E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC's Richard Engel reports on the tense situation in Syria where an American reporter and French photojournalist were recently killed.
U.S. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich lent their support to the idea of arming the Syrian opposition in its fight to topple President Bashar Assad, as a group of more than 70 countries prepared to discuss the crisis.
Romney and Gingrich, speaking in Wednesday night's GOP presidential candidate debate, both advocated helping the rebels to defend themselves.
On Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton heads to Tunisia for a meeting of the Friends of Syria group of countries to look at ways to assist Assad's opponents, which now include hundreds of defected military officers and soldiers.
Assad's tanks move in to Syria rebel stronghold
The Times newspaper in the U.K., which operates behind a paywall, said the group would discuss a plan to set up a humanitarian zone along Syria's border with Turkey to protect protesters and also consider proposals to create aid corridors and send protected medical convoys into Syria to treat the wounded.
Marie Colvin, an American-born war reporter for The Sunday Times newspaper in the U.K. and a French photographer, Remi Ochlik, have been killed in Syria. ITN's Tim Ewart has a clip from one of Colvin's last reports.
The Times said the group's priority was to persuade Assad's regime to agree to a two-hour cease-fire every day in the city of Homs.
On Wednesday, Syrian government forces killed more than 80 people in assaults on villages and an artillery barrage on the restive city of Homs, including two Western journalists, American reporter Marie Colvin and French photographer Remi Ochlik.
Journalist needs urgent medical care
Syrian activists said at least two other Western journalists — French reporter Edith Bouvier of Le Figaro and British photographer Paul Conroy of the Sunday Times — were wounded in Wednesday's shelling.
Amateur video posted online showed Bouvier and Conroy in a makeshift clinic.
NYT: As others isolate Syria, Chavez ships fuel to it
Bouvier had her left leg tied from the thigh down in a cast. A doctor in the video explained that she needed emergency medical care. Conroy appeared in the video and the doctors said he had deep gashes in his left leg.
A statement by Syria's Information Minister Adnan Mahmoud said there was "no information" about Colvin, Ochlik and other foreign journalists in Syria who entered without official permission, the state-run news agency SANA reported.
NBC's Richard Engel answers reader questions about Syria
It warned all foreign journalists to come forward to "regularize their status."
Speaking at a CNN debate in Mesa, Arizona, Romney said the United States needed to team up with allies to help the rebels.
American, French journalists killed in Syria
"We need to work with Saudi Arabia and with Turkey to say, 'You guys provide the kind of weaponry that's needed to help the rebels inside Syria,'" the former Massachusetts governor said.
The Republican seen most likely to face President Barack Obama in November's presidential election, Romney said such support was needed to turn Syria away from Iran at a critical time when Tehran was possibly trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Activists: Scores killed as Syria targets civilians
"If we can turn Syria and Lebanon away from Iran, we finally have the capacity to get Iran to pull back," Romney said. He added that the United States should make it clear that military action would be taken if Iran pursued nuclear weapons.
Gingrich slams Obama
Speaking at the debate, Gingrich said that U.S. allies — which he did not name — were covertly helping destroy the Assad regime, and that there were weapons available in the region to arm the opposition.
"There are plenty of Arab-speaking groups that would be quite happy. There are lots of weapons available in the Middle East," he said, taking a swipe at the Obama administration's policy on Syria.
"This is an administration which, as long as you're America's enemy, you're safe. You know, the only people you've got to worry about is if you're an American ally."
More from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Preparing for the unthinkable (terror) at the London Olympics
- NBC's Richard Engel answers reader questions about Syria
- Former 'Amazing Race' producer found dead in Uganda
- Early-morning attacks across Baghdad kill dozens
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Do they keep up with the news??
It was reported months ago
That Al Qaeda is aligned with the revolutionary forces in Syria
That Al Qaeda has been doing suicide bombing missions in Damascus.
