The US gets involved in Syria

[eddie]

I guess a war in Afghanistan isn't enough, we are now getting into Syria!! Maybe next week, we can get into it with Iran too. We will give the rebels weapons it appears, no ground force to be involved.

Should be interesting to watch what the Russian Government will do. They already have 11 ships in the Eastern Med, plus 3 ships from China (a destroyer and 2 frigates) At first it was reported that Russia, China and Syrian ships would be conducting a war game off Syrian coast, but this changed to the idea, Russia would be evacuating its citizens from Syria.THey have been in Syria for quite a while and have married Syrians. Estimates put the number near 30,000, so they thought they would evacuate them using Large landing ships the same way China got their people out of Libya.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/01/13075218-obama-authorizes-secret-us-support-for-syrian-rebels?lite&__utma=238145375.259878669.1342402079.1343863234.1 343880289.97&__utmb=238145375.1.10.1343880289&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1343880289.97.12.utmcsr=msn.com|u tmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Cworld%20ne ws=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hos tname=www.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20C ontent=Internal%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=266611277

[Dowly]

"Obama authorizes secret US support for Syrian rebels"

:hmmm:

[Red October1984]

Damn. AGAIN? :timeout:

We need to get a hold of the situation in Afganistan first. Forget Syria for just a bit....

[Takeda Shingen]

According to the article, the US has pledged 'non-lethal' support, and they have said that they will not supply the rebels with 'lethal weapons'. I'm not sure what use a non-lethal weapon will be in a war, but it sounds to me like we'll be providing them with logistical support and probably a hefty sum of cash, at least for now. Whatever it is, we are once again sticking our collective nose into places that it doesn't belong.

Hope and change, right? :roll:

[eddie]

It wouldn't surprise me if Turkey supplies the weapons and the CIA pays for them!

[gimpy117]

yes because supporting an actual legitimate revolution is much worse than making up one in Iraq

[Harald_Lange]

Maybe the US shouldnt get involved, but is it right to watch all this unfold in the media and do absolutely nothing? The UN 'observers' are as much use as an ashtray on a Harley Davidson.

At least it shows you Americans still have spirit. Call it poking your nose in if you like, I call it being human.

[Takeda Shingen]

yes because supporting an actual legitimate revolution is much worse than making up one in Iraq

You mean like in Egypt? Or in Libya? Quite a success that those are turning out to be. We've done little more than to empower the very people that we have been trying to keep out of power. That's the same result as both Iraq and, what will soon be, Afghanistan. Obama just got us there faster. Not an improvement, if you ask me.

Call it poking your nose in if you like, I call it being human.

Our support of 'legitimate revolutions' and our 'humanity' have embroiled us in a series of conflicts that have proven damaging to our national security and utterly fruitless in regard to any result other than bringing us to the brink of financial collapse. It is long past time that we began to respect the soverignty of foreign nations and allow them to sort out their own 'revolutions'. If the Arab Spring has taught us nothing else, it is that meddling in these affairs works entirely against our own national interests.

A nation's foreign policy should provide that nation with security, not spirit.

[joea]

You mean like in Egypt? Or in Libya? Quite a success that those are turning out to be. We've done little more than to empower the very people that we have been trying to keep out of power. That's the same result as both Iraq and, what will soon be, Afghanistan. Obama just got us there faster. Not an improvement, if you ask me.


Egypt and Libyia were two different cases. The US did not intervene in any large way in Egypt except to "encourage" the army to push Mubarak out but the pressure certainly came from below-honestly the US (and others like France and the UK) would have prefered to see the Mubarak clan remain in power as was the case in Tunisia-recall a French minister offered the Tunisian president Ben Ali help to put down the demonstrations against his regime.

In Lybiya, there was a direct intevetion, initially led by France yes, but one in whihc the US and Uk through NATO participated in. I am not sure still who the rebels were and what they wanted other than Gaddafi to go away - as is the case in Syria. I am still unconvinced of the wisdom of this intervention.

I also would remind all of you that some other states, like Bahrain, managed to sucessfully put down their opposition movments with deadly force-with the tacit support of the US. If the West should not take part in overthrowing dictatorships in the face of popular support-should this not be the case in propping up unpopular regimes as well? Is this not also interference in another state's internal affairs?

[Oberon]

It was pretty inevitable.

[Skybird]

Britain is supporting rebel side with money since longer time, and I am 99% certain that the Us already is doing it this way, too, in a hidden way, by some black fund or whatever.

I personally think that already this is too much. Saudi Arabia very well could finance all by itself the rebels. But hey, SA must fiance all that mosque-building and cultural undermining projects in Europe, all those terror recruitment centres and Salafi miussionising clubs. So The Saudis indeed need a little financial help by it's prey.

:doh:

Stay out of Syria, dear US, dear Europe. Just stay out. Or do you never learn your lessons? Tunisia is turning fundamentalist, though in a cleverly deceived fashion. Egypt does. Libya does. And Syria has the potential to become the worst example of the four.

Maybe a better idea is to do something about those Chinese and Russian ships in our garden pool. :|\\

[HunterICX]

It was pretty inevitable.

and predictable, guess some will never learn :roll:

HunterICX

[Rockstar]

yes because supporting an actual legitimate revolution is much worse than making up one in Iraq

Key word: le·git·i·mate

legal:*complying with the law, or having official status defined by law
conforming to acknowledged standards:*complying with recognized rules, standards, or traditions well-founded:*well reasoned and sincere.

How does the Syrian revolution and the role other governments are playing fit the above definition? Personally, I see nothing other than selfish motives involved in a struggle for power, not freedom, not democracey, not green grass and blue skies with butterfly's flitting about. It is a struggle for power and control, no established power gives a rats crap about a peoples revolution the term is just an excuse to rally the dimwitted masses. The other nations? They are there to take advantage of it.

Someone once said: a certain country's political system is a sham and no matter who is voted in nothing ever changes. Iraq, Syria? Whats really changed?

[MH]

Obama is gambling on improving relations with the Islamic world.
From his perspective i guess it is the logical move...he has nothing to lose here.
His justifications about how democratic the movement is a bit odd...but what else can he say...i remember something about MB being secular:D
Takeda should be happy so far it came at price of political speeches only and limited aid.

[BossMark]

Well to be honest, this is no big surprise really is it :hmmm:

[TarJak]

Of course it is a surprise....

That its taken so long for them to jump in.

[Blood_splat]

So when the Sunnis come to power they'll just go after the Shiites and Christians and kill them all.:doh:

[Takeda Shingen]

If the West should not take part in overthrowing dictatorships in the face of popular support-should this not be the case in propping up unpopular regimes as well? Is this not also interference in another state's internal affairs?

You are correct. That should be the case as well. Non-interference means non-interference.

Takeda should be happy so far it came at price of political speeches only and limited aid

Interference, however, is interference. America needs to stop making other's enemies our own. We are not the world's police.

[TLAM Strike]

Non-interference means non-interference.

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1094/wcin0gewjeejuhiozv7orw2.jpg