Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

UK planned to train and equip 100,000 rebels

Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 2:00:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Tens of thousands of people have died and millions more have been displaced in three years of civil war in Syria.................."UK planned to train and equip 100,000 rebels"....... The UK government did not respond to a request for comment.....The US and UK accused the Assad government of being behind the attacks, but Damascus blamed rebel groups.

~Story behind the Scene~

http://www.bbc.com...
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 2:00:16 PM, Dazz wrote:
Tens of thousands of people have died and millions more have been displaced in three years of civil war in Syria.................."UK planned to train and equip 100,000 rebels"....... The UK government did not respond to a request for comment.....The US and UK accused the Assad government of being behind the attacks, but Damascus blamed rebel groups.

~Story behind the Scene~

http://www.bbc.com...

I don't care what anyone says, both sides are just as bad. The best thing to do is one of the allied countries send in ground forces and air strikes where ever there is a threat to Allied national interests and get rid of I.S.I.S. for good.

It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:24:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can you elaborate? The UK publicly stated they would arm and aid rebels a long time a go. The Syrian National Council is an extremely democratic body, and I fully support them.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:26:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM, Haroush wrote:
It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..
How much do you know about the Syrian War? The Free Syria army aren't rebels. They're an army that serves the old congress that the Shiite's shoved out. Why are you against them. Turkey even said that they would be willing to give up Kurdistan if Assad were to be removed from power.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:35:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 4:26:23 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM, Haroush wrote:
It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..
How much do you know about the Syrian War? The Free Syria army aren't rebels. They're an army that serves the old congress that the Shiite's shoved out. Why are you against them. Turkey even said that they would be willing to give up Kurdistan if Assad were to be removed from power.

Trust me, I have a little more favor in Bashar Al Assad's Syrian Army, but at the same time, we need to create a stable democracy over there. The truth is Bashar Al Assad nor I.S.I.S. is the answer at this point as there would continuing power struggle between both sides of the spectrum.

Therefore, my solution would be let the people vote for a new leader who they think would make the government better and go from there. Though if they continue fighting, I would say put pressure on both sides to stop the fighting or else there will be military intervention on our part.

That would be my way of solving it. I would announce to the people in Syria who aren't involved in the war come to an undisclosed area so we could secure those who are innocent before military action starts.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:22:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 4:35:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:26:23 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM, Haroush wrote:
It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..
How much do you know about the Syrian War? The Free Syria army aren't rebels. They're an army that serves the old congress that the Shiite's shoved out. Why are you against them. Turkey even said that they would be willing to give up Kurdistan if Assad were to be removed from power.

Trust me, I have a little more favor in Bashar Al Assad's Syrian Army, but at the same time, we need to create a stable democracy over there. The truth is Bashar Al Assad nor I.S.I.S. is the answer at this point as there would continuing power struggle between both sides of the spectrum.

Therefore, my solution would be let the people vote for a new leader who they think would make the government better and go from there. Though if they continue fighting, I would say put pressure on both sides to stop the fighting or else there will be military intervention on our part.
What? What's your justification.

That would be my way of solving it. I would announce to the people in Syria who aren't involved in the war come to an undisclosed area so we could secure those who are innocent before military action starts.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:34:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:00:16 PM, Dazz wrote:
Tens of thousands of people have died and millions more have been displaced in three years of civil war in Syria.................."UK planned to train and equip 100,000 rebels"....... The UK government did not respond to a request for comment.....The US and UK accused the Assad government of being behind the attacks, but Damascus blamed rebel groups.

~Story behind the Scene~

http://www.bbc.com...

I don't care what anyone says, both sides are just as bad. The best thing to do is one of the allied countries send in ground forces and air strikes where ever there is a threat to Allied national interests and get rid of I.S.I.S. for good.

It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..

Lol, I don't understand how it's possible to sleep at night having just stated that it's okay to kill whoever you want whenever you feel like it as long as a man in uniform does it for you.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:34:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 12:22:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:35:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:26:23 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM, Haroush wrote:
It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..
How much do you know about the Syrian War? The Free Syria army aren't rebels. They're an army that serves the old congress that the Shiite's shoved out. Why are you against them. Turkey even said that they would be willing to give up Kurdistan if Assad were to be removed from power.

Trust me, I have a little more favor in Bashar Al Assad's Syrian Army, but at the same time, we need to create a stable democracy over there. The truth is Bashar Al Assad nor I.S.I.S. is the answer at this point as there would continuing power struggle between both sides of the spectrum.

