U.S. Is Said to Plan to Send Weapons to Syrian Rebels

[Christians4LessGvt]

Plane....I am more and more thinking the oligarchy plan is to replace "dangerous regimes"
like Iran, Syria, ect.....with chaos. The thinking being that unorganized kooks in charge are less dangerous than organized enemies like Iran. I firmly believe Syria was only a stepping stone to create "revoloution" in Iran or an attack on an ally-less Iran. One way or the other the end game is Iran. Syria is such a key ally of Iran, that the oligarchy sees Syria as an easier target first, if Syria falls to anti-Iranian Sunni's, then immediately it effects Iran's other ally Hezbollah....in that lots of Hezbollah's arms/support from Iran came thru Assad's Syria. So in effect if the oligarchy can get rid of Assad in Syria...the dominoes start to tumble against Iran.

[Plane]

Nobody volunteers to be flypaper.

[BSB]

"I am more and more thinking the oligarchy plan is to replace "dangerous regimes"
like Iran, Syria, ect.....with chaos."

I would suggest that you stop thinking then. Nothing is more dangerous to the highly organized western societies then a middle eastern state in chaos. Al Qaeda, a non-state actor, thrived on, and in, chaos. 9/11 was the child of chaos. Al Qaeda turned up in Iraq because of the chaos there. Al Qaeda is in Syria because of the chaos there.

CU, and this is not a cheap shot, do some serious reading. Take a course or two. Otherwise you'll just continue making these nonsensical statements, and worse, continue to rob yourself of an understanding about these things that you seem to be so interested in.


BSB 

[Christians4LessGvt]

Nobody volunteers to be flypaper.

LOL...true....but many times they have no choice in the matter.
Look what Obama did to Libya.
Libya was a relatively stable country.
And now it's in chaos.
No way the rebels could have overthrown Khadafi without Nato air bombardment/support/logistics
Khadafi and his regime would have survived....now Libya is in chaos.
Libya in chaos, Egypt is somewhat in chaos, Syria is in chaos
all three were relatively stable....now all in chaos....
and this is all just one big coincidence?

[BSB]

Nobody volunteers to be flypaper.

LOL...true....but many times they have no choice in the matter.
Look what Obama did to Libya.
Libya was a relatively stable country.
And now it's in chaos.
No way the rebels could have overthrown Khadafi without Nato air bombardment/support/logistics
Khadafi and his regime would have survived....now Libya is in chaos.
Libya in chaos, Egypt is somewhat in chaos, Syria is in chaos
all three were relatively stable....now all in chaos....
and this is all just one big coincidence?

Just a little while ago you claimed the middle east was in flames because Bush invaded Iraq and so they all wanted to become democratic also. Now the middle east, according to you, is in flames because it's planned chaos. You were educated in this country? And you're worried about the illegal immigrants bringing this country down? Haha.


BSB

[Christians4LessGvt]

Just a little while ago you claimed the middle east was in flames because Bush
invaded Iraq and so they all wanted to become democratic also.

BSB can you source this statement you claim I made?
But lets say I had said what you claim I did....
What do events in 2003 have to do with events on the ground in 2013 a decade later?
The chess game is not static....events obviously change fairly quickly in the Middle East.
A plan in 2003 is not always going to remain operative or be the same a decade later.
Current events lead me to believe this very well could be "planned chaos".

[BSB]

Just a little while ago you claimed the middle east was in flames because Bush
invaded Iraq and so they all wanted to become democratic also.

BSB can you source this statement you claim I made?
But lets say I had said what you claim I did....
What do events in 2003 have to do with events on the ground in 2013 a decade later?
The chess game is not static....events obviously change fairly quickly in the Middle East.
A plan in 2003 is not always going to remain operative or be the same a decade later.
Current events lead me to believe this very well could be "planned chaos".

Oh you said it all right, you said it when Egypt was going into it's Arab Spring.  The point is it wasn't because Bush invaded Iraq and attempted to create a democracy, and it isn't planned chaos. Try reading a little history then maybe your analysis will be more informed. For example, Europe went through the same thing several hundred years ago.


BSB

[sirs]

Just a little while ago you claimed the middle east was in flames because Bush
invaded Iraq and so they all wanted to become democratic also.

BSB can you source this statement you claim I made?
But lets say I had said what you claim I did....
What do events in 2003 have to do with events on the ground in 2013 a decade later?
The chess game is not static....events obviously change fairly quickly in the Middle East.
A plan in 2003 is not always going to remain operative or be the same a decade later.
Current events lead me to believe this very well could be "planned chaos".

Oh you said it all right, you said it when Egypt was going into it's Arab Spring.

Oh, THAT completely uncredible connecting of non-existent dots??  And you're telling C to go get educated??  Seriously??

[Christians4LessGvt]

Oh you said it all right, you said it when Egypt was going into it's Arab Spring. 

