Russia calls U.S. move to better arm Syrian rebels a 'hostile act'

I wonder what America's reaction would be if Syria and Russia were arming and funding militia groups in America opposed to the federal government?

I'm reminded of Reagan's Stingers for the Mujahideen. No leakage onto the black market there.

Was the MANPAD designed for the incontinent fighter?

MANPAD with wings would be way more convenient.

Trump policy on Syria:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/17/trumps-syria-strategy-would-be-a-disaster/

Trump’s Syria Strategy Would Be a Disaster - November 17, 2016

The president-elect wants to ally with Assad and Russia to fight the Islamic State – but he’s going to end up empowering extremists and causing chaos across the Middle East.

Gotta say I'm amazed to see you post anything anti-Trump whatsoever.

Maybe the first time I've seen it from the right.

It's a columnist in 'Foreign Policy' writing it, not me. But it was the first significant hit for 'trump policy syria'.

Same columnist wrote:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/21/obamas-syria-strategy-is-the-definition-of-insanity/

Obama’s Syria Strategy Is the Definition of Insanity - September 21, 2016

Another ceasefire is in tatters. But America keeps reaching out to Russia while expecting a different result.

Putin is right. I think America needs to stop engaging in "regime change," as none of these changes have resulted in anything good so far. The falls of Saddam, Qaddafi, Mubarak, et al, have not resulted in freedom and democracy, but increased violence and religious strife. The people of the middle east are not ruled by consensus and democratic process, but by force, or the threat of force. Such rulership is part of the culture, and while it is hopeful that this part of the culture will eventually change, the US and others were expecting far too much, far too soon.

Russia is not much different than the middle east in this way, and Putin, corrupt crook that he is, knows more about how to keep the peace in the area than Obama and America do.

Wait, rebels shooting down a civilian airliner? Like the Russian backed rebels in the Ukraine? Or something different?

Why don't all the major powers involved get together and just declare the entire Middle East a No-Go Area.

Don't arm anybody and just let them fight it out amongst themselves without any outside assistance or interference.

Maybe in an imperfect world.

Why don't all the major powers involved get together and just declare the entire Middle East a No-Go Area.

I fully agree.

That said, it won't happen as long as we are dependent upon them for oil. Too much money there for the powers that be to be willing to give it up.

If Russia send arms to people who hate Trumph in US, is that acceptable? Asad's govt in Syria is an elected govt then why US is interfering in Syria. When ever we heard aany trouble in any part of World, 99.9% of time US is behind it, Why so?

It's a columnist in 'Foreign Policy' writing it, not me.

I'm reminded of this Trump gem with Bill O' Reilly:

“Bill, I didn’t tweet — I retweeted somebody that was supposedly an expert,” Trump said. “Hey, Bill, Bill, am I gonna check every statistic?”

Why don't all the major powers involved get together and just declare the entire Middle East a No-Go Area.

The "let them sort it out themselves' sounds good on paper but has its limits a/political, b/ethical. Would terror attacks in the west subside if we westerners were not involved in the M.E? Would ISIS cease to exist? Not sure about that (and what if 'the nuttas' win? wouldn't they eventually want to expand beyond their borders?)

The 2nd aspect is moral/ethical: was Hitler 'wrong' not so much because he wanted to slaughter Germany's own Jews, gypsies, handicapped but because he wanted to kill 'ours' too and everyone who was against it? Perso I think the international community has a moral obligation to eliminate the Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il etc of this world even when they 'only' target their own ppl.

Having said that I don't completely disagree with your solution as I think we the West have had it wrong on too many occasions, targeting the 'wrong' regimes for $ reasons (WMD bs) rather than moral ones. We no longer have any credibility whatsoever, unfortunately.

I was hoping Obama would expire quietly, but as it seems in the last 30 years with expiring presidents, they just can't help ramping up some conflict for an incoming president.

A provision bars the U.S. Defense Department from spending funds on MANPADS for Syrian rebel groups until the secretaries of state and defense submit a report to congressional committees explaining the decision to do so.

The report would have to include which groups would receive the weapons, intelligence analyses on the groups and the kinds and numbers of MANPADS to be supplied.

