maybe give arms to the rebels. what could go wrong, and it's only money. it worked so well when we armed bin laden and his people in afghanistan and every other time we get involved with these countries.
this is a joke, right
The effort, U.S. officials said, would vet members of the Free Syrian
Army and other groups to determine whether they are suitable recipients
of munitions to fight the Assad government and to ensure that weapons
don't wind up in the hands of al Qaeda-linked terrorists or other
extremist groups such as Hezbollah that could target Israel.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
maybe give arms to the rebels. what could go wrong, and it's only money. it worked so well when we armed bin laden and his people in afghanistan and every other time we get involved with these countries.
this is a joke, right
The effort, U.S. officials said, would vet members of the Free Syrian
Army and other groups to determine whether they are suitable recipients
of munitions to fight the Assad government and to ensure that weapons
don't wind up in the hands of al Qaeda-linked terrorists or other
extremist groups such as Hezbollah that could target Israel.
Jesus... that's the last place I want us sticking our noses in. We're about to see things get really ugly over there. The Sunnis in Lebanon are not enjoying watching their homies across the border get slaughtered, and it amazes me that people don't remember or understand or have knowledge about the sectarian warfare that took place in Lebanon in the 80's. I read this interesting article recently that quoted a Sunni man in Lebanon who basically admitted that he wanted to take up arms in support of his fellow Sunni brothers who were being slaughtered by the Alawite regime of al-Assad.
Let me ask you this: Do you think that the TRUE Lebanese power (Sheikh Nasrallah and his Hezbollah followers) will be A-OK with the US arming Sunnis across the border? Think he will be OK with the Sunnis is his country rising up in anger about the deaths of their fellow Sunni brothers in Syria? Do you think that Nasrallah isn't aware that there is a well-known Alawite and Shiite friendship (if not alliance) as it relates to propping up al-Assad's regime?
0
Jesus... that's the last place I want us sticking our noses in. We're about to see things get really ugly over there. The Sunnis in Lebanon are not enjoying watching their homies across the border get slaughtered, and it amazes me that people don't remember or understand or have knowledge about the sectarian warfare that took place in Lebanon in the 80's. I read this interesting article recently that quoted a Sunni man in Lebanon who basically admitted that he wanted to take up arms in support of his fellow Sunni brothers who were being slaughtered by the Alawite regime of al-Assad.
Let me ask you this: Do you think that the TRUE Lebanese power (Sheikh Nasrallah and his Hezbollah followers) will be A-OK with the US arming Sunnis across the border? Think he will be OK with the Sunnis is his country rising up in anger about the deaths of their fellow Sunni brothers in Syria? Do you think that Nasrallah isn't aware that there is a well-known Alawite and Shiite friendship (if not alliance) as it relates to propping up al-Assad's regime?
With all the above being said, if we armed the "Free Syria Army", chances that those arms would make their way to Hezbollah are very, very small. Lebanese Shiites reportedly kidnapped in Syria, Nasrallah appeals for calm
0
With all the above being said, if we armed the "Free Syria Army", chances that those arms would make their way to Hezbollah are very, very small. Lebanese Shiites reportedly kidnapped in Syria, Nasrallah appeals for calm
It would be interesting to observe a Romney Presidency in the mideast. With his current hawkish advisors, no doubt we would be involved in every conflict. Of course, the right wingers would support it then.
0
It would be interesting to observe a Romney Presidency in the mideast. With his current hawkish advisors, no doubt we would be involved in every conflict. Of course, the right wingers would support it then.
This is could very well be step one on our way to invading Iran or at least fighting them. Iran assisted in the Syrian Gov in fighting the rebellion. They have given money, weapons, and reportedly sent military personel to Syria to help crush the rebellion. I'm pretty sure they would take U.S. interest in supporting the rebellion as a reason to come after us in one way or another.
There is a reason we have so many bases surrounding Iran. I really think the American war machine is looking for a reason, any reason, to invade Iran. Outside of Ron Paul pulling a miracle in Nov, this looks more and more realistic. Get ready for another 10 year war.
0
This is could very well be step one on our way to invading Iran or at least fighting them. Iran assisted in the Syrian Gov in fighting the rebellion. They have given money, weapons, and reportedly sent military personel to Syria to help crush the rebellion. I'm pretty sure they would take U.S. interest in supporting the rebellion as a reason to come after us in one way or another.