Like others...I am sure I said many things about Egypt.
I've thought from the start that Egypt was "rah rah Mubarack's gone....now what?"
I have pretty much felt all along the people of Egypt & Libya
were better off under their former rulers than the chaos they now find themselves in.
I bet many in those countries...not all....would agree with me on that too.

I have also began to slowly change my mind about Iraq
I have pretty much concluded that we are so poor at fighting our enemies
that we should not have invaded Iraq
thats a completely different reason than why the left opposed the war
Saddam was worth getting rid of
but the Left is so good at painting the US as the bad guys
that it makes conducting war on enemies nearly impossible
we lack the resolve needed to complete noble efforts
in today's political correct world General Patton or General William Tecumseh Sherman
would be constrained....unable to effectively fight the enemy.
it's difficult if not impossible for us handcuffed by political correctness
to fight a ruthless enemy that is unconcerned with political correctness.

[BSB]

Oh you said it all right, you said it when Egypt was going into it's Arab Spring. 

Like others...I am sure I said many things about Egypt.
I've thought from the start that Egypt was "rah rah Mubarack's gone....now what?"
I have pretty much felt all along the people of Egypt & Libya
were better off under their former rulers than the chaos they now find themselves in.
I bet many in those countries...not all....would agree with me on that too.

I have also began to slowly change my mind about Iraq
I have pretty much concluded that we are so poor at fighting our enemies
that we should not have invaded Iraq
thats a completely different reason than why the left opposed the war
Saddam was worth getting rid of
but the Left is so good at painting the US as the bad guys
that it makes conducting war on enemies nearly impossible
we lack the resolve needed to complete noble efforts
in today's political correct world General Patton or General William Tecumseh Sherman
would be constrained....unable to effectively fight the enemy.
it's difficult if not impossible for us handcuffed by political correctness
to fight a ruthless enemy that is unconcerned with political correctness.

It was the right that fought the war in Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Generals they picked, fought the war. The left had nothing to do with it. There were no protests of any significance in the street. No refusals on the part of soldiers to fight.

Face it CU4, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to foreign policy, and/or war. Stick with Christmas greetings.


BSB

[Christians4LessGvt]

It was the right that fought the war in Iraq.

True....but the Left & Lame Stream Media was fighting the war at home...as the 5th Column
Sensationalizing every possible negative during the war....
Attempting to demonize the country's leadership
To really win in Iraq we would have had to go to the sources fueling the insurgency
Syria and Iran
The Leftist America Haters would have gone ballistic had we done so
Just like if General William Tecumseh Sherman lived today
They would have had a cow about his destroy and burn tactics.
The one redeeming factor about the Left's aversion to real war
is they wont have the stomach for it when US states start departing
and the tit-suckers wont have enough workers to tax and pay for all their nanny-ism!
gonna be funny to watch when they are denied productive people to tax

[BSB]

That's ridiculous. Look, put up a serious thoughtful post, CU, or forget about it.


BSB

[sirs]

It was the right that fought the war in Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Generals they picked, fought the war.

And congress, full of Democrats & "the left", all across the spectrum who AUTHORIZED IT.  There were a token few that stuck to the principals or BDS template, or both that didn't vote to support the war.  But to claim that "the left had nothing to do with it" is complete AMBE

The left had nothing to do with it.

See above FACT that dispells that last claim

Face it CU4, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to foreign policy, and/or war.

Oh, the irony

[BT]

The right did ok invading iraq and disposing of saddam. But they didn't have a clue what to do afterwards.

Who originally was supposed to lead up the occupation forces? Just a pop quiz.

Why didn't he?

[Christians4LessGvt]

The right did ok invading iraq and disposing of saddam.
But they didn't have a clue what to do afterwards.

And they greatly under-estimated how Iran and other anti-Democratic forces in the area would throw all their might behind stopping/derailing any attempt to set up a more westernized form of government and democracy in Iraq. Iran could not allow a huge American success in post-Saddam Iraq if they themselves wanted to survive. Iran and others knew if they allowed that to happen smoothly they themselves would be doomed. So Iran/Syria and others were very, very active in creating internal death squads, sunni/shia sectarian violence, fueling an insurgency, and arming people to kill Amercian soldiers.....again because Iran knows if the Iraq Experiment was to come off as a big success....the Iranian Mullahs and their vision would be doomed. Iran/Syria could have been threatened with devastating air strikes if they continued creating problems in Iraq, fueling an insurgency that would kill many American soldiers.....but of course we now practice a political correct type of warfare.....so the Iranians knew they basically had a free hand to do whatever they damn well pleased. Can you imagine if after we had defeated Germany if some country next door like Iran started fueling a massive German Nazi insurgency in 1946 that hindered the rebuilding of Germany for years and started killing American occupying troops. Ha Ha...it would not have been stood for.. the source would have been threatened and destroyed if need be....but today we live in a political correct world where micro world views are catered too and we end up with failures on the battlefield.