Replicans want to support forces aligned with Al Qaeda to overthrow Syrian government.
Comes a time when one realizes who needs eliminating.
Apparently MSNBC does not or it would have been mentioned -- prominently -- in the story. I guess I just don't understand the difference between Egypt & Libya and Syria and Iran.
This one is easy,Romney and Santorum are wrong.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:
"Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it."
-----------------------
Brigadier General John Johns, former combat arms officer in U.S. Army:
"While rhetoric about military strikes may work as an applause line in Republican debates, there is little or no chance that military action would be quite so simple. Quite the contrary. Defense leaders agree that the military option would likely result in serious unintended consequences.
"America ought not consider another war in the Middle East without a very serious discussion of the consequences. Political candidates should curb their jingoistic, chauvinistic emotions and temper their world view with a little reflective, rational thought."
I think it's premature to take a decision to arm the opposition movement in Syria, because I would challenge anyone to clearly identify for me the opposition movement in Syria at this point,"
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CNN 2/19/12
Common sense for war hawks, IF they had any: Syria is not Lybia.
Wasn't it one of the top rightwing talking points to criticize Obama for helping Libyan rebels because they were all terrorists? How is it any different in Syria? Don't we know even less about Syrian rebels? Hypocrits.
No difference, Shuk. It's just more krap coming from the M.I.C.
We were NOT justified going into Lybia then, and we're NOT justified in getting involved in Syria NOW. NOT legally, NOT morally, and most of all, NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY!
Can these be the same men who are blaming Obama for Iraq and Afghanistan who want us embroiled in yet another conflict. They don't want the US Government to pay for contraceptives but money to buy arms for a revolution against a tyrant, oh that's OK. Could it be that President Obama doesn't want to get us into another quagmire of Moslem misadventure. Take a page from Iraq, Mssrs. We don't have many soldiers there so they have takenup arms and bombs against themselves. It will be no different in Afghanistan when we leave there. In the entire Moslem world we are dealing with a culture born, nourished and kept alive by violence. We must fashion a policy that makes it respect and fear our wrath more than they fear their Imams and Emirs. You can be sure that Moslems respect and fear the might of the United States from our current episode with Iran. Iran talks a good game, much like two fighters preparing for a championship match, the minute the bell rings signaling round one Iran will start dancing and backpedaling from the jabs and uppercuts and haymakers which will surely come before the round is over. Remember Louis and Smelling or Louis and Conn. Had to search for his opponents behind the referee in round two if it got to that point. We've got to portray that image to the world about our citizens, our assets and our interest.
Arming the Syrian rebels is akin to arming Islamic Terrorist. With Assad, love him or hate him, we have a known entity, without his we have various groups of Islamic Terrorist (all of which seek the destruction of America when they are not asking the U.S. for money) seeking power. The U.S. & the Western Allies should have learned lessons in Libya & Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood have become major power brokers.
I trust Barack Obama to handle Syria. He has done a splendid job thus far in his strategic diplomatic and military decision-making.
Obama listens to the opposing views of the best and the brightest and then makes up his mind, completely unlike the cowboy approach of Dubbya that got us into a costly and useless war in Iraq.
As for the Republican nominee wannabees, I wouldn't trust any of them as a school crossing guard, let alone as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military.
Much like the arming of Afghanistan rebels in the 80's - it can come back to bite you with two jetliners crashing into buildings.
How did Saddam Hussein come to power in Iraq?
Partially through the efforts of the United States "arming rebels". It certainly is easy enough to provide weapons to "protect the innocent rebels" who are being slaughtered. But when you're dealing with the Middle East - be prepared to have that weapon turned on you tomorrow.
Keep your God blessed fingers out of the Middle East. We've "helped" there enough. Barrack Obama has this one 100% right. The Republicans will push this issue to their own peril.
