Romney wants to arm Syrian rebels. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Romney wants to arm Syrian rebels.


Angry Fist
10-08-2012, 08:03
Discuss.

http://www.newsday.com/elections/mitt-romney-argues-for-more-u-s-intervention-in-syria-egypt-iran-1.4086147

Angry Fist
10-08-2012, 08:07
This Assad bastard needs to go down, but what is the best way?

Cavalry Doc
10-08-2012, 08:08
Give enough to keep the fight there going, and to keep casualties high on both sides.

Works for me. For all I care, you could build a wall around the place, air lift in rifles and ammunition, and call back in 10 years to see who won.

Angry Fist
10-08-2012, 08:09
I was hoping Turkey would lay the pimp hand down.

Zombie Surgeon
10-08-2012, 08:29
Assad is the Iranian Mullahs pawn, the rebels are supported by Al-Quaeda like groups.

The more they massacre each other the better for the rest of the world.

aircarver
10-08-2012, 08:34
Give enough to keep the fight there going, and to keep casualties high on both sides.

Works for me. For all I care, you could build a wall around the place, air lift in rifles and ammunition, and call back in 10 years to see who won.

Like Iran - Iraq .... we don't care who wins, as long as the casualties are high ! .... :supergrin:

.

Big Mad Dawg
10-08-2012, 08:34
Give enough to keep the fight there going, and to keep casualties high on both sides.

Works for me. For all I care, you could build a wall around the place, air lift in rifles and ammunition, and call back in 10 years to see who won.

:goodpost::agree::yourock:

JBnTX
10-08-2012, 08:47
We need to go into the Middle East with a heavy hand, before Iran unites them all into an Islamic nuclear power super state, that threatens the entire world.

If we go in full force now we can win, as opposed to waiting until they are united, stronger and have nukes.

It's time for the tenth Holy Crusade....:50cal:

GAFinch
10-08-2012, 08:51
Arm the rebels just enough to match Iranian and Russian armament, but stay out of there. Love to see Iran's conduit into the ME cut off, but don't want to help the Muslim Brotherhood accelerate their caliphate plans either.

SPIN2010
10-08-2012, 08:54
We need to go into the Middle East with a heavy hand, before Iran unites them all into an Islamic nuclear power super state, that threatens the entire world.

This has its' good points. (IMHO) This will be the ultimate outcome of the ME unrest, as Iran is posturing more daily.

GAFinch
10-08-2012, 08:57
One thing that would really help is drilling into every single American oil field, thus increasing global supply of oil and lowering crude prices, thus de-funding Russia, Venezuela, and Middle East states whose economies rely almost exclusively on oil profits.

G22Dude
10-08-2012, 09:38
Let them slaughter each other but I am hesitant to arm any AQ affiliated groups

countrygun
10-08-2012, 11:30
Let them slaughter each other but I am hesitant to arm any AQ affiliated groups


One way or the other, most of what we send ends in the hands of AQ anyway, lets just make them all more efficient at lowering their overall numbers.

Rabbit994
10-08-2012, 11:52
Stupid. There is very little we can do about situation in Syria. Neither side is "good" and whoever wins, we lose. Sitting out is best choice between all the choices we have.

G29Reload
10-08-2012, 11:58
and call back in 10 years to see who won.

Then kill them.

Problem solved.

muscogee
10-08-2012, 12:16
Shouldn't we pay down the national debt first?

countrygun
10-08-2012, 12:25
Shouldn't we pay down the national debt first?


First we have to get the goober that keeps raising it out of the White House.

Gundude
10-08-2012, 12:31
First we have to get the goober that keeps raising it out of the White House.
We tried that several times already. The guy that replaces him raises it even more.

Of course, "this time" will be different, right?

aircarver
10-08-2012, 12:35
We tried that several times already. The guy that replaces him raises it even more.

Of course, "this time" will be different, right?

.... If we get enough 'tea party' in .... :supergrin:

.

countrygun
10-08-2012, 12:37
We tried that several times already. The guy that replaces him raises it even more.

Of course, "this time" will be different, right?

