Current news -- no mention of Syria

[highnote]

I scanned all the headlines from Yahoo and Huffington Post and did not see even a single mention of the war in Syria. Although, Huff Po did write two days ago that Angelina Jolie was against the war. :rolleyes:

The most common headlines are about NSA/Snowden, Paula Deen :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , George Zimmer :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , IRS scandal and SCOTUS' VRA vote.

I searched for Syrian news and found that the Telegraph website in the UK has a pretty extensive set of stories.

The National Post of Canada has some interesting stores and this one was particularly interesting: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/24/matt-gurney-u-s-gently-dips-it-little-toe-into-the-syria-quagmire/

US sent 700 troops to Syria for an indefinite period of time. In other words, there is no timetable. US could be involved in Syria for years to come.

The US and Saudi Arabia are supporting the rebels while Russia and Iran are supporting the current regime -- Assad.

These 700 troops are the first that Obama has sent into the two year old Syrian civil war that is threatening to spill into neighboring countries.

This civil war could last for years and the US has pledged to stay to support an Arab government for as long as it takes -- 20 years? The US has been fighting in the middle east since the 1980s, so what's another 20 years. That will be 50 years. This could easily be a 100 year war.

This is also a proxy war between US and Russia. I doubt any of the neighboring countries want this to spill across the borders -- Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.

I suppose part of the strategy could be to keep the wars going in the middle east so that the terrorists are kept busy over there rather than in North America?

Still, I'm left wondering -- what's the more significant news -- Paula Deen or the Syrian Civil war with American troops involved?

[woodtoo]

I guess its OLD news now,no good news move along.:rolleyes:

[Robert Fischer]

the Syrian proxy war is going to have to take a backseat, while I focus in on the Zimmerman trial.

[mostpost]

I scanned all the headlines from Yahoo and Huffington Post and did not see even a single mention of the war in Syria. Although, Huff Po did write two days ago that Angelina Jolie was against the war. :rolleyes:

The most common headlines are about NSA/Snowden, Paula Deen :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , George Zimmer :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , IRS scandal and SCOTUS' VRA vote.

I searched for Syrian news and found that the Telegraph website in the UK has a pretty extensive set of stories.

The National Post of Canada has some interesting stores and this one was particularly interesting: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/24/matt-gurney-u-s-gently-dips-it-little-toe-into-the-syria-quagmire/

US sent 700 troops to Syria for an indefinite period of time. In other words, there is no timetable. US could be involved in Syria for years to come.

The US and Saudi Arabia are supporting the rebels while Russia and Iran are supporting the current regime -- Assad.

These 700 troops are the first that Obama has sent into the two year old Syrian civil war that is threatening to spill into neighboring countries.

This civil war could last for years and the US has pledged to stay to support an Arab government for as long as it takes -- 20 years? The US has been fighting in the middle east since the 1980s, so what's another 20 years. That will be 50 years. This could easily be a 100 year war.

This is also a proxy war between US and Russia. I doubt any of the neighboring countries want this to spill across the borders -- Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.

I suppose part of the strategy could be to keep the wars going in the middle east so that the terrorists are kept busy over there rather than in North America?

Still, I'm left wondering -- what's the more significant news -- Paula Deen or the Syrian Civil war with American troops involved?

What I am wondering is why you can't read. The article does not say the US sent 700 troops to Syria, it says we sent them to Jordan. Jordan is not Syria. The US is training some Syrian rebel forces in the use of certain weapons. None of this training is taking place in Syria, it is taking place in Jordan and (I believe) in Turkey. In both cases with the consent of the governments involved.

I have seen nothing to indicate that US forces will ever enter Syria to fight with the rebels. Although it is possible they would react if Syrian government forces enter Jordan.

[woodtoo]

On a side note Obama is sending 400 troops to Egypt to aid his new pal Morsi.
Just in case the Brotherhood needs a little help with riots or whatever.
Hot Damn,he's gonna bring peace to the middle east come hell or high water.
I expect hell to win.
Source Canada Free Press

[highnote]

the Syrian proxy war is going to have to take a backseat, while I focus in on the Zimmerman trial.