There are no words to express the appalling hypocrisy of the GOP candidates. They vilified, (for santorum, crucified), Obama for aiding the Libyan rebels, without putting our troops at risk, a group which had legitimate public support in opposing an admitted terrorist regime. They shut up when the strategy proved to be the perfect response to a very difficult situation. Gaddafi gone. Now these same GOP yahoos try to capitalize on the Syrian rebellion to score political points with the right wing fringe, aka Tea Baggers.
So Obama was a villain for pursuing the prudent and correct path in Libya, with excellent results, and now he's a villain because he hasn't done the same thing, which they decried at the time, in Syria. Syria's leader is a tyrant, but not a terrorist, nor a long time foe of the US. The ex-Libyan leader, a self admitted terrorist who took American lives, was more tyrannical than Assad, and was a sworn enemy of the US. The party who grandiosely call themselves the real Americans, are, in fact, anything but.
Who left the cage door open in the monkey house? How did these GOP wackos ever get to where they are? The mind reels.
If Muslims are so hell bent on getting nukes, let's drop one on them and remind them of what they actually do. Just about everyone is dead who witnessed the last one, let's show the new generation what time it is, and I'm sure we can change their minds in a heartbeat. I'm not scared of a nuclear Iran, we got 1000x more than they would even think of having, plus we also have our religious nutcases that would have no problems going over there and blowing their cities up. Just be upfront with them and say, whatever your people do here to us, we will do tenfold to yours. Mind your lunatics!
No more involvement in middle east affairs, let them solve their own problems and we can spend tax payer dollars solving our own problems in this country.
none of you. Obama bum kissers had a problem with going int.o Libya did ya, sounds like its time for the great one to take another vacation on our dime
What is your point Patriot? The action in Libya was justified and an outstanding military and diplomatic action. I just don't understand you folks that supported Gadhafi. Just because the Bush administration made a deal with the devil, does not mean that you republicans are forced to march blindly in lock-step with the GOP leadership. Think for yourselves. The world is now a better place with Gadhafi gone and a free Libya is now emerging from decades of tyranny. My gosh, I'll never be able figure out the conservative mind.
China and Russia were not a part of the equation in Lybia.
No one is sure WHO the rebels are in Syria - not even the Syrian people who are dying!
I have to ask ... can anybody remember the last time US involvement in another country's conflicts resulted in something good for the US?
I would like to ask any of the detractors, in what Country outside of its borders does Russia or China have a military presence in? I mean a military base or a military airfield or a naval base. Their is a reason why they don't and it is because they are world powers in name only. They both have satellite Countries under their power but they are maintained with military force exclusively. If not by Russia or China by puppet Governments who are dictatorships. The Asian and the European Countries are formed of principally buffer States which were somewhat effective when armies had to travel over land to attack. But we can now reach any Country via missile without an army moving one inch. Buffer States offer no protection any longer. Where are Countries foreign policy has failed it is because we have not exercised our power to reach out a touch those who strike us under cloak of religious or other reasons. We need to make each Country understand that it is and will be held accountable for the acts of its citizens against America. If an Iranian commits an act of terrorism against America , Iran will pay the price with the loss of a sizable portion of its infrastructure. If a Jordianian citizen commits an act of terrorism against America Jordan will pay the price. Who do you think will guard against its citizens for such acts. It is my belief that all Moslem Countries will take a closer look at everyone who wants a passport out of their Country. And none will tolerate training camps on their soil, it would be too costly to allow such activities to go on when they knew that their Country might be deprived of electricty for months or major airports would be destroyed or desaltinization plants be decommissioned. Power without the exercise thereof is viewed as no power at all.
Patriot...first of all, great way to unite the people of this nation with name calling. You are indeed a true patriot. Second of all, your side ridiculed Obama endlessly for Libya...so when it's your guys wanting the same for Syria it's okay? And then you attack the liberals for double standards? You're just as guilty as any liberal for playing the "my side is right, your side is wrong". Patriot my ass...you're just as bad as any kookie liberal or @!$%# conservative...worse because you call yourself a patriot. Start acting like one.