There is a reason we have so many bases surrounding Iran. I really think the American war machine is looking for a reason, any reason, to invade Iran. Outside of Ron Paul pulling a miracle in Nov, this looks more and more realistic. Get ready for another 10 year war.
A war in Iran would be one of the stupidest things that we could do. I'm talking monumentally stupid. A war with Iran would make Iraq look like a child's sandbox.
Go read up about the Iranian-Iraqi war of the 1980's. We do NOT want to go to war with the Iranians.
0
A war in Iran would be one of the stupidest things that we could do. I'm talking monumentally stupid. A war with Iran would make Iraq look like a child's sandbox.
Go read up about the Iranian-Iraqi war of the 1980's. We do NOT want to go to war with the Iranians.
A war in Iran would be one of the stupidest things that we could do. I'm talking monumentally stupid. A war with Iran would make Iraq look like a child's sandbox.
Go read up about the Iranian-Iraqi war of the 1980's. We do NOT want to go to war with the Iranians.
didn't stop us from years and years in afghanistan after the russian example.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
A war in Iran would be one of the stupidest things that we could do. I'm talking monumentally stupid. A war with Iran would make Iraq look like a child's sandbox.
Go read up about the Iranian-Iraqi war of the 1980's. We do NOT want to go to war with the Iranians.
didn't stop us from years and years in afghanistan after the russian example.
Kap, I completely agree with you that it would be a mistake. But the way it's setting, Iran looks like a realistic possibility. We already have a bad history with them, we support their enemy Israel, we have military bases surrounding their country putting them on edge, now we're talking about aiding the rebellion in Syria which they are friendly the Syrian Gov. Iran has oil which I could see the U.S. going after. Plus Iran is friendly with China and Russia. The U.S. doesn't want those countries having more control of that resource.
As far as this election goes, Ron Paul is the only candidate that said he would not invade Iran. Romney has basically said he wouldn't back down and that all but ensures conflict in the long run. I think Obama would follow a similar path as Romney. The American war machine is going to need another conflict soon.
0
Kap, I completely agree with you that it would be a mistake. But the way it's setting, Iran looks like a realistic possibility. We already have a bad history with them, we support their enemy Israel, we have military bases surrounding their country putting them on edge, now we're talking about aiding the rebellion in Syria which they are friendly the Syrian Gov. Iran has oil which I could see the U.S. going after. Plus Iran is friendly with China and Russia. The U.S. doesn't want those countries having more control of that resource.
As far as this election goes, Ron Paul is the only candidate that said he would not invade Iran. Romney has basically said he wouldn't back down and that all but ensures conflict in the long run. I think Obama would follow a similar path as Romney. The American war machine is going to need another conflict soon.
of course it would be a monumental mistake. but let me post a quote i posted in another forum yesterday that applies here.
" Naturally, the common people don't want war . . . [b]ut after all,
it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it's always
a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy [or] a
fascist dictatorship . . . . Voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It
works the same way in any country."
this could be a quote from obama or romney talking about syria or iran or bush talking about iraq or afghanistan or a preacher talking about gays or a politician talking about obamacare, and so on. we all know this is how it works. create a monster, get the idiots all riled up, take their eyes off the ball and then have at it.
this quote was from hermann goring by the way.
0
of course it would be a monumental mistake. but let me post a quote i posted in another forum yesterday that applies here.
" Naturally, the common people don't want war . . . [b]ut after all,
it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it's always
a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy [or] a
fascist dictatorship . . . . Voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It
works the same way in any country."
this could be a quote from obama or romney talking about syria or iran or bush talking about iraq or afghanistan or a preacher talking about gays or a politician talking about obamacare, and so on. we all know this is how it works. create a monster, get the idiots all riled up, take their eyes off the ball and then have at it.
I'm very familiar with that Goehring quote, CD. Heard it all the time back in 2003.
I will still be shocked if we end up going into a ground war with Iran. Mind you, we are clearly engaged in a covert war with them right now and have been for years. Who do you think manufactured Stuxnet?
0
I'm very familiar with that Goehring quote, CD. Heard it all the time back in 2003.
I will still be shocked if we end up going into a ground war with Iran. Mind you, we are clearly engaged in a covert war with them right now and have been for years. Who do you think manufactured Stuxnet?
