• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where is the 'intelligence' in the CIA?

Howler63

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
553
Location
Just this side of senility.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
According to the NY Times today the CIA is aiding the arming of Syrian rebels. What a great idea. After all, it worked so well for us in Afghanistan didn't it? What could we possibly have to gain from these shenanigans? Is the American need to export 'democracy' so great that we would foolishly continue policies that have been know to fail, and to fail horribly?

Where is the intelligence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/w...ing-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all
 
According to the NY Times today the CIA is aiding the arming of Syrian rebels. What a great idea. After all, it worked so well for us in Afghanistan didn't it? What could we possibly have to gain from these shenanigans? Is the American need to export 'democracy' so great that we would foolishly continue policies that have been know to fail, and to fail horribly?

Where is the intelligence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/w...ing-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all

It's a government organization, intelligence will only get in the way.
 
Yayyy its like cold war proxy wars all over again!
Russia arms one people we arm the other people the russians arent arming!!
 
according to the new world order ,all maps and administrations will change ,and yes US supports syrian rebels as it supported other arabian springs..
 
Yayyy its like cold war proxy wars all over again!
Russia arms one people we arm the other people the russians arent arming!!

I can't wait for us to sidestep Congress, sell arms to Iran and use the profits to fund drug pushing death squads. Only we won't call them death squads because they'll be our friends...until they're not. Then we'll discover that they're really bad and hate our freedom and are terrorists.
 
I can't wait for us to sidestep Congress, sell arms to Iran and use the profits to fund drug pushing death squads. Only we won't call them death squads because they'll be our friends...until they're not. Then we'll discover that they're really bad and hate our freedom and are terrorists.

History is a bitch aint it?
 
We will never learn that change, just for the sake of change, is not always a good thing. As we now see in Egypt, that elections among a largely uneducated population do not work "as planned". Whoever whips the masses into a frenzy the best gets their thugs placed in power. The uneducated and oppressed are still the uneducated and oppressed they just "chose" a new oppressor. This is pretty much what is going on in Syria, as it did in Lybia. Corrupt gov'ts, beget new corrupt gov'ts and little changes for the average poverty stricken moron in their tiny village. They still get no gov't services, just not get them from a different gov't.
 
And from Reuters, another story on the flow of arms into Syria:

As evidence mounts of Islamic militant forces among the Syrian opposition, senior U.S. and European officials are increasingly alarmed by the prospect of sophisticated weapons falling into the hands of rebel groups that may be dangerous to Western interests, including al Qaeda.

In an interview with Reuters, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta articulated U.S. worries that shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, also known as MANPADS, could find their way onto the Syrian battlefield.

As militants join Syria revolt, fears grow over arms flow | Reuters

Given the lack of critical U.S. interests in Syria and lack of evidence that the anti-Assad armed elements will be friendly to U.S. interests and allies, I do not believe that the indirect U.S. role associated with arming those elements is helpful. I also believe it weakens the U.S. position to call for others not to arm factions in the ongoing civil conflict. It also undermines any possible role that the U.S. could play in trying to mediate a ceasefire. Finally, the arms flows create incentives for the Assad regime to use force, not exercise restraint. In the midst of arms flows, restraint could be perceived as merely buying time for the opposing armed elements to grow stronger until the battlefield is tilted to their advantage.

On a separate note, the NYT article at the beginning of this thread highlights yet another example of U.S. foreign policy makers seeking "regime change" as some kind of silver bullet for remedying foreign policy challenges. The pursuit of regime change remains an overused instrument in U.S. foreign policy. It is not a theme that was not unique to the Bush Presidency. The lesson that regime change does not magically transform countries and societies into bastions of freedom, prosperity, democratic governance, and stability has still not been learned. The long-term costs of such a policy, aside from further weakened diplomatic capacity for the U.S., remain unclear, but regional instability is not cost-free.
 
Last edited:
Those hippy freaks in the band 'Who' said all those years ago and the suits still don't get it.... 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'

But the power structure never seems to see it that way as American lives and treasure gets spent from the jungles of SE Asia to the wastelands of Afghanistan.

As to the comment about morons in villages not seeing any change no matter who sits in the power seat...

Are you talking about 'them' or 'us' ??? :confused:
 
Aiding the rebels in Syria is not the same as Afghanistan. However, just because Afghanistan did not work out in the long term does not mean it was not the right decision at the time.
 
