World exclusive: Iran will send 4,000 troops to aid Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria

[moonbogg]

This whole thing will fizzle out like the other arab spring scenarios. There isn't enough incentive to fight a world war over that dust bowl...or is there?

 

[colonelciller]

I'm pretty jaded...but not that jaded.

that's not an argument my friend, and being willing to look at things as they are and not as we are told they are has nothing to do with being 'jaded'

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The quote Palin actually did make is almost as stupid. More importantly it wasn't a simple flub like the Obama 56 states thing. She was genuinely trying to make the argument that she had foreign policy experience because Russia was near Alaska.

One requirement of a functional democracy is intelligent opposition to those in power. I don't mean stupid, I mean alternatives because history demonstrates unopposed control leafs to abuse. Unfortunately Palin has come to represent just who and what that really is and it's tragic.

Still in the "since we're all going to Hell" sense, she's about as comic a person to run for high office in some time.

 

[OutHouse]

I am sick to the puke point of neocons telling me what a threat this ME country or that ME country is to America. The real threat to America is neocons lying to us, manipulating us and getting us into one mindless war after another without end. How the fuck Obama let these rabid dogs goad him into this insanity is beyond me.

obama is a war mongering neocon every much as bush was.

 

[Balt]

obama is a war mongering neocon every much as bush was.

Eh, I disagree. In terms of domestic policy, Obama has regrettably been similar to Bush in a lot of ways.

In terms of foreign policy, Obama has been far more cautious than Bush was (incursions into Pakistan and drone strikes notwithstanding). Numerous times people in Congress like McCain and some foreign leaders in Europe have tried to get us to commit a lot more resources to places like Libya (prior to Gaddafi's death) and Syria. For the most part, Obama has resisted that pressure.

Unfortunately, it looks like he's been convinced to give weapons to Syria, which many of us obviously think is a huge mistake. Unless he puts boots on the ground, though, he's still not going to approach Bush's level of war-mongering.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

My focus was on the folks saying we won because both resemble Vietnam where we crushed our enemies yet still pulled out without changing anything. We won WW1, WW2, had a treaty ending conflict in Korea yet other than our Bosnia intervention and the Persian Gulf war where our objectives were clearly met we have not won anything.

Comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan/Iraq is apples and oranges. Plus, we didn't crush our enemies in Vietnam.

Funny that you bring up WW1 as something we "won" as well. WW1 is what got the whole shitstorm rolling in the ME in the first place. Unfortunately many of those same ME countries neglect to recall that they were once on the losing side and that the only reason they have their own countries today, instead of being territories of the US or UK, is because we allowed it to happen. Maybe we shouldn't have been so accommodating?

 

[MiniDoom]

Comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan/Iraq is apples and oranges. Plus, we didn't crush our enemies in Vietnam.

Funny that you bring up WW1 as something we "won" as well. WW1 is what got the whole shitstorm rolling in the ME in the first place. Unfortunately many of those same ME countries neglect to recall that they were once on the losing side and that the only reason they have their own countries today, instead of being territories of the US or UK, is because we allowed it to happen. Maybe we shouldn't have been so accommodating?

Kill ratio was like 10 nva to 1 us in Vietnam. I would consider that a crush. the reason the us lost is due to not having defined goals.

 

[Fern]

I am sick to the puke point of neocons telling me what a threat this ME country or that ME country is to America. The real threat to America is neocons lying to us, manipulating us and getting us into one mindless war after another without end. How the fuck Obama let these rabid dogs goad him into this insanity is beyond me.

I wish you could be persuaded to stop with all this "neocon" business.

There are NO neocons in the Obama administration. This is Obama's call, it cannot reasonably be blamed on neocons.

If neocons are to mentioned I think it should be in the context that Progressives when in power are virtually identical to neocons. Sure, they talk a different 'game' but their actions are eerily similar.

Another oddity is that the TEA Party/libertarians and many liberal Democrats seem to be on the same side of this issue: Stay out of it.

Fern

 

[kage69]

Kill ratio was like 10 nva to 1 us in Vietnam. I would consider that a crush. the reason the us lost is due to not having defined goals.

Na, closer to 20:1 wasn't it?.

There were a few reasons we lost, but you are correct in saying we crushed them (numerically). Too bad mass death doesn't dissuade fierce nationalists willing to endure severe losses. The White House made an already difficult conflict all the more unmanageable though, I think we should all be able to agree on that.

 

[kage69]

Eh, I disagree. In terms of domestic policy, Obama has regrettably been similar to Bush in a lot of ways.

In terms of foreign policy, Obama has been far more cautious than Bush was (incursions into Pakistan and drone strikes notwithstanding). Numerous times people in Congress like McCain and some foreign leaders in Europe have tried to get us to commit a lot more resources to places like Libya (prior to Gaddafi's death) and Syria. For the most part, Obama has resisted that pressure.