Therefore, my solution would be let the people vote for a new leader who they think would make the government better and go from there. Though if they continue fighting, I would say put pressure on both sides to stop the fighting or else there will be military intervention on our part.
What? What's your justification.

If there was no military intervention then things would spiral out of control even more. Therefore, drop bombs on both of their weapons caches and obliterate their resources for war, then force them to come to a resolution.

Which would mean present an example of an outline for a new government and have a vote on what government officials they would like to run their government.

It could be a civilian as well. As long as they have the credentials to run for office or have good enough communication skills/ understanding of government functions.

Therefore, my reasoning for doing this would be to maintain economic stability worldwide and protect Allied National interests. As well as preventing further needless casualties in Iraq and Syria.

That would be my way of solving it. I would announce to the people in Syria who aren't involved in the war come to an undisclosed area so we could secure those who are innocent before military action starts.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 7:05:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:34:24 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:00:16 PM, Dazz wrote:
Tens of thousands of people have died and millions more have been displaced in three years of civil war in Syria.................."UK planned to train and equip 100,000 rebels"....... The UK government did not respond to a request for comment.....The US and UK accused the Assad government of being behind the attacks, but Damascus blamed rebel groups.

~Story behind the Scene~

http://www.bbc.com...

I don't care what anyone says, both sides are just as bad. The best thing to do is one of the allied countries send in ground forces and air strikes where ever there is a threat to Allied national interests and get rid of I.S.I.S. for good.

It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..

Lol, I don't understand how it's possible to sleep at night having just stated that it's okay to kill whoever you want whenever you feel like it as long as a man in uniform does it for you.

Yes ask Haroush, I'm also not getting what he wants.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 7:18:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:34:26 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:22:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:35:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:26:23 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM, Haroush wrote:
It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..
How much do you know about the Syrian War? The Free Syria army aren't rebels. They're an army that serves the old congress that the Shiite's shoved out. Why are you against them. Turkey even said that they would be willing to give up Kurdistan if Assad were to be removed from power.

Trust me, I have a little more favor in Bashar Al Assad's Syrian Army, but at the same time, we need to create a stable democracy over there. The truth is Bashar Al Assad nor I.S.I.S. is the answer at this point as there would continuing power struggle between both sides of the spectrum.

Therefore, my solution would be let the people vote for a new leader who they think would make the government better and go from there. Though if they continue fighting, I would say put pressure on both sides to stop the fighting or else there will be military intervention on our part.
What? What's your justification.

If there was no military intervention then things would spiral out of control even more. Therefore, drop bombs on both of their weapons caches and obliterate their resources for war, then force them to come to a resolution.

Which would mean present an example of an outline for a new government and have a vote on what government officials they would like to run their government.

It could be a civilian as well. As long as they have the credentials to run for office or have good enough communication skills/ understanding of government functions.

Therefore, my reasoning for doing this would be to maintain economic stability worldwide and protect Allied National interests. As well as preventing further needless casualties in Iraq and Syria.
Point is; there are many other aspects to be controlled that are essential to maintain stability, but who cares actually, when you're focused to protect Allied National interest only. And that Globalization fantasy to maintain stability "worldwide" seems another way to feed the Ruling dream. It's just another tactic to capture the authority and control without being involved in direct fights. Politics is all about that, it's not about welfare which you call "worldwide-stability", that's the misery.


That would be my way of solving it. I would announce to the people in Syria who aren't involved in the war come to an undisclosed area so we could secure those who are innocent before military action starts.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 8:02:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 7:18:47 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:34:26 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:22:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:35:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:26:23 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM, Haroush wrote:
It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..
How much do you know about the Syrian War? The Free Syria army aren't rebels. They're an army that serves the old congress that the Shiite's shoved out. Why are you against them. Turkey even said that they would be willing to give up Kurdistan if Assad were to be removed from power.

Trust me, I have a little more favor in Bashar Al Assad's Syrian Army, but at the same time, we need to create a stable democracy over there. The truth is Bashar Al Assad nor I.S.I.S. is the answer at this point as there would continuing power struggle between both sides of the spectrum.

Therefore, my solution would be let the people vote for a new leader who they think would make the government better and go from there. Though if they continue fighting, I would say put pressure on both sides to stop the fighting or else there will be military intervention on our part.
What? What's your justification.

If there was no military intervention then things would spiral out of control even more. Therefore, drop bombs on both of their weapons caches and obliterate their resources for war, then force them to come to a resolution.

Which would mean present an example of an outline for a new government and have a vote on what government officials they would like to run their government.

It could be a civilian as well. As long as they have the credentials to run for office or have good enough communication skills/ understanding of government functions.

