Skip to main content

From the Nation magazine:

Obama's War in Syria

This is an excellent article that summarizes the new war the Obama administration is slowly but steadily engaging the country into.   From the link above:

The Central Intelligence Agency has begun moving weapons to Jordan ....and plans to start arming small groups of vetted Syrian rebels within a month, expanding U.S. support of moderate forces battling President Bashar al-Assad....

Most worrisome is that, with American support, Saudi Arabia is shipping Manpads, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, to the rebels, despite the risk that those deadly arms could fall into the hands of Al Qaeda and its allies


So, for some reason, the Obama administration has accepted as a good idea the suggestions of McCain, Cheney, and other neocons to arm the Syrian rebels.   Like we have never learned from the past.   Working closely with the "democratic" and "freedom-fighting" countries of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the Obama administration has decided to get involved in the war there by supporting "moderate" rebels.

Never mind that the US-Russia relationship is at a new nadir because of this.   Never mind that some of the rebels there are cannibals.   No, this is not an exaggeration.   We are talking about real cannibals.   And it gets even worse.   According to the UN, there are instances where rebels have forced children to participate in beheadings of captured syrian soldiers.

From the BBC news link above:

In the most egregious incident near Deir al-Zor, the report cites the participation of a child in the beheading by rebels of two soldiers.

"Video footage emerged showing a child participating in the beheading of two kidnapped men," says the report. "Following investigation, it is believed that the video is authentic and the men were soldiers, killed as depicted."

It is incomprehensible that we would work together with terrible regimes like the Saudi and Qatari regimes (both among the worst human rights violators in the world) to "promote democracy" in another country with a dictatorship.   What is even more puzzling is the fact that any regime that would take power if Assad falls would be likely worse than the Assad regime.   As terrible and brutal the Assad regime has been, an islamic fundamentalist, taliban-like, regime in Syria would be almost certainly worst and much more dangerous for Israel and the region.  

It seems clear that the neoconservative ideas and goals started by Bush and Cheney continue under the Obama administration.  And as autocratic as Putin is in Russia, he has a much more rational foreign policy approach than the Obama administration.     At the very least Putin is right when he asked Cameron and Obama not to arm cannibals.

Interestingly, the Nation article suggests that there has been a split within the Obama administration on the issue:

From the link above

It’s apparent...... that there are deep splits in the (Obama) administration over how to approach this civil war. As I’ve written repeatedly, Obama resisted going to war in Syria for a long time, though he created a dangerous slippery slope for himself by calling for Assad’s ouster, helping Saudi Arabia and Qatar supply arms to the rebels

The vast majority of Americans oppose arming the Syrian rebels.   Unfortunately, it is unlikely that anyone would respect the wish of the majority of the country.    The neoconservative plan appears to be too strong and the neocons seem to have somehow secured the active participation of the Obama administration in their efforts to "transform the world".

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  who does Obama work for? the citizens? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, snoopydawg

    the Bush wars cost from 3 to 6 trillion dollars

    with the budget problems, does Obama think that more trillions are needed to support the military industrial security complex?

    that is just on an economic basis

    how about world opinion?

    heck, we are #1 and Susan Rice tells us that Snowden has not harmed our credibility in the world

    Edward Snowden has not weakened president, says Susan Rice
    New US national security adviser says diplomatic consequences of NSA leaks are not that significant

    Is Obama's presidency over?

    The republicans have been out to destroy his presidency from before he took office. And Obama and the dems never pushed back hard enough to out the republicans and their work to destroy the republic.

    Now that the administration has been outed big time with their violation of the constitution, where are those who trust the constitution over the current politicians going to do?

    with a rating of 10% the legislative branch has no where to go but up

    what happens if Obama falls to that level?

    or has it already happened?

  •  We were already arming the rebels to an extent. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mookins, Quicklund

    You may have remembered the news reports about training and arming some rebels on the Jordan border region.  These were some of the moderates that didn't have connections to the al-Qaeda affiliated Nusra group.  The opposition forces in Syria are heavily splintered so our goal was to provide support to these folks so that there was a chance that a group friendly to US and western interests would be able to gain power.

