Trump ends CIA arms support for anti-Assad Syria rebels - U.S. officials

[LannaGuy]

48 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

You're half right.  The US took the lead in toppling Saddam.  The UK and France took the lead in toppling Gaddafi, and did even worse in the aftermath than the US did in Iraq.

A Rose by any other name... anyway Assad is not going anywhere soon but hopefully elections can take place and the people of SYRIA will decide not the US (or anyone else)

[LannaGuy]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

P.S. The term Yanks is not appreciated by most Americans.  If you do some research, it's used as a derogatory term frequently.  Which is also against forum rules here.

PS what about 'The New York Yankees'?  please take your PC world elsewhere 

Over There-The United States in WWI - YouTube.MKV

Edited July 22, 2017 by LannaGuy

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The blame rests with the leader of the country.  Assad.  He started this mess, didn't manage it properly, and responsibility lies with the leader.  It was in his power to stop the violence, which he didn't. 

 

He could have been more Japanese and just stepped down! LOL  Take responsibility.

 

There doesn't have to be a singular cause for any calamity or crisis. Assad's rule played a role, history and religion did too. Meddling of other countries? Sure. People tend to focus on whatever reason fits best with their views, and discard or minimize others. Importing and imposing foreign concepts of conduct is tempting, but doesn't always apply well to different circumstances.

 

Had Assad simply stepped down, there's no telling how things would have panned out. One could easily imagine a very similar scenario taking place just as well. Perhaps with less chances of sorting things out, as there would have been more factions involved.

 

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

PS what about 'The New York Yankees'?  please take your PC world elsewhere 

Over There-The United States in WWI - YouTube.MKV

I'm not PC.  Just saying the way you used the term was derogatory.  And it was.  It's not appreciated by Americans.  And against forum rules.  You can look that one up.

[LannaGuy]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I'm not PC.  Just saying the way you used the term was derogatory.  And it was.  It's not appreciated by Americans.  And against forum rules.  You can look that one up.

You are seriously saying 'Yanks' is against forum rules? and 'Brits'?  'Aussies'?  seriously???   you are American?  and offended?  or you think you speak for Americans?  cummon do me a favour but just for YOU Craig:

 

Over there, over there,

Send the word, send the word over there,

That the Yanks Americans are coming, the Yanks Americans are coming,

The drums rum-tumming everywhere.

So prepare, say a prayer,

 

apologies to George M. Cohan  'over there'  1917

 

Edited July 22, 2017 by LannaGuy

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

100% understood!  But the blame is not 100% due to the US.  Research where most of the foreign fighters in Syria come from that are fighting for ISIS.  Places Russia has tried to suppress the population.  Yes, you only blame the US.

 

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I'll take it a step further. There's only so far US's (or any other country) foreign policy can be used as a standing excuse. Essentially it is a position which says locals aren't capable of sorting out their own affairs, or that if left to their own designs, all would be well. That's neither a very reasonable take, and possibly lacks moral merit.

Okay, we all know that Washington has been backing the rebels. 

Yes, some of the men fighting for the rebels are people who are not from Syria. But the rebels, they need money and weapons to fight. Without funding/support from outside of Syria, the rebels would collapse far quicker.

So Washington has given money and weapons. Now, yes, Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia have also given a lot of support. Now, in my opinion, Saudi Arabia, near enough, takes it's orders from Washington. As in, it's only because Washington has allowed countries like Saudi Arabia to support whatever rebels, well, that's why Saudi Arabia has done it. If Washington was to tell them to stop, order them to stop, well, they will stop.

But why would Washington order people to stop the support. After all, Washington has/had been supporting the rebels for years. I hope Washington will not just stop support, I hope Washington will order the others to also stop their support.