I was talking about the George Zimmer firing, not the George Zimmerman trial. But what the heck... they're both dominating the news and apparently are more important than the Syrian proxy war the U.S. is engaged in.

Maybe one of the things that makes the US so great is the fact that it can be involved in wars in foreign lands, like Syria, with so little consequence at home that many people aren't even aware that the US has troops fighting there?

[highnote]

What I am wondering is why you can't read. The article does not say the US sent 700 troops to Syria, it says we sent them to Jordan. Jordan is not Syria. The US is training some Syrian rebel forces in the use of certain weapons. None of this training is taking place in Syria, it is taking place in Jordan and (I believe) in Turkey. In both cases with the consent of the governments involved.

I have seen nothing to indicate that US forces will ever enter Syria to fight with the rebels. Although it is possible they would react if Syrian government forces enter Jordan.

Thank you for trolling. What a great way to start a "reply post" by criticizing rather than appreciating the fact that a fellow American citizen is concerned about US troops being sent anywhere in the world and the US media virtually ignoring the story -- kind of like I will ignore you in the future. Sheesh. :faint:

[dartman51]

Thank you for trolling. What a great way to start a "reply post" by criticizing rather than appreciating the fact that a fellow American citizen is concerned about US troops being sent anywhere in the world and the US media virtually ignoring the story -- kind of like I will ignore you in the future. Sheesh. :faint:

Your mistake was mentioning Obama, and not in a good light. Mostie, being the Liar in Chief's, Excuse'r in Chief, was obligated to tell you how wrong you are. If you had praised Obama for sending troops anywhere, you would have gotten no response. :ThmbUp:

[michiken]

Per my best Lebanese friend who I have known for 20 years.

"The U.S. is supplying arms the this faction which he describes being the next Al-Quaida. They are radical Muslims from Egypt whose goal is to be the next Taliban".

"Syria is the only country in the Middle East that does not have a peace agreement with Israel. Syria is heavily backed by Iran".

His words, not mine.

[highnote]

Per my best Lebanese friend who I have known for 20 years.

"The U.S. is supplying arms the this faction which he describes being the next Al-Quaida. They are radical Muslims from Egypt whose goal is to be the next Taliban".

"Syria is the only country in the Middle East that does not have a peace agreement with Israel. Syria is heavily backed by Iran".

His words, not mine.


Sounds like your friend is more aware of the situation than most (mostpost? :D ). The current ruling regime run by Bashar al-Assad is backed by Russia and Iran. The rebels are backed by the U.S. and probably Jordan and Turkey. Not sure of Israel's position -- my guess is they are backing the rebels, too.

[mostpost]

Thank you for trolling. What a great way to start a "reply post" by criticizing rather than appreciating the fact that a fellow American citizen is concerned about US troops being sent anywhere in the world and the US media virtually ignoring the story -- kind of like I will ignore you in the future. Sheesh. :faint:
Call it trolling if you want. I call it stating the facts. If you write that the US is sending seven hundred troops to Syria when the story you link to says no such thing, I have to question your reading comprehension skills. If you think the main stream media is not covering the story and a simple google search finds that it is being covered by NBC News; Reuters; McClatchy; CNN; Yahoo (even though you could not find any stories there) Huffington Post (ditto to Yahoo) The Washington Post; MSNBC and Al Jazeera English, then I think your research skills are sadly lacking.

Now, this story is not the lead story on every newscast and why should it be? We are not sending a hundred thousand troops to invade a sovereign nation on a pretext as we did in Iraq. We are sending seven hundred troops to a country-Jordan-which is our ally and which has requested them. Their purpose is to aid the Jordanians in maintaining border security with Syria. In other words, if the Syrians don't come a callin' they have nothing to worry about.

If this is all such a secret, then how did the Canadians find out about it. Through some whistleblower; some "Deep Throat" type source? No, they found out about it because the White House sent a letter to Congress informing them of the action. Some secret plan.

[TJDave]

"Syria is the only country in the Middle East that does not have a peace agreement with Israel.