So the expiring Obama is not opposed to sending Manpads, he just has to wait for the "report" from the secretaries. Typical, avoid the issue but later slip some Manpads into Syria when all is quite. When is Obama gonna give up? In about 22 days I'm guessing. The Qatari Pipeline is dead. This is Obama's Christmas present to Trump. Good thing Trump will not so easily side with the Saudi, Israeli, Qatar war mongers.

Many weapon and food storage were found (east-Aleppo) as well as intact health clinics. The fighters and their families were obviously well supplied while the rest of the population suffered. The weapons and ammunition found (video of just one stash - 1, 2) - mostly produced in Bulgaria, paid by the Saudis and transported and distributed by the U.S. - are estimated to be about $100 million in value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuB9UFv7Gho

April 08, 2016 - U.S. Delivers 3,000 Tons Of Weapons And Ammo To Al-Qaeda & Co in Syria

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/04/us-delivers-3000-tons-of-weapons-and-ammo-to-al-qaeda-co-in-syria.html

Why don't all the major powers involved get together and just declare the entire Middle East a No-Go Area.

It can't work if two of the "major powers", the Saudis and Israelis are located in the Middle East.

I think at this point, Obama just wants the next administration to inherit crap.

Surely the US will not take any of Russia's victory in Syria lying down. They will arm the terrorists to the teeth to destroy any attempt to stabilize the region. I hope Russia figure out a way to stop that.

The president-elect wants to ally with Assad and Russia to fight the Islamic State –

Alternative being what exactly? Continued support of terrorists that will eventually attack America? Didn't afghanistan drill any lessons into the psyche??

Asad's govt in Syria is an elected gov

Assad's government was elected the same way as Putins, with stuffed ballot boxes, and with the pens at the polling centers using erasable ink. There is no democracy in Syria any more than there is in most developing countries which claim to be democracies. Democracy in these places is a sham to get financial support from developed countries, and manipulating election results is easier to do than the old method of imprisoning or killing off your opponents.

I think America needs to stop engaging in "regime change," as none of these changes have resulted in anything good so far.

US does support and supply arms to the military government of Egypt (to the point that many people see the Egypt military as a puppet)

Good thing Trump will not so easily side with... Israeli ... war mongers.

Huh? He's gonna give Netanyahu a blank check (did ya see who his ambassador to Israel is)

“Our position on MANPADS has not changed. We have a very deep concern about that kind of weaponry getting into Syria,” Toner said, referring to fears that portable anti-aircraft missiles could end up in the hands of Islamist militants and be used against civilian airliners"

The National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by Obama on Dec. 23, appears designed to assuage the administration’s misgivings but imposes a new layer of congressional oversight on any presidential decision to provide them.

LTFR

Anything else is Kremlin-bot spin.

M3

I wonder what America's reaction would be if Syria and Russia were arming and funding militia groups in America opposed to the federal government?

Russia is supporting Syria government. Your comparison is meaningless.

Assad's government was elected the same way as Putins, with stuffed ballot boxes, and with the pens at the polling centers using erasable ink.

LOL absurdities aside, that does not give america or any other external entity the right to attack syria either directly or through proxies. This is a matter to be resolved by the syrians and them ALONE!!

I wonder what America's reaction would be if Syria and Russia were arming and funding militia groups in America opposed to the federal government?

Same response as if China or Russia were to sail a navy battle group in the west coast of US. Even in international waters, the it's a no-no, since only the US can sail it's warships anywhere in the world.

The US defense department NEVER learns. Sad... they NEVER EVER LEARN! I even wrote a letter a LONG time ago saying, "Hey dumbasses! Don't give arms to the rebels because they'll eventually turn into Islamic fundamentalists that are only a bit different than ISIS!" And whadayaknow... while they're fighting ISIS, they're main goal is to install an Islamic government in place of Assad more secular government.

Same response as if China or Russia were to sail a navy battle group in the west coast of US.

International waters, the US don't care - they and the Russians have been playing that game for decades. Heck, the US don't care through its own territorial waters as long as it's "innocent passage."

You probably don't hear about this, but last September, 5 Chinese warships crossed through US territorial waters off Alaska:

http://news.usni.org/2015/09/03/chinese-warships-made-innocent-passage-through-u-s-territorial-waters-off-alaska

You don't hear about it because the US doesn't say a peep about it. The US don't care.

Obama should call the rebels "little green men". The Russian people will start supporting them.