Syria

[Fragony]

Are all of the Rebels fascists? The notion that fascist rule by one side or the other is the only outcome is the result of inaction by the west. When good men do nothing bad men take over. The west has decided to do nothing and we will pay for the negligence long term.

How do you see anything comming together that is a positive development? The rebels are even fighting eachother. The one group tortures an American guy, the other rebel group saves him and hands them over to the American embassy. The only thing you can be absolutily sure of is that chosing any side will mean more misery for the Assyrian people; bombs on top of it. No thanks

[ICantSpellDawg]

How do you see anything comming together that is a positive development? The rebels are even fighting eachother. The one group tortures an American guy, the other rebel group saves him and hands them over to the American embassy. The only thing you can be absolutily sure of is that chosing any side will mean more misery for the Assyrian people; bombs on top of it. No thanks

Inaction will guarantee that the rebel group who saves the American will be eradicated.

[Fragony]

Inaction will guarantee that the rebel group who saves the American will be eradicated.

A lot of the rebels are jihadi's, not all, but a lot. Even more radical ones from Europe, but also America and Canada. However you look at it, the Assyrians will lose whatever we do. Religious minorities are going to be killed by the rebels, they even say they will. That is sure to happen.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A lot of the rebels are jihadi's, not all, but a lot. Even more radical ones from Europe, but also America and Canada. However you look at it, the Assyrians will lose whatever we do. Religious minorities are going to be killed by the rebels, they even say they will. That is sure to happen.

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

BTW, my suspicion is that the President will hand it to the Congress where the idea of involvement will be defeated in the House but not the Senate. There will be another chemical attack and the President will make a unilateral action, blaming the Congress for inaction OR the situation will naturally resolve poorly and Democrats can blame the GOP for the results. I'm disturbed that the President does a bus tour to showboat how he will use every tool in the chest to get around Congress, then - while knowing how important this is and that the power is his, spikes the ball to the GOP. Call me a cynic, but the President is taking the low road here digging for cheap points.

[HoreTore]

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.

I absolutely agree with this.

No rest for the dictator - ever. I know we can't get them all, but doesn't mean we shouldn't get those we can.

Disband a couple of army divisions and start training assassins, I say.

[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...