Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US Intel committees approve arming Syrian rebels

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
RT


The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have given a green light to arm Syrian rebels, as their concerns were alleviated. But a top US general warned that high costs of military options could reach billions.


So i guess the plan got the green light. Its amazing to me that we keep going more broke by the day....and we just keep spending and spending us into financial oblivion.


In the meantime, US President Barack Obama will continue with the plan to arm Syrian rebels after several congressional concerns were alleviated, Reuters quoted officials as saying. "We believe we are in a position that the administration can move forward,"House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said.



The House and Senate intelligence committees gave a green light to send CIA weapons shipments to opposition fighters in Syria, Washington Post reported, adding that the US will use the money already in the CIA’s budget and transfer it to the Syria operation. The plan was announced last month by the Obama administration and involves giving small arms and ammunition to some of the 1,200 groups of Syrian rebels, some of which have known affiliations with al-Qaeda.


So after all the fighting the last twelve years....we are just going to hand over weapons to the Syrian people, to arm the enemy anyway. I know that the people are fighting a civil war against an oppressive establishment......Is it really worth it to get involved?


The chairman warned that any decision would need to be weighed carefully and treated as “no less than an act of war.”


With that said, I deem this officially an open deceleration of war. The Ruskies have already told us to stay out of the Syrian peoples business. Wonder how long it will be before Russia starts getting irritated with our world policing?


McCain and the other Senate Armed Services Committee members previously pressed Dempsey to consider the “costs, benefits and risks associated with training and arming vetted elements of the Syrian opposition? In your view, could such action alone be sufficient to adequately build the military capability of the moderate opposition in Syria and create the necessary conditions for the administration’s stated policy objective - Bashar Assad’s departure and a negotiated solution to the conflict in Syria - to succeed?”

its another IRAQ.....force the elected official out of office.

Its another Iraq.....just what we need, another war to spend billions and billions on. You ship for brains in the white house really want another war?

We have been poking sticks, in holes in the ground for some time now, sooner or later your going to get stung.


Dempsey pushed lawmakers to consider the long-term consequences any military action would mean. “Risks include the loss of US aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces,” he replied. “It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surfaces fires - mortars, artillery and missiles.” He reminded the committee that virtually every scenario “could also average well over one billion dollars a month” and could provide aid to al-Qaeda or other radical groups. Along with this came a warning of no guarantee that Syrian chemical weapons would be put under an American safeguard. “Should the regime’s institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control,” he wrote. “It would be inappropriate for me to try to influence the decision with me rendering an opinion in public about what kind of force we should use.”


That last line really gets me! “It would be inappropriate for me to try to influence the decision with me rendering an opinion in public about what kind of force we should use.”

So it would be wrong for the joint chief to speak publicly about the outcome of our actions? Shouldn't the people be informed about our governments actions or miss-actions ? shouldn't the american tax payers have the say as to weather we want to sink our lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.....taxpayer dollars?

This is not transparency Mr.Obama. It sure would be nice to have a president ASK the people what THEY want for a change!




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Disarming its own country well arming others sounds about right.
now you know where all your confiscated assault riffles are heading.
edit on 23-7-2013 by SupersonicSerpent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SupersonicSerpent
 


I found that ironic as well. I bet there are some really nice short stroke piston AR heading their way....but i cant have one here without a class 3 license.

Its so sad that they keep on with their Foreign Policy....while there are so many problems back home to worry about.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Well, our folks in Washington have a lot of Contractors' mouths to feed.

Gotta keep that piggy trough filled or they don't get their kickbacks....



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Where does it say the US is going to war in Syria?

Russia has armed plenty of US opposition in the past 50yrs... just saying



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TritonTaranis
 


It dosent say that they are marching in or anything. It does say that it has to take their actions and concider it an act of war. Arming the opposition is an act of war against Assad.....and they clearly said in teh article

policy objective - Bashar Assad’s departure and a negotiated solution to the conflict in Syria



The us is arming could be terrorists, maybe their end means is to drag them out of hiding and exterminate them........i dont know.