Kap, I wouldn't be shocked at all if we ended up with troops on the ground in Iran in about 3 years. Especially if Isarel has any plans of taking action against them.
0
Kap, I wouldn't be shocked at all if we ended up with troops on the ground in Iran in about 3 years. Especially if Isarel has any plans of taking action against them.
Washington's tactics have long been to secure a recruitment of
antagonist
diehard-combatants in the corridor of rouge states in the Mid East,
to dispatch for warfare with Hezbollah in Lebanon, undercut Syria and
bring down the al-Assad govt, creating a concordant-frontier starring
down
Iran. Think no more of the disorder in countries as a disjunction of
individual matters. The north of Lebanon, the launch platform for the
disorder in neighboring Syria, has fallen to impetuosity from the
conflict between feuding Lebanese factions. The coordinates of the
conflict in Lebanon are located near the Syrian border, adjacent to
the central Homs province, which has hosted the more intense conflicts
in the Syrian
disorder. This is not a consequence from the actions of Syrian troops
spilling across the border, or the pure and authentic sectarian conflict
that the extremist spokesmen in the region are promoting. The Shi'ia
against Sunni tensions are being exploited by extremists groups
sponsored
by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Washington, to set-off a more wide-spread
sectarian conflict in Lebanon, whose banks are being utilized by Iran to
channel funding to the al-Assad govt. The initial feuding was triggered
off Lebanon waters rich in resource deposits that stretch across Syrian
and Israeli waters. Kapono, if you’re reading, the evidence indicates
the U.S. are
exploiting the sectarian tension in Lebanon and forcing each side to
identify themselves with either the Syrian govt or its opposition.
Washington and Istanbul are donors to extremist militants that have been
confirmed as having direct links to Al Qaeda. Syrian rebels are being
trained in Turkey, while shipments of
arsenal financed from the wealthy Gulf States are moving through supply
channels to foreign Jihadist
factions from Libya and Iraq - a formula to creating a
pretext to a humanitarian intervention. On the facts, a peace plan was
never the objective, the evidence over the last half-decade clearly
indicates the U.S. has been investing in a regime change in Syria, which
for
Moscow, strip it of naval bases that provide Russian armament with its
lone access points to the Mediterranean, and severe the large weapons
contracts in place with the current govt. To bring down the al-Assad
govt, would place Iran in a sphere of isolation, however,
Washington will not move its hand with a military escalation before the
Iranian election, scheduled to be held in June next year to elect a
successor of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, where Washington can manoeuvre
political
dissent in the style it
utilized in the Russian elections, in pursuit to create disorder for
the Kremlin. There are war games in the in the Gulf-region simulating
the scenario of an Iran incursion, and Washington foreign policy has not
overlooked a possible Chinese reaction to any foray to protect
Beijing’s multi-billion dollar investments in an oil economy that the
rising Asian power is so dependent on. Washington’s foreign policy in
the Asia-Pacific is starting to break ground, exploiting China’s thirst
for resources in the South China Sea and escalating the disputes between
Beijing and the
Philippines, South Korea, Malaysia and Vietnam that have come with such
a
pursuit in disputed waters against countries backed by Western companies
seeking to secure oil and gas exploration. Allies of U.S. in the
Asia-Pacific region have backed the Washington-Canberra military
alliance to launch long range spy drones in the region to the disgust of
Beijing, as part of the military build-up in the Asian
sphere. While Beijing bases its economic reign on not meddling in the
business activities of its trading partners, Washington, who like the
British Empire were unable to take control of the Chinese market through
economic competitiveness, instead are falling back on old Western habits with military force.
Washington is following in the strategic footsteps of imperialism,
powering its overseas enlargement through a military-style foreign
policy.