    So we're talking about something that was already going on to some extent, and now there will be an escalation to some extent.  And regarding whether weapons will fall into the hands of al-Qaeda, they already have plenty of weapons--that's the reason why the Nusra group is so popular.  It is a calculated risk:  arming the rebels gives us a shot at having some friendly political influence there in the future, while not arming them gives us next to no shot.  The Syrian air force is not particularly good, so these shoulder launched missiles could be useful against them, but not against many other countries with advanced air capacities.

    Russia has business interests in Syria, and that's why they dislike the US's motives.  But that's also why the United States will not be getting much more involved than it already is.  President Obama has been dragging his feet on this issue compared to his advisers.  I feel like the escalation in arms is mostly to provide political cover for the "red line" comments regarding chemical weapons--he could say he did something without doing anything we weren't already doing.

    There are no good answers, just less bad ones.  Honestly if I'm being ultra-realistic about it, I'd try to contain the fighting to Syria and let them have at it for as long as they want.  It would be brutal, but all of the options are brutal, and it's tough to tell what the long term damage would be with any path.

  •  The US is determined to have (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Dead Man, corvo, protectspice

    a permanent on the ground military presence in the Middle East. The plan seems to be to rotate it from one spot to another.  

  •  10 Things worse than Eating a Dead Soldier's Heart (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Read this article. Watch these videos, then get back to me.

    Follow Me on Twitter!!/ZeddRebel

    by TarantinoDork on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 07:40:23 AM PDT

    •  Ok, now tell us (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mickT, corvo, protectspice

      what is worse than this:rebels forcing children to participate in beheadings of captured syrian soldiers.

      In the most egregious incident near Deir al-Zor, the report cites the participation of a child in the beheading by rebels of two soldiers.
      Although both sides have shown unbelievable brutality in that war, the majority of the rebels are islamic fundamentalists and an Islamic fundamentalist regime would be even worse than the Assad regime (no matter how terrible that regime is).
      •  I want neither (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Texas Lefty

        The only viable path forward is a peace process resulting in a transitional government that includes both current government and opposition elements.  A peace process that sees Assad and all foreign fighters (both pro-Assad Hezbollah and anti-Assad Al Qaeda) expelled from the country.

        But for that to happen, the rebels...specifically rebel groups such as the SMC which are non-jihadist and composed mostly of secular Syrian army defectors who defied Assad's orders to fire on unarmed protesters...need to be able to fight back and force Assad to the negotiating table.

        There were jihadists and islamic fundamentalists who flocked to fight the Serbs in Bosnia.  They committed many atrocities including torture and execution of prisoners.  Didn't change the fact that the genocidal regime of Slobodon Milosevic was by far the most horrific actor in the conflict.  And a combination of outside intervention and negotiation between the sides at once saw Serbs AND jihadist foreign fighters leave.  While far from perfect, Bosnia is today a peaceful, relatively stable democracy where terrorism has no foothold.

        So yes, I absolutely favor finding ways to get weapons (especially anti-tank weapons) and training to those rebels we believe are committed to peace, democracy, and pluralism....even (and perhaps especially) if they are few and far between.

        Oh, and for the record, launching nerve gas on a civilian population...there is simply nothing worse than that.  Assad's done it at least ten times....and unlike all the examples of atrocities you present, almost certainly undertaken by local thugs at the ground-level, only Assad could have given the order to use nerve gas.

        Follow Me on Twitter!!/ZeddRebel

        by TarantinoDork on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:22:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  For starters... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, protectspice

          There is no proof that the Assad regime used nerve gas on a civilian population.   Thats a totally unsubstantiated claim that is used as an excuse to arm the rebels.   On the other hand, the UN inspector had suggested that the rebels were the ones who used nerve gas.

          As for "moderate" rebels, it does not seem that there are many of them (or even exist at this point).   This article lists the different rebel factions   The vast majority of them appear to be jihadist groups.   Why and how on earth would any western nation give weapons that could end up in the hands of jihadists?   These people are like the Taliban or worse.