Unfortunately, it looks like he's been convinced to give weapons to Syria, which many of us obviously think is a huge mistake. Unless he puts boots on the ground, though, he's still not going to approach Bush's level of war-mongering.

Quite relevant, well said.

 

[MiniDoom]

Na, closer to 20:1 wasn't it?.

There were a few reasons we lost, but you are correct in saying we crushed them (numerically). Too bad mass death doesn't dissuade fierce nationalists willing to endure severe losses. The White House made an already difficult conflict all the more unmanageable though, I think we should all be able to agree on that.

if you're counting civilian deaths. but, whatever. shouldn't have been there, shouldn't be involved in this civil war either.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Kill ratio was like 10 nva to 1 us in Vietnam. I would consider that a crush. the reason the us lost is due to not having defined goals.

Personally I don't look at kill ratio as a valid measure of crushing our enemy. Kills are meaningless if the desired outcome is not achieved. The ratio in Iraq (including civilians) was allegedly somewhere around 300:1. Yet our victory there was sketchy for a long time, and some still won't accept it, like Fisk (and Lemon law, if he's still around).

As far as Vietnam, there are a number of reasons we lost there, but that had to do more with political reasons than military ones, and is probably a discussion for another thread.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Sarah Palin agrees with you

http://news.yahoo.com/sarah-palin-u-...-politics.html

Let Allah sort it. I thought Palin was suppose to be a dummy on foreign policy?

If Sarah palin agrees with you...you really need tot ake a long hard look in the mirror....

 

[santz]

Sound like someone is butt-hurt that Sarah Palin looks more intelligent on Syria than the Democratic savior

if you spew shit out of your ass, every once in a while you are bound to stumble on something that sounds like intelligence

Sarah Palin talk from her v****a

 

[zanejohnson]

if you spew shit out of your ass, every once in a while you are bound to stumble on something that sounds like intelligence

Sarah Palin talk from her v****a

we lost there because of the VIET FUCKING KONG.


it's like a hamburger eating contest against americans.

 

[Doppel]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...islamists-specialreport-idUSBRE95I0BC20130619

Omar built up a brigade of rebel fighters...Then, virtually overnight, they collapsed....wasn't defeated by the government. It was dismantled by a rival band of revolutionaries - hardline Islamists...The Islamists confiscated the brigade's weapons, ammunition and cars

During a 10-day journey through rebel-held territory in Syria, Reuters journalists found that radical Islamist units are sidelining more moderate groups that do not share the Islamists' goal of establishing a supreme religious leadership in the country.

Many pledge allegiance to the notion of a unified Free Syrian Army (FSA). But on the ground there is little evidence to suggest the FSA actually exists as a body at all.

Fuuuuuuuuuuu

The US is already equipping these people, and its allies are on board. WTF?!

 

[bshole]

Um.... can Obama unilaterally even do this himself? Doesn't the legislature control the purse strings? I don't think he can send arms over without the consent of the legislature.

Obama is such a piker. At least Bush pimped up the war in Iraq for months. Obama didn't even bother. His lies are weaker than Bush's were. He wants us to believe that Assad killed 10s of thousands conventionally (which apparently is ok) but he killed 100 with chemicals (which is a monstrous disaster). That is our sole justification for going in! Are you kidding me?!?!?!

It is obvious he has no objectives going in. What will consitute victory?

Who is the puppet master? Who is the pulling the strings? He decision makes no rational sense whatsoever. Why is he doing this? What am I missing?

 

[Agent11]

They obviously either have a severely deluded world view and geopolitical goal in mind or are seeking to (further) destabilize the region.

I say they because it is both sides of the aisle committed to this lunacy. All you can hope to do at this point is call your congressman and senator and tell how disappointed you are with them and ask them to not support any more assistance or escalation.

 

[Genx87]

Quite relevant, well said.

That is just excusing Obamas warmongering. Like when he signed NDAA. He didnt really want to do it but had to "wink wink". I find it hard to believe a president who has embraced using drones and missile attacks on his own citizens is resisting Euro pressure to topple old enemies using their population against them while making it impossible for the regimes to deal with them(no-fly zones). The script was set in Libya. When The Libyian regime was set to win he effectively crushed them using airpower and arming the resistance. When Syria captured a major city a little under 2 weeks ago and appear to be winning? Well now is the time to get involved by trumping up chemical weapon use. Which btw is another thing he took from Bush. A classic page out of the Bush war doctrine handbook.

The difference this time is his warmongering is closer to countries that can help. So his actions are now bringing in Iran and Russia. Nice job Obama, turning a civil war into a potential regional conflict. Something he stated was his concern from the get go.

