Up for Debate: Covert support for Syria

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 at 11:26pm

What is your reaction to reports that President Barack Obama approved covert operations to support Syrian rebels?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

68 Comments on this post:

By: Rasputin72 on 8/2/12 at 5:18

I thought covert was a standard of operation for this country in everything it does.

By: gdiafante on 8/2/12 at 5:21

Well, what do you know...after having everyone watch from the sidelines, someone finally decides to do something...even if that something is vague.

My guess is that if we knew more about who the rebels were or what regime would replace Assad, we'd give more substantial help...like arming the rebels.

By: dargent7 on 8/2/12 at 5:30

The United States seems to never learn. Arming "rebels"? So, who exactly are these guys? The "good" guys?
We're always "arming" someone. It's like we play chess from a remote location, feeding the one money and arms WE want to win.
Vietnam, Panama, Noreiga, Shah, Iran-Contra, Libya.
Then just full blown invasions, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
All of our "causes" are murky at best.
If we're not fighting somebody, somewhere, we'd have nothing to do.

By: gdiafante on 8/2/12 at 5:32

They aren't arming the rebels, darge...not yet. I suppose we should just sit by idly and watch the genocide play out...huh?

By the way, if a genuine human tragedy isn't cause to get involved, what is?

By: yogiman on 8/2/12 at 5:38

I understood Obama would keep us out of war during his regime. But then there's an election coming up in a few months, isn't it?

How many presidents have been defeated when in war?

By: gdiafante on 8/2/12 at 5:44

You must've forgotten about Afghanistan, putz.

And, I didn't realize that offering communications equipment equaled a declaration of war.

By: bfra on 8/2/12 at 5:51

If putz understood anything, his comments might not be as dumb!

By: dargent7 on 8/2/12 at 6:05

Genocide?
Once we get involved, we get sucked in, and we're stuck.
What then is our "Mission Statement"?
We go around, all over the world, and kill "dictators": Hussein, Gadahfi, bin Laden.
If not outright kill, topple their regeime: Shah of Iran, Noreiga.
We never like Kim Jong IL, but luckily he died. We don't like Iran's President.
Romney will have him killed.
It never ends.
And why is it always US? Where's Europe, Asia, Japan, Russia in all these horrific dictatorial mass killings of their precious civilians?
France, Spain, Germany and Italy just sit idlly by, on the sidelines, knowing we'll do something eventually. F*** that senario. Christ. Let Belgium do some heavy lifting for a change.

By: gdiafante on 8/2/12 at 6:11

That's the attitude, Darge. What's a few hundred thousands dead or tortured when we have the chance to teach these other nations a lesson on responsibility...

By: Kosh III on 8/2/12 at 6:23

Washington said to avoid foreign involvement; instead we have built an empire and act as the world cop.

Let's empower the UN to do these sorts of things: that's part of the reason for it's existence.
----------

Vote today! Park Overall for US Senate.

By: dargent7 on 8/2/12 at 6:24

We teach alright. G HW Bush taught Saddam a lesson in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait.
So, we invaded Iraq, Desert Storm (catchy) and killed 150,000 Iraqis in the process , the "Highway of Death", in the "liberating" of Kwuait. (We care SOOOO much about those Kuwaitis).
Then putz #II, Georgie, invades Iraq again in 2003 and killed how many? Rummy siad "the USA doesn't do body counts". Estimates are over 500,000.
The USA is the "Greatest Country on Earth" only to those who live here.
Go to Europe and they laugh at the very notion.

By: yogiman on 8/2/12 at 6:41

Bush was on his 2nd term, gdiafarte, he couldn't be re-elected because of the term limits for that office. Barry's only on his first term. He can re-usurp the office. FDR was elected his first term because of the recession. He was elected for the next 3 because we were in war.

The best bill Harry Truman got passes was to get the President's office limited to two terms. The Senate and House wouldn't buy it to put them on terms, also. It's too easy to get re-elected and they wanted it as a career.

By: gdiafante on 8/2/12 at 6:41

I get it, darge. And, I was involved in Desert Storm so don't go there. Bush showed brilliance by persuading the Israelis to not precipitate WWIII on that one, but blew it by allowing Saddam to go on a rampage against his own people after. But he was limited by a broad coalition (no, not a coalition of broads, yogi).

Now, you'll get no arguments about the 2003 version of Iraq or the handling of Afghanistan. But morally, should a country that has the means to possibly prevent a mass tragedy not act? I don't give a good god damn about what other countries do.