          •  What 'substantiation' do you have for your claims? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Captain C

            Pot. Meet Kettle.

            There's far more evidence of Assad using chemical weapons than there are for your claims of kids beheading soldiers or that 'the vast majority' of rebels are jihadists.

            Your dismissal and paranoia of the rebels as all being terrorists is little different from the broad strokes Islamophobes like Sarah Palin and Pam Geller paint in.

            Most are just people sick of Assad, who have been driven to desperation because of his brutality.


            For years George Bush tried to insist to us that the Sunni insurgency in Iraq was all terrorists and jihadists.  It was never true.  The overwhelming majority were just Sunni tribesmen and ex-army members who were fighting for a place in the new love for Al Qaeda or even Saddam Hussein.  Al Qaeda in Iraq only thrived to the extent that the broader insurgency relied on their weapons and capability.  Once the US offered alternatives and incentives...the moderate insurgents reconciled, turned on Al Qaeda, and brought a relative stability to the country.

            No doubt there are Shia and Alawite people who are only fighting for Assad because they fear for their safety in a post-Assad Syria.  They still desire democracy, they still desire peace.

            A diplomatic solution is whats needed.  An alternative free of Assad, free of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, free of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

            Follow Me on Twitter!!/ZeddRebel

            by TarantinoDork on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:05:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Force Assad to the table? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, protectspice

          Who is going to force the opposition to the table?

          As for nerve gas on civilians? Please provide evidence to the UN. They are looking for solid evidence.

          You know the Arab League did a report on Syria. It didn't say what the Arab League or the U.S. wanted, so the report was buried.

          Arab League Report

          It was buried because it showed the media as lying about the opposition being peaceful.

          Then the UN sent Kofi Annan. He quit. If you saw him on Jon Stewart, you could tell Jon was pushing the 'It's all Assad's fault' and Annan pushed back and said the West had some issues as well.

          Assad will go to the table, but he will not surrender. I'm just baffled that we demand this of him. What right do we have? How many other nations in the world run a police state (see Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE)? None have a democracy. We call them moderate.

    Recommended by:

    This is the actual video of the rebels executing those two individuals.  The executioner is a Chechen.  There are plenty of children around to witness it and they could possibly be child soldiers.  Since the rebels are known to use child soldiers as fodder.

    This is a very brutal video and if you can't handle it, then please don't click.  (NSFW)

    What I have also heard was that these poor fellows where of the Christian minority.

  •  War is hell and atrocities aren't unique to 1 side (0+ / 0-)

    I really don't know what point you are working towards, trying to paint one side as vile and ignoring the other side's vile record.

    The vast majority of Americans oppose arming the Syrian rebels.
    Really? I bet the vast majority of Americans know (and care) virtually nothing of what is happening in Syria. The majority of Americans do not want the US fighting another war, I'll buy that. But arming combatants is not the same thing as fighting a war.
    •  Yes, really (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mickT, BigAlinWashSt, corvo, Quicklund

      Poll shows Americans oppose arming syrian rebels

      74 percent of independents, 71 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Democrats said they're against the United States and its allies sending arms to Syria.
    •  Actually (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt, corvo, protectspice

      If you read the comments sections of any of the Washington Post one-sided articles on Syria, you will find a large section of the populace that not only knows what is going on, but is angry that our media and our politicians are telling us just one side of the story in hopes we will get involved in another war.

      But I'm glad you think proxy wars are sterile. The people that wind up getting killed because we (collective we, KSA, Qatar, Libyan rebels, March 14th, Turkish intel, CIA) have been sending arms via Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan (with KSA having their own route through Iraq) don't really think the war/not war distinction is all that important.

      Meanwhile, because we are happy with Mursi, the President is demanding the opposition stay peaceful and look for dialogue. Funny how if we like someone, protests are bad. If we don't like them, we arm the protestors.

      And yes, the world sees that quite plainly. And our government knows it, it just finds interesting stories to excuse it. Cairo Embassy worried about security

      •  Well (0+ / 0-)

        The people who read and comment to WaPo are not very well represented among the people I encounter day to day. most of them could not find Syria on an unmarked globe if you spotted them the Med.

