T Nation

Arming Syrian Rebels


#1

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Obama-to-step-up-military-support-of-Syrian-rebels-4599134.php

This is another disaster waiting to happen. What the fuck are we arming those degenerates for? This isn't about rebels fighting for democracy or something along those lines at all. This is about a group of Sunni extremists looking to take over a Shi'ite-led government being backed by Iran and Hezbollah. Shit, most of the rebels by now are probably backed by al Qaeda. And the Obama/Cain/Kerry axis thinks we'll be able to only arm the "really serious rebels fighting for democracy" or whatever bullshit those dipshits have managed to buy into. What's next? Turkey?

I don't think this will backfire in the same way that arming the Taliban against the Soviets did, but I don't think it will be that different either.

I cannot fucking stand how this country runs its foreign policy these days. And by days, I mean the last 20 or 30 years. We're always meddling in other people's shit and sometimes I don't really blame these wacko Islamists for flying jets into our buildings. How the fuck would we Americans respond if the shoe were on the other foot and Iran was sending troops here to take out the Altria Group's board of directors for producing cigarettes? Talk about a weapon of mass destruction.

American tobacco products have probably killed more people than all the wars in the world combined over the last 250 years. How would we respond if China said, "hey, you know what? Some Chinese citizens visiting Oakland today were killed by some American gang members. You guys have a gang problem over there and you're producing weapons of mass destruction that are killing millions of us Chinese each decade. Since you can't break up these gangs and you can't stop producing cigarettes, we're going to come in and take out the gangs and the Phillip-Morris factories ourselves."

We would flip the fuck out. I really wish we would just stay out of this whole Syrian mess entirely. Who fucking cares what happens over there? What's the difference? Does it really matter WHICH terrorist organization takes over that country? Because that is what is ultimately going to take place there. Some new group of authoritarians or terrorists are going to start running things over there. It doesn't matter which group it is, but we're going to end up arming one of them.

We should just throw everyone for a loop and start arming Assad's forces instead. That'll really throw a wrench in Iran's plans, that's for sure. If we're going to arm one side, why not arm Assad's side just for the fuck of it, just to flip things on their heads for real over there?

I know, I know. What about Israel?????????? We can't let Israel become endangered!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck it. Let israel deal with the fallout. It's more their problem than it is ours anyways, and we've certainly given Israel enough weaponry to fight that battle themselves. Let them have at it instead of us if it's going to be someone going in there and muddying up the situation even further.


#2

Holy hell, kiddo - you play this loose with the facts and wonder why you are a laughing stock? But your inane ramblings aside -

Barry isn't just sending the rebels weapons - he's giving them full military support.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57589252/u.s.-syria-used-chemical-weapons-crossing-red-line/


#3

'Not the first time we've been 'in bed' with Bad guys to beat WORSE bad guys.
We were in bed with Stalin who killed over 20 million of his own people....But we completely
ignored that little tidbit just so the Allies could defeat Hitler, didn't we?
These situations are too fucking complex to judge, and at LEAST the Administration FINALLY
acknowledged Assad used Chems....Bush woulda done the same thing just on a rumor he used Chems
a lot sooner.


#4

The ruling Syrian class is not Shi ite but Alewite and there are a few scores to settle.

Personally, I would prefer not to be involved in a budding genocide, but maybe thats just me.


#5

Full military support? Doesn't that include a no-fly zone? Or American troops on the ground and not just CIA officers training rebels on how to use the weapons we provide? If you're going to go out of your way to pick a fight with me on this issue, the least you could do is move beyond some petulant semantical argument.


#6

I've never understood the whole arming rebels thing whether it's Contra or Taliban or Syria or whatever the fuck. If we want some rebels to "win" then it would be a whole lot cheaper and safer for us to just explode places belonging to the opposing side from a battleship offshore or a plane or something. Then the rebels can waltz in and claim their victory and have only whatever weapons they started out with.


#7

Your inability to click on, and read a provided link is a result of your laziness, not my petulance.

LMAO. You type out three paragraphs to compare smoking deaths to providing military support for the Syrian rebels. It took no time to see your inane rambling for exactly what it was. Commenting on your stupidity is not petulant.

But whatever, kiddo.


#8

In my useless opinion:
I think a majority of the news we're hearing is misinformation, its what any stable governement is built on inorder to prevent peoples toes from getting stepped on. There are most likely motives in place that the worlds public is fully unaware of, it's much easier to lead the blind opposed to those who see the truth...


#9

There is no good side to this, and it will turn out badly.

Assad, the evil optomotrist (really!), is a foul man, but a known evil and kept the peace, more or less, so normal people could go about their lives, more or less. He is from the same trans-islamic political party as Saddam. Not a pretty group --- the party was originally formed by Nazi Germany to organize the islamic world against the Allies and to kill the resident Jews in what-was-then the British protectorate and-what-is-now mostly Israel. So, I can't say I am a fan.