 

[Fern]

Um.... can Obama unilaterally even do this himself? Doesn't the legislature control the purse strings? I don't think he can send arms over without the consent of the legislature.
-snip-

A good question.

He is the C-I-C so I suppose he has leeway on what to do with existing military armaments. OTOH, we are entering a conflict against a foreign country so I would imagine Congress has some say. I wouldn't think the current AUMF authorizes us to fight, in any way, Syria's govt.

Fern

 

[bshole]

Well Fern, why the hell is Obama doing this? It makes utterly no sense to me. How did we get to the point where a single individual has the power to engage in us madness that is patently against our own country's interests? Why is there bipartisan support for this idiocy when there is overwhelming opposition to it by the American people?

 

[kage69]

That is just excusing Obamas warmongering.

No, that's just you dismissing what sets him apart from Bush. When Obama starts something on the scale of Iraq then you;ll have something. I think it matters a lot that Obama wants to take care of business on the small scale instead of unilateral all-out invasions and occupations. I haven't heard any threats from him either, no ultimatums for other leaders to bounce from their country or the 82nd is bringing their mail. I do recall Obama taking the "tough shit," angle with Pakistan regarding OBL, but I'm not about to fault him for that.

Like when he signed NDAA. He didnt really want to do it but had to "wink wink".

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word on Obama's real motivations and thoughts...

I find it hard to believe a president who has embraced using drones and missile attacks on his own citizens

Guess you missed the whole "last resort" part of the drone issue? How does one embrace a tactic when that tactic is what is used when all other avenues are exhausted? We kill Americans within our own borders without due process all the time, they just have to provide the appropriate threat to other Americans. Whether it's Obama giving the CIA the green light to drone somebody or Cheney having his hit squad snuff someone, in the end it's the same and going to happen regardless of if we like it or not so take some comfort in that at least with this guy there is some special court oversight involved.

is resisting Euro pressure to topple old enemies using their population against them while making it impossible for the regimes to deal with them(no-fly zones). The script was set in Libya. When The Libyian regime was set to win he effectively crushed them using airpower and arming the resistance.

When exactly did Ghaddafi have the rebels on the ropes? Are you referring to Abdel Younis getting assassinated? I like how you frame this like it is was some scheme by Obama, that NATO wasn't involved. He didn't crush anything, the most valuable thing Obama did for the rebels was give them data from round the clock surveillance of Libyan assets. Drones did fire a few times on Libyan targets as I understand it, but engaging wasn't their primary function. I don't see how that is more noteworthy than real air strikes conducted by NATO. Or Britain, France and Italy putting SF on the ground.

When Syria captured a major city a little under 2 weeks ago and appear to be winning? Well now is the time to get involved by trumping up chemical weapon use.

Jury is still out on the chem attacks. It's no yellow cake from Niger, at least not yet - we'll see. I do happen to think the window has closed for Western intervention, and while I do appreciate the shitty choices Obama is left with regarding Syria, that doesn't mean I approve of the ones he's been making lately.

Which btw is another thing he took from Bush. A classic page out of the Bush war doctrine handbook.

I'm going to stifle my laughter for the moment and instead just ask if you could give me some examples of Obama following the Bush Doctrine principles of unilateral action and preemptive attack (Abbottabad doesn't count). Forget that we've been listening and watching Obama and his admin resist the hawks, build a political coalition to stop the fighting, and basically tread cautiously. You know, classic examples.

The difference this time is his warmongering is closer to countries that can help. So his actions are now bringing in Iran and Russia. Nice job Obama, turning a civil war into a potential regional conflict. Something he stated was his concern from the get go.

I wish you had started with that gem, could have saved me posting those other replies. If you really believe that then I think we're done here. Go parrot inconsequencatroll to someone else.

 

[Genx87]

No, that's just you dismissing what sets him apart from Bush. When Obama starts something on the scale of Iraq then you;ll have something. I think it matters a lot that Obama wants to take care of business on the small scale instead of unilateral all-out invasions and occupations. I haven't heard any threats from him either, no ultimatums for other leaders to bounce from their country or the 82nd is bringing their mail. I do recall Obama taking the "tough shit," angle with Pakistan regarding OBL, but I'm not about to fault him for that.

The scale of warmongering is all that sets them apart? Well lets break out the champagne then. I know you so want Obama to be different from Bush. But having to point out the scale of warmongering is the last red herring you can trot out to justify this belief.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word on Obama's real motivations and thoughts...

A sitting president who has prosecuted more whistle blowers than all president combined, gone so far as to kill american citizens without trial, watched as the NSA is spying on american citizens, and embraced drone and missile strikes didnt want to sign the NDAA which expanded his powers? I assume by that response deep down inside you understand the absurdity in arguing he didnt really want to sign it.