Oh, by the way, look at the charts for vacation days in the past fifty years: Your sainted Republican leaders have taken twice as many vacation days than any of the Democrats have, numbnuts. But, I wouldn't expect a moron like you to actually do your homework. None of you ever do. But keep writing...you're making yourself look BRILLIANT!
N.C. Thornton, you ask:
It just so happens that Russia maintains a naval base in ... you guessed it ... Tartus, Syria. Just one of the reasons Russia is so hell bent on keeping Assad in power.
Oh, other reasons? How about the Russian military involved in training with the Syrian army? Or the fact that Syria is a HUGE customer of Russian made weapons. Like tanks, which just so happen to involved in killing large numbers of civilians at the moment.
It's like the past 10 years never happened. 4,500 good Americans dead and hundreds of good, young Americans in VA hospitals with physical and mental injuries from George W. Bush's unnecessary Iraq adventure not to mention $1 trillion down the hole and the destabilization of a region..we can't afford to do this anymore and we cannot afford another idiot gun slinger Republican president.
I wonder what would happen If Iran or Assad was to say they are planning to air and arm the Wall street protesters in this country, how would Mink/Myth /Mitt/ and gangrene/ Gingrich would feel?. we must do unto others as we would like them to do unto us!. Our Ambassador ford is to be blame for these deaths, he was one of those who was running around in Syria and instigating this sort of unrest in the country, we wouldn't like it if the Syrian ambassador here would have done the same thing aiding the Wall street protesters and telling them to overthrow the Obama administration!.
wasp, good point I can honestly say I have not given the notion much thought. I have on the other hand thought about if ows people brought guns with them like the teabaggers did for a while I'm guessing it would not have turned out too well. Too bad the actions of a few-burning the flag and wrecking public property they lost any support they had from middle America in my opinion.
Their is one major difference in the two equations, we don't have a dictator to overthrow, YET. If we choose we can get rid of Obama in a heartbeat on November 6th,. without one American death except by heart attack or accident. The President has an army under him and a lot of buttons he can push, but not one man in his army will fire on an American citizen in peaceful protest, those buttons are being guarded by Soldiers more resolute than Seals if he chose to aim one M-15 at an American citizen. Syria is and has been a rogue State for more than forty years, it has suppressed its people under a harsh rule and launched wars against its neighbors under cloak of satellite forces which it claims are not theirs. It harbors terrorist factions of all kinds and denies this also. It calls for the complete destruction of a neighbor State. I would ask you who is on the high moral ground in this situation. I would not get into this fray because no matter who wins we will be faced by the same kind of unrest as we are in Iraq since our departure from that sphere. We should have learned from our mistake in Afghanistan when it was engaged with Russia. As soon as Russia left the people we had aided turned upon us with the arms we had supplied. The same is true for Iraq, and it will be the same for present day Afghanistan as it is in Pakistan. We must show the Moslem Islamic community that we will not interfere in their politics, religions or whatever, but at the same time show them that we will brook, unanswered any attack on American citizens, assets or interest.
Ron Paul is the only one that makes any sense at all. We don't have a dog in this fight and we need to stay out of it. Iran will not be deterred from building the bomb by any words or sanctions. Let Israel do what ever they think is best for them. If any dare attack us then we must destroy their means and will to wage war. In the future all wars must be un-conditional with no rules of engagement, except to win. The only reason to go to war is self defense.
ron Paul crazy, please go home and stop typing from a required posted comment. You all sound the same, can't think for you selfs ha/
@Steve How is a logical approach to foreign affairs (stay out unless they attack us first) crazy? To me crazy is insisting we need to get involved in every little spat across the world. Remember how annoying those people in high school were who were always in the middle of some sort of drama? That has become the United State's position in world affairs.
No! Are they idiots? Syria needs to ask for help within their own region. Let's not arm another rebel force for a change -- our history is that this tends to kick us in the teeth down.