The islamist rebels are basically fucking crazy, feeding on religious fervor, and hate the USA as much as they hate Assad. Not sure why anyone would help them, unless the goal is to have every able-bodied man in the country dead.

Anyway, it's a bad scene, happening next door to me, but I would really just let it run its course. This intra-Islamic fighting has been going on since 600 CE. They only stop when there are Christians or Jews to kill.

Just don't let it spread to Joran or Israel and help evac the people caught in the middle.


#10

That's exactly what the United States should be worried about, damage control. Especially with how weak this nation has been with what's going on in Syria. This nation said "It might be time to do something..." and when Russia said "Fuck you" all America had to say was "Maybe not...". AQ is winning over the Sunnis in Syria and Iran is supporting Assad 100%. Arming rebel groups would only come back to bite America. Securing borders that can be secured and destroying weapons caches when things wind down are in my opinion the only two things this nation should be doing with Syria.


#11

What are you talking about, tipsypiggy? I read the article you provided and nowhere in it does it say that the U.S. is sending troops or enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria. That's part of what "full military support" means to me, anyways. Not just sending communications equipment and transportation, along with some weaponry. What, did you have too much Woodford's? You claim that he's giving them full military support and then link an article that basically says he ISN'T giving them full military support. What the hell is your idea of full military support anyways?


#12

Perhaps short sighted on my part. We can not buy guns ammo or magazines because of short supply but the government wants to give all of that to rebels/freedom fighters in another country. I know it is off topic.


#13

Full military support can mean that there can be troops on the ground if necessary. It's really just giving an ultimatum and trying to keep people happy. Unfortunately I think the bluff will be called and the United States will actually have to get involved in this.


#14

'If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.' - Winston Churchill House of Commons


#15

Agree with Jewbacca, this is bad business all the way around. Damage control and containing this to within the Syrian border as much as possible or that can be affected is probably the best COA. As for the US, committing anything other than SOF on the ground will and would be disastrous. If you stick conventional forces or "troops on the ground" in there, what's the mission? What's the endstate? How can you secure 'X' number of WMD sites in the middle of a civil war?

Frankly, the number of Syrian civilian casualties is only mildly interesting (to our .gov) - it's all about control of the WMD.


#16

You do know you are failing at trying to demonstrate your mastery of the English language? I don't know you, your education level, or how old you are, but your posts read like something a 12 year old with no friends would write.


#17

Fuck 'em huh? Just fuck all the Syrians, let'em die. Fuck their assholes. Let them slaughter every single last on of them, so long as we stay out of it, right? Sounds reasonable.

I am all for letting Israel take care of the situation, just don't bitch about the way they do it. If you let the leash off that dog, they'll take care of the problem alright. I don't want to hear how they need to give the land back either. We let them handle it.


#18

I am actually all for setting up a puppet government over there. If we intervene, it has to be to the point we plant our flag. We cannot let the rebels run the show, it will be a theocracy much like the Taliban, we cannot support Assad, he's all but done. So a new government is going to take effect, we have to intervene to the point where we can ensure they will do no harm to us or our interests. I agree, there is nothing pretty about this and no good solutions, only different levels of bad. The problem is, how many Syrians are we going to let die? They are the ones getting bombed and gassed. That's where this gets messy, we don't want another Congo situation, you can't just let 2 million people die. Well you can, but it's not very nice to do so.

Isolationism is as dead as can be. There is no opting out of dealing with it. Syria is to much of a heavy hitter to allow it to devolve into chaos.


#19

Lots of "we" in that post, Pat. Who exactly is this "we" letting Syrians die? That implies responsibility, and frankly I sense we have none regarding this civil war. What quorum is going to form a coalition and intervene? Or are you suggesting the U.S. act unilaterally in Syria? That briefs well from a moralistic standpoint. But from where I sit, not one Syrian is worth one U.S. Serviceman/woman. And...you aint going to commit any large ground forces from the United States into Syria after 9 years of combat in Iraq, and closing in on 12 years of combat in Afghanistan. POTUS knows this won't fly.

Like I posted earlier, the cold hard facts of our potential intervention hinge solely on the security of WMD sites. That is it.


#20

If they want to start bombing everybody back to the Stone Age and appropriate everyone's land out there, I say go for it. Just don't come over here with your lobbyists and your pity parties trying to convince the U.S. that Israel needs aid from us. I say let Israel do whatever they want over there, but let them do it strictly with their own money. If we're going to essentially foot the bill for the entire foreign policy they better do what the fuck we tell them to do. But rather than listen to us, they build settlement after settlement over there while we're trying to negotiate some sort of peace, which is a slap in the U.S.'s face. Fine, have at it with the settlements and the bombs and all that shit. But do it with your own money, Israel.