Guess you missed the whole "last resort" part of the drone issue? How does one embrace a tactic when that tactic is what is used when all other avenues are exhausted? We kill Americans within our own borders without due process all the time, they just have to provide the appropriate threat to other Americans. Whether it's Obama giving the CIA the green light to drone somebody or Cheney having his hit squad snuff someone, in the end it's the same and going to happen regardless of if we like it or not so take some comfort in that at least with this guy there is some special court oversight involved.

He can claim anything is a last resort. But so what? How does a last resort give him a pass to kill without trial? And no, we havent killed without trial within our borders, yet. But I expect with those hundreds or thousands of drones going up in our skies in the next decade the day will come. Are you prepared to defend Jeb Bush dropping a missle on an American citizen within our borders? I didnt think so.. So cut the bullshit and call that policy what it is, a disgusting abuse of power.

When exactly did Ghaddafi have the rebels on the ropes? Are you referring to Abdel Younis getting assassinated? I like how you frame this like it is was some scheme by Obama, that NATO wasn't involved. He didn't crush anything, the most valuable thing Obama did for the rebels was give them data from round the clock surveillance of Libyan assets. Drones did fire a few times on Libyan targets as I understand it, but engaging wasn't their primary function. I don't see how that is more noteworthy than real air strikes conducted by NATO. Or Britain, France and Italy putting SF on the ground.

How about when they had them pushed back to Benghazi? Who the fuck do you think is NATO anyways? Do you honestly believe the US isnt the major backer\player within NATO? And did you pay attention to the conflict at all? We struck Libyan C&C and denied them the ability to move troops. It was far more than a no-fly zone. And it effectively changed the course of the civil war.

I didnt claim it was a scheme, but a script. In an attempt to point out the similarities between Libya and Syria. When the rebels are doing fine\winning nothing happens. But when it is clear they are starting to lose we play god and get involved and prolong the suffering.

Do you honestly believe we should be supporting these rebels at all? If not, then why are you defending Obama getting us involved?

I'm going to stifle my laughter for the moment and instead just ask if you could give me some examples of Obama following the Bush Doctrine principles of unilateral action and preemptive attack (Abbottabad doesn't count). Forget that we've been listening and watching Obama and his admin resist the hawks, build a political coalition to stop the fighting, and basically tread cautiously. You know, classic examples.

The fuck is this thread about anyways?

The bush doctrine of unilateral action if overblown anyways. There were coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like we are doing in Syria and Libya.

The only resisting Obama has done is waiting for the right time to intervene. They already admitted they were going to help anyways. It was just the timing and getting assets in place to get it done. It is no coincidence that 8 days after the Syrian regime captures al-Qusayr we get Obama announcing we will be intervening with weapons for the rebels under the guise of trumped up WMD claims. Expect no-fly zones next. Which is when the real fireworks starts if Russia holds true to their pledge to resist those fly zones with material help.

 

[Fern]

Well Fern, why the hell is Obama doing this? It makes utterly no sense to me. How did we get to the point where a single individual has the power to engage in us madness that is patently against our own country's interests? Why is there bipartisan support for this idiocy when there is overwhelming opposition to it by the American people?

I have no f'ing idea.

It makes no sense to me either.

Fern

 

[think2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bshole
Well Fern, why the hell is Obama doing this? It makes utterly no sense to me. How did we get to the point where a single individual has the power to engage in us madness that is patently against our own country's interests? Why is there bipartisan support for this idiocy when there is overwhelming opposition to it by the American people?
I have no f'ing idea.

It makes no sense to me either.

Obama is bright and rational, a large amount of discussion and thought took place before the decision was made, the situation is VERY complicated and dangerous for Syrians and for all middle east countries. Why only small arms - some reasons here

It must still be the case that the U.S., U.K., France and league of Arab nations believe the moral right and best chance of democracy is on the rebels side. Russia's reasons for supporting Assad (all strategic) Russian support for Syria

Like North Korea, Syria is a poor almost third world country causing a monumental problem. It's long overdue for Russia, China and the west to act together and they may never do.


<Quote wikipedia>
On 6 March 2013, the Arab League gave its members the "green light" to arm the Syrian rebels.[32] On 26 March 2013, at the Arab league summit in Doha, the League recognised the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people.[33]
Since the summer of 2013, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the main group to finance and arm the rebels.[34] Saudi Arabia has financed a large purchase of infantry weapons, such as Yugoslav-made recoilless guns and the M79 Osa, an anti-tank weapon, from Croatia via shipments shuttled through Jordan.[29] The weapons began reaching rebels in December which allowed rebels' small tactical gains this winter against the army and militias loyal to Assad.[29] This is to counter shipments of weapons from Iran to Assad's forces.[29]
<end quote>