Yes, lets disarm American citizens (Hillary's arms treaty) and send arms to those peace lovers in Syria.
What?!?!??#%&%
And what will become of all those weapons when the Syrian regime is overthrown and the rebels set up an Islamist Republic of some kind in the country? Do you think they'll just disappear? Or, more likely, be used at some point in the future against the US and her allies.
madone, you want to know what will happen? All you have to do is look at Afghanistan, when they were fighting the Soviets we armed the Afghans (this was back in the "80's) now look at what's happened.
Sorry guys, Obama is President
We "might" possibly send in a few drones and wipe out Assad's missle launchers, tanks etc, Basically
disarming the evil regime, Then the Syrian people will have a chance to enact whatever change it is
they think they want.
Much the same as Libya, No American lives lost or put into danger, No billions spent arming possible
terrorist who would turn around and attack American interest with those same arms, No perpetuation
of the idiocy the GOP has become famous for worldwide
Yes Bo you are right -- we are sorry since Obama is President. Try putting together thoughts that support your faux image of being intelligent. The Syrian people -- nor any Middle East country -- has the option to enact change when left alone after one regime has been eliminated. I agree with the drone attacks and no boots on the ground. We continue to continue to make the same mistakes over and over again -- we want to fight PC wars and there are no such thing.
We should leave as Ron Paul suggests. But we need to leave with a stern warning of turning their sand into glass if the bother the U.S., any of our allies and/or disrupt international trade or travel. When we return there will be no boots they will see. Only a brilliant flash of light before . . .
It's hell on Republicans when some actual common sense and intelligence rules, When has Syria EVER been a threat to the USA? NEVER,,,,,,,,Why would we "turn their sand into glass" when we can simply facilitate a takeover of the Govt by the people it has oppressed?
Other than doing as I said (which I would fully expect from Obama) Why would we even get involved?
when was Libya a threat to the US, never but i guess when the muslum and chief speaks all the left wing .commys are speechless
Libya was not necessarily a threat, but the action to protect the citizens of Benghazi and Misrata, etc.. was necessary. Allowing for the brutal suppression of these people by Gadhafi would have been horrific. A destabilized Libya on the shores of the Mediterranean could have led to another failed somalia type nation at the foot of Europe. By taking control of the situation, the UN prevented the Gadhafi regime from further continuance of brutality, the continuance of arming numerous insurrections and ethnic revolutionary movements in sub-saharan Africa and prevented the likely hundreds of thousands of Libyan refugees spilling into neighboring nations was also prevented.
The art of geopolitics is understanding the big picture. This an aspect of logic and intelligence which is absent from the conservative mind. Therefore, as evidenced by your words... you can only think in small terms. Alas, the insult to the president based upon his 'mulsum' religion and Libya being a 'threat' to the USA. I couldn't make this stuff up, but I'm grateful that folks like you are posting. Whenever I hear friends fret about Obama, I just guide them to the iconic words by freaks like you - and that puts everything into perspective as to what we are fighting against. This election will be about intelligent and logical human beings vs. knuckle scraping neanderthals. You certainly qualify as a neanderthal, with your racist-jingoistic-ethnocentric and just plain stupid opinions.
Spot on!
I was going to reply, but then I read Anthony's pwnage. Seems like he handled it.
No, it was NOT. And, it made their situation WORSE, b.t.w.
Yeah? So?
There would have been more terrorists DEAD. More the pity we got involved.
Like THAT'S not happening over there NOW?? What rock have you been dwelling under? LOLZ!
It's not possible to really make that assertion, unless of course you have a portal to an alternate dimension in which you can see the outcome.
Well said Anthony Seta.
I see the Military Industrial Complex is alive and well.Whats Ron Pauls take on this.Just wondering!
Ron Paul's usual stance, We should,,,,,,,,Immediately bankrupt ourselves and apply for aid from,,,,,China?