Jordan and Egypt are the only Middle East countries to have signed a peace treaty with Israel.

[highnote]

I have never used the "ignore" option before. What a great concept!

Being a gambling man, I will take the risk of assuming and I will assume mostpost tried to troll me some more in his latest post by telling me how wrong I am and how right he is.

I'm so happy with my first use of the ignore button that I may just break into song... "One less troll to answer." :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

I have never used the "ignore" option before. What a great concept!

Being a gambling man, I will take the risk of assuming and I will assume mostpost tried to troll me some more in his latest post by telling me how wrong I am and how right he is.

I'm so happy with my first use of the ignore button that I may just break into song... "One less troll to answer." :ThmbUp:

Maybe I am wrong, but it was my impression that if someone has you on "Ignore" and you respond directly to them, you get a message that they have you on "Ignore" and will not see their response. That prevents someone from using the "Ignore" function to keep from answering clever and cogent arguments; which is what you are doing whether you can read this or not.

[mostpost]

I would like to know more about how the "Ignore" button works. In any case, I will continue to respond to posts I disagree with whether or not the poster has me, or claims to have me on ignore. The purpose of my posts is to inform all readers as much as to argue with one.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I would like to know more about how the "Ignore" button works. In any case, I will continue to respond to posts I disagree with whether or not the poster has me, or claims to have me on ignore. The purpose of my posts is to inform all readers as much as to argue with one.

Screw the ignore button. Either someone can read someone's posts or not or reply to them or not. I don't understand the ignore button. People drive me nuts too but I can't imagine having to delete them from existence to not be driven nuts by them. I figure it's probably on my end if I get that stirred and look at it as good therapy to show restraint. I don't want to mess up the original topic, but you're just a stubborn pain in the ass sometimes - blocking you would be like refusing to talk to 99.6% of all humans if that was all it took. :D

[TJDave]

Develop an App that does that and make gazillions.

You'd have to keep it a secret, though. ;)

[woodtoo]

I would like to know more about how the "Ignore" button works. In any case, I will continue to respond to posts I disagree with whether or not the poster has me, or claims to have me on ignore. The purpose of my posts is to inform all readers as much as to argue with one.

Your so full of yourself its impossible to ignore you.:lol:

[burnsy]

On a side note Obama is sending 400 troops to Egypt to aid his new pal Morsi.
Just in case the Brotherhood needs a little help with riots or whatever.
Hot Damn,he's gonna bring peace to the middle east come hell or high water.
I expect hell to win.
Source Canada Free Press

This is why the political threads always make me laugh....Yeah ok, Obama is the only jack ass thats meddled with these people over the years......this has not been going on since the late 1940's at least. Theres oil in them there hills.....
The last guy in Egypt got his ass spanked because they were sick of our puppet, the guy we backed while he ruled like a king for decades......Where else can we stick our nose? Thats what this country was founded on........the freaking Roman Empire! Everybodies been our "business" since world war 2 and now the hens are finally coming home to roost because we can no longer afford this and it pisses people off to the point where they are now after us. Gee, those mean old terrorist attack us because of the way we live, has nothing to do with us trying to control and domination.....:lol: . Its Obamas policy????? Even though this has been the policy for close to 70 years? A brilliant MILITARY man once said: "Beware of the military, industrial complex" Take in all in my boy....you are living it! I wonder why that man siad that??;)

[woodtoo]

This is why the political threads always make me laugh....Yeah ok, Obama is the only jack ass thats meddled with these people over the years......this has not been going on since the late 1940's at least. Theres oil in them there hills.....
The last guy in Egypt got his ass spanked because they were sick of our puppet, the guy we backed while he ruled like a king for decades......Where else can we stick our nose? Thats what this country was founded on........the freaking Roman Empire! Everybodies been our "business" since world war 2 and now the hens are finally coming home to roost because we can no longer afford this and it pisses people off to the point where they are now after us. Gee, those mean old terrorist attack us because of the way we live, has nothing to do with us trying to control and domination.....:lol: . Its Obamas policy????? Even though this has been the policy for close to 70 years? A brilliant MILITARY man once said: "Beware of the military, industrial complex" Take in all in my boy....you are living it! I wonder why that man siad that??;)

Well saiid.:ThmbUp:

[highnote]

So here's the confusing part about the US Gov getting involved is Syria. Obama has made it clear he will back the anti-Assad rebels. These rebels use suicide bombers to achieve their goals -- you know, the kind that have bombed the US, the kind that belong to Al-Qaeda -- the kind that we have been fighting in Afghanistan. So now all of a sudden we're supporting them?

