So that guy we call our president...

[T. Graves]

Honestly Barrack Obama is a good guy, but there's a point when you need to draw the line. Evidently we are about to be at war with Syria which we have absolutely no business being over there and getting involved with their civil war. I believe in our freedoms and liberties but our country is turning to fascism. We aren't fighting the terrorists, they are fighting us for their riches and that is what Obama's regime is out to get. History is repeating itself as it has throughout the centuries. It's getting a bit ridiculous that we are war hopping. When will it stop? 3 more years and then what?

[C. Small 1st MRB]

to make a cliché quote

War sells..... and i don't personally agree with sending military ground forces in but I do agree with enforcing a no-fly zone like they did with Libya but the problem with that is that unlike Libya Syria has very advanced SAM's and the losses would be very unpopular with the masses , and I'm also against arming the rebels since I disagree with giving the enemy weapons......

Edited June 19, 2013 by Small 1st MRB

[T. Graves]

The wars are crippling our economy, and sending in more forces isn't going to help it. The whole situation is just not good. We shouldn't even get involved in it. We basically want to go in and take over and dictate them. Like we did in Iraq.

[C. Small 1st MRB]

Accually I think you'll find the war is aiding your's and our economy , wars fund company's like Boeing and arms makers , tis a rather niéve view to think that the war is crippling you economy when in fact it's funding it.

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

No one has said we are trying to go into Syria. In fact that's the exact opposite of what the administration has said its going to do and wants to do, and why it has not given much support at all until now, which it is facing criticism for in the international community. I dont particularly disagree with your point, im more of an isolationist, but comparing Syria to Iraq is apples to oranges, and i firmly believe that the US will not invade Syria, nor do i think we are trying to push what we believe on them at all. In fact, so far our stance has more been like "hey you guys better figure this out on your own, but we support what you are doing as a concept".

Accually I think you'll find the war is aiding your's and our economy , wars fund company's like Boeing and arms makers , tis a rather niéve view to think that the war is crippling you economy when in fact it's funding it.

Respectfully disagree. Yeah war funds certain businesses, but that money doesnt necessarily trickle down and benefit the entire economy as a whole. It benefits the military-industrial complex, but i personally have nothing to do with the arms industry. More to the point, the wars are bankrupting the US government, which does have more of a direct effect on me and the economy. Just my 2 cents

Edited June 19, 2013 by Zorbanos 1st MRB

[M. Johnson 1st MRB]

In fact, so far our stance has more been like "hey you guys better figure this out on your own, but we support what you are doing as a concept".

That makes no literally no sense.

The Obama administration has been very forthright with it's stance on Syria, it has said that the use of chemical weapons is a redline, and it's come to light that chemical weapons have more than likely been used. They will now infact help aid the Free Syrian Army (The rebels) with WEAPONS, not military forces.

[Takel 1st MRB]

it's pretty stupid to arm them though, we'll just end up giving guns to the Syrian Taliban/al-Qaeda style group. they're fighting against assad's government too, I mean, at least we didn't train them like we did the Taliban, but still

[C. Small 1st MRB]

In fact, so far our stance has more been like "hey you guys better figure this out on your own, but we support what you are doing as a concept".

That makes no literally no sense.

The Obama administration has been very forthright with it's stance on Syria, it has said that the use of chemical weapons is a redline, and it's come to light that chemical weapons have more than likely been used. They will now infact help aid the Free Syrian Army (The rebels) with WEAPONS, not military forces.

Bullets .... Sarin , whats the difference

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

I think Obama is and has been trying to detract from his redline threat alot though. I mean revelations about the possible use of chemical weapons came out like a month ago, granted i give credit to our government for finding out conclusively what the situation is, but its seemed like they have been trying to back down a bit from that statement. I mean sure NOW we're arming the rebels, but that has already been debated as a possible move without the use of chemical weapons, its been called for in congress and argued amongst the administration so i dont see us arming the rebels as the "game changer" at all. Instituting a no fly zone, now that would be a game changer. Im not saying i support such an endeavour, im just pointing out that it appears to me anyways that our government is backing down and isn't anymore keen to help the rebels now than they were two months ago. And i dont blame them man, i dont necessarily agree with arming these guys, sure alot of them are actual rebels against the government but alot of them are violent extremeists and jihadis, the guys most likely to want to fuck with the US.