"Speaking at the debate, Gingrich said that U.S. allies — which he did not name — were covertly helping destroy the Assad regime, and that there were weapons available in the region to arm the opposition.
"There are plenty of Arab-speaking groups that would be quite happy. There are lots of weapons available in the Middle East," he said, taking a swipe at the Obama administration's policy on Syria.
"This is an administration which, as long as you're America's enemy, you're safe. You know, the only people you've got to worry about is if you're an American ally."
Please help me understand what the flip he is saying here. I don't speak Newt.
And let's see, Bin Laden was pretty safe as was his number two and a number of others. Who in their right mind listens to these wing nuts?
So long as his tone is negative and he's blaming something on Obama, the content doesn't really matter. His followers will nod their heads in support, even if they have no idea what he is actually talking about.
If Obama ever does find a way to arm the rebels in Syria, Newt will be the first person in line to scream it's the wrong thing to do. It's exactly what he did with Libya. Newt is a porcine, pontificating piece of pusilanimous pustulence.
But he is so humorous.
Newt was all for intervening in Libya until Obama actually did.
Well...well....didn't they condemn Obama for doing this in Lybia?
Given that we are still dealing with the aftershocks of the Carter and Reagan administrations' decisions to arm mujahideen in Afghanistan, it seems Messrs. Gingrich and Romney have no depth of historical knowledge or no concept of current shame or some combination of those two deficiencies. Perhaps each feels that our country needs a common, unifying, but external enemy. How else is there to explain their push to create yet another cauldron of instability out of which a new bin Laden might emerge?
Ice Cube is in all probability on the playlist of neither pretender to the Oval Office, but the caution about being careful in wishing for things that might prove unpleasant would seem to apply.
If it only read: 'Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich ........ arming Syria's rebels.' We would not have to worry about putting our own Military's lives and Our own budgets on the line; the war-hawks would cover everything.
I just do not understand these nit wits. On the one hand you are bashing the President about the debt level but on the other hand you are pushing to have America get into another war which they can not afford in both dollars and human lives.It is disgusting what the Syrian government is doing to it's own people but this is something the Arab League has to solve.If they want assistant re Libya that's ok but other wise stay out of it.After all that money spent in Iraq,lives lost,damage both physically and mentally to young people has it done any good for the people of Iraq?14 bombs in 2 hours..that's the legacy to the people of Iraq.
First comes the millions in free weapons, then we'll send in millions of dollars with of troops and then billions in rebuilding their cesspool of a country followed by billions in foreign aid and military protection for the next 200 years.
Let's butt out for once. Let the Japanese, Germans, Koreans and other manfucturing exporters take the lead.
absolutely agree! keep our arms, money and men and women out of these crap holes and let them do what they do over there, Stay out of their lives. Don't favor either side and let it run its course. If other countries want to go in be my guest. Send some of thoe UNpeace keepers in so that they can observe and run when the shooting starts. Bring all our men and women home- cut off aid to our enemies(spend it here on our own people) This situation will resolve itself one way or another.
Don't worry - If Obama had suggested it before yesterday - they would be opposed to it.
Agreed Jedd -
That is just the way it is. The GOP has no plans on foreign policy at this point. They really don't. This is not the same GOP that was guided in the past by people like Henry Kissinger and James Baker. Their opinions are based upon the news cycle of the day and whatever Obama has done or has not. It's pretty pathetic, and everyone is starting to see this rather childish pattern of behavior.
I'm personally against arming the opposition. We just don't know enough about them to give them weapons - armaments that in all likelihood will be used against each other in future internecine conflicts and perhaps against US interests and/or allies. Just too many unpredictable negative hypotheticals.
I am in favor of humanitarian aid corridors and slow escalation - all in concert with the UN. China is slowly moving toward a softer stance in the crisis. It is slow, but it is movement that is favorable toward the opposition. Russia will be a problematic holdout and their veto in the Security Council will carry the same weight even without Chinese support, but their position will be weakened if China gravitates toward a different position in the crisis.