        But I'm glad you think proxy wars are sterile.
        Not half as glad I am to see another internet strawman! They are so exceedingly rare, much like my use of sarcasm.
  •  I read a comment somewhere that Obama should (0+ / 0-)

    follow what Clinton did in Bosnia--

    Make a few strategic air strikes at first and then see what happens.  

    Remember, it turned out that we lost virtually no one in that conflict and that it ended within a few years of our intervention.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:26:25 AM PDT

    •  Clinton had UN approval for Bosnia (0+ / 0-)

      That's not going to happen for Syria unfortunately.  Remember in Bosnia, there were something like 70,000 UN peacekeepers after the war in a country of around 3-4 million and all sides respected the US in that conflict and didn't attack any of our troops once the fighting ended.  It's also worth noting that by the time NATO started the air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs, the tide of the war was turning against them and they were losing ground.   It really only took a few months to end the conflict once NATO really got involved and started hitting Bosnian Serb positions around Sarajevo and eastern Bosnia.

      "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

      by Texas Lefty on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:06:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hahahahaha. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What a ridiculous diary title.

    If anything, the Obama Administration has been very reluctant to become involved in Syria.

    Giving some arms to the moderate, more secular elements probably actually isn't a bad idea.  If the diarist knew more about recent world history, he'd probably know that.

    In Afghanistan, during the period of the Soviet invasion, the U.S., under the dumbass Reagan Administration, gave arms to Afghanistan, but let the Pakistan ISI channel all the weapons to the most conservative Mujahedin groups.  If we had actually given support to the more secular, democratic elements there, as we seem to be doing in Syria, then the Taliban likely never would have taken over 90% of Afghanistan and there likely never would have been a 9/11.

    I, for one, am glad that we are not repeating the mistakes made in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:41:07 AM PDT

  •  It's been Obama's war since the beginning. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mickT, corvo, protectspice

    He started it along with his friends and now he has a big mess, which is really what he wanted all along.  Although war criminals/Sec of States' Clinton and Kerry have plenty of blood on their hands.

    "America is the Terror State. The Global War OF Terror is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:48:38 AM PDT

    •  hahahahahaha (0+ / 0-)

      Yep, it's always all Obama's fault for you.

      The Syrian people, who went to the streets in the millions, had absolutely nothing to do with it!

      And Assad also had absolutely nothing to do with it when he brutally cracked down on the protests....

      Your lack of logic is astounding.

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:54:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What a crock of shit. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, protectspice

        "went to the streets in the millions".  
        Gawd, that's is utter nonsense.
        Your lack of reality is astounding.

        "America is the Terror State. The Global War OF Terror is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest."

        by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:04:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right, right... (0+ / 0-)

          ... I forgot... in conspiracy land it was all just a bunch of CIA agents.

          Never mind that I actually know Syrians who were there when it happened....

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:05:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bullshit. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo, protectspice

            You're either a plant of some kind or completely fooled by the propaganda.  
            Here, let your hero Henry Kissinger explain it to you.


            "America is the Terror State. The Global War OF Terror is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest."

            by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:10:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ah, I see, now I'm a plant, huh? (0+ / 0-)

              In the days when community moderation was still functioning somewhat well here on DailyKos, your comment would have been hidden pretty fast.

              But alas, nowadays abusive members like yourself seem to be able to get away with lots, including extraordinary claims without providing extraordinary evidence and slinging mud and false accusations at fellow Kossacks without an iota of evidence to back it up.

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:21:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  As I've been saying from the beginning, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo, protectspice

            “In the American press it’s described as a conflict between democracy and a dictator- and the dictator is killing his own people, and we’ve got to punish him. But that’s not what’s going on. It may have been started by a few democrats. But on the whole it’s an ethnic and sectarian conflict.”

            "America is the Terror State. The Global War OF Terror is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest."

            by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:17:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What else is new? (0+ / 0-)

              It was clear from the beginning that it would turn into a terrible conflict in large parts dominated by ethnic and sectarian issues if Assad didn't open the regime up to being reformed.

