Syria

[Fisherking]

So, all of these reasons somehow equate to a negligent policy; non-involvement? Wipe out jihadi's, and despots - arm those who agree with basic equal protections. Spend blood and treasure to constantly defeat insidious results around the world. The fact that anyone can be oppressed should rally the free into action, not create isolationism. If you will not protect the decent, no one will. No one will lift a finger to get the boot off of your neck when the time comes, and it will.

The American people should be ashamed of themselves if they allow this to go on without involvement. Western Europeans should be ashamed. Those who attack the President for purely political reasons should be ashamed (Rumsfeld, Bolton) - this does not include those with legitimate Constitutional or isolationist opposition (Amash, Paul, code pink congresspeople)

However you "look" at it - yes - disaster. Don't just watch.

The whole debate over arming the rebels has been stymied by not being able to arm only select factions.

It is difficult to tell one from another and there are complex alliance among various rebel groups. Many weapons sent to the rebels also show up at once on the black-market for sale. Some of the weapons earmarked for the rebels have also wound up in government hands or the hands of their allies.

You can say what you will about how it should be handled in theory, but in reality once you send the weapons across the border there is not telling who you are actually giving them to.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We spend almost 100 billion on intelligence per year in the US alone. We train infiltrators who speak arabic for clandestine action abroad. Get the intel - we can figure out which organizations are a better bet to arm and support. This shouldn't be rocket science. Infiltrate and watch the organizations. They do it to domestic groups (hutaree, 3%ers, oath keepers, Nation of Islam) How hard could it be to discern which groups are committing the least amount of war-crimes against civilians and minorities?

[HoreTore]

We spend almost 100 billion on intelligence per year in the US alone. We train infiltrators who speak arabic for clandestine action abroad. Get the intel - we can figure out which organizations are a better bet to arm and support. This shouldn't be rocket science.

Revolutionary logic also means foreign help decides which faction gains power. Those with outside aid will increase their standing, while those without will decrease. The stalinist faction was tiny at the start of the Spanish revolution, but because they were the only ones who got foreign help, they ended up dominating the revolution in the end.

Giving aid ensures that your chosen faction gains control, it doesn't make another faction gain it. And as we see in Syria, the only ones who get foreign help are the jihadis, and it's no surprises they seem to be dominating... Make contact with a couple of groups, establish channels to pour weapons and money into their hands, and watch them grow...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Revolutionary logic also decides which faction gains power. Those with outside aid will increase their standing, while those without will decrease. The stalinist faction was tiny at the start of the Spanish revolution, but because they were the only ones who got foreign help, they ended up dominating the revolution in the end.

Giving aid ensures that your chosen faction gains control, it doesn't make another faction gain it. And as we see in Syria, the only ones who get foreign help are the jihadis, and it's no surprises they seem to be dominating... Make contact with a couple of groups, establish channels to pour weapons and money into their hands, and watch them grow...

Agreed - it's a pretty basic concept. I don't know why people are throwing their hands in the air.

[HoreTore]

Agreed - it's a pretty basic concept. I don't know why people are throwing their hands in the air.

Because they're preoccupied with NWO, Eurabia, Chemtrails and other such nonsense?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Because they're preoccupied with NWO, Eurabia, Chemtrails and other such nonsense?

In a way, it is good because it shows people to be declaring their independence from the pressures of government influence, but they shouldn't free themselves from the shackles of reason or accountability...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Regarding the "national interest" aspect of some arguments I'm hearing. The fact that there is very little in it for the US isn't a bad thing for our interests. We've been accused of acting under the banner of liberation, only to ingratiate ourselves with war spoils. This, to me, was a baseless accusation but had never been proven to be incorrect, as Rwanda was a moral failure on our part. This could help show nations and weary allies that we mean business and don't merely use a colonial rationale for our actions, but mean what we say.