[Morton]

Accually I think you'll find the war is aiding your's and our economy , wars fund company's like Boeing and arms makers , tis a rather niéve view to think that the war is crippling you economy when in fact it's funding it.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

[Stevenson]

As a vet from the Afghan campaigne OEF i know that war sells. The only people in this nation that bank from it is high leveled people, department of defense civilians or (DODC), and contractors. This conflict that is happening in Syria we should stay out of we need time to rebuild are forces. America is always out to babysit other nations going threw hard times. But America needs to focus on America. I am not saying that we should not go to war and kick ass and f-stuff up but like I said WE NEED TO FOCUS ON US!

[T. Graves]

Amen to that Stevenson!

[Perrone]

I have to concur with Stevenson, though not because I'm a member of the armed forces. I'm a historian, I've studied history, and I can tell you, when you bring in major foreign powers, it can get even worse. Although I don't mind enforcing a no-fly zone; and arming the rebels isn't an issue for me... though do remember, this is my opinion.

And the reason I don't see a problem with arming the rebels is because if it wasn't for the various European nations arming us during the American Revolution, the American Revolutionary army would never have gotten far. And yes, I know the French forces were a major contributor to us defeating the British forces, but they wouldn't have been able to win if our forces weren't properly armed.

I don't believe we ourselves should get directly involved, but I don't see a problem with arming the rebels. Once they've removed their dictatorship government, they'll have to sort things out on their own. Whether they are successful or not, is up to them.

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

Juist throwing this out there as a question, does anyone find it morally wrong to flood a warzone like this with weapons? Yeah it may turn the tide of the war, though unlikely, one thing it will for sure do is leave Syria's unstable population much more heavily armed than it was before, which could lead to more problems down the road.

Thoughts?

[Perrone]

Juist throwing this out there as a question, does anyone find it morally wrong to flood a warzone like this with weapons? Yeah it may turn the tide of the war, though unlikely, one thing it will for sure do is leave Syria's unstable population much more heavily armed than it was before, which could lead to more problems down the road.

Thoughts?

Morally wrong? I think it's morally wrong to turn away and ignore it simply because it's got nothing to do with us. The fact is that it's far better to arm the Syrian people to at least give them a chance to protect themselves and attempt to overthrow their tyrannical government then it is to sit idly by and watch them get massacred. Also, only one group is tied to Al Qaeda; and as for the "Taliban-like" groups, we have groups like that in the US armed to the teeth.

We should at least give themselves the chance to try to win this civil war before we start talking about what happens afterwards.

[Logue 1st MRB]

There's multiple rebel groups, it's not a rebel alliance however much they claim it is, when you're dealing with gangs of armed men, an alliance is just a word -and even if only one has links to al-queda I am certain more have fundamentalist/extremist roots so: 1) You have to decide which sub group to arm 2) You need personnel to train them in the use of these weapons 3) You need to protect them from other rebel groups with differing agendas/ideologies. 4) You need some mechanism in place in case, come the end of the war, all these weapon systems appear to have disappeared into private/terrorist arsenals.

And what do you do if, despite supplying them with weapons, your side keeps losing? How many of the millions of syrian refugees are your responsibility? Are you going to open your borders and arms to welcome them in? What about the damage to your relations with other countries in the middle east who will probably see this as a direct military action perpetuated in order to increase and cement Israel's controversial territorial claims.

Russia of course will feel no compunction in selling the Syrian government whatever it wants if the west is supplying the other side.

Civil wars like this are about as far from 'democracy' as you can get, I'm pretty sure what whichever group you eventually do arm won't be the biggest or the one with the most popular support, but it will be the one that is most inoffensive to us in the west -and to Israel next door.

As another example of how complicated this all is: Someone is setting bombs off in Turkish border towns.

Now there's only one side in this war who would benefit from Turkish intervention and it sure isn't Assad.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Logue 1st MRB

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

Civil wars like this are about as far from 'democracy' as you can get, I'm pretty sure what whichever group you eventually do arm won't be the biggest or the one with the most popular support, but it will be the one that is most inoffensive to us in the west -and to Israel next door.

exactly, the winner in the conflict is not the people, it is whoever has the biggest capacity to inflict violence on others, in the most efficient way.

We might not be arming the faction that the people want in power, we will arm whoever we deem worthy and favorable to our interests, whilst also flooding the battlefield with weapons. Therein lies the "morally questionable" discussion,

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

Every Revolution in history has moderate and radical elements to it, whichever one will come out on top at the end is anyone's guess. One thing I am sure they agree on is that they want to see Assad deposed, and given that he is probably now using chemical weapons on his own people, I think its fair to go in and supply them with material aid to even the playing field so long as they are okay with pissing off Iran a little bit more. I wouldn't start making judgements that all of the Rebels are all looking to get back at the U.S.A. after they are done with Assad though, because I'll guarantee you that all of them aren't.

