Aid For Syrian Rebels

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Obama is proposing we send $500M to aid Syrian rebels. Why now after all this time? Do you agree with it?

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/blog/2014/06/27/president-obama-proposes-500-million-aid-syrian-rebels

[Weegle777 78]

Sure. We have plenty of money to piss up a rope.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Again the Dems are silent. So predictable in view of so many comments made here and now the find themselves in a hole.

[Weegle777 78]

Heck didn't we give the muslim brotherhood a couple billion? While we are in the giving mood, let's send a billion to Hamas.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Again the Dems are silent. So predictable in view of so many comments made here and now the find themselves in a hole.

Some of us work for a living . You just live to whine all day .

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

TT....but you love my whining don't you? Otherwise you wouldn't read it and have no substantive response.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Again the Dems are silent. So predictable in view of so many comments made here and now the find themselves in a hole.

Some of us work for a living . You just live to whine all day .

Still waiting. LOL!

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Again the Dems are silent. So predictable in view of so many comments made here and now the find themselves in a hole.

I vote for letting Britain, France, Turkey, Qatar, Saudia Arabia and all those other countries that have voiced concern about it take care of the issue first.

Again, I am one of those that has heard the concern that other countries have about us policing the world, and I agree... and with that means these other countries have to start taking the lead and the responsibility. I also stand that way on natural disasters. We have enough issues regarding our own citizens that we do not need to be throwing millions upon millions of dollars at other countries.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Obama is proposing we send $500M to aid Syrian rebels. Why now after all this time? Do you agree with it?

http://www.foxnews.c...d-syrian-rebels

No, I do NOT agree with it.

[Strychnine 1,804]

We may as well skip the rebels and just arm ISIS directly.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

We may as well skip the rebels and just arm ISIS directly.

I am amazed that anyone, who isn't working for a defense contractor, could suggest that sending money and/or weapons into this region is a good idea.

[homersapien 11,812]

We may as well skip the rebels and just arm ISIS directly.

I am amazed that anyone, who isn't working for a defense contractor, could suggest that sending money and/or weapons into this region is a good idea.

I reckon a few hundred thousand troops would suffice. Course we'll need to leave them there indefinitely.

[AUFAN78 4,061]

We may as well skip the rebels and just arm ISIS directly.

I am amazed that anyone, who isn't working for a defense contractor, could suggest that sending money and/or weapons into this region is a good idea.

I can see how this benefits the defense contractor, but how do you two (itch/strychnine) think it benefits the military strategist and consultants that disagree with you? Possibly the same reasons?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

We may as well skip the rebels and just arm ISIS directly.

I am amazed that anyone, who isn't working for a defense contractor, could suggest that sending money and/or weapons into this region is a good idea.

I can see how this benefits the defense contractor, but how do you two (itch/strychnine) think it benefits the military strategist and consultants that disagree with you? Possibly the same reasons?

I'm not sure I completely understand the question but, if you are asking, do I think some of our military leadership is responsive to the needs of the military contractors, I would say yes, some are. Many of them do retire and, go to work for the contractors.

[homersapien 11,812]

We may as well skip the rebels and just arm ISIS directly.

I am amazed that anyone, who isn't working for a defense contractor, could suggest that sending money and/or weapons into this region is a good idea.

I can see how this benefits the defense contractor, but how do you two (itch/strychnine) think it benefits the military strategist and consultants that disagree with you? Possibly the same reasons?

Are these the same strategists and consultants that were proponents of the Iraqi invasion or new ones?

[AUFAN78 4,061]

We may as well skip the rebels and just arm ISIS directly.

I am amazed that anyone, who isn't working for a defense contractor, could suggest that sending money and/or weapons into this region is a good idea.

I can see how this benefits the defense contractor, but how do you two (itch/strychnine) think it benefits the military strategist and consultants that disagree with you? Possibly the same reasons?

Are these the same strategists and consultants that were proponents of the Iraqi invasion or new ones?

Good question. I don't even know them by name, so that would be a difficult conclusion. Given the time lapse, I would guess no.

[Mikey 16,781]

It's a religious war and they've been fighting it since time out of mind. Send $500 million or 500 billion or half a million American troops, it's not going to change one single thing in the long run.

Me, I would not send one soldier, one drone or one dollar. The shift of the desert sands and the shift in the fortunes of that war change over millennia, not decades. Leave it alone!

[AUFAN78 4,061]

It's a religious war and they've been fighting it since time out of mind. Send $500 million or 500 billion or half a million American troops, it's not going to change one single thing in the long run.

Me, I would not send one soldier, one drone or one dollar. The shift of the desert sands and the shift in the fortunes of that war change over millennia, not decades. Leave it alone!

I think most here agree with your sentiment. But now the president is contemplating aide and it appears his change of opinion came after meeting with a group of military strategists and consultants. What is it they see that most here do not?

[VegasEagle 202]

It's a religious war and they've been fighting it since time out of mind. Send $500 million or 500 billion or half a million American troops, it's not going to change one single thing in the long run.

Me, I would not send one soldier, one drone or one dollar. The shift of the desert sands and the shift in the fortunes of that war change over millennia, not decades. Leave it alone!

I agree as of now. I do wish that we would of helped the F.S.A. three years earlier. But, we did not strike when the iron was hot. A big mistake IMO

[homersapien 11,812]

It's a religious war and they've been fighting it since time out of mind. Send $500 million or 500 billion or half a million American troops, it's not going to change one single thing in the long run.

Me, I would not send one soldier, one drone or one dollar. The shift of the desert sands and the shift in the fortunes of that war change over millennia, not decades. Leave it alone!

I think most here agree with your sentiment. But now the president is contemplating aide and it appears his change of opinion came after meeting with a group of military strategists and consultants. What is it they see that most here do not?

Well they sure as hell don't see a solution that will be effected by $500k worth of aid to anyone. Maybe they are trying to protect existing "assets".