“Risks include the loss of US aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces,” he replied. “It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surfaces fires - mortars, artillery and missiles.”


It looks to me like the obama administration is telling bashar to get out or they are going to come remove him.....just like sadaam.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I guess what i am getting at is we are financially broken as it is. There are roughly one hundred ninety six countries in the world, why cant someone else do it. Why are we the few who have to police the world. Endure endless costs, loss of life.....mostly at the cost of the american people.

I'm not saying there aren't others trying to help......but come on.....its one after another with no end in sight.
Obama came onboard saying he was going to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!



Broken promise #10.@ 1:18

I was not trying to go Anti Obama....its been done to death.

I just think enough is enough for a while. We need to fix our crumbling economy. The military industrial complex has a huge overhead to be a viable way to spur economic growth.
We need to get some small businesses open again......we need the government to stop spending like no tomorrow. Its all a domino effect.

The government spends us into the biggest debt in human history. The american people are under such a crunch from the last sixteen years of bad presidents. They have followed the governments way of bad spending.

I say enough is enough.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


Yep finance and arm the terrorists again and again and again...

Then Chinese state owned businesses can set up in the new .... wait for it...... Demo...(tongue firmly in side of cheek
)...cratic countries and mine the life out of the resources while paying a minimal wage to the locals who are working under pre union day conditions.
China does real well out of this system, while Chinese soldiers haven't left China.... not so good for the average US citizen or the US soldiers.

So back to financing the terrorists... its a very economical way to wage war... effectively its State sponsored terrorism for the benefit of multinational corporations without having to send in massive amounts of US soldiers.
edit on 23-7-2013 by LexiconV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
I guess what i am getting at is we are financially broken as it is. There are roughly one hundred ninety six countries in the world, why cant someone else do it. Why are we the few who have to police the world. Endure endless costs, loss of life.....mostly at the cost of the american people.

I'm not saying there aren't others trying to help......but come on.....its one after another with no end in sight.
Obama came onboard saying he was going to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!



Broken promise #10.@ 1:18

I was not trying to go Anti Obama....its been done to death.

I just think enough is enough for a while. We need to fix our crumbling economy. The military industrial complex has a huge overhead to be a viable way to spur economic growth.
We need to get some small businesses open again......we need the government to stop spending like no tomorrow. Its all a domino effect.

The government spends us into the biggest debt in human history. The american people are under such a crunch from the last sixteen years of bad presidents. They have followed the governments way of bad spending.

I say enough is enough.


I agree. Let the Arabs and their oil money take care of Syria, it's their backyard.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by LexiconV
 



So back to financing the terrorists... its a very economical way to wage war... effectively its State sponsored terrorism for the benefit of multinational corporations without having to send in massive amounts of US soldiers.


Right on the money. Sadly.

Although I'm thinking we should set some ground rules, like, oh, I don't know....NOT employing human shields, or NOT blowing up buildings in downtown New York afterwards, hmm? They'll abide by that, right?



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by LexiconV
 



So back to financing the terrorists... its a very economical way to wage war... effectively its State sponsored terrorism for the benefit of multinational corporations without having to send in massive amounts of US soldiers.


Right on the money. Sadly.

Although I'm thinking we should set some ground rules, like, oh, I don't know....NOT employing human shields, or NOT blowing up buildings in downtown New York afterwards, hmm? They'll abide by that, right?


Hhmmm .... Ground rules ???.... Are you volunteering your moderator skills for the real world ? Slap a few TC violation stickers on their foreheads so they can be easily identified... They won't even be able to buy a pack of mentos with a bottle of coke then. For some reason I think this concept may work well for an episode of South Park if they included extended family frontal lobotomy procedures as a deterrent.
Any other ideas?






top topics



 
0

log in

join