I give you this analogy, if you can help/prevent someone from tragedy as a bystander, do you act or say why don't the other bystanders help, why should I?

By: gdiafante on 8/2/12 at 6:44

Yogi, you complete moron, are we not still in Afghanistan? By your own admission, you should vote for Obama because we're still at war.

Is it possible for yogi to have a negative IQ?

By: dargent7 on 8/2/12 at 6:55

gD: As you know, I respect you , not only for your military service, but your posts.
Forgive me for not enlisting in Vietnam, I, like Obama, was 10 years old.
But, I clearly remember in 1991, driving my Porsche on the I-5 in San Diego, past Miramar, Top Gun then, when there was talk about Bush Sr. going into Iraq. To save Kuwait from Hussein's invasion.
It takes a week to get 3 carriers from San Diego over to Port of Hormuz. (sp?)
Anyway, I also clearly remember Bush's speech, "It's not about the oil, it's naked aggression!".
So, the US goes over, blows Saddam out of the sand, and kills 150,000 Iraqis on "The Highway of Death".
So, let me ask you. Saddam killed, gassed, raped 30,000 Kwaitis and in retaliation for that horrific act, we killed 150,000. Does that make sense?
It's like the Vietnam paradigm...."We had to destroy it in order to save it.." That's how the military "thinks". It's insanity, Einstein, notwithstanding.

By: yogiman on 8/2/12 at 7:27

Sorry, gdiafarte,

I forgot to clarify. I thought you would understand it when I said Bush was on his 2nd term which was his limit.

I simply commented how voting nuts like you vote when we are at war, not me.

By: govskeptic on 8/2/12 at 7:44

It's election time, no time for anything but being the Big Dog with the big bite!

By: Captain Nemo on 8/2/12 at 8:01

I agree with gdia 6:21 and 6:32 post. No who we are arming before we give them guns. Let not make the mistake George W.H. Bush did during the legitimate Iraq war. Let don’t supply another Osama bin Laden and then leave like we did back then.

BTW don’t waste any time on the fool. It thrives on attention.

By: Loner on 8/2/12 at 8:05

Good morning, Nashville.

What is your reaction to reports that President Barack Obama approved covert operations to support Syrian rebels?

1. The Nobel Peace Prize is now a joke.
2. There is nothing "covert" about the announcement.
3. This is an attempt to retain the support of the War Super Lobby: Defense, Israel,
and Energy (DIE).
4. This is going to be expensive, in more ways than one.
5. We are probably not going to be pleased with the results of this risky gamble.

By: Captain Nemo on 8/2/12 at 8:20

Loner which way would you rather have it; Obama using covert action in Syria or Romney muddling it into an all out WAR!

At the moment we have a President that not playing the warrior President.

By: Loner on 8/2/12 at 8:28

Neither, Captain...you have presented a false dichotomy....there are other choices. Of course, determining what those might be is above my pay grade....I'm just a hominid on a mudball....I'm just goin' with the flow....when it come to International Diplomacy, what in the hell do I know?

By: gdiafante on 8/2/12 at 8:41

Darge, I put forth my explanation for the Gulf War. Bush wouldn't have been able to keep the coalition together had he had us go to Baghdad. I too agree that it was a mistake. Not the war itself, but not taking out Saddam then. But I understand the reasons why, I just don't condone it.

I think W's version of the Gulf War was a scam from day one and a national tragedy for us and Iraq.

Yogi, you f'ing idiot, I voted for Kerry. I would have voted for Mickey Mouse (higher IQ than Bush) and it was right in the middle of two wars. Remember, it was the GOP that said you shouldn't change the horse midstream...so if any voters went along with that, it was your side...you incredible douche.

By: yogiman on 8/2/12 at 8:42

Loner,

The Nobel Peace Prize was a joke when it was given to him. But they had already made it a joke by presenting one to Al Gore.

By: BenDover on 8/2/12 at 8:43

O's middle east policy is mind-boggling.

No support for the democratic protesters in Iran. Calls for the overthrow of long-time middle ease ally Assad throwing away a long-time delicate balance of power between Egypt and Israel in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Attacks MoMo without provocation when he's been cooperating with the US on WMD Non-Proliferation and the war on terror for the last 6 years only to turn that country over to -- the Muslim Brotherhood. Then he's timid on Syria while this thing festers for 2 years until public opinion on the humanitarian necessity of involving ourselves is overwhelming. It's finger in the wind over there, it seems... with a serious lack of sympathy for Israel.

He's going to end up inspiring the crazy Muslims to attack Israel and get a lot of innocent people killed again in the process.

