• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret U.S. support for Syrian rebels

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
And now all the Obamaites who demonized Bush for 8 years for warmongering is now slapping Obama on the back for doing exactly the same thing Bush did. Secret stash of WMD"s that can't be allowed to get out of the country. UN sanctions are doing nothing. The UN is a complete joke getting ANY info. And on and on. When it's Obma pulling the strings then he should win another Noble Prize. Hypocrites.
 
kage69 said:
False.


First, "the Kurds" were not a single entity, there were actually 3 separate Kurdish orgs resisting Saddam. Are you speaking of the PUK, the KDP, or the IMK?

The opposition hardly stopped there. Pretty much ALL of the Shi'a south hated Saddam, which is why they revolted. You have Arab minorities based in Baghdad that wanted Saddam dead by any means. You have Iraqi Army defectors scattered about helping where they could. The al Dawa folks and a few other anti-Saddam groups that were based out of Iran and the UK had plenty of contacts and resources within Iraq during Saddam's rule, that's how we got a lot of our intel from in the days and hours before the 2003 invasion.
And let's not forget those wacky Heshemite Iraqi monarchists who ran the show prior to 58. They've been in the back ground for awhile now and have always wanted to turn Iraq into a constitutional monarchy.


So let's dispense with the notion that Saddam was untouchable due to no real opposition being present. Saddam didn't have super elaborate personal security and impersonators just because some Kurds up north hated him.

"Betrayed" is I suppose a good word to describe it. Certainly quicker to type than "incited them to revolt with the promise of support then left them to face overwhelming numbers and firepower alone."
Click to expand...

While people/groups within Iraq's borders may have hated Saddam; how many were actively revolting against him?

Where was the fighting? Where did Saddam deploy the army?
 
GarfieldtheCat said:
Beats me, why does it matter? Illegal leaking is illegal right?
Click to expand...


Absolutely, but if I have to read about one of those I'd prefer it to be the variety that doesn't involve American intel and assets being compromised.

It's tempting to try and frame it all in either black or white, but I can't help noticing a few glaring differences between a "leak" concerning non-direct involvement resisting a dictator who is slaughtering innocents en masse, and the outing of an operative over a political agenda that has a lasting chain reaction effect on other operatives, fronts, and contacts.

Regardless, it shouldn't really be news. Our informal assistance has been going on for awhile now, and we are hardly the only ones helping out. I don't think anyone is surprised. Assad's days are numbered, making sure the struggle is as bloody and long as possible via our inaction is no way to ingratiate ourselves with "the new boss." Let's let China, Russia and Iran fill the role of pariahs in Syria's Assad-free future.
 
EagleKeeper said:
While people/groups within Iraq's borders may have hated Saddam; how many were actively revolting against him?

Where was the fighting? Where did Saddam deploy the army?
Click to expand...

Strawman; active revolt is not a requirement to unseat a dictator and you know it. I provided input that disproved your statement. If you want to revise your position and state some qualifications for specific outcomes, have at it.
In a police state run by Saddam's mukhabarat, I think it's odd that you need to focus on the use of the Army in specific battles as an indicator of dissent.
 
Unlike Libya, we will honestly be able to say Obama is not fighting a war for oil in Syria. Of course, unlike Libya, he will not use US forces in Syria...and that is obviously because of the lack of oil.

So when are the hordes of people who wanted to hang Bush for fighting Mideast Wars going to cry for the death of Obama due to his mideast wars?
 
Nintendesert said:
War War War! Beat those drums!


We learned nothing from Afghanistan. We need to just leave that part of the world the hell alone and disengage from all of it.
Click to expand...

Will it be dictators that ruin their countries or elected theocracies that...also ruin their countries? Stay tuned!
 
cybrsage said:
Unlike Libya, we will honestly be able to say Obama is not fighting a war for oil in Syria. Of course, unlike Libya, he will not use US forces in Syria...and that is obviously because of the lack of oil.

So when are the hordes of people who wanted to hang Bush for fighting Mideast Wars going to cry for the death of Obama due to his mideast wars?
Click to expand...

lol, you're a funny troll.
 
Obama is a genius, truly deserving his Nobel Peace Prize. Why send thousands of troops and armed forces to take over a country, when you can just stir the pot from the sidelines? Arab Spring is the Cold War 2.0.
 
ky54 said:
And now all the Obamaites who demonized Bush for 8 years for warmongering is now slapping Obama on the back for doing exactly the same thing Bush did. Secret stash of WMD"s that can't be allowed to get out of the country. UN sanctions are doing nothing. The UN is a complete joke getting ANY info. And on and on. When it's Obma pulling the strings then he should win another Noble Prize. Hypocrites.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
First said:
Link?