This one beat the record of all previous goobers COMBINED. I call that "A Clue".

Of course, for some, "Cluelessness is it's own reward"

JBnTX
10-08-2012, 12:49
Shouldn't we pay down the national debt first?

We can pay off our debt by selling captured Middle East oil fields, seizing the multi-billion dollar bank accounts of anti-American trouble makers who fund terrorist groups, and by charging other countries when we free them from Islamic domination.

War can be very profitable.

..

Gundude
10-08-2012, 13:05
This one beat the record of all previous goobers COMBINED. I call that "A Clue".

Of course, for some, "Cluelessness is it's own reward"That tends to happen when numbers get exponentially larger. He's not the first to do that. Reagan and GWB did it and I didn't see anybody catching a clue at that time.

Gundude
10-08-2012, 13:10
We can pay off our debt by selling captured Middle East oil fields, seizing the multi-billion dollar bank accounts of anti-American trouble makers who fund terrorist groups, and by charging other countries when we free them from Islamic domination.

War can be very profitable.

..If G29Reload had an ounce of consistency, he'd pipe in here to reference your uncle's balls.

That post is fantasy. You would have to competely disregard how we actually engage in war.

JFrame
10-08-2012, 13:13
I think back to the Iran-Iraq War, when opposing jihadists were annihilating each other left and right with contemporary weapons and WWI tactics.

Those were the days, my friends... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/personal/beach.gif


.

beforeobamabans
10-08-2012, 13:29
We need to go into the Middle East with a heavy hand, before Iran unites them all into an Islamic nuclear power super state, that threatens the entire world.

If we go in full force now we can win, as opposed to waiting until they are united, stronger and have nukes.

It's time for the tenth Holy Crusade....:50cal:

Id like to see you go first.

countrygun
10-08-2012, 13:38
That tends to happen when numbers get exponentially larger. He's not the first to do that. Reagan and GWB did it and I didn't see anybody catching a clue at that time.

So you are admitting that Obama hasn't even tried?

Gundude
10-08-2012, 13:48
So you are admitting that Obama hasn't even tried?Yeah, of course he hasn't. Do you think Romney will? Do you think wanting to arm Syrian rebels is indicative of somebody who will?

countrygun
10-08-2012, 13:55
Yeah, of course he hasn't. Do you think Romney will? Do you think wanting to arm Syrian rebels is indicative of somebody who will?

Let me think about it,


Hmmm.....One guy flaunts the fact that he hasn't and keeps spinning us firther in debt,

another guy says he wants to stop that spiral.

which should I vote for..............Hmmmm.

Gee the logic of voting for the guy who has made it worse and doesn't have anything close to a plan to stop it is so inescapable.......:upeyes:

Gundude
10-08-2012, 14:01
Let me think about it,


Hmmm.....One guy flaunts the fact that he hasn't and keeps spinning us firther in debt,

another guy says he wants to stop that spiral.

which should I vote for..............Hmmmm.

Gee the logic of voting for the guy who has made it worse and doesn't have anything close to a plan to stop it is so inescapable.......:upeyes:I'm sure if I tried hard enough, I could find a clip of Obama saying he will do something about the deficit.

That will put him on equal footing as Romney then, right?

Because even though nothing about either Romney's or Obama's records suggest they'd improve the deficit situation, Romney saying he will do something is more credible than Obama saying he will do something. Do I have that right?

countrygun
10-08-2012, 14:21
I'm sure if I tried hard enough, I could find a clip of Obama saying he will do something about the deficit.

That will put him on equal footing as Romney then, right?

Because even though nothing about either Romney's or Obama's records suggest they'd improve the deficit situation, Romney saying he will do something is more credible than Obama saying he will do something. Do I have that right?

HAhahahahaha:rofl:

Willfully ignore Romney's economic record and business expreience and try to claim that Obama is his equal in management.

:rofl::rofl:

"Denial", it's a heck of a drug.

GAFinch
10-08-2012, 14:44
Shouldn't we pay down the national debt first?