By: BenDover on 8/2/12 at 8:45

mea culpa -- shb Mubarak in Egypt.

By: gdiafante on 8/2/12 at 8:53

Wow Ben, you off your meds again?

By: yogiman on 8/2/12 at 9:19

I don't mean to be personal, gdiafarte, but all of you who are supporting Barack Obama are still off your meds.

You need to get back on the right dose.

By: Captain Nemo on 8/2/12 at 9:25

Loner-

That was a generic question. Of the two which do you think would be better at handling the situation in Syria?

gdia-

I would have voted for a rock, over Bush.

By: Captain Nemo on 8/2/12 at 9:30

The first Iraqi war d7, was more legit than the war of opportunity of the second war in Iraq. There is a big difference in the two.

By: brrrrk on 8/2/12 at 9:43

yogiman said

"I understood Obama would keep us out of war during his regime. But then there's an election coming up in a few months, isn't it?

How many presidents have been defeated when in war?"

Faster than a speeding golf cart. More powerful than a Hoveround. Able to leap tall walkers in a single bound. Look! Down the hall. It's a plant?. It's a chair?. It's The Paranoid Geriatric! Yes, it's The Paranoid Geriatric.

By: Captain Nemo on 8/2/12 at 9:51

brrrk-

He is a decaying pile of Bull Yogi. He only post for the attention and will die without it.

By: Loner on 8/2/12 at 9:53

Ben sez: "No support for the democratic protesters in Iran."

Loner sez: You mean the Israeli agents provocateurs? Destabilizing Iran is a dangerous plan.

Ben sez: "(Obama) Calls for the overthrow of long-time middle ease ally Assad (Mubarak) throwing away a long-time delicate balance of power between Egypt and Israel in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood."

Loner sez: The uprising against the undemocratic tyrant was an internal matter, Obama did not instigate or call for the violent overthrow of Mubarak's regime in Libya.

Ben sez: Ben sez: "(Obama) Attacks MoMo (Qadaffi) without provocation when he's been cooperating with the US on WMD Non-Proliferation and the war on terror for the last 6 years only to turn that country over to -- the Muslim Brotherhood."

Loner sez: Again, The uprising against the undemocratic tyrant was an internal matter, Obama did not instigate or "call for" the violent overthrow of Qaddafi's regime in Libya.

Ben sez: " Then he's (Obama) timid on Syria while this thing festers for 2 years until public opinion on the humanitarian necessity of involving ourselves is overwhelming."

Loner sez: Obama was in a no-win situation...if he had called for Assad's demise and sent in the troops, the Republicans would have condemned the effort...now that Obama is publicly supporting the rebels, the Republicans are accusing him of dithering and being "timid".

Ben sez: "It's finger in the wind over there, it seems... with a serious lack of sympathy for Israel."

Loner sez: Bull! The state of Israel has received everything that it has asked for from this president and it is now getting the covert green light for a strike on Iran in the relatively near future...Def. Sec. Panetta is in Israel coordinating the plan right now. How much more fealty to our Israeli masters are the Republicans demanding of the POTUS?

By: Loner on 8/2/12 at 9:57

Typo: S/H/B: "Mubarak's regime in Egypt", not Libya....mea maxima culpa.

By: BenDover on 8/2/12 at 9:58

The 2nd war would not have been necessary if they'd finished the job to start with. And it surely wouldn't have been nearly as messy if we hadn't sparked an insurrection and then abandoned them to be slaughtered by Saddam in Bay of Pigs redux ... suffering 100 times the people killed and 1000 times the veracity.

The reason 2003 - on was such a challenge is because they didn't trust that we'd follow through... and if Obama and his ilk had their way would wouldn't have.

By: Beernazi on 8/2/12 at 9:58

brrrk, that is too funny!

By: BenDover on 8/2/12 at 10:00

Obama did not instigate or call for the violent overthrow of Mubarak's regime in Libya.

Obama did not instigate or "call for" the violent overthrow of Qaddafi's regime in Libya.

Yes he did... he even sent in armed forces to accomplish the overthrow in Libya.

By: Beernazi on 8/2/12 at 10:00

Which means that most of yogi's posts will now be rated PG (Paranoid Geriatric).

By: budlight on 8/2/12 at 10:07

By: Loner on 8/2/12 at 9:05
Good morning, Nashville.
What is your reaction to reports that President Barack Obama approved covert operations to support Syrian rebels?
1. The Nobel Peace Prize is now a joke.
2. There is nothing "covert" about the announcement.
3. This is an attempt to retain the support of the War Super Lobby: Defense, Israel,
and Energy (DIE).
4. This is going to be expensive, in more ways than one.
5. We are probably not going to be pleased with the results of this risky gamble.

