U.S. to Arm Syrian Rebels ...

President Barack Obama authorized his administration to provide arms to rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, officials said Thursday, a major policy shift after the White House said it had confirmed that Damascus used chemical weapons in the country's civil war.

My source is the wall street journal..
online.wsj.com...

The classified order directing the Central Intelligence Agency to coordinate arming the rebels in concert with its allies reverses a long-standing policy that limited the U.S. to providing nonlethal support.

I agree that 90,000 plus deaths is deplorable but the U.S. has no business getting involved in this conflict.

Welcome to World War 3.

Such a move, if the White House goes ahead, would represent a significantly bigger U.S. engagement in Syria's civil war.

uk.reuters.com...

Have you read this yet, Bill Clinto wants more force sent to Syrian Rebels.

reply to post by steaming


not yet but i will read it....thanks.

----edit lol... was it Mr. Clinton or Mr. McCain who was "quoted"?

He said several times it would be "lame" to point to opposition in polls or among U.S. lawmakers as a reason not to intervene in a conflict, Politico said.

By the way who cares what Bill Clinton has 2 say?

reply to post by shockedamerican


How many years ago was it when we heard a President say " We Do Not Negotiate With Terrorists" while talking about Al Qaeda?

Well, I'll be damned. .. . no need to negotiate. We are just going to give them weapons. Now why are we still in Afghanistan, .. I forget .. . ?
If we are fighting them in one country, then why in hell do we arm them to fight against another country?
Does anyone else see that at all? If you don't then maybe I am wrong.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum




I don't understand...u r not alone.

Eat your heart out, al-Assad!

reply to post by shockedamerican


I am pretty sure my information is correct. That is who we are fighting, .. right. . . ?

And that is where the weapons and aid is going. . . .. . right. .. ?

If there is anything different than that I would like to know .. . I will be pi$$ed if I didn't get the Memo.


EDIT:

I would have to call this the epitome of "Choosing the lesser of the 2 Evils".

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


I agree with u.

I was saying i don't understand how the government screws it up.

I wasn't questioning u, sorry for the confusion.

reply to post by shockedamerican


No there is No Confusion. I was looking for a confirmation.

It is just like people don't see it. The news has not even made light of it.

I am just really surprised that it seems like many do not even have a clue.

reply to post by shockedamerican


This reminds me when we supported and armed the Afghan rebels during the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan. It came back to bite us in the A$$. Those rebels turned on us just like the Syrian rebels will. When will our incompetent politicians ever learn. These rebels are no better than the Syrian government military. So why should we even think of getting involved? Send war monger John McCain and any other politician who wants to take sides to fight along with the rebels. Stop using our tax dollars to arm the heart eating rebels when we desperately need the money here at home.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


soooo y r u angry with me?

I agree with u.

some people are angry with everything and everyone.....that is the #ing problem!

edit - no edit

reply to post by shockedamerican


Angry, .. ?

I am not angry. I didn't mean to be perceived that way.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


my mistake - i just feel we, the u.s. , are wrong to get involved. It really isn't our concern. It sounds cold but it is true.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Maybe it is cold, but, I would rather hear that Assad gased 1000 rebel troops than hear that we lost 1000 men for something that we should have Not been involved with.