BREAKING NEWS - UNITED STATES To Provide 'MILITARY SUPPORT' To Rebels - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;41026249]That's not the issue. The issue is that both sides are lead by genocidal fuckheads. All we're doing is stoking the fire. We aren't helping anyone when no matter who wins, the people lose.[/QUOTE] A big problem is that America did indeed set the line as being chemical weapons. Then they used them. You can't just go back on your word because Assad was trying to call a bluff. This is not good though unless America doesn't take any sides at all and just tries to stop the indiscriminate air strikes from killing nothing but civilians. I just hope this doesn't escalate to boots on the ground. Quite literally at least 150 die every day now, SOMETHING must be done but I'm not sure it should be this

[QUOTE=laserguided;41026301]But do you deny that the rebels also murder their own people, force children into combat and loot and pillage homes? They also destroy churches, shell villages on the basis that Assad's forces are held up there or that the ethnicity of that village is known to support Assad. They also execute prisoners, execute and torture the relatives of Assad's conscripts.[/QUOTE] Yeah but on a fraction of the scale. Its not wholesale murder. unlike with assad.

What a fucking terrible idea. If this honestly gets us in a clusterfuck like Afghanistan, Obama will be just as bad if not worse than Bush. I have lost all faith in this administration.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41026334]Yeah but on a fraction of the scale. Its not wholesale murder. unlike with assad.[/QUOTE] How do you know? Do you have statistics?

fyi the "rebels" are composed of many splinter groups from radical Islamist, secular leftists and young activists each with their own motivations and problems. I will reserve judgment until more specifics come out.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41026350]How do you know? Do you have statistics?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/syria-crisis-un-rights-idUSL6E8JFA3220120815[/url] [quote] Syrian government forces and allied militia have committed war crimes including murder and torture of civilians in what appears to be state-directed policy, U.N. investigators said on Wednesday. Syrian rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad had also committed war crimes, including executions, but on a smaller scale than those by the army and security force[/quote] and pretty much any report into the conflict will say the same thing.

I might be wrong, but didn't America give weapons to Afghanistan and Iraq a decade or two ago??

As long as we don't supply people who are on the UN's black list, I have no problem with this. 100,000 deaths is too much for the US to stand by and do nothing. Not to mention certain national interests are at risk.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41026372][url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/syria-crisis-un-rights-idUSL6E8JFA3220120815[/url] and pretty much any report into the conflict will say the same thing.[/QUOTE] So your entire argument is trying to justify militarism and foreign intervention in a region the US has no justifiable business in by apparently saying its okay to intervene, just as long as you chose the side that murders less than the other side.

I hope the EU doesn't come along kissing USA's ass and send help too.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;41026386]As long as we don't supply people who are on the UN's black list, I have no problem with this. 100,000 deaths is too much for the US to stand by and do nothing. Not to mention certain national interests are at risk.[/QUOTE] The UN has a blacklist of groups to supply arms to? You know fucking nothing. the UN's position is that no country should supply any faction in Syria, but only send humanitarian aid.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41026395]So your entire argument is trying to justify militarism and foreign intervention in a region the US has no justifiable business in by apparently saying its okay to intervene, just as long as you chose the side that murders less than the other side.[/QUOTE] Nice sidetep bruv The international community has an obligation to stop demented regimes from murdering their own civilians wholesale. [editline]14th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;41026406]The UN has a blacklist of groups to supply arms to? You know fucking nothing. the UN's position is that no country should supply any faction in Syria, but only send humanitarian aid.[/QUOTE] I've never seen you argue like this against Russian arms shipments.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41026422]Nice sidetep bruv The international community has an obligation to stop demented regimes from murdering their own civilians wholesale. [editline]14th June 2013[/editline] I've never seen you argue like this against Russian arms shipments.[/QUOTE] "The international community has a obligation to arm rebels in foreign countries".