The al-Assad regime must fall as the one headed by Mubarak, who subsequently knew Washington was plotting his
overthrow, if you consider that his final speeches housed comments that
were growling at the hand that was feeding him, Washington needing to replace Mubarak with
'The Society of the Muslim Brothers' - a long time U.S. proxy - to
create a radical Sunni govt that will commission power upon the Sunnis of
the entire greater region. History has proven that Egypt is a key component in
any war involving Iran (Persia), and the new Egyptian govt of the 'Muslim
Brothers' that will rise from the elections, sponsored by U.S. and Gulf
States can position Egypt as a force against the Shiite state, Iran,
where a regime change will take place and BP (British Petroleum) can
re-enter Iran. The Iraqi incursion has shown that
Washington can tear-up the Mid East and Moscow will not interfere,
even when it stands to loose big. Post communist Moscow has become the calm and
ineffective customer of Eurasia who forever is subordinate on capitalist
finance, that for now, is content in the observer role, compensated with any leftover remains the devouring Western powers
propel Moscow's way. If Washington repelled the multiple offers from the
Taliban govt to surrender Osama bin Laden to the American justice system prior to the Afghanistan
incursion, choosing a foray instead, an eventual war with Iran is a
genuine reality, and Damascus is on the road to Tehran.
0
Washington's tactics have long been to secure a recruitment of
antagonist
diehard-combatants in the corridor of rouge states in the Mid East,
to dispatch for warfare with Hezbollah in Lebanon, undercut Syria and
bring down the al-Assad govt, creating a concordant-frontier starring
down
Iran. Think no more of the disorder in countries as a disjunction of
individual matters. The north of Lebanon, the launch platform for the
disorder in neighboring Syria, has fallen to impetuosity from the
conflict between feuding Lebanese factions. The coordinates of the
conflict in Lebanon are located near the Syrian border, adjacent to
the central Homs province, which has hosted the more intense conflicts
in the Syrian
disorder. This is not a consequence from the actions of Syrian troops
spilling across the border, or the pure and authentic sectarian conflict
that the extremist spokesmen in the region are promoting. The Shi'ia
against Sunni tensions are being exploited by extremists groups
sponsored
by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Washington, to set-off a more wide-spread
sectarian conflict in Lebanon, whose banks are being utilized by Iran to
channel funding to the al-Assad govt. The initial feuding was triggered
off Lebanon waters rich in resource deposits that stretch across Syrian
and Israeli waters. Kapono, if you’re reading, the evidence indicates
the U.S. are
exploiting the sectarian tension in Lebanon and forcing each side to
identify themselves with either the Syrian govt or its opposition.
Washington and Istanbul are donors to extremist militants that have been
confirmed as having direct links to Al Qaeda. Syrian rebels are being
trained in Turkey, while shipments of
arsenal financed from the wealthy Gulf States are moving through supply
channels to foreign Jihadist
factions from Libya and Iraq - a formula to creating a
pretext to a humanitarian intervention. On the facts, a peace plan was
never the objective, the evidence over the last half-decade clearly
indicates the U.S. has been investing in a regime change in Syria, which
for
Moscow, strip it of naval bases that provide Russian armament with its
lone access points to the Mediterranean, and severe the large weapons
contracts in place with the current govt. To bring down the al-Assad
govt, would place Iran in a sphere of isolation, however,
Washington will not move its hand with a military escalation before the
Iranian election, scheduled to be held in June next year to elect a
successor of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, where Washington can manoeuvre
political
dissent in the style it
utilized in the Russian elections, in pursuit to create disorder for
the Kremlin. There are war games in the in the Gulf-region simulating
the scenario of an Iran incursion, and Washington foreign policy has not
overlooked a possible Chinese reaction to any foray to protect
Beijing’s multi-billion dollar investments in an oil economy that the
rising Asian power is so dependent on. Washington’s foreign policy in
the Asia-Pacific is starting to break ground, exploiting China’s thirst
for resources in the South China Sea and escalating the disputes between
Beijing and the
Philippines, South Korea, Malaysia and Vietnam that have come with such
a
pursuit in disputed waters against countries backed by Western companies
seeking to secure oil and gas exploration. Allies of U.S. in the
Asia-Pacific region have backed the Washington-Canberra military
alliance to launch long range spy drones in the region to the disgust of
Beijing, as part of the military build-up in the Asian
sphere. While Beijing bases its economic reign on not meddling in the
business activities of its trading partners, Washington, who like the
British Empire were unable to take control of the Chinese market through
economic competitiveness, instead are falling back on old Western habits with military force.
Washington is following in the strategic footsteps of imperialism,
powering its overseas enlargement through a military-style foreign
policy.
