al-Qaeda banner over the White House. My sympathy goes out the door. Plus it's a far bigger issue of how our involvements and interventions in those countries usually lead to more harm than good.