US Struggles to Blunt Syria Rebel Anger at Strikes

[Pooky 3,807]

So, now we are bombing rebels opposed to President Assad, while also publicly wanting him out. Confused much?

Some of the rebels opposed to Assad who we aren't bombing are now kind of upset that we're pounding ten barrels of #### out of fighters who have been major assets in their fight against the Syrian government forces.

Not only that, but President Assad is claiming that he's working with us to combat the Islamic State forces in Syria. Still with me here?

Just whose side are we on in all this mess?

Then there is the collateral damage. Much was made of the Israelis causing civilian casualties, despite their doing what they could to warn civilians in the target areas that bad #### was inbound. What are we doing? Are we even giving a warning? Or are we just letting innocent civilians die?

Just what are we trying to achieve? And how far down the rabbit hole are we prepared to go to achieve it?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-struggles-blunt-syria-rebel-anger-strikes-25803457

[lostinblue 1,989]

[Rattlehead 69]

So, now we are bombing rebels opposed to President Assad, while also publicly wanting him out. Confused much?

Some of the rebels opposed to Assad who we aren't bombing are now kind of upset that we're pounding ten barrels of #### out of fighters who have been major assets in their fight against the Syrian government forces.

Not only that, but President Assad is claiming that he's working with us to combat the Islamic State forces in Syria. Still with me here?

Just whose side are we on in all this mess?

Then there is the collateral damage. Much was made of the Israelis causing civilian casualties, despite their doing what they could to warn civilians in the target areas that bad #### was inbound. What are we doing? Are we even giving a warning? Or are we just letting innocent civilians die?

Just what are we trying to achieve? And how far down the rabbit hole are we prepared to go to achieve it?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-struggles-blunt-syria-rebel-anger-strikes-25803457

Who says we have to be on a side? Our enemies are fighting our enemies. If there was a way for them both to lose, that would be ideal. Settling for them slaughtering and weakening each other en masse is the next best thing.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Could America at least promise not to get involved in civil war, without first checking to see if by doing so, it might make the situation much worse.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

One of these things is not like the other!

[eieio 1,594]

Just whose side are we on in all this mess?

Our choices are like what those trapped in the twin towers faced. Jump to your death or burn alive. Our best hope is they fight to the last man. Then we kill him.

[rlogan 2,036]

Our enemies are fighting our enemies.

Smug ignorance and magical thinking at the same time. We are both arming and bombing ISIS. Not figuratively, but literally. Our government denies this is what it is doing.

Don't pretend to be smarter than everyone else, with some kind of epic narcissism where Obama is doing your genocidal bidding. This kind of cheerleading for genocide has to be condemned in the strongest terms. Shame on you. Not just for this vicious loathing you have, but for its stupidity.

There is no government in world history that has been an exception to the rule of empire: the over-extension financially and militarily that cannot be sustained. China has already surpassed the US Gross Domestic Product and is on track to be double ours in 20 years. You can make all the snide remarks you want trying to minimize it, but in the end nothing matters more.

The U.S. was at one time the mightiest economy in the world with the best educated populace. It isn't just that our economy has been eclipsed by a rate that will be double our GDP in 20 years: That's how far behind we got with a workforce now retired that was better educated. Just imagine what is possible with a blindly stupid populace, ignorant of the most basic history. Our manufacturing base is gone and what's left of it is already producing arms. We do not have a manufacturing base to direct to decisive arms production were we to face a real threat.

Talk like this is just the mentality of a brute savage. I don't mean that in the sense of being strong, but being stupid.

Edited September 29, 2014 by rlogan

[rlogan 2,036]

Our choices are like what those trapped in the twin towers faced. Jump to your death or burn alive. Our best hope is they fight to the last man. Then we kill him.

You have got to be kidding!

No, those aren't even remotely our choices. Good Lord it is incredible to hear an adult say something this daft.

Our basic choice is whether to be involved in this regional war or not. It is not a reasonable third choice to fight on both sides. That isn't anything like jumping to death or burning alive. That analogy is absolutely crazy. So therefore what you say? Hope everyone kills themselves? How does that logically follow from this bizarre analogy? It doesn't.

Your fantasy tale of having one man left is exactly the opposite of what is happening. We are not eliminating enemies: we are making more of them by the day. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Libya was sequestered in Benghazi. No Isis. And now, we have them. Because of exactly this kind of obscene, irresponsible thinking.

[eieio 1,594]

You have got to be kidding!

No, those aren't even remotely our choices. Good Lord it is incredible to hear an adult say something this daft.

Our basic choice is whether to be involved in this regional war or not. It is not a reasonable third choice to fight on both sides. That isn't anything like jumping to death or burning alive. That analogy is absolutely crazy. So therefore what you say? Hope everyone kills themselves? How does that logically follow from this bizarre analogy? It doesn't.

Your fantasy tale of having one man left is exactly the opposite of what is happening. We are not eliminating enemies: we are making more of them by the day. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Libya was sequestered in Benghazi. No Isis. And now, we have them. Because of exactly this kind of obscene, irresponsible thinking.

So they were all just good peaceful people before the US did anything?

If you want to believe we are causing this....go right ahead.

My stance is none of these groups are good. We can only choose to side with the least evil. No matter what we do we can only hope that they are all eliminated. Much like Hitler and the Nazis.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, now we are bombing rebels opposed to President Assad, while also publicly wanting him out. Confused much?

Some of the rebels opposed to Assad who we aren't bombing are now kind of upset that we're pounding ten