Have you seen war footage from over there? A few million dollar's worth of rifles, ammo, and surplus LAW's could go a long long way. Better than getting dragged into a war over there alongside Turkey that could cost as much as a billion dollars a day.

GAFinch
10-08-2012, 14:47
Stupid. There is very little we can do about situation in Syria. Neither side is "good" and whoever wins, we lose. Sitting out is best choice between all the choices we have.

At least Romney, unlike McCain, seems to be aware of the Muslim Brotherhood's extremist history and its ties to Zawahiri and OBL.

Cavalry Doc
10-08-2012, 14:48
We tried that several times already. The guy that replaces him raises it even more.

Of course, "this time" will be different, right?

In case you haven't noticed, it's always been different. History is similar, but it is never exactly the same. Being able to discern the differences is an important and useful skill that many don't have.

muscogee
10-08-2012, 14:51
We can pay off our debt by selling captured Middle East oil fields, seizing the multi-billion dollar bank accounts of anti-American trouble makers who fund terrorist groups, and by charging other countries when we free them from Islamic domination.

War can be very profitable.

..

Colonialism? I think we would get some international resistance on that.

JBnTX
10-08-2012, 14:54
Id like to see you go first.


Clearly we've become a nation of pacifist intellectuals.:steamed:

muscogee
10-08-2012, 14:55
Have you seen war footage from over there? A few million dollar's worth of rifles, ammo, and surplus LAW's could go a long long way. Better than getting dragged into a war over there alongside Turkey that could cost as much as a billion dollars a day.

Let Turkey go it alone. We couldn't even transport troops through their country when we invaded Iraq.

Cavalry Doc
10-08-2012, 15:02
Let Turkey go it alone. We couldn't even transport troops through their country when we invaded Iraq.

Awwwww hell. We agree on something. Turkey should be left on their own. Just to learn "that" lesson.

countrygun
10-08-2012, 15:12
Awwwww hell. We agree on something. Turkey should be left on their own. Just to learn "that" lesson.

Yup. The blind hog found an acorn.

G19G20
10-08-2012, 15:12
Somebody should let Mitt in on the fact that we've already been arming them.

Don't let the facts get in the way of some good ol' red meat rhetoric.

Angry Fist
10-08-2012, 16:48
Then kill them.

Problem solved.
Why wait? :supergrin:

GAFinch
10-08-2012, 17:44
Let Turkey go it alone. We couldn't even transport troops through their country when we invaded Iraq.

They're part of NATO, we wouldn't have much of a choice if they ask for our assistance.

Angry Fist
10-08-2012, 17:51
We can pay off our debt by selling captured Middle East oil fields, seizing the multi-billion dollar bank accounts of anti-American trouble makers who fund terrorist groups, and by charging other countries when we free them from Islamic domination.

War can be very profitable.

..
Certainly there is a way to make this work. :supergrin:


Nuke their ass, and TAKE their gas! Selling it away to a low, fast bidder is the American way.

jdavionic
10-08-2012, 18:25
Supplying arms...within reason, I have no issues. Assad as been a PITA for us and others. I think a little payback is justified.

muscogee
10-08-2012, 18:34
They're part of NATO, we wouldn't have much of a choice if they ask for our assistance.

Then why didn't they have to cooperate with us when we invaded Iraq?

G19G20
10-08-2012, 18:40
Then why didn't they have to cooperate with us when we invaded Iraq?

That was under a UN resolution, not a NATO resolution. Good question though. Seems it's "flexible" whenever they deem it so.

Can you imagine if Turkey had gone hot with Israel over the Gaza aid boat incident? Oh the neocon exploding heads all around....

Diesel McBadass
10-08-2012, 18:53
id say give small arms and such and let em slaughter each other. No sams or anything, we want our planes to annihale the winner easily

GAFinch
10-08-2012, 19:16
Then why didn't they have to cooperate with us when we invaded Iraq?

