Sen. Rand Paul Argues Against U.S. Arming Syrian Rebels on Senate Floor - September 18, 2014

I just recently watched Sen. Rand Paul argue his points against arming Syrian rebels. Link Provided:

Rand goes over how the US and many other countries funding "rebels" in Syria is directly funding Al Qaeda's growth.

I think a lot of what he is saying is something we should have more heavily argued before we even started doing it.

One question I can't quite answer yet is, how is us funding terrorists that might possibly attack Israel any option for the US? To me it seems like we are their strong arm. Maybe this will give Israel more reason to expand it's military outward.

Regardless. Many people knew that Al Nusra was/is a branch of Al Qaeda and yet we funded them anyway. Political corruption is of course alive and well.



ps I really don't like Rand that much. He seems to play politics all too well... I'll take what I can get though. In the sense, lesser of two evils.

a reply to: Antipathy17

It's been our policy since the end of WW2. We give weapons to a group that is fighting the one we really want taken down. If the new group turns on us, rinse and repeat. The Taliban was funded and armed to fight Russians. Saddam Hussein was funded and armed as a counter to Iran. Iran itself hates us because we put in place a pro Western dictator and funded and armed him.

America is the master of divide and conquer. We play various groups against each other to keep them from joining up to cause a real problem.

They do it at home and abroad and it was working perfectly until the Internet made too much info available to all. That's why things are getting so scary because it's too well known now so the credibility of the American government is almost gone both at home and abroad.

There's no answer to Syria. Assad is not a nice guy but he did hold the country together. Same goes for Qaddafi and Saddam and Mubarak. They got taken out because they kept trying to build up their nations like any leader would. We had to step in because we were worried the power vacuum would be filled by anti American Muslim types. The countries can't be democratic because the people mostly want people who care about them not kowtowing to the West. Look at Egypt. They elected the Muslim Brotherhood but the military nixed that with a coup.

We shouldnt do anything in Syria but we are because we can't risk that any anti American group might win. Since every group is anti American except the Kurds you can expect Kurdistan to be created in the next few years

a reply to: tavi45

Agreed. The biggest difference between now and than is that Al Qaeda's Al Nusra's branch is who we are funding now. The enemy of our enemy doesn't hold weight like it did in those day considering we are enemies of both al Nusra and Assad. Even with the internet, you'd think that people would be calling them out on their BS about funding Al Nusra... and yet MSM quashed it. I'd say Syria should be a no go for us but the US needs Assad out more than we need to fighter terrorists. So we'll continue fighting both... Making claim to attack IS but really hitting both IS and Syria hard.

Its really a shame that we are okay with the possibility of creating huge terrorist organisations so the power elite can still hold their wealth.

The money will be better spent arming and training Syrian Kurds and other minorities.

The worst thing would be to arm and train the FSA.

Actually we should not be funding, and arming anyone.

For a government to deny us arms, then turns around, and gives them any 'friend' of the day.

It is some epic cognitive dissonance.