If the rebels win in Syria, the chances are good they will end up led by either the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Queda. Either of which is inimical to the US. As soon as the MB gains "democratic" control in Egypt, they immediately decide to attack Israel. Again, not in the US' interest. So why bother spinning our wheels in Syria just to end up with another enemy?
 
Aiding the rebels in Syria is not the same as Afghanistan. However, just because Afghanistan did not work out in the long term does not mean it was not the right decision at the time.

I believe Afghanistan was the right decision. Unfortunately, Afghanistan's context (history, institutions, decentralized tribal structure, etc) were largely ignored in the planning for the post-Taliban era. As a result, the U.S. has often found itself behind the proverbial curve of developments, many of which it should have anticipated and had a contingency plan to address. The final outcome--not victory and not defeat--will wind up being far less than what had been attainable and should have been accomplished.

In Syria, there is no compelling U.S. interest. Syria did not attack the U.S. It didn't seek to protect a terrorist organization that attacked the U.S. It is not posing an imminent threat to critical U.S. allies.
 
According to the NY Times today the CIA is aiding the arming of Syrian rebels. What a great idea. After all, it worked so well for us in Afghanistan didn't it? What could we possibly have to gain from these shenanigans? Is the American need to export 'democracy' so great that we would foolishly continue policies that have been know to fail, and to fail horribly?

Where is the intelligence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/w...ing-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all
No big surprise here. I called it some time back.
 
According to the NY Times today the CIA is aiding the arming of Syrian rebels. What a great idea. After all, it worked so well for us in Afghanistan didn't it?

Um. Yes? You may recall there was this thing called the USSR.....

What could we possibly have to gain from these shenanigans?

Chaos, confusion, pain and distraction among those who hate and work against us? Napoleon summed it up well: Do not interrupt your enemy when he is committing suicide.

Look. If Al-Qaeda and Iran want to go to war in Syria, my main concerns are twofold:

1. we should make sure no CBRN type facilities go loose and
2. we should try to enable civilians escaping the battlefield.

Where is the intelligence?

Well, the CIA is divided into the Operations and the Analysis branches, so generally I would say... the NSA :mrgreen: :lamo
 
Last edited:
If the rebels win in Syria, the chances are good they will end up led by either the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Queda. Either of which is inimical to the US. As soon as the MB gains "democratic" control in Egypt, they immediately decide to attack Israel. Again, not in the US' interest. So why bother spinning our wheels in Syria just to end up with another enemy?

Let me make sure of this. It is your opinion that the Sunni Islamists of the MB / EIJ / AQ bent are not already our enemy.
 
Let me make sure of this. It is your opinion that the Sunni Islamists of the MB / EIJ / AQ bent are not already our enemy.

No, you misunderstand. Sunni Islamists of the MB / EIJ / AQ are already our enemy. If they manage to take control of Syria, then Syria will go from disliking the US from a distance, to being a very active and ambitious enemy. In other words, a much worse enemy.
 
A much worse enemy armed with premium US made arms and munitions, trained in their use.
 
Exactly. So let's not give these guys any stinger missiles, please!

Unless doing so keeps some fine union folk in a factory someplace employed, or even better, in over time.
 
Unless doing so keeps some fine union folk in a factory someplace employed, or even better, in over time.

I'm not sure. Perishable items would be a good thing. But any high tech items that could be fired at us later, I don't think so. Union folk can work on stockpiles. I don't like the idea of weaponizing our future enemies.
 
Heh, you mean like sending 60 tons of VX to Iraq? :popcorn2:

My view on the CIA is this - reorganize it. Task it with intel and analysis and take away any action component - forbid them to action. If action needs to be taken on foreign soil, then dammit, it should be our military doing it, ordered by the chain of command.

No more black box projects, no more phantom budgets.
 
The Intelligence is in the "I"
 
LOL. Good thread Howler.

The CIA should be boarded up and turned into a Christian Science reading room. Useless intelligence-wise, they are simply a gang of thugs for the Oil Oligarchs (aka the CFR, the State Dept.)

JFK wanted to shut their doors, viewing them as a secret govmnt within a government. He fired Allen Dulles (aka Mephistopheles), s**t canned the Bay of Pigs and wanted to stop Vietnam, the rest is history.

The mainstream media would tell you these things on a regular basis, except they are run by the CIA, also.
 
Back
Top Bottom