              But yeah, let's blame Obama....  sigh

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:24:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Your simplistic story telling is astounding (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BigAlinWashSt, corvo

        Millions did go to the street. Most did not demand Bashar Al Assad's ouster, simply government reforms.

        A combination of events quickly moved this from a peaceful political event to what it became. A small element of the protestors started causing problems and the government overreacted.

        This is when, unlike in Egypt where we want peace (as long as our neoliberal puppet is in power), we decided to put fuel on the fire. We demanded Syria not send troops in the street (do you see that demand of Mursi today?). We demanded he allow protests. All the while working with England, France, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia (all players in the Libya fiasco) to find a way to complete what Bush/Cheney started...regime change.

        Which is why Libyan and Croatian arms have shown up. Which is why the West ignores the massive human rights of the FSA and the other organizations fighting against the regime.

        McCain spends 45 minutes in country, and in that short of time is seen with kidnappers, and we seem to be okay with that.

        •  I see. (0+ / 0-)

          It's Obama's fault that the Assad Regime "overreacted" when confronted with massive protests.

          Poor, little Assad Regime!  The mean Obama Administration made him commit atrocities against his own people.  The Baath Regime was such an angel of virtue before meanie Obama came along!

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:16:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Nope. This is a Bush policy Obama continues. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt, corvo
      In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

      To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

      This was written 6 years ago.  The only thing Obama is doing is continuing the neocon rightwing plans of Bush JR in that part of the world.  

      In matters of foreign policy the USA is extremely rightwing no matter what party they are in.  As a whole the USA often views other nations with disgust and disdain to such a degree that they see it as their right to interfere with 90% of the nations of the world's right to forge their own path.

  •  Wow, the Nation has gone full-on ODS. (0+ / 0-)

    I'd be curious what it's attitude was before the decision to help the rebels.  "Obama's negligence in Syria"?  "Obama's arrogant, haughty indifference to Syrian suffering"?

    Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

    by Troubadour on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:01:33 AM PDT

    •  An op-ed by Bob Dreyfuss does not a nation make. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      But your point about some people not being happy no matter what happens is a good one.

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:04:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rea the article before you attack it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Do you support giving weapons to cannibals?   Just curious.

      •  Of course not. I suppose giving weapons (0+ / 0-)

        to the Syrians who are just trying to defend themselves against a mass-murdering tyrant who's being supplied by Russia, and who will need to defend themselves even more if/when the jihadis being supplied by Saudi Arabia defeat said tyrant.

        Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

        by Troubadour on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:09:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  See below the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          list of the different rebel factions.   They are essentially all of them jihadists.

          Freedom fighters? Cannibals? The truth about Syria’s rebels

          Although I understand that the Assad regime is terrible (and I oppose it as much as I oppose the Saudi, Qataris and all other horrific dictators), I can not see any rational way by which any western democracy would provide arms support to these rebels.   They are worse than Assad.    They are jihadists.   Opposing a dictatorship does not mean supporting others who would create an even worse jihadist state.   The neocons never learn from the lessons of the past.   They continue the same destructive for the world approach.

          •  That's a crock. The rebels evolved from (0+ / 0-)

            people peacefully protesting that the Assad regime started massacring to stay in power.  The only reason jihadists have gained power in the rebellion is because we weren't supplying them, so the only people who could get weapons were the ones supported by Saudi Arabia.  But there are secularist liberal factions who want a pluralistic, democratic Syria, and they deserve a chance.

            Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

            by Troubadour on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 03:39:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  *support, not "suppose" (0+ / 0-)

        Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

        by Troubadour on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:09:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why is it assumed we're arming all of the rebels? (0+ / 0-)

    Or that some kind of Islamic fundamentalist government would emerge post Assad?  

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:51:59 AM PDT

    •  It's highly unlikely we have much if any idea (0+ / 0-)

      which rebels "we" will be arming.  As to your second question, well, some of us learn from history; others of us do not.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 03:48:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site