About Russia's involvement. If all support from outside of Syria never materialised, then what ?  The fight would simply be: Assad against the Syrian rebels, with some non-Syrians also fighting. In that scenario, the civil war would have been over far quicker.  We have to bear in mind, Assad and his father before him, they had controlled Syria for decades. It was not that great during all that time, but at least, we didn't see vast numbers of Syrians fleeing the country.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

You are seriously saying 'Yanks' is against forum rules? and 'Brits'?  'Aussies'?  seriously???   you are American?  and offended?  or you think you speak for Americans?  cummon do me a favour 

Brit is short for British.  Aussie is hardly a derogatory term.  For Brits, it's probably be limey or pom.  For Aussies, probably Abo.  For Americans, Yanks. 

 

Research the meaning of Yank.  Not all appreciate the reference.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity

Yankee and Yank

First applied by the Dutch colonists of New Amsterdam to Connecticuters and other residents of New England, possibly from Dutch Janke ("Johnny") or from Jan Kees ("John Cheese").[83] Uncontracted, "Yankee" remains in use in the American South in reference to Northerners; contracted, "Yank" is employed internationally by speakers of British English in informal reference to all Americans (first recorded 1778.

 

And yes, I'm offended and don't appreciate the reference.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

Okay, we all know that Washington has been backing the rebels. 

Yes, some of the men fighting for the rebels are people who are not from Syria. But the rebels, they need money and weapons to fight. Without funding/support from outside of Syria, the rebels would collapse far quicker.

So Washington has given money and weapons. Now, yes, Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia have also given a lot of support. Now, in my opinion, Saudi Arabia, near enough, takes it's orders from Washington. As in, it's only because Washington has allowed countries like Saudi Arabia to support whatever rebels, well, that's why Saudi Arabia has done it. If Washington was to tell them to stop, order them to stop, well, they will stop.

But why would Washington order people to stop the support. After all, Washington has/had been supporting the rebels for years. I hope Washington will not just stop support, I hope Washington will order the others to also stop their support.


About Russia's involvement. If all support from outside of Syria never materialised, then what ?  The fight would simply be: Assad against the Syrian rebels, with some non-Syrians also fighting. In that scenario, the civil war would have been over far quicker.  We have to bear in mind, Assad and his father before him, they had controlled Syria for decades. It was not that great during all that time, but at least, we didn't see vast numbers of Syrians fleeing the country.

 

Nope. The US supported some of those opposing Assad, by no means all groups involved.

 

And similarly, without propping by Iran and Russia, Assad may have been an anecdote by now.

 

Your simplified take on US-SA relations is not based on anything much. You assume total US control over SA actions, because it fits the narrative pushed, nothing more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

Okay, we all know that Washington has been backing the rebels. 

Yes, some of the men fighting for the rebels are people who are not from Syria. But the rebels, they need money and weapons to fight. Without funding/support from outside of Syria, the rebels would collapse far quicker.

So Washington has given money and weapons. Now, yes, Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia have also given a lot of support. Now, in my opinion, Saudi Arabia, near enough, takes it's orders from Washington. As in, it's only because Washington has allowed countries like Saudi Arabia to support whatever rebels, well, that's why Saudi Arabia has done it. If Washington was to tell them to stop, order them to stop, well, they will stop.

But why would Washington order people to stop the support. After all, Washington has/had been supporting the rebels for years. I hope Washington will not just stop support, I hope Washington will order the others to also stop their support.


About Russia's involvement. If all support from outside of Syria never materialised, then what ?  The fight would simply be: Assad against the Syrian rebels, with some non-Syrians also fighting. In that scenario, the civil war would have been over far quicker.  We have to bear in mind, Assad and his father before him, they had controlled Syria for decades. It was not that great during all that time, but at least, we didn't see vast numbers of Syrians fleeing the country.

Saudi Arabia takes orders from the US?  Wow...you couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

Washington is not stopping support for the rebels.  Just the part by the CIA.  Maybe Washington cal order the others, like Russia, to stop their support also?  You're very one sided. 