Therefore, my reasoning for doing this would be to maintain economic stability worldwide and protect Allied National interests. As well as preventing further needless casualties in Iraq and Syria.
Point is; there are many other aspects to be controlled that are essential to maintain stability, but who cares actually, when you're focused to protect Allied National interest only. And that Globalization fantasy to maintain stability "worldwide" seems another way to feed the Ruling dream. It's just another tactic to capture the authority and control without being involved in direct fights. Politics is all about that, it's not about welfare which you call "worldwide-stability", that's the misery.

You don't get it. Once a world economy begins, there is no way of stopping unless you plan on stopping free trade, Financial Aid to different countries, and international Stock Market. I'd like to see you try... Let's stop the world for Dazz. Ha!

The truth is it's you who doesn't understand a smidgen of foreign affairs.
The ironic part is it is someone like you who wouldn't take care of something in foreign affairs, and then allow a national security threat to grow, meeting the American people at their door steps.


That would be my way of solving it. I would announce to the people in Syria who aren't involved in the war come to an undisclosed area so we could secure those who are innocent before military action starts.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 8:18:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 8:02:48 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:18:47 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:34:26 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:22:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:35:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:26:23 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM, Haroush wrote:
It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..
How much do you know about the Syrian War? The Free Syria army aren't rebels. They're an army that serves the old congress that the Shiite's shoved out. Why are you against them. Turkey even said that they would be willing to give up Kurdistan if Assad were to be removed from power.

Trust me, I have a little more favor in Bashar Al Assad's Syrian Army, but at the same time, we need to create a stable democracy over there. The truth is Bashar Al Assad nor I.S.I.S. is the answer at this point as there would continuing power struggle between both sides of the spectrum.

Therefore, my solution would be let the people vote for a new leader who they think would make the government better and go from there. Though if they continue fighting, I would say put pressure on both sides to stop the fighting or else there will be military intervention on our part.
What? What's your justification.

If there was no military intervention then things would spiral out of control even more. Therefore, drop bombs on both of their weapons caches and obliterate their resources for war, then force them to come to a resolution.

Which would mean present an example of an outline for a new government and have a vote on what government officials they would like to run their government.

It could be a civilian as well. As long as they have the credentials to run for office or have good enough communication skills/ understanding of government functions.

Therefore, my reasoning for doing this would be to maintain economic stability worldwide and protect Allied National interests. As well as preventing further needless casualties in Iraq and Syria.
Point is; there are many other aspects to be controlled that are essential to maintain stability, but who cares actually, when you're focused to protect Allied National interest only. And that Globalization fantasy to maintain stability "worldwide" seems another way to feed the Ruling dream. It's just another tactic to capture the authority and control without being involved in direct fights. Politics is all about that, it's not about welfare which you call "worldwide-stability", that's the misery.

You don't get it. Once a world economy begins, there is no way of stopping unless you plan on stopping free trade, Financial Aid to different countries, and international Stock Market. I'd like to see you try... Let's stop the world for Dazz. Ha!
No I'm not attempting to stop that. And also the free trade and fin.aids won't make any difference as that's already happening to your surprise.

The truth is it's you who doesn't understand a smidgen of foreign affairs.
The ironic part is it is someone like you who wouldn't take care of something in foreign affairs, and then allow a national security threat to grow, meeting the American people at their door steps.
I doubt if you're an American, but once you talk about Allies and economic stability worldwide, it's hard to refer it back to America. What you wanna attain actually, Worldwide Economic Sustainability" or American people at door-steps?


That would be my way of solving it. I would announce to the people in Syria who aren't involved in the war come to an undisclosed area so we could secure those who are innocent before military action starts.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 8:20:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 8:18:29 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/7/2014 8:02:48 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:18:47 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:34:26 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:22:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:35:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:26:23 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM, Haroush wrote:
It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..
How much do you know about the Syrian War? The Free Syria army aren't rebels. They're an army that serves the old congress that the Shiite's shoved out. Why are you against them. Turkey even said that they would be willing to give up Kurdistan if Assad were to be removed from power.

Trust me, I have a little more favor in Bashar Al Assad's Syrian Army, but at the same time, we need to create a stable democracy over there. The truth is Bashar Al Assad nor I.S.I.S. is the answer at this point as there would continuing power struggle between both sides of the spectrum.

Therefore, my solution would be let the people vote for a new leader who they think would make the government better and go from there. Though if they continue fighting, I would say put pressure on both sides to stop the fighting or else there will be military intervention on our part.
What? What's your justification.

