What are we providing them? Article says vehicles, light arms, and munitions that can be tracked. Article states they requested body armor and night-vision, but will NOT receive those items.

Probably  vehicles, light arms, and munitions that can be tracked. Probably not body armor and night vision though.

Yeah, well, no boots on the ground at least.

I am not even suprised

I thought we already were sending the fucks body armor and night vision

So we're not sending footwear?

Zero's administration has an excellent record on tracking weapons sent to other countries - what could go wrong?

Odds Russia will fire on our shipping vessel?

Article said they are being delivered from secret bases in Turkey, maybe other areas as well. Guessing the stuff is already in place.

Kind of disgusting that we are delivering weapons to AQ affiliated combatants on the 12th anniversary of 9-11.

A butt load was provided in Benghazi.

I see what you did there and I lolled.

I believe we should be providing them with body armor and hard plates. Of course in my alternate world, the hard plates would be really made of .22 sensitive tannerite.

That is disgusting... What possible logical explanation they provide for supplying weapons to terrorists?

So no boots either in the shipment. Very interdasting....


Doh! late again.

What possible explanation did they have for arming Mexican cartels?

This really should raise a whole lot of questions..I'd like to hear some theories. Remember...our gov't never lies to us.

We've come full circle, haven't we?    



 

"CIA operatives and U.S. special operations troops have been secretly training Syrian rebels with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons since late last year...in Jordan and Turkey."

Arms shipments given to rebels include "anti-tank missiles, 14.5-millimeter guns mounted on pickup trucks,  82-millimeter recoilless rifles. The weapons are all Soviet or Russian models but manufactured in other countries."

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has told Congress that the U.S. military would be prepared to do more training for the Syria opposition.  

Estimated cost of about $500 million a year for the training, with no mention of any "exit" plan.

Some examples of more details...
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/201362263237733778.html
http://www.mail.com/news/politics/2314600-us-officials-us-considers-training-syria-rebels.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-cia-syria-20130621,0,6346686.story

Though  I think arming them at all is a bad idea, sending them Russian stuff is not the right way to do it. If we're really committed to sending them anything, it should be weapons that we can control. Example:  small arms  chambered in wildcat cartridges. That makes them dependent on the US for ammo, and we can then cut off their supply if needed. They won't be looting  too many cases of .257 Scramjet from  Assad's armories.
 

didn't we learn out lesson aiding the taliban 30 years ago? history really does repeat itself...

Lots of bitter irony in that.  Why didn't they help the rebels when the momentum was there and there was much less Al Qaida to worry about?  Obama is retarded.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Came here to post this...and FBHO

Hopefully, lobama is providing this to the least objectionable of the objectionable people.

But, I would not be surprised if the exact opposite were true.

 

It's because Obama literally does not have a foreign policy. I'm not saying that jokingly either; he  makes it up as he goes.





Obama ran for office in 2008  claiming to be a post-partisan president. In his fear of appearing partisan when it comes to foreign policy, he opted to just not have one and deal with each situation  as it came along. The idea is that it is better to treat every situation on its own rather than try to force it into a predetermined policy to come up with a solution.  In reality, it means that he will be wildly inconsistent and too slow to act.





Some examples of both





Retroactive  support for the revolutionaries in Tunisia





Retroactive  support for revolutionaries in Egypt





Clear opposition to authoritarianism in Libya





Clear support for authoritarianism in Bahrain





Late arming of Syrian rebels and calling for Assad to step  down





Threatening US strikes in Syria, but saying that regime change is not the US goal (which makes no sense considering the above)
The bottom line is that he can never react fast enough to a changing situation because there is no policy in place to work off of. As you say, if the US was ever going to get involved, it should have been at the outset before the influx of foreign Al Qaeda, Chechen, and other fighters arrived and co-opted the uprising. Back then, it may have been more possible to get enough normal Syrians together to prevent extremist infiltration. But when the average people run out of supplies and are getting overrun, it gives groups like AQ a chance to wield influence, since they  are organized, armed,  experienced, and can fill the void.
This is not to say that intervention would have been  the right idea, but it would have been better if it had been done much earlier.




 
 

I'm OK w/ this arrangement.  AQ cant fight w/o some type of arms; and the Syrian troops would have a hard time killing them if they where sitting in some hut in Afganistan.l

Minus the "advisers" that need to teach them how to use their cool new equipment...



and stuff...



 

Are we going to give them the same aid we gave the people from our embassy and our ambassador in Libya?









That will teach em..