 

P.S. vast numbers of Syrians fled the country when Russia started bombing them....lying they were only bombing ISIS....and some fell for that lie. LOL

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, selftaopath said:

Are you saying American ought not assist people being killed by dictators to defend themselves? American ought not assist people who want freedom in their own country ruled by a family of dictators?

 

I guess that's why 45 is sitting idly by letting Russia do their take overs. 

 

WOW.

 

 

I think we need to look at the 'bigger picture'.  Backing the rebels has simply meant that the civil war has dragged on for far longer.

Helping those who want freedom in their country, ruled by a family of dictators ? Assad and his father had controlled Syria for decades prior to the civil war. We didn't see vast numbers of Syrians fleeing the country. Did the people of Syria reckon it was that bad ? The civil war, pro-longed by support from washington and others, this is what caused a mass exit of people. There's also a huge number of Syrians who have left their homes in Syria, but are still in Syria.

Freedom from a dictator ?  The people in Iraq and Libya today, are they much happier now than when Saddam/Gaddafi were in charge ? I'm not sure.

[LannaGuy]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Brit is short for British.  Aussie is hardly a derogatory term.  For Brits, it's probably be limey or pom.  For Aussies, probably Abo.  For Americans, Yanks. 

 

Research the meaning of Yank.  Not all appreciate the reference.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity

Yankee and Yank

First applied by the Dutch colonists of New Amsterdam to Connecticuters and other residents of New England, possibly from Dutch Janke ("Johnny") or from Jan Kees ("John Cheese").[83] Uncontracted, "Yankee" remains in use in the American South in reference to Northerners; contracted, "Yank" is employed internationally by speakers of British English in informal reference to all Americans (first recorded 1778.

 

And yes, I'm offended and don't appreciate the reference.

go tell the New York Yankees my precious 

 

better tell John Schlesinger to change the name of his 1979 film 'Yanks' too

 

it's slang - get over it jeeze - are you American?  you didn't answer

Edited July 22, 2017 by LannaGuy

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I think we need to look at the 'bigger picture'.  Backing the rebels has simply meant that the civil war has dragged on for far longer.

Helping those who want freedom in their country, ruled by a family of dictators ? Assad and his father had controlled Syria for decades prior to the civil war. We didn't see vast numbers of Syrians fleeing the country. Did the people of Syria reckon it was that bad ? The civil war, pro-longed by support from washington and others, this is what caused a mass exit of people. There's also a huge number of Syrians who have left their homes in Syria, but are still in Syria.

Freedom from a dictator ?  The people in Iraq and Libya today, are they much happier now than when Saddam/Gaddafi were in charge ? I'm not sure.

 

Whereas Russia and Iran's backing of Assad did not sustain his rule and prolonged the fighting? You seem to insist on framing things in a one-sided manner. And you would still not acknowledge that both Russia's and Assad's forces actions contributed to the refugee crisis.

 

 

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I think we need to look at the 'bigger picture'.  Backing the rebels has simply meant that the civil war has dragged on for far longer.

Helping those who want freedom in their country, ruled by a family of dictators ? Assad and his father had controlled Syria for decades prior to the civil war. We didn't see vast numbers of Syrians fleeing the country. Did the people of Syria reckon it was that bad ? The civil war, pro-longed by support from washington and others, this is what caused a mass exit of people. There's also a huge number of Syrians who have left their homes in Syria, but are still in Syria.

Freedom from a dictator ?  The people in Iraq and Libya today, are they much happier now than when Saddam/Gaddafi were in charge ? I'm not sure.

Yes, let's look at the bigger picture.  Backing by Russia has simply meant that the civil war has dragged on for far longer.

 

Research why the uprising started.  How his father dealt with one just like it many years ago.  Brutal repression.  Is that what you support?  I sure hope not.

 

You can't compare Syria to Libya.  Kinda like comparing it to Afghanistan.  Completely different circumstances.  Though some don't seem to get that.