This sucks; whether or not we intervened this would probably bite us all in the ass. I want to be mad at someone, but I know that there is no good or bad here, just more and more fucking bloodshed. Seriously, fuck all of this tyranny.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41026435]"The international community has a obligation to arm rebels in foreign countries".[/QUOTE] If its the only solution available to try and stop Assad from massacring town after town.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;41026111]God fucking damnit, this is the one fucking thing we elected you to not do. When has this [I]ever[/I] turned out well for [I]anyone[/I] involved?[/QUOTE] I can name like once instance but that wasn't a rebel group, that was a government we funded. Kosovo.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41026406]The UN has a blacklist of groups to supply arms to? You know fucking nothing. the UN's position is that no country should supply any faction in Syria, but only send humanitarian aid.[/QUOTE] UNSC has put some groups under an arms embargo. I'm suggesting it is in the US's best interests to abide by those resolutions. Believe it or not, the UN doesn't dictate foreign policy and ultimately the US does what it wants.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41026457]If its the only solution available to try and stop Assad from massacring town after town.[/QUOTE] Yeah, Islamist regime or prolonged civil war where these brigades turn into regional warlords or more of the inter-rebel faction fighting.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41026471]I can name like once instance but that wasn't a rebel group, that was a government we funded. Kosovo.[/QUOTE] Kosovo is a stagnated pit of corruption, drug trafficking, organized crime and failed politics. It is hardly a shining example of a 'successful state'. Unless of course your definition of that is basically a state that hasn't violently collapsed in on itself.

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;41026046]Yes let us allow the Syrian army to curbstomp the rebels and then kill thousands of innocent men, women and children instead right?[/QUOTE] the rebels have done the same exact thing even going so far as eating the heart of a syrian army commander or some shit. It's pick the lesser of two evils and I don't see either of them being any less than one another.

[QUOTE=Melnek;41026530]Kosovo is a stagnated pit of corruption, drug trafficking, organized crime and failed politics. It is hardly a shining example of a 'successful state'. Unless of course your definition of that is basically a state that hasn't violently collapsed in on itself.[/QUOTE] I'm laughing my ass off seeing this come from Israel. It's also a nation that's only existed for half a decade. Things take time to sort out.

Seems like most of the rebel groups are either hardline Islamist or fringe-group communists. Seems like whoever wins is leading Syria back into the gutter.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;41026561]Seems like most of the rebel groups are either hardline Islamist or fringe-group communists. Seems like whoever wins is leading Syria back into the gutter.[/QUOTE] I'm opposed to intervention mainly because the region doesn't need another fucking Islamic Caliphate shitting all over itself and sending the country back to the dark ages.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;41026561]Seems like most of the rebel groups are either hardline Islamist or fringe-group communists. Seems like whoever wins is leading Syria back into the gutter.[/QUOTE] The Islamists and AQ hijacked the revolution and a big portion of it is now a jihad.

People need to.. chill a bit until the actual "aid" is discussed in full. For all we know it could be medical aid/supplies rather than full on combat. It may just be that the US want to support the rebel cause because it's a country set for disaster if it carries on like this for the next 5 years.

[QUOTE=AK'z;41026579]People need to.. chill a bit until the actual "aid" is discussed in full. For all we know it could be medical aid/supplies rather than full on combat. It may just be that the US want to support the rebel cause because it's a country set for disaster if it carries on like this for the next 5 years.[/QUOTE] This is the US were talking about. When they give aid, they go all out.

[QUOTE=AK'z;41026579]People need to.. chill a bit until the actual "aid" is discussed in full. For all we know it could be medical aid/supplies rather than full on combat. It may just be that the US want to support the rebel cause because it's a country set for disaster if it carries on like this for the next 5 years.[/QUOTE] They've been doing that already, they even supply night vision equipment and body armour.

[QUOTE=The mouse;41025725]Breaking more promises...[/QUOTE] Well he did promise he would act if Syria used chemical weapons.

[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;41026546]the rebels have done the same exact thing even going so far as eating the heart of a syrian army commander or some shit. It's pick the lesser of two evils and I don't see either of them being any less than one another.[/QUOTE] Okay so you found a story of some guy eating a heart. Want me to pull up all the stories of coalition troops raping and murdering people in Iraq? Is your own army evil?

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41026584]This is the US were talking about. When they give aid, they go all out.[/QUOTE] But the chemical weapon usage wasn't "all out". It's not like a sadistic Saddam attack.