It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bipartisan Senate group seeks to block military funds to Syria

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   

A bipartisan group of senators have introduced legislation to block the U.S. from escalating its involvement in the Syrian civil war as concerns mount on Capitol Hill over the Obama administration's plan to directly arm rebels.

Senators Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Mike Lee, R-Utah; Tom Udall, D-N.M,; and Chris Murphy, D-Conn., introduced the bill Thursday to prohibit the Defense Department and intelligence agencies from funding operations in Syria.

Earlier this month, Obama announced the U.S. would begin providing arms and ammunition, after President Bashar Assad's military dealt the rebels serious setbacks. The conflict is now in its third year with some 93,000 estimated dead.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Read more: www.foxnews.com...

I agree, we shouldn't be funding groups overseas. I understand that the current regime is appalling. But one must be wary who we are funding.

We did this back when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, we sent aid and arms to a group called the mujahadeen, out of that rose the Taliban and Al Qaeda. This kind of aid to rebel groups can bite us in the ass and we shouldn't do it.




posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Not a problem!
They'll just bump up the amount of money and arms they give to Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, who in turn will pass it along, as they have already been doing since this war began. Those are "Good" regimes though.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


Yea, unfortunately you are right. The government shouldn't be in the arms business though. It's bit us in the ass before, and it may happen again.

Civil matters in other countries should be left to those countries, the US government unfortunately often sticks it's nose into the internal affairs of other countries.

What we need to do instead, is get the neighboring countries around Syria to do something about it. They have an advantage by knowing the culture and understanding it far better than we do.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 
UN should step in for this is against the UN SALW treaty that Obama and H. Clinton worked er pushed so hard for SALW Small Arms Light Weapons Treaty www.un.org... from the link

Taking their toll, violating rights

The majority of conflict deaths are caused by the use of small arms, and civilian populations bear the brunt of armed conflict more than ever. Also, small arms are the dominant tools of criminal violence. The rate of firearms-related homicides in post-conflict societies often outnumbers battlefield deaths. These weapons are also linked to the increasing number of killings of UN employees and peacekeepers, as well as workers from humanitarian and non-governmental organizations.

UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)
UN Development Programme (UNDP)
UNICEF
Protection of civilians
Children and armed conflict
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
Small Arms Survey
International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA)
GunPolicy

Small arms facilitate a vast spectrum of human rights violations, including killing, maiming, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance, torture, and forced recruitment of children by armed groups. More human rights abuses are committed with small arms than with any other weapon. Furthermore, where the use of armed violence becomes a means for resolving grievances and conflicts, legal and peaceful dispute resolution suffers and the rule of law cannot be upheld.
but then the US is the worlds suppler of freedom fighting weapons, The problem is it also requires US troops and ground forces in the use and training there of.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
As a world leader and sole Military Global superpower, we have to show the world that civilizations must exist to help one and the other. We are not sticking our nose into other affairs, merely trying to show some guidance for a path that doesn't let its citizens die in vain. As humanity progresses, its in a leaders interest, especially a powerful one like the US, to Lead, Develop and Achieve, by maintaining Character, Presence and Intellect we can help pacify these disturbed countries to a more civilized way of life.
These countries are at civil war with each other for reasons still undisclosed and their will be debates about that for decades to come.
Now, with all that said, how the US has been projecting itself has been questionable. Its character has diminished, its presence seems to help disturbed individuals eating hearts and its intellect on the current situation IMH needs more ironing out.
Every situation in our history of these kinds of events, a Leading nation has to intervene regardless, why? because when the problems of that nation continue to grow, it will spill into another nations backyard and so fourth.
The line has to be drawn, it has to stop here, no other nation should have to endure such extreme violence because its neighbors are continuously fighting. If your neighbor is fighting with his wife (Civil war) you turn a blind eye and say, eh. When the fighting continues everyday, now it gets uncomfortable because now your seeing damage to the surrounding area and the walls being hit and nocked on everyday, you begin to get concerned, you get a little nosey, ask them to please stop...it continues to go on. Now you got the fight spilling into your yard. Who do you call? the police. Who does a nation call when its society is in civil war and its own government forces are overwhelmed with no help?
"Leave that nation to its own problems", that no longer works in a civilized world. We got idly sit back and watch the fight from abroad. We have to intervene, its in out nature to help and stop the violence.
"But we are supplying arms to them, how is that helping? it only leads to more killing" Yes you are right which is why I said the US handling of the situation is questionable.
But in this case, when talks have failed and both sides are undeterred, we have to draw the line. Innocent people are the number one priority that have to be helped. eventually a stalemate will happen, then you can move in and enforce the LINE.
I sincerely hope this senate are able to achieve what they are trying to do. But not stop there, we should maintain a presence and help in a humanitarian mind set.



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join