[craigt3365]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Whereas Russia and Iran's backing of Assad did not sustain his rule and prolonged the fighting? You seem to insist on framing things in a one-sided manner. And you would still not acknowledge that both Russia's and Assad's forces actions contributed to the refugee crisis.

 

 

Hypocrisy at it's worst.  He only sees one side.  The anti-US side.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

go tell the New York Yankees my precious 

 

better tell John Schlesinger to change the name of his 1979 film 'Yanks' too

 

it's slang - get over it jeeze - are you American?  you didn't answer

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yankees-is-just-as-bad-as-redskins/2013/09/20/927a2c46-2085-11e3-9ad0-96244100e647_story.html?utm_term=.9babcf3c6e76

Quote

Yankees is just as bad as Redskins

 

The term “yankee” was created by the British to mock the American colonists during the Revolutionary War. It was an insult. And the history of its use — unlike Redskins — is not in dispute.

 

As if the term (which I will from here on refer to as the “Y-word”) wasn’t offensive enough based on its use during the Revolution, it was used again, during another war, to insult largely white Northerners.

They've been told.  You're not American, so you are not aware of what's going on there.  I'll cut you some slack for that.

 

P.S. my father was born on an Indian reservation.  So yes, I'm American. 

 

I'm far from precious.  That's a bizarre thing to say. LOL

[LannaGuy]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yankees-is-just-as-bad-as-redskins/2013/09/20/927a2c46-2085-11e3-9ad0-96244100e647_story.html?utm_term=.9babcf3c6e76

They've been told.  You're not American, so you are not aware of what's going on there.  I'll cut you some slack for that.

 

P.S. my father was born on an Indian reservation.  So yes, I'm American. 

 

I'm far from precious.  That's a bizarre thing to say. LOL

Us Brits use it as a fond term... we call Americans Yanks or Yankees and there is no malice in it at all. Aussies call me Pom all the time and I love it - stick and stones etc.  I googled it and it says there is no concrete record of where it came from - maybe General Wolfe?  if what you say is correct then why don;'t they force the New York Yankees to change?  I don't mind redskins either... this is PC gone bananas!  anyway back on topic or we''ll both get moderated  :)    

Edited July 22, 2017 by LannaGuy

[tonbridgebrit]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Whereas Russia and Iran's backing of Assad did not sustain his rule and prolonged the fighting? You seem to insist on framing things in a one-sided manner. And you would still not acknowledge that both Russia's and Assad's forces actions contributed to the refugee crisis.

 

 

Well, with the rebels being backed by Washington and others, then, if Russia and Iran had not of backed Assad, in that case, yes, the rebellion would have worked. Yes, in that case, Assad would not be there today. What about Syria ? What would Syria look like, without Assad ? Syria would look like Iraq or Libya ? Is that ideal ? Do you agree, Washington's view was "and once Assad has gone, we will look at the rebels, see which rebels are against America/Europe, and we'ill bomb those rebels". Do you accept that ?

Yes, with Washington and others backing the rebels, Russia and Iran have prevented Assad's removal. And the present situation ? Washington carries on backing the rebels, the war continues. Or, Washington stops, and tells the others to also stop their support, well, the war will finish.

Edited July 22, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[LannaGuy]

Just now, tonbridgebrit said:

Well, with the rebels being backed by Washington and others, then, if Russia and Iran had not of backed Assad, in that case, yes, the rebellion would have worked. Yes, in that case, Assad would not be there today. What about Syria ? What would Syria look like, without Assad ? Syria would look like Iraq or Libya ? Is that ideal ? Do you agree, Washington's view was "and once assad has gone, we will look at the rebels, see which rebels are against America/Europe, and we'ill bomb those rebels". Do you accept that ?

Yes, with Washington and others backing the rebels, Russia and Iran have prevented Assad's removal. And the present situation ? Washington carries on backing the rebels, the war continues. Or, Washington stops, and tells the others to also stop their support, well, the war will finish.

