US to back Syrian Rebels.

Well here we go yet another war people.

The Obama administration has concluded that Syrian President Bashar Assad's government used chemical weapons against the rebels seeking to overthrow him and, in a major policy shift, President Obama has decided to supply military support to the rebels, the White House announced Thursday. "The president has made a decision about providing more support to the opposition that will involve providing direct support to the Supreme Military Council. That includes military support," Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes told reporters.

Nobel Peace Prize indeed.

www.cbsnews.com...

I thought USA already backed up the rebels (by inventing them)

reply to post by Telos


Now they will provide military support.

There's no longer any scandals!

There's a war to distract us!

Originally posted by butcherguy
There's no longer any scandals!

There's a war to distract us!

Exactly my thought...it's a "wag the dog" moment. I'm tired of us sticking our noses into other nations' business. They don't want us there, we (the people, not the US Gov't) don't want to be there...*sigh*

Originally posted by butcherguy
There's no longer any scandals!

There's a war to distract us!

The timing couldn't have been better

I hope everyone currently registered with the Individual Ready Reserves is making their arrangments for a possible call-up. If this thing goes sideways quick, I don't believe the U.S. has the troops currently available and prepared to move in the numbers needed without leaving other critical areas without cover or reserve of their own.

We're stretched to the breaking point and Sequester has made that one straw short of a broken back.

What is going on here? Are we LOOKING to start a war we may very well LOSE? Oh...We don't have to..don't get me wrong. There is nothing represented in Syria that could defeat the full force of the United States Military. However, that will never be brought to bear here ...and there is plenty to defeat a half attempt.

Once we openly arm these guys, we take ownership and responsibility for support. History shows us that. While it's covert we could still cut them free like a kite in the wind and go home. Once it's official? We buy what we break.

We all wanted to buy a broken Syria, right? Lets be real clear on what's happening here and what the end game looks like. No more 2002 in Afghan or 2003 in Iraq with fantasy promises of utter B.S.. Most of us were around to see, hear and even support much of that. Do we do this again? really?!

How does the US fight 'terrorists' when the FSA are made up of 'terrorists' ?

The Syrian rebels are primarily made up of radical Islamic jihadists Assad is secular.

But of course in the ME the new boss is the same as the old boss.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


We are good at getting involved in wars that don't end.........

I wonder what Russia will say or do about this...

reply to post by boymonkey74


My guess is nothing. Just like Afghanistan.

Diversion?..absolutely ,the whole thing has been a diversion,the USA has supported Assad's overthrow militarily since day 1
Now it's time for Russia to grow a pair, this never was a civil war people, it was a foreign backed overthrow and they are losing.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
I wonder what Russia will say or do about this...

Obama called Putin yesterday....
Told him to stay out of it, or he will release the incriminating porno flicks that the NSA has of him.

reply to post by butcherguy


I have an image of him in my head now cheers for that.

Pushed by Clinton?

President Barack Obama - said to be weighing whether or not to send lethal weapons to Syrian rebels - will not decide on further American involvement in the country's civil war with his critics' opinions in mind, the White House said Thursday. The pushback came as a response to comments made by former President Bill Clinton, who on Wednesday said he agreed with Republican Sen. John McCain's calls for a greater U.S. role in assisting Syrian rebels battling President Bashar al-Assad.

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

reply to post by boymonkey74


As I recall, Russia was absolutely clear on this point. They would share in the analysis and be able to come to their own independent determination with this...or they'd flat not accept the outcome.

Russia seems logical on that one and if they don't fully trust our side to be 100% honest? Well....Would we accept analysis and results from THEM without any done within our own labs?

Originally posted by Covertblack
Pushed by Clinton?

President Barack Obama - said to be weighing whether or not to send lethal weapons to Syrian rebels - will not decide on further American involvement in the country's civil war with his critics' opinions in mind, the White House said Thursday. The pushback came as a response to comments made by former President Bill Clinton, who on Wednesday said he agreed with Republican Sen. John McCain's calls for a greater U.S. role in assisting Syrian rebels battling President Bashar al-Assad.

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

Jeesh!
Obama's burning a bridge here.
How will he blame the aftermath on Bush?

It won't look good for him to blame Bill Clinton.

If they could support terrorists now then who is to say that they didn't support them on 9/11?

reply to post by butcherguy


He relented to the pressure from both both politicians. I think this president does not like criticism. Now our brothers will pay the price with their lives.

reply to post by Covertblack


Correct.
He (and the status quo) needs to be stopped