Time will tell. I support the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people, but I do not want US arms to flow to the nation. In this case, I disagree with the GOP candidates and their conservative allies.
And BOs plan is what? Send our guys in to get killed, spend billions of our resources and for what?- Leave us out of it in all respects. Let the UE handle the issue and aid if they want. We can no longer be the world police force or refuge and aid center.
kelldon -
No defined plan by the administration has been submitted via the UN or congress. You are speculating the worse-case scenarios that in all likelihood will never come to fruition.
The USA has a historic role on the world stage. We are a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Just walking away while the world burns is not an option for this administration or any for that matter - regardless of party in power. If the UN deems action to resolve a humanitarian crisis, that is our duty to rally to that banner. Arms do not need to be inserted by outside powers to fuel the fire, but our assistance with diplomacy and humanitarian efforts are of incalculable value.
Ask bin laden and his dead crew, if President Obama had/has a foreign policy plan on dealing with the problems over there.
Ther t-gopers are so full of it, it is truly starting to feel like we all need to be wearing wading boots.
Better yet, tell us how bloody our troops got and how many trillions our actions in Libya ruined Obamas approach.
The only place the US should have helped insurgents was Iran when Obama first took office and the students and opposition were protesting a rigged election. We possibly could have helped them overthrow the clerics amd we would not have this nuclear standoff. Instead the inexperienced agitator Muslim in the White House looked like a Deer in the Headlights. Don't forget Obama's Father and stepfather were Shia Muslims.
No History - that is just not correct.
There was no insurgency in Iran in 2009. There was no armed insurrection or mass defection of military personnel to the opposition. There was a mass protest by perhaps 30 - 60% of the urban population centers in Tehran and a few other cities.
There was never the possibility of the US assisting the Iranian democratic movement from realizing its goals of winning that election.
I understand your point, but you are literally attempting to re-write history with a narrative that never was or could have been - solely for partisan political gain. You may not be conscious of your behavior, but this is the case. Being a true student of history (you must view yourself as such with that screen name) means reviewing complicated subject matter from numerous angles devoid of partisan and ideological opinions. Your assessment of the crisis in Iran in 2009 does not qualify as an acceptable narrative of actual events.
No offense intended. I am not a conservative and I firmly support Obama. Our differences do not always have to be fought out over cheesy partisan non-truths and spiteful words devoid of any value.
yea, lets just play god and overthrow everyone we don't like. I like the idea of spending money we don't have in the middle east rather than at home on americans
Foreign policy means spending money abroad. I appreciate your perspective in regards to the spending of US currency at home rather than abroad. The world is far more complicated though and your opinion is a non-option. I'm a US citizen as well, and I support the wise expenditure of capital for diplomatic and military purposes on the world stage. You are an isolationist. I'm an internationalist. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Foreign Aid typically is in the form of credits to buy American products . If President Obama halted all foreign aid the republicans would start shouting that he was out to destroy Boeing, Grumman, etc.
If Romnuts and Bingditch think the Syrian opposition ( probably al Qaeda) need arms to over throw Assad, then they along with McLaim, ought to head over there, don Kevlar body armor, and lead the fight.
Just like in days or yore when Kings were the leaders of not only the Court (todays Cabinets & Bureauocracy) but of the military too! Be the best way to see these clowns get their brains blown to bits and be done with their stupidity.....once and for all.
And take that idiot Palin with you. I am sure a suit of Kevlar can be tailored to fit her figure!
NO America military assistance or tax dollars spent on these barbarians. Let 'em kill each other!
Al Queda is aligned with the rebels. Some of our Congressmen want to arm the rebels. What is wrong with this picture. So I guess they want to send weapons to Al Queda. Is my logic correct or am I missing something?