This is the point i made earlier but you said it better. But USA never 'meddles' right?  only the Russians do that  LOL

[tonbridgebrit]

3 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

This is the point i made earlier but you said it better. But USA never 'meddles' right?  only the Russians do that  LOL

Both Washington and Russia have played massive roles in Syria. But if Washington and the other 'allies'  (Middle East countries) stop their support, and if Russia and Iran also stop, then, Assad would survive.  Assad and his father, they had already controlled Syria for decades prior to the civil war.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Well, with the rebels being backed by Washington and others, then, if Russia and Iran had not of backed Assad, in that case, yes, the rebellion would have worked. Yes, in that case, Assad would not be there today. What about Syria ? What would Syria look like, without Assad ? Syria would look like Iraq or Libya ? Is that ideal ? Do you agree, Washington's view was "and once assad has gone, we will look at the rebels, see which rebels are against America/Europe, and we'ill bomb those rebels". Do you accept that ?

Yes, with Washington and others backing the rebels, Russia and Iran have prevented Assad's removal. And the present situation ? Washington carries on backing the rebels, the war continues. Or, Washington stops, and tells the others to also stop their support, well, the war will finish.

 

You are mixing two different arguments - one with regard to external support prolonging the fighting, and the other with regard to the outcome.

 

As far as the first issue is concerned, your posts demonstrate a one-sided take that cannot be taken seriously. Reads more like a propaganda release. As for the second issue - I don't think that there was a claim made that Assad's removal, by itself will solve all the countries woes.

 

Presenting loaded questions isn't making a case. What your claim to be the US position is your own version - and as previously pointed out, no reason to take it as an accurate representation.

 

The latter bit is just a rehash of the same - a similar demand could have been made of Russia and Iran. You keep ignoring that.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

This is the point i made earlier but you said it better. But USA never 'meddles' right?  only the Russians do that  LOL

Was there a wholesale denial of US meddling on this topic? At most, it was put in perspective and while accounting for other factors.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Both Washington and Russia have played massive roles in Syria. But if Washington and the other 'allies'  (Middle East countries) stop their support, and if Russia and Iran also stop, then, Assad would survive.  Assad and his father, they had already controlled Syria for decades prior to the civil war.

 

You have no idea if Assad's regime would have survived without Iranian and Russian support. Events actually suggest a distinct possibility he wouldn't have made it. Assad the elder had his own issues with uprisings, "controlled" is one way of describing how things were dealt with.

[LomSak27]

Oh and by the way that Cruise missile  strike after your  Nerve Gas attack, courtesy of Putins Russia.  ..... Right we won't get pissy about that any more. Please continue.

 

Always

 

Prez Donald

[craigt3365]

46 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Us Brits use it as a fond term... we call Americans Yanks or Yankees and there is no malice in it at all. Aussies call me Pom all the time and I love it - stick and stones etc.  I googled it and it says there is no concrete record of where it came from - maybe General Wolfe?  if what you say is correct then why don;'t they force the New York Yankees to change?  I don't mind redskins either... this is PC gone bananas!  anyway back on topic or we''ll both get moderated  :)    

I know many Brits.  Many.  None call Americans Yanks.  It's not a fond term, and they know it.  I also don't appreciate Aussies calling Brits Pommies. 

 

Perhaps you've not spent much time in the US.  Take my word for it.  You use that term in a bar in the NE and you'll end up on the floor.  Yes, it's gone too far, but I'm trying to show you it's not a term of endearment.  Seriously.

[craigt3365]

48 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Well, with the rebels being backed by Washington and others, then, if Russia and Iran had not of backed Assad, in that case, yes, the rebellion would have worked. Yes, in that case, Assad would not be there today. What about Syria ? What would Syria look like, without Assad ? Syria would look like Iraq or Libya ? Is that ideal ? Do you agree, Washington's view was "and once Assad has gone, we will look at the rebels, see which rebels are against America/Europe, and we'ill bomb those rebels". Do you accept that ?