It's a mutual defense setup not mutual offense, unless there's a NATO resolution. Even then, countries can be exempted if deemed necessary. Don't get me wrong, though, I'm no fan of Turkey, particularly since it's been quietly radicalizing for the past few years and is probably going to be a problem in the near future.

muscogee
10-08-2012, 19:59
It's a mutual defense setup not mutual offense, unless there's a NATO resolution. Even then, countries can be exempted if deemed necessary. Don't get me wrong, though, I'm no fan of Turkey, particularly since it's been quietly radicalizing for the past few years and is probably going to be a problem in the near future.

So we could sit it out and let Turkey deal with it.

rgregoryb
10-08-2012, 20:07
a different take on an age old question: If Syria attacks Turkey from the rear, will Greece help?

Ringo S.
10-08-2012, 20:09
Arm the rebels just enough to match Iranian and Russian armament, but stay out of there. .
Mr. brilliant diplomat, what would you say, (if russians, after watching this intrusion in their area, would start support, for example, mexican rebels, or whoever around the USA), except: "You not suppose to do it to us, it's not fare!"

GAFinch
10-08-2012, 20:12
So we could sit it out and let Turkey deal with it.

If Syrians keep attacking Turkey and it declares those actions as a declaration of war against it, then it could invoke the mutual defense clause of NATO.

rgregoryb
10-08-2012, 20:13
delete

GAFinch
10-08-2012, 20:19
Mr. brilliant diplomat, what would you say, (if russians, after watching this intrusion in their area, would start support, for example, mexican rebels, or whoever around the USA), except: "You not suppose to do it to us, it's not fare!"

We could then arm the Mexican government to counter the rebels, assuming that the Russians were once again supporting a widely condemned entity.

The Arab League doesn't support aiding Assad. The UN doesn't. Europe doesn't. The US doesn't. Have you considered that there's a reason why so many don't?

G19G20
10-08-2012, 20:28
We could then arm the Mexican government to counter the rebels, assuming that the Russians were once again supporting a widely condemned entity.

Then we'd act surprised when the Mexicans start shooting at Americans. Oh wait, we already tried that. It was called Fast and Furious.

Let's keep arming our enemies then act surprised when it comes back to bite us! Like always....


The Arab League doesn't support aiding Assad. The UN doesn't. Europe doesn't. The US doesn't. Have you considered that there's a reason why so many don't?

Easy. All those above organizations are working together in an effort to take over Iran's resources and economy. All are under Western central bank control, while Syria and Iran are not and Syria is an Iranian ally.

countrygun
10-08-2012, 21:14
OK, it's time,

"If Syria attacks Turkey from behind, will Greece help?

jdavionic
10-09-2012, 03:40
Poking your head in the sand and hoping for the best does not work. We, as a nation, have not been smart about where we get involved and to the extent that we get commit when we do get involved. There's a balance that we've failed to achieve in a long time...including before Obama.

Syria is an enemy of the US. There's merit to making Assad's life more challenging there by providing small arms to his enemies. You achieve a couple of goals. You help increase the possibility that he will not have a long future and you distract his resources such that they cannot focus their disruptive efforts elsewhere.

As for Russia playing in our sandbox, they have been and are continuing to do so. There was a time when Russia offering nuclear technology in our hemisphere would have been intolerable...even for a democrat. Yet now, they have free reign as part of Obama's continued efforts to diminish the "super power" status of our country.

Yes, you have to be careful on how you many foreign relations & involvement. It's not black & white. Arming the Mexican army, for example, would be a mistake. Arming and training the Afghan police is a mistake...we should have gone in & out and returned to neutralize as required. Instead we tried to build a "flourishing democracy" in a region that wants no part of our way of life, which is fine. However they were involved in providing a safe place for terrorists to conduct their business and should have paid the price for that...which they did.

Ringo S.
10-26-2012, 10:01
" The opposition recently warned in the form of an ultimatum, that soon may join the terrorist group "Al Qaeda" in the fight against al-Assad, if they would not receive material help, AFP told, referring to the rebel commander in Aleppo Abu Ammar."
-
Hmmm... What to do, what to do.... Help must be provided! And to "Al Qaeda" also. Well, why do the same job twice?

countrygun
10-26-2012, 14:19
" The opposition recently warned in the form of an ultimatum, that soon may join the terrorist group "Al Qaeda" in the fight against al-Assad, if they would not receive material help, AFP told, referring to the rebel commander in Aleppo Abu Ammar."
-
Hmmm... What to do, what to do.... Help must be provided! And to "Al Qaeda" also. Well, why do the same job twice?