Al Qaeda is not aligned with the opposition. The opposition are dominantly ethnic Sunni muslims with real democratic aspirations and grievances against the Assad regime.
AQ has made attempt to become part of the conflict and narrative (Assad Allwaites are shia - historic enemies of AQ), but it is false to link the ideology of AQ with the opposition movement.
You may be against arming the opposition. That is cool, we are in agreement. But there is no need to spread false words about the opposition with intent to solidify your professed opinion and tarnish legitimate seekers of democracy with the stain of AQ.
Seta, you don't know any more about Al-Qaeda's involvement in Syria then our military or the rest of us. Stop faking.
teascum -
I don't know anything about the involvement of AQ in Syria. I've already admitted that - more or less. I'm only a student of the region and history in general. I'm not an expert.
My point is that the opposition movement in Syria is not aligned with AQ. The opposition in Syria reflects a sectarian/ethnic/religious divide, but they are not fighting to advance extremist AQ philosophy. You can not prove this and I won't stand idly by while scum trash like you make attempt to tarnish legitimate seekers of democracy with the stain of hateful extremism.
Apparently that did not register within the limited confines of your small mind. But it's cute that you want to weigh in with an opinion like a big boy. Got your big boy pants on! sigh....
Before responding to a post, please read the content and make effort to properly comprehend what has been written and the intent of the writer before weighing in. You simply wasted good space on this site with your meaningless trash talk.
So teascum, you are against free speech when you don't like their opinion? You come to a forum for opinions to tell someone else to shut up?
tag -- I didn't say "shut up" I said "stop faking".
Seta -- "Al Qaeda is not aligned with the opposition."
You don't know what Al Qaeda is aligned with. Your comment pretends to know something you have no way of knowing. As for your insults: Ha, Ha. I'm all broken up.
Arm Syrian rebels?.........The U.S. has been for quite some time now.
You have no proof of this. You're just a conspiracy theorists just pining to weigh in on an adult discussion. Next please!
Sure, more business for the arms manufacturers paid for by the American taxpayer. This is none of our business. If NATO wants to do as they did in Libya fine, we'll participate, but it's not our place to take the lead. President Obama showed exactly how our participation should be framed with Libya. Not the way the GOP would do it. They'd rather waste American lives and tax dollars getting bogged down in an endless war like Iraq of Afghanistan. Not Our Fight! Let the whole region kill each other until they're an unpopulated desert. Then let Israel have it all. They need a bigger homeland, especially if they can have it without firing a shot or wasting the lives of one of their own.
Well, hell, I back arming the Syrian rebels too! I just wonder why the Arab League isnt doing it. After all, it's in THEIR back yard, it's THEIR people, so it's for THEM to do! Why should the US get involved??
Tom in NH -
Good point. This was Sec. Gates' point in Libya. He was correct. USA-France-UK and then NATO provided the air support. The UAE and Qatar supplied the Benghazi and Misrata based rebel opposition with small arms, ammunition, battle dress uniforms, helmets and flak jackets and food aid.
If the Syrian opposition is to be armed, then I would prefer the flow of weaponry to emanate from the rich states in the Persian Gulf, rather than use our own resources.
I guess President Obama should have recommended this. They would certainly have been against it then.
Mr Santorum's comment to the effect that Syria is a puppet to Iran shows a complete ignorance of the Middle East. Syria is a secular regime whose Muslim population are largely Sunni. Sunni-ism is at odds with the Shia-ism of Iran. Any alliance between them is based in the US opposition to their governments.
During the history of the Assad rule, Christians, Jews and others have lived with relative peace and security in Syria. The rise of a Muslim Brotherhood-backed opposition and their takeover of the country would only bring harm and destruction to those minority groups and increase the anti-American sentiment in the region. The best policy for the US in the Middle East is to back off, not take sides (with the exception of making clear our alliance with Israel), and leave them to handle their own internal affairs.
Interventionism in the cause of democracy is not a virtue.