You should take being funny as a compliment btw, troll.
Click to expand...

Now now, ProJo. Even though we all know you are the king of trolling, and therefor an expert, tossing it around like you do is a bit boorish.

Link to what, Obama attacking Libya? Are you so much of an idiot you need to to show it happened?
 
ky54 said:
And now all the Obamaites who demonized Bush for 8 years for warmongering is now slapping Obama on the back for doing exactly the same thing Bush did. Secret stash of WMD"s that can't be allowed to get out of the country. UN sanctions are doing nothing. The UN is a complete joke getting ANY info. And on and on. When it's Obma pulling the strings then he should win another Noble Prize. Hypocrites.
Click to expand...

I take it you don't know recent history. Bush created an artificial need for a ground war in Iraq. Obama is allegedly sending in aid to rebels in an active civil war.


There is no comparison.
 
kage69 said:
Strawman; active revolt is not a requirement to unseat a dictator and you know it. I provided input that disproved your statement. If you want to revise your position and state some qualifications for specific outcomes, have at it.
In a police state run by Saddam's mukhabarat, I think it's odd that you need to focus on the use of the Army in specific battles as an indicator of dissent.
Click to expand...

Orignal Earl said:
Oh come on..
It was every where.

Top 5 Crimes of Saddam Hussein
http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm

Even Saddams right hand man/people feared for their life every day
Click to expand...

Where was a real threat to the Saddam regime?

Dissenters yes; active threat - none.

Even the Northern Kurds were a PITA; not a threat of losing his power.
 
kage69 said:
False.


First, "the Kurds" were not a single entity, there were actually 3 separate Kurdish orgs resisting Saddam. Are you speaking of the PUK, the KDP, or the IMK?

The opposition hardly stopped there. Pretty much ALL of the Shi'a south hated Saddam, which is why they revolted. You have Arab minorities based in Baghdad that wanted Saddam dead by any means. You have Iraqi Army defectors scattered about helping where they could. The al Dawa folks and a few other anti-Saddam groups that were based out of Iran and the UK had plenty of contacts and resources within Iraq during Saddam's rule, that's how we got a lot of our intel from in the days and hours before the 2003 invasion.
And let's not forget those wacky Heshemite Iraqi monarchists who ran the show prior to 58. They've been in the back ground for awhile now and have always wanted to turn Iraq into a constitutional monarchy.


So let's dispense with the notion that Saddam was untouchable due to no real opposition being present. Saddam didn't have super elaborate personal security and impersonators just because some Kurds up north hated him.

"Betrayed" is I suppose a good word to describe it. Certainly quicker to type than "incited them to revolt with the promise of support then left them to face overwhelming numbers and firepower alone."
Click to expand...

How about "Bay of Pigs'd"?
 
Four possibilities. First, the Obama administration leaked this to shore up political support. Second, someone in the loop who violently disagrees with this decision leaked this to shore up political support. Third, someone in the Syria rebels leaked this, for whatever reason. And fourth, it's made up. Personally, meh. If the President decides we need to secretly support the rebels, fine by me. The leak is immaterial, as we could hardly sneak that past the Russians and Chinese anyway and if it's political, I really have no way to detect by which side.

And the Kurds were NOT betrayed. We tried like hell to get the Kurds and to a much lesser extent the Shi'a to rise up against Saddam as a second and/or third front; they refused, thinking him undefeatable. Then they rose up only AFTER we had defeated him and signed a cease fire, tying our hands. They had their chance to be on our side and they blew it.
 
I support President Obama 100% in his covert funding of murder squads in foreign countries and in his attempts to use the CIA and other covert United States forces to overthrow other nations lawful governments.
 
cybrsage said:
So when are the hordes of people who wanted to hang Bush for fighting Mideast Wars going to cry for the death of Obama due to his mideast wars?
Click to expand...

When Obama's "wars" are even remotely equivalent in scale, dollar cost, and lives, instead of being at 1/1000th of the scale? Your argument reminds me of someone who says it's just as bad to spend $50 million dollars of tax payer money on something undesirable as it is to spend $100 billion.

- wolf
 
cybrsage said:
Now now, ProJo. Even though we all know you are the king of trolling, and therefor an expert, tossing it around like you do is a bit boorish.
Click to expand...

There there troll, we all know the truth cuts deep sometimes.

Link to what, Obama attacking Libya? Are you so much of an idiot you need to to show it happened?
Click to expand...

I'll repost the preceding events since you're confused:

cybrsage said:
Interesting that you think our role in Libya was not about the oil they have there.
Click to expand...

First said:
Link?
Click to expand...

Now get to it, trollster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top