Should we supply military aid to the Syrian rebels?

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
BO announced we will provide direct military support to the rebels is Syria>
He doesn't spell out what exactly it would be but if it is anything that can later be used against us, why send it at all?

After all we've learned and after all we know about the loyalty of the rebels is this something we should do?

I have supported BO's position so far. To send humanitarian aid and stay the F' out of any fighting.
 
If you think what happened to Libya was good, then by all means, go right ahead and continue to give support to jihadists. Maybe Syria will become a sanctuary for terrorists and enable them to gain access to more weaponry as they did in Libya. Makes perfect sense.
 
Mus
What a great idea! Syria can become even more of a gathering point for the islamists and that way they can get the Russian and American weaponry all in one stop.
 
We shouldn't hand a single weapon to a Syrian. Logistic and intelligence help is game, IMHO.

I'd advocate a Libya like approach. Help from the skies with no commitment to the ground. The longer this drags on the greater the chances that the Middle East blows up as other countries are dragged into the conflict.

Musburger- Syria is going to crumble with or without our help. All we can do now is influence the outcome. We'll have a much greater chance of an outcome in our favor with a Libya response than doing nothing. There is no hope that the outcomes are 100% in our favor and having no influence could be devastating.
 
Husker
the problem with sending our planes is Russia has provided Assad's people with missiles.

I don't want to send one plane if there is even the slightest chance of it getting shot down
 
Husker
How nice You are confident. You won't be in harm's way.
How many are you willing to see shot down first?

here is what they sent
"Moscow said this week it plans to deliver the advanced S-300 air defense system to the embattled government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, despite objections by the U.S., France and Israel.


Edit to add a wiki link
yes it is only wiki but it sounds like a pretty effective system.

from wiki linkThe Link
The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded.[3] Its radars have the ability to simultaneously track up to 100 targets while engaging up to 12. S-300 deployment time is five minutes.[3] The S-300 missiles are sealed rounds and require no maintenance over their lifetime.
 
Husker Very Typical
to go personal when you know your argument on topic is weak

So I didn't stake out a position? REALLY
can YOU Read?
READ my first post and stop trying to make up things you wish I'd say.

Here Husker
to make it simple for you
from my OP
"I have supported BO's position so far. To send humanitarian aid and stay the F' out of any fighting
 
"How nice you are so confident."

Personal? We'll let others decide who took it there first.

You're right, I missed reading your first post clearly. Your posts are either a direct attack on the Obama Administration or an Indirect attack with a leading question with feigned ignorance based on information from some right-wing blog. I defaulted to the latter but should have realized that 75% of your posts are the former.

So, what's the solution? Only humanitarian aid, huh? As Russia reinforces Assad, Lebanon jumps into the fray and Turkey gets pulled in. We should remain on the sideline and give food, water and aid? What happens when Shiites are slaughtered by the thousands or chemical weapons usage becomes more prominent. Still stand on the sidelines sending food, water and aid?

Our best hope was for a quick overthrow of Assad like other ME countries during the Arab Spring. Russia, Iran, Lebanon and other Sunni's in the region won't let that happen. Now it is creating a powderkeg. I believe we need to end this thing sooner rather than later. The longer it drags on the greater the chance for an all-out war to erupt in the ME. It's in our best interest to avoid the much larger involvement later.
 
We should send nothing to the rebels. Despite Assad's problems he is better than the alternative, both for the US and for the many minority groups in Syria.
 
Husker
????
Really you need to just stop digging.
First you accuse me of not taking a position on Syria and what we should do when I clear as days did.
Then you posted
"I'm confident they could quickly remove that threat. '

only to accuse me
"How nice you are so confident."

Personal? We'll let others decide who took it there first."


I have made my dislike on BO's policies very clear but on this I have posted over and over I agree with him to stay out of it

You so want to jump right on with criticism you apparently don't read my posts
or even yours

back away
take a deep breath
 
As is typical with any position America takes it's a no win position. If we go in with any presence we lose because of imperialistic dominance. If we stay out we lose because we don't care.

**** it, I say we stay out and let them do what they do.
 
I think a valuable observation would be how it's viewed by Israel. They are right there, and a future of chaos in Syria... consider spill-over to neighbors, and everything else, is also a valid consideration.
DEBKA.... Israeli news source similar to, but not equivalent to Stratfor
In reply to:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
35?
uh?
What do you think is bs about my post?

Please explain how MY view on what BO has done vis a vis Syria and your view are different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top