If there was no military intervention then things would spiral out of control even more. Therefore, drop bombs on both of their weapons caches and obliterate their resources for war, then force them to come to a resolution.

Which would mean present an example of an outline for a new government and have a vote on what government officials they would like to run their government.

It could be a civilian as well. As long as they have the credentials to run for office or have good enough communication skills/ understanding of government functions.

Therefore, my reasoning for doing this would be to maintain economic stability worldwide and protect Allied National interests. As well as preventing further needless casualties in Iraq and Syria.
Point is; there are many other aspects to be controlled that are essential to maintain stability, but who cares actually, when you're focused to protect Allied National interest only. And that Globalization fantasy to maintain stability "worldwide" seems another way to feed the Ruling dream. It's just another tactic to capture the authority and control without being involved in direct fights. Politics is all about that, it's not about welfare which you call "worldwide-stability", that's the misery.

You don't get it. Once a world economy begins, there is no way of stopping unless you plan on stopping free trade, Financial Aid to different countries, and international Stock Market. I'd like to see you try... Let's stop the world for Dazz. Ha!
No I'm not attempting to stop that. And also the free trade and fin.aids won't make any difference as that's already happening to your surprise.

The truth is it's you who doesn't understand a smidgen of foreign affairs.
The ironic part is it is someone like you who wouldn't take care of something in foreign affairs, and then allow a national security threat to grow, meeting the American people at their door steps.
I doubt if you're an American, but once you talk about Allies and economic stability worldwide, it's hard to refer it back to America. What you wanna attain actually, Worldwide Economic Sustainability" or American people at door-steps?


That would be my way of solving it. I would announce to the people in Syria who aren't involved in the war come to an undisclosed area so we could secure those who are innocent before military action starts.

-,-
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 8:29:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 8:20:44 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/7/2014 8:18:29 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/7/2014 8:02:48 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/7/2014 7:18:47 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:34:26 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:22:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:35:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 7/4/2014 4:26:23 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:49:21 PM, Haroush wrote:
It's ironic Pat Buchanan said there eventually would be a caliphate in Iraq and Syria..
How much do you know about the Syrian War? The Free Syria army aren't rebels. They're an army that serves the old congress that the Shiite's shoved out. Why are you against them. Turkey even said that they would be willing to give up Kurdistan if Assad were to be removed from power.

Trust me, I have a little more favor in Bashar Al Assad's Syrian Army, but at the same time, we need to create a stable democracy over there. The truth is Bashar Al Assad nor I.S.I.S. is the answer at this point as there would continuing power struggle between both sides of the spectrum.

Therefore, my solution would be let the people vote for a new leader who they think would make the government better and go from there. Though if they continue fighting, I would say put pressure on both sides to stop the fighting or else there will be military intervention on our part.
What? What's your justification.

If there was no military intervention then things would spiral out of control even more. Therefore, drop bombs on both of their weapons caches and obliterate their resources for war, then force them to come to a resolution.

Which would mean present an example of an outline for a new government and have a vote on what government officials they would like to run their government.

It could be a civilian as well. As long as they have the credentials to run for office or have good enough communication skills/ understanding of government functions.

Therefore, my reasoning for doing this would be to maintain economic stability worldwide and protect Allied National interests. As well as preventing further needless casualties in Iraq and Syria.
Point is; there are many other aspects to be controlled that are essential to maintain stability, but who cares actually, when you're focused to protect Allied National interest only. And that Globalization fantasy to maintain stability "worldwide" seems another way to feed the Ruling dream. It's just another tactic to capture the authority and control without being involved in direct fights. Politics is all about that, it's not about welfare which you call "worldwide-stability", that's the misery.

You don't get it. Once a world economy begins, there is no way of stopping unless you plan on stopping free trade, Financial Aid to different countries, and international Stock Market. I'd like to see you try... Let's stop the world for Dazz. Ha!
No I'm not attempting to stop that. And also the free trade and fin.aids won't make any difference as that's already happening to your surprise.

The truth is it's you who doesn't understand a smidgen of foreign affairs.
The ironic part is it is someone like you who wouldn't take care of something in foreign affairs, and then allow a national security threat to grow, meeting the American people at their door steps.
I doubt if you're an American, but once you talk about Allies and economic stability worldwide, it's hard to refer it back to America. What you wanna attain actually, Worldwide Economic Sustainability" or American people at door-steps?


That would be my way of solving it. I would announce to the people in Syria who aren't involved in the war come to an undisclosed area so we could secure those who are innocent before military action starts.

-,-
What does it mean? Have you lost your words.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~