Mitt Romney: arm the Syrian rebels

Republican presidential candidate is to call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria in a major foreign policy address

Mitt Romney will call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming rebels with the heavy weapons needed to confront president Bashar al-Assad's tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.Romney is to make the proposal on Monday in what his campaign team has billed as a major foreign policy speech in Lexington, Virginia.

In extracts published in advance, he opened up the prospect, if he becomes president, of a US-Iranian proxy war being fought in Syria.
"Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines," he said.

CONTINUE . . .

Evidently Romney and his neocon advisers don't think Obama has done enough to arm our enemies. You guys do understand that the "Syrian rebels" the author of this article is talking about are not just Syrians right?

Many of them are from Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia and many many of them belong to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. Like I said in another post, if you think Obama was naughty for supporting radical Islamic extremists including those who recently murdered our people over there you ain't seen nothin yet! Your guy Romney has just promised even more arms and support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda!

The only difference between Obama's foreign policy and Romney's is Romney will give our enemies bigger weapons. And the beat goes on. Same ole proxy war games with a different talking head.

 

BBC HARDtalk - Brian Sayers - Syrian Support Group (29/8/12)

This is kind of a long sad interview of Brian Sayers a high powered Washington lobbyist trying to explain why he's begging money for the FSA.

He sounds kind of discouraged to me. After all the Saudi's and some others are giving them money and weapons why can't we? WHY? All he wants to do is buy big enough weapons so his rebels can take down Assad. That's all. Poor guy.

Bet Brian perked up some today though. Today he has someone who agrees with him.

 

I don't agree with it either. To bad we can't vote against it.

Giving the rebels bigger weapons means the rebels will use those bigger weapons to spread even more death and destruction. Sounds like escalating to me.

We do have a choice in all this ya know? We can vote for the intensity of it. We can't vote against it both parties agree we need to arm the rebels and take down the Assad regime at any cost. But there's two ways. There's Obama's way the slow and steady method or there's Romney's no nonsense straight ahead big bang method.

If you'd prefer a low key prolonged regime change vote for Obama. If you'd prefer a more robust action packed regime change vote for Romney.

 

Romney isn't going to change his mind LE. The neocons have had this same definitive plan (for American Global Hegemony) since they formed the Project For A New American Century.

If Romney doesn't know how the game is played by now he's a total idiot and knows nothing of our foreign policy history. I mean c'mon now we've played this very same regime change game over and over and over since 1953.

First we find and arm some radicals. Then we set em loose to kill murder and destroy until the targeted regime either steps down or "forces" the international community aka the NWO to bring out the big guns and rub em out. Then they sing and dance like heros or cackle like Hillary Clinton for completing the job their pet radicals started for them.

It is pretty simple when it comes right down to it. Romney will support these terrorists because terrorists and terrorism has been the central part of our regime change crazy foreign policy strategy for over fifty years now.

No Romney won't change his mind. His very election depends on kissing up to the neocons and Americans that put Israel's interests ahead of their own national interest.

I expect to see alot of excuses like your's from republicans in the days ahead LE. That's fine if you all feel you can live with supporting someone who supports this kind of global regime change policy.

Now if Romney came out and said, "you know what, using Islamic extremists as proxy fighters in our regime change efforts around the world is doing us more harm than good we need to end it" I might even vote for him.

But he isn't going to say anything like that even if it is true. Is he?

 

Or they'll send the Secret Service to question him about his loyalty to the United States.

That makes more sense to me than to keep giving arms and support to Islamic extremists. But being one of those PNACer chicken hawks Cheney would no doubt choose to send some American kid over there to do his dirty work while he collects those Haliburton dividend checks.

 

Does America Share Its “Values” With Terrorists?

Paul Joseph Watson asks what "values" Mitt Romney thinks America shares with Syrian Rebels who burn U.S. flags, torture and execute prisoners and carry out terrorist attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2Hu4Kh6mOEQ

Page two already? Am I to assume now that you guys have found out Mitt Romney plans to expand "Obama's policy" of arming Islamic extremists if elected you are no longer interested in talking about our own government arming our enemies?

Can't say as I blame you really.

If I were a Romney supporter today I wouldn't want to talk about it either. I mean after you've already shown how much you despise Obama for arming Islamic extremists how are you now going to turn around and support a man who promises to give the same Islamic extremists even bigger weapons?

If I were a Romney supporter today I'd rather be talking about non issues like How Romney signs are being vandalized by "gasp" democrats too!

If I were a Romney supporter today I'd rather be talking about anything else in the world no matter how trivial other than how my candidate has vowed not just to continue but "upgrade" the practice of arming America's enemies by giving them bigger weapons.

If I were a Romney supporter today I sure wouldn't want to try and justify Romney's "new and improved" policy of arming America's enemies after I just finished blasting Obama for his policy of arming America's enemies.

If I were a Romney supporter today I would be looking for another candidate that doesn't think America shares it's values with terrorists.

But, that's just me.:smilewinkgrin:

Well alrighty then! Now our friendly well funded Islamic extremist proxy army has trained it's eye on Lebanon.

The Free Syrian Army, the “rebel” mercenary group supported and trained by the CIA and MI6, has vowed to expand operations into Lebanon and attack Hezbollah, the paramilitary and political organization established in 1982 to resist the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

< snip >

In 2007, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported on an effort by the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to assemble a region-wide army of extremist-mercenaries to take on Hezbollah in Lebanon, destabilize and overthrow Syria, and create a united front of Sunni fanatics against Iran.

“The forces recruited for this effort would come from the ranks of the CIA-created ‘Arab foreign legion,’ Al Qaeda itself – extremist groups fresh back from fighting US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, including listed terror organizations like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) from Libya,” Global Research noted on May 14.

< snip >

As we have documented, the Free Syria Army is a CIA construct rife with members from al-Qaeda. This fact is admitted by none other than the Council on Foreign Relations: “The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks,” writes Ed Husain, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the CFR. “The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results.”


CONTINUE . . .

Well, folks at this point I have to wonder if I am the only one here that sees the arming of America's "most dangerous" enemies as a "bipartisan" effort on the part of our government? I mean the Obama supporters don't want to talk about Obama's part in arming Islamic extremists and evidently Romney supporters would rather talk about anything besides Romney's promise to throw even more money and bigger weapons at our "most dangerous" enemy.

Meanwhile, our freedom loving TSA agents are still groping little old ladies and have now forced a young woman who is dying from leukemia to lift her shirt to expose feeding tubes, removed bandages from her recent surgeries, and broke open an IV bag of saline solution, all in full public view.

And all to protect us from the same terrorists our own government has been funding all along!

Am I the only here that can see the total hypocrisy in this?