I guess this should not be surprising. We supported them in Afghanistan against the Russians and now we're supporting them in Syria against the Russians.

And I suppose we will support them again the next time Russia invades Afghanistan. And then when they push back the Russians in Afghanistan and bomb the U.S. then the process can start all over again. :rolleyes:

Oh.... and Senator Lindsey Graham says that "you've go to get on the ground" to seize chemical weapons. Sounds like weapons of mass destruction he's talking about.

Well, 100,000 have already died recently from the fighting in Syria by conventional weapons. How bad can the ones of mass destruction be? :faint:

[Tom]

Obama has shot off his big mouth about this must happened and that must happened, and red lines, and what happened is those things did not happen and the lines were crossed, and now he has promised intervention, but has no clue as what that means. He looks like a bumbling fool on the world stage, and it has not gone unnoticed. Obama has done more to increase Russia's "Street-cred" than anyone since Stalin took Berlin. Putin looks like the voice of reason.

[JustRalph]

Well, 100,000 have already died recently from the fighting in Syria by conventional weapons. How bad can the ones of mass destruction be? :faint:

I hope this was a joke.

[highnote]

I hope this was a joke.

Sort of tongue in cheek. If the weapons that are currently being used have killed 100,000, how many will chemical weapons kill? How many have chemical weapons killed? Should the U.S. send ground troops into Syria to search and destroy chemical weapons that may or may not exist? How about letting Turkey or Jordon or Saudi Arabia send in their troops? Or let Israel send in their troops.

China, Japan, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Sweden, etc., all seem to be doing fine without having to send their troops to Syria.

Of course, there will soon hear all the usual arguments of why the U.S. needs to be in Syria. How long has the U.S. been in Afghanistan. Is it any better now that when the Russians were there? Maybe the big mistake the U.S. made was helping Afghanistan beat the Russians? It would probably have been better to give Afghanistan just enough weapons to create a long-term stalemate. Because that is where it is going to end up -- except that it will have cost a lot of U.S. lives to get there.

[JustRalph]

Using chemical weapons is much easier for the army, provides a huge advantage. It also is very hard to defend, especially if they are delivered via air assets.

They also kill in a horrible manner. That's why other countries warn against it. It does cross a metaphorical line.

A 100,000 would be the first week using Chem weapons.

[highnote]

You're probably right. I'm certainly not an expert on chemical weapons.

[fast4522]

Using chemical weapons is much easier for the army, provides a huge advantage. It also is very hard to defend, especially if they are delivered via air assets.

They also kill in a horrible manner. That's why other countries warn against it. It does cross a metaphorical line.

A 100,000 would be the first week using Chem weapons.


Wow, he would be right up there with Adolf Hitler in a few short weeks of TV coverage.
One could only guess the response it would draw fast.

[highnote]

Looks like Putin will arm Assad and Obama will arm the rebels.

Interesting that U.S. and Russia are both giving arms to people who hate the U.S. and Russia.

The old saying is "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

In this case, the enemy of my enemy who is also my enemy.

Another saying is "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Maybe U.S. and Russia are actually working together. They will fund both sides and let them annihilate each other. A week middle east and Al Qaida benefits U.S. and Russia.

[Robert Fischer]

'Will and Kate' had a baby.

Wake me when it's too late.

[highnote]

Miley Cyrus is more interesting than Will and Kate.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I yearn for the day when the royals get caught in some huge scandal and they all get excommunicated to Siberia and I never have to hear about those clowns ever again.