- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
WASHINGTON – An increasingly dire situation for Syria’s fragmented rebel movement is likely to prompt an immediate policy reassessment in the White House this week.
US President Barack Obama is to take meetings throughout the coming days in which he is expected to consider sending lethal arms directly to fighters in opposition to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. Government forces haveturned the tide in recent days with aggressive assaults on increasingly fractured rebel groups.
Assad’s reclamation of Qusair – a city valued for its position on the supply route between the Assad-loyalist West and the heartland of the country and the city of Homs – represents a significant moment in the conflict that reminds some in Washington of the moments before forces of Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi were preparing to descend on rebel-held Benghazi during their 2011 civil war.
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels | JPost | Israel News
Although i suspect that we may already be arming the rebels covertly, i do hope we stay out of this conflict all together with no aid for either side, but only going to civilians.
Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.
And how did that turn out for us?
Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.
Well, we could do that. But how is that favorable to doing nothing ? Neither winner will be our friend
That is correct, but destroying the Assad regime is in our interests. There are no good options here, but there are less worse-ones; and it's legitimate for us to push to ensure that they are the ones that come to fruition.
I have yet to see any evidence what-so-ever that the replacement for the Assad regime will better serve our interests.
That is not an endorsement, just an acknowledgement that they all suck. So why get involved at this point ?
Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.
Fairly well, all things considered. Would have been better off I suppose if State hadn't gotten as involved as it did. Good After Action Review point for next time.
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels | JPost | Israel News
Although i suspect that we may already be arming the rebels covertly, i do hope we stay out of this conflict all together with no aid for either side, but only going to civilians.
We're in it to A) make good on the US guarantee that use of WMD against civilian populaces has consequences and B) reduce Iran.
Uhhh source????I
What I'm hearing, the Russians are very likely to put combat troops in Syria wearing blue helmets and will call themselves "peace keepers." I think they did something like that a while back in Georgia.
So what should have he dont differently? I hear this so often but i never get an answer..As we have seen over the past 4 years and 5 months, Obama isn't capable of making important quick serious decisions with in hours but it takes him months. Because of Obama's failed foreign policies in the Middle East, the Middle East is a basket case today. America is no longer the big boy on the block to fear in the Middle East. America is no longer a super power.
What we will likely see in four or six years from now, is one big Muslim Shia - Sunni civil war war from the northern Israeli borders to the Iranian border. Thanks Obama.
Russia would get pissed off.
Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.
and that's bad because.......
Russia has been selling Syria portions of it's IADS network. Let's take advantage of this opportunity to test our weaponeering.
Seriously? You mean when the US ignored Iraq using chemical weapons in 1991?
I can show you a video of Syrian rebels making and testing chemical weapons on rabbits..
If it's the US point to reduce Iran.. you don't overthrow Syria. You let the civil war go on tying up Iranian resources and you attack Iran in different ways (trade, cyber and such).
Heya CW. :2wave: For one it would be an act of war
. 2. The Syrians are far more capable with their Military effectiveness than what Libya was and their Air defenses more extensive.
I don't think Putin would be a happy camper.
Obama waited to long.
What I'm hearing, the Russians are very likely to put combat troops in Syria wearing blue helmets and will call themselves "peace keepers." I think they did something like that a while back in Georgia.
As we have seen over the past 4 years and 5 months, Obama isn't capable of making important quick serious decisions with in hours but it takes him months. Because of Obama's failed foreign policies in the Middle East, the Middle East is a basket case today. America is no longer the big boy on the block to fear in the Middle East. America is no longer a super power.
What we will likely see in four or six years from now, is one big Muslim Shia - Sunni civil war war from the northern Israeli borders to the Iranian border. Thanks Obama.
Fairly well, all things considered. Would have been better off I suppose if State hadn't gotten as involved as it did. Good After Action Review point for next time.
Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.
Uhhh source????
And if your talkign about the Golan Heights that was rejected by the UN
So what should have he dont differently? I hear this so often but i never get an answer..
Not really.....there was no end game to Libya by the West. Now the Country is the Wild Wild West. AQ has morphed into the Hydra. Ansar Al Shariah groups have Sprung up from Yemen to the Maghreb. They have increased in strength and more fighters. Weapons are all over the place. The TNC doesn't control Libya and all of it is spilling over into the surrounding Countries.
They won't. They're just likely to be less effective at hindering them.
Because we're not in it to help al Nusra. We're in it to A) make good on the US guarantee that use of WMD against civilian populaces has consequences and B) reduce Iran.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?