The al-Assad regime must fall as the one headed by Mubarak, who subsequently knew Washington was plotting his
overthrow, if you consider that his final speeches housed comments that
were growling at the hand that was feeding him, Washington needing to replace Mubarak with
'The Society of the Muslim Brothers' - a long time U.S. proxy - to
create a radical Sunni govt that will commission power upon the Sunnis of
the entire greater region. History has proven that Egypt is a key component in
any war involving Iran (Persia), and the new Egyptian govt of the 'Muslim
Brothers' that will rise from the elections, sponsored by U.S. and Gulf
States can position Egypt as a force against the Shiite state, Iran,
where a regime change will take place and BP (British Petroleum) can
re-enter Iran. The Iraqi incursion has shown that
Washington can tear-up the Mid East and Moscow will not interfere,
even when it stands to loose big. Post communist Moscow has become the calm and
ineffective customer of Eurasia who forever is subordinate on capitalist
finance, that for now, is content in the observer role, compensated with any leftover remains the devouring Western powers
propel Moscow's way. If Washington repelled the multiple offers from the
Taliban govt to surrender Osama bin Laden to the American justice system prior to the Afghanistan
incursion, choosing a foray instead, an eventual war with Iran is a
genuine reality, and Damascus is on the road to Tehran.
saw this quote from romney today on yahoo. goering would be proud.
Americans "have two courses we could follow" when it comes to the direction of the country.
One is to follow the pathway of
Europe, to shrink our military smaller and smaller to pay for our social
needs… and hope for the best," Romney said. "But if we followed that
course, there would be no one stand and protect us."
"The other," Romney continued,
"is to commit to preserve America as the strongest military in the
world, second to none, with no comparable power anywhere in the world."
Listing off a litany of
risks—including "Iran rushing to become a nuclear nation" and the
growing military strength of China—Romney said protecting America's
military strength isn't just to "win wars and prevent wars" but to deter
wars.
0
saw this quote from romney today on yahoo. goering would be proud.
Americans "have two courses we could follow" when it comes to the direction of the country.
One is to follow the pathway of
Europe, to shrink our military smaller and smaller to pay for our social
needs… and hope for the best," Romney said. "But if we followed that
course, there would be no one stand and protect us."
"The other," Romney continued,
"is to commit to preserve America as the strongest military in the
world, second to none, with no comparable power anywhere in the world."
Listing off a litany of
risks—including "Iran rushing to become a nuclear nation" and the
growing military strength of China—Romney said protecting America's
military strength isn't just to "win wars and prevent wars" but to deter
wars.
Also saw this on Yahoo today..............On stage, Romney was introduced as a "friend of veterans" and "someone we hope will be the next Commander in Chief."
Heading into November's election, Romney enjoys a major advantage over President Obama when it comes to support among veterans. A Gallup poll released Monday found Romney with a 28-point lead over President Obama among vets, 58 percent to Obama's 34 percent...
0
Also saw this on Yahoo today..............On stage, Romney was introduced as a "friend of veterans" and "someone we hope will be the next Commander in Chief."
Heading into November's election, Romney enjoys a major advantage over President Obama when it comes to support among veterans. A Gallup poll released Monday found Romney with a 28-point lead over President Obama among vets, 58 percent to Obama's 34 percent...
makes a lot of sense. veterans, whose benefits are being cut, are supporting the guy who says we need to spend more on the military at the expense of social programs (we'll just use hope there instead). after all, we need a stronger military in case iran or china wants a piece of us.
0
makes a lot of sense. veterans, whose benefits are being cut, are supporting the guy who says we need to spend more on the military at the expense of social programs (we'll just use hope there instead). after all, we need a stronger military in case iran or china wants a piece of us.
It would be interesting to observe a Romney Presidency in the mideast. With his current hawkish advisors, no doubt we would be involved in every conflict. Of course, the right wingers would support it then.
dj-
You have to admit, Obama has been extremely hawkish. Kind of ironic.....he was labeled as a box when it came to foreign policy during the 2008 campaign. And you are correct....you can bet the republicans are going to attempt to use this against him.
D's would do the same thing. Doesn't make it less funny, though.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
It would be interesting to observe a Romney Presidency in the mideast. With his current hawkish advisors, no doubt we would be involved in every conflict. Of course, the right wingers would support it then.
dj-
You have to admit, Obama has been extremely hawkish. Kind of ironic.....he was labeled as a box when it came to foreign policy during the 2008 campaign. And you are correct....you can bet the republicans are going to attempt to use this against him.
D's would do the same thing. Doesn't make it less funny, though.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