I have a theory that the North African and Palestinian Islamic nations for the past few years have been experiencing something similar to Europe's overthrow of Absolute Monarchs. They want to be free of these guys who have been in control for decades upon decades, and I think they should be given the chance to have it. That's just me though, the other course I'd suggest would be to just let them all sort it out themselves. Unless Assad is commiting mass genocide of his people, I don't think the world has any other legitimate business over there

[C. Small 1st MRB]

Juist throwing this out there as a question, does anyone find it morally wrong to flood a warzone like this with weapons? Yeah it may turn the tide of the war, though unlikely, one thing it will for sure do is leave Syria's unstable population much more heavily armed than it was before, which could lead to more problems down the road.

Thoughts?

Morally wrong? I think it's morally wrong to turn away and ignore it simply because it's got nothing to do with us. The fact is that it's far better to arm the Syrian people to at least give them a chance to protect themselves and attempt to overthrow their tyrannical government then it is to sit idly by and watch them get massacred. Also, only one group is tied to Al Qaeda; and as for the "Taliban-like" groups, we have groups like that in the US armed to the teeth.

We should at least give themselves the chance to try to win this civil war before we start talking about what happens afterwards.

It is wrong , Because there is no good side in this conflict , the rebel are just as bad as Assad's forces , on the rebels side you have Al-Queda and other Islamist forces , and on Assad's side you have Iran and Hezbollah .

there really is no solution to this its a lose lose , probaly better if Assad stays in power Since I'd rather Assad than Al-Queda. And that may not be a popular view but its a sad truth.

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

That's bit of a leap to claim that every rebel in Syria is a follower of Al Qaeda or is an Islamic Fundamentalist. Just saying.

[C. Small 1st MRB]

I know not all of them are , alot have good intentions but far to many have islamist leanings

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

Assad really is massacring his people though. Granted its a civil war so casualty reports usually reflect both sides, estimates range from 90-120k people dead over the last two years, and it has no signs of stopping. Its hard to say we should just sit on the sidelines isnt it?

Yet, at the same time, it is a CIVIL war, and from that perspective it really isn't our business to get involved

Yet America always has gotten involved, how are we sitting on the sidelines now? If this was a democracy fighting against communism you best believe we would be all over it, at least twenty years ago. Do we no longer care about supporting democracies, or is that only when it serves our interests?

[Perrone]

Assad really is massacring his people though. Granted its a civil war so casualty reports usually reflect both sides, estimates range from 90-120k people dead over the last two years, and it has no signs of stopping. Its hard to say we should just sit on the sidelines isnt it?

Yet, at the same time, it is a CIVIL war, and from that perspective it really isn't our business to get involved

Yet America always has gotten involved, how are we sitting on the sidelines now? If this was a democracy fighting against communism you best believe we would be all over it, at least twenty years ago. Do we no longer care about supporting democracies, or is that only when it serves our interests?

While I agree we should at the very least, help arm the people to at least be able to fight off Assad's soldiers, I don't think we should involved anymore then that. And for the people who are say don't arm the rebels because they are all connected to Al Qaeda or Islamist extremists... I have to ask, where are you getting your information from? I'm pretty sure that President Obama and members from both parties who are calling for helping arm the rebels have way more information then what we are hearing from the news.

That being said, I have to say that our record when it comes to "fighting against communism" has been pretty horrible. We often replaced populists governments that weren't communist, weren't anywhere near to becoming communist, and were often a democracy already; by supporting coups from the shadows, and in a few cases out right military force. Usually replacing these governments with dictatorships.

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

While I agree we should at the very least, help arm the people to at least be able to fight off Assad's soldiers, I don't think we should involved anymore then that. And for the people who are say don't arm the rebels because they are all connected to Al Qaeda or Islamist extremists... I have to ask, where are you getting your information from? I'm pretty sure that President Obama and members from both parties who are calling for helping arm the rebels have way more information then what we are hearing from the news.

So did Bush when he was telling us about Saddam having WMDs right? xD cant always trust the guys making the decisions. they do what they can, but they can EASILY be misled by people.

I agree though. I think arming the people is at leadst a real option that should be more openly discussed and debated, but im not all for jumping to conclusions and just deciding "hey lets arm the rebels....GO!"

There's a reason why military intelligence has such a bad rap...its not frequently accurate.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Zorbanos 1st MRB

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

That's strange, you'd think that with today's tech and after WWII along with the Cold War being two of the biggest spy games ever for refining techniques, you'd think that we could get good information on exactly what is going on in there and who is who, especially in a country that is in the state that Syria is in. I guess the CIA and other Agencies responsible for gathering military intelligence have gotten rustier than they've been letting on over the years.