WAR: U.S. Military Support For Syrian 'Rebels'...

Just like Reagan.
I hope you are not justifying this by saying two wrongs make it right?

Nope, just pointing it out. I personally would not waste one American life on these people. If Rawanda and the Sudan would have had access to oil fields we would probably would have stopped the Genocide there, but nobody cared. The American Industrial Complex needs to extract some more blood money from the Government. Oil and defense industry profits, that is what this is all this is about. This Humanitarian bullshit is just the catalyst.

Regardless the motivation, I'm sick and tired of supporting people who would as soon as cut my throat as look at me. Humanitarian reasons are just easier to sell to the public.
 
We should not be supplying military weapons and materials to our enemies. Syrians have made it clear they hate the US and all we stand for, let them look elsewhere for arms.

As someone who knows quite a few Syrians who don't hate us at all, I'm curious as to what you are basing these conclusions on.

How about "Syrian Rebels Pledge Loyalty to Al-Qaeda"
and we all know how much Al-Qaeda loves the US.

Most Syrian rebels have no loyalties to Al Qaeda. The Al Nusra Front doesn't represent a majority of Syrians. In fact, even there a large division has erupted between Al Qaeda an Al Nusra when the ISI tried to make a power grab for control of the group and split them.

The rebels aren't all the same. We wouldn't be directly supplying Al Nusra in any operation we engage in. We have them on our list of terrorist organizations.
 
Last edited:
It's for our own good. Back in the old days it was said that by going to war we created more terrorists. I guess that was a good thing because now we need the terrorists help to overthrow Assad.
 

Forum List

Back
Top