The Nobel Peace Prize was a joke the minute it was awarded to "O"; What do you mean by #5? When you say "we" are you speaking of a group of people who include yourself? Why wouldn't you be pleased? If "O" does something, it always pleases those who voted for him.

So can you explain #5? I promise I'll get an interpreter if I don't understand your answer!

Anyway, I just saw an ad for someone to work at the "kiss some chicken lips" on Friday at a certain restaurant. If a million gay men and women go to a restaurant and just kiss, that might be considered loitering, unless they order something first and then pay for it.

By: brrrrk on 8/2/12 at 10:09

Heard a great line this morning....

If it takes you 20 rounds to kill a deer, then remind me not to let you piss in my bathroom.

By: Loner on 8/2/12 at 10:10

Ben Dover: Obama did not instigate these actions...he reluctantly was sucked into those conflicts....your posts, Ben, seem to imply that President Obama planned, instigated and orchestrated the overthrow of a pair of model regional allies of the US...Qaddafi and Mubarak were a pair of despots whose only saving graces are that they coerced into cooperating with the US agenda: Advancing the interests of the Defense, Israel & Energy lobby.

By: Loner on 8/2/12 at 10:12

"were coerced" that is...my typing skills atrophied while at camp.

By: BenDover on 8/2/12 at 10:16

He was calling for Mubarak to step down when the people started protesting.

What would Obama have done if a large rally of his detractors had stormed Washington and demanded he step down?

It was in America's interest to maintain the balance of power in that region not hand the country of Egypt and Libya over to the crazy Muslims.

By: Captain Nemo on 8/2/12 at 10:17

Ben the second war was unnecessary no matter the out come of the first.

By: Captain Nemo on 8/2/12 at 10:17

The cow mooos at 11:07

By: BenDover on 8/2/12 at 10:18

Doing so will likely invite attacks on Israel now that will totally destabilize the region.

By: BenDover on 8/2/12 at 10:19

A bipartisan majority with the support of the Democratic leadership in congress disagreed with you in 2003, Nemo. You're sounding very Monday Morning Quarterbackish there.

By: Loner on 8/2/12 at 10:19

#5. We are probably not going to be pleased with the results of this risky gamble.

Clarification: There is a risk of drawing the Russians and the Chinese into the unfolding regional conflicts....Russia has a naval base in Syria....the Chinese trade with the Syrians and their allies in Iran.....Russia, China, the US and Israel are all nuclear-armed....Israel also has a shield as well as the sword, it's called "Iron Dome"; the missile defense shield is making the Israelis a little more cocky than normal.

Whoever takes control of a post-Assad Syria is not likely to be a huge fan of Zionism or a believer in American Exceptionalism.....we should be careful of what we wish for.

By: Loner on 8/2/12 at 10:27

Israel attacks preemptively, Ben Dover...always has, ever since 1948...If any regional neighbor of the Jewish State attacks the faith-based enclave, it will be in retaliation for an IDF preemptive strike.

Israel cries"WOLF!!!" 24/7....the "Existential Threat" canard is an Israeli propaganda tool that apparently still works on uniformed Americans and for those who simply enjoy watching others go to war.

Holy Wars Suck.

By: Captain Nemo on 8/2/12 at 10:35

Ben, feed the lies the 2003 congress, would make any paranoid people go to war. The German people went off to their madness with the Jews population dangling before their panic eyes. I don’t have to be a Monday Quarterback to know the truth. I know that is your belief because it is the only way to easy you consciences for the wrong that took place during that evil time in our history.

By: Loner on 8/2/12 at 10:39

In case you have not noticed, Ben, the ME has been destabilized since May 15, 1948...it is not about to become destabilized, now that Egypt and Libya are controlled by a new set of Muslim leaders....Mubarak and Qaddafi were Muslims too; apparently, you found them to be sane Muslims, not "crazy Muslims". You thought they were crazy Muslims for years, but now that they are gone, you want to classify them as sane Muslims?

Whatever.

What could be crazier than a US President taking his marching orders from a Jewish theocracy in Palestine?

Nobody beats the Christians when it comes to craziness....except for some awe-struck American Jews migrating to Israel and joining the IDF...now THAT is truly crazy.

Holy wars suck the sense out of the sensible, the reason out of the reasonable. the compassion out of the passionate and the humanity out of human beings.