Well, since their dream is to reach Paradise, I suggest we do what we can to make the dream come true for as many of them as possible. We should arm the underdog to keep them busy fighting amongst themselves and thereby help as many as possible reach Paradise.

brickboy240
10-26-2012, 15:16
Isn't the current administration already running guns to the Syrian rebels?


...I believe they are.

Kentak
10-26-2012, 18:35
We need to go into the Middle East with a heavy hand, before Iran unites them all into an Islamic nuclear power super state, that threatens the entire world.

If we go in full force now we can win, as opposed to waiting until they are united, stronger and have nukes.

It's time for the tenth Holy Crusade....:50cal:

How you propose we pay for it?

countrygun
10-26-2012, 18:40
How you propose we pay for it?

They have a slimy goo in the ground over there that I've heard is handy for some things.

Cavalry Doc
10-26-2012, 21:30
How you propose we pay for it?

I'm personally not for another crusade. But you could take what we've been accused of taking before. Twice I believe.


Personally, I think the next time we want to wage war on a muslim country, we should immediately enter into nuclear arms reduction talks with them, even if they don't have any. I think we could easily lower our stockpiles by 10 or 30 multiple re-entry vehicle weapons systems in exchange for them stopping what they are doing.

We are one or two glass parking lots away for another 40 years of peace in the mideast.

jdavionic
10-26-2012, 22:11
How you propose we pay for it?

I'm not keen on another ME engagement. Regardless, I think taking money that were presently dishing out to Libya, Egypt, and others in the ME and using it to pay down debt would be a wise move.

Angry Fist
10-27-2012, 07:53
I'm personally not for another crusade. But you could take what we've been accused of taking before. Twice I believe.


Personally, I think the next time we want to wage war on a muslim country, we should immediately enter into nuclear arms reduction talks with them, even if they don't have any. I think we could easily lower our stockpiles by 10 or 30 multiple re-entry vehicle weapons systems in exchange for them stopping what they are doing.

We are one or two glass parking lots away for another 40 years of peace in the mideast.
So, lesseee here...A little gas money to get them there, in exchange for lowering stockpile maintenence costs.:whistling:

Kentak
10-28-2012, 18:19
They have a slimy goo in the ground over there that I've heard is handy for some things.

I believe we were sold the Iraq war partly on the grounds that their oil revenue would help us pay for the war.

How'd that work out for us?

Kentak
10-28-2012, 18:29
I'm not keen on another ME engagement. Regardless, I think taking money that were presently dishing out to Libya, Egypt, and others in the ME and using it to pay down debt would be a wise move.

The total amount of US aid to the middle east between 1971 and 2001 was 145 billion dollars, with Israel (a friend) getting more than half of that. Sounds like a lot--but not when spread out over 30 years. Generally, people think foreign aid is a huge expenditure when it's really only a sliver. Cut it all out and the budget would hardly feel the difference.

Stubudd
10-28-2012, 18:52
We can pay off our debt by selling captured Middle East oil fields, seizing the multi-billion dollar bank accounts of anti-American trouble makers who fund terrorist groups, and by charging other countries when we free them from Islamic domination.

War can be very profitable.

..

Lol, we...

lol, war is profitable. Soldiers like JB are seeing huge profits from war

JB, all you're ever gonna see from war are the eight and nine digit bills to pay for it, just like you always have. You will never see a solitary dime of any oil field sold, or seized bank account, or whatever else you include in your crazed fantasies of "we" at war. You might get crippled or killed for those who actually do gain something, though, if that's any consolation. Plenty already have.

Cavalry Doc
10-28-2012, 19:43
Lol, we...

lol, war is profitable. Soldiers like JB are seeing huge profits from war

JB, all you're ever gonna see from war are the eight and nine digit bills to pay for it, just like you always have. You will never see a solitary dime of any oil field sold, or seized bank account, or whatever else you include in your crazed fantasies of "we" at war. You might get crippled or killed for those who actually do gain something, though, if that's any consolation. Plenty already have.