Yes, with Washington and others backing the rebels, Russia and Iran have prevented Assad's removal. And the present situation ? Washington carries on backing the rebels, the war continues. Or, Washington stops, and tells the others to also stop their support, well, the war will finish.

You still blame Washington for the mess in Syria.  You need to look at things from both sides of the equation.  But you're dislike for the US won't allow you.  Sad.

[craigt3365]

41 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Both Washington and Russia have played massive roles in Syria. But if Washington and the other 'allies'  (Middle East countries) stop their support, and if Russia and Iran also stop, then, Assad would survive.  Assad and his father, they had already controlled Syria for decades prior to the civil war.

Perfect!  Have Russia, the US, Turkey, Iran, SA, Lebanon, etc, etc, etc...all leave Syria.  Best comment you've made yet.

 

The UN proposed many resolutions to do just this.  All vetoed by Russia.  Yet you blame the US for this.

[craigt3365]

41 minutes ago, Morch said:

Was there a wholesale denial of US meddling on this topic? At most, it was put in perspective and while accounting for other factors.

There's a wholesale denial anybody else is meddling EXCEPT the US. LOL

[tonbridgebrit]

I'm trying to say, that Washington's attitude was "we will back the rebels, we will watch them remove Assad, and once Assad has gone, well, we will look at all the rebels, and we will bomb the ones who are against America and Europe".  Surely, everybody accepts this ?

And yes, what's the problem or danger in having this policy ?  Well, simple. In the event of Assad being removed, yes, Washington will have to bomb guys like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. Al-Nusra Front are the Al-Qaeda branch in Syria. Al-Qaeda are the guys who did 9/11. And bombing these people, well, it might not be easy to bomb them and make them disappear. That's why, it's a better and safer idea to simply watch and hope that Assad removes them. That's why it is, that the CIA supporting the rebels, well, the idea was flawed at the beginning.
 

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I'm trying to say, that Washington's attitude was "we will back the rebels, we will watch them remove Assad, and once Assad has gone, well, we will look at all the rebels, and we will bomb the ones who are against America and Europe".  Surely, everybody accepts this ?

And yes, what's the problem or danger in having this policy ?  Well, simple. In the event of Assad being removed, yes, Washington will have to bomb guys like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. Al-Nusra Front are the Al-Qaeda branch in Syria. Al-Qaeda are the guys who did 9/11. And bombing these people, well, it might not be easy to bomb them and make them disappear. That's why, it's a better and safer idea to simply watch and hope that Assad removes them. That's why it is, that the CIA supporting the rebels, well, the idea was flawed at the beginning.
 

 

What you are trying to do is copy paste talking points, while presenting them as accepted truths. You ignore them being addressed and simply drone on. Once more, your description of US "attitude" is your own. It is neither accepted by everyone, nor supported by much other than you saying so.

 

From "establishing" this faux point you go on to a "conclusion", which is yet another set of talking points. Same old simplistic take on who's who, same constant ignoring of other players stake in Syria. Same old lumping together of all those opposing Assad.

 

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I'm trying to say, that Washington's attitude was "we will back the rebels, we will watch them remove Assad, and once Assad has gone, well, we will look at all the rebels, and we will bomb the ones who are against America and Europe".  Surely, everybody accepts this ?

And yes, what's the problem or danger in having this policy ?  Well, simple. In the event of Assad being removed, yes, Washington will have to bomb guys like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. Al-Nusra Front are the Al-Qaeda branch in Syria. Al-Qaeda are the guys who did 9/11. And bombing these people, well, it might not be easy to bomb them and make them disappear. That's why, it's a better and safer idea to simply watch and hope that Assad removes them. That's why it is, that the CIA supporting the rebels, well, the idea was flawed at the beginning.
 

You're still trying to put the blame on Washington without admitting there are other issues at play.  That line of argument gets old.  You've lost any credibility you ever had.