See, On my side, I've only born the costs of war, personally, and professionally. I went, because others would or could not, and it needed to be done.

I think we need to curtail the costs of war. The prosecution of the war is relatively cheap compared to the rehabilitation of the enemy.

I'm all for taking a new approach the next time. We should break and crush our enemy. I mean it. Drop every bridge, destroy every power factory, bust every dam, crater every runway and every highway, drop every skyscraper, cut the internet nodes and lines, cut off access to any satellites, destroy any troop concentrations and every military stockpile.


Then let them be. Only then is noninterventionism a good idea.

Leave the enemy to be picked apart by their neighbors. Help the ones we want to help do that, and cut the lines of those that we don't.

We have a lot of things to learn about war. Well, Barry has a lot to learn about war. He's never been in one.

Crush your enemies. Leave them to be picked clean by the vultures. Your other/potential enemies will take notice.

Ruble Noon
10-28-2012, 20:19
See, On my side, I've only born the costs of war, personally, and professionally. I went, because others would or could not, and it needed to be done.

I think we need to curtail the costs of war. The prosecution of the war is relatively cheap compared to the rehabilitation of the enemy.

I'm all for taking a new approach the next time. We should break and crush our enemy. I mean it. Drop every bridge, destroy every power factory, bust every dam, crater every runway and every highway, drop every skyscraper, cut the internet nodes and lines, cut off access to any satellites, destroy any troop concentrations and every military stockpile.


Then let them be. Only then is noninterventionism a good idea.

Leave the enemy to be picked apart by their neighbors. Help the ones we want to help do that, and cut the lines of those that we don't.

We have a lot of things to learn about war. Well, Barry has a lot to learn about war. He's never been in one.

Crush your enemies. Leave them to be picked clean by the vultures. Your other/potential enemies will take notice.

See, you do like Ron Paul's foreign policy after all.

Ruble Noon
10-28-2012, 20:21
Isn't the current administration already running guns to the Syrian rebels?


...I believe they are.

Well, like all things Obama, they tried that and failed. Yes, we are sending guns but they are going to terrorists like happened with the arms we sent to Libya.

jdavionic
10-28-2012, 21:42
The total amount of US aid to the middle east between 1971 and 2001 was 145 billion dollars, with Israel (a friend) getting more than half of that. Sounds like a lot--but not when spread out over 30 years. Generally, people think foreign aid is a huge expenditure when it's really only a sliver. Cut it all out and the budget would hardly feel the difference.

Understand it's a drop in the bucket. However people also lose sight of the fact that it is OUR money. I work very hard for my money. And whether a little or lot goes to nations like Libya and Egypt, I don't my money going to these countries. I want my money back in my pocket.

stevelyn
10-29-2012, 01:07
This Assad bastard needs to go down, but what is the best way?


Assad is a PoS, but he's a secular PoS and the last thing we need is for a Muslim Brotherhood PoS to take over.

As it is right now, the majority sand monkey countries can never agree on much of anything or work together.

If they are all being run by the MB, then it'll be easier for them to come to agreement and work together on such things as say ......... invading Israel.

Fred Hansen
10-29-2012, 03:15
Give enough to keep the fight there going, and to keep casualties high on both sides.

Works for me. For all I care, you could build a wall around the place, air lift in rifles and ammunition, and call back in 10 years to see who won.Wise words as always. :wavey:

Angry Fist
10-29-2012, 08:08
Assad is a PoS, but he's a secular PoS and the last thing we need is for a Muslim Brotherhood PoS to take over.

As it is right now, the majority sand monkey countries can never agree on much of anything or work together.

If they are all being run by the MB, then it'll be easier for them to come to agreement and work together on such things as say ......... invading Israel.
You're right. These were the same concerns when the whole Arab Spring took off. And one by one, they are falling into the paws of Allah. Maybe if they do unite, they'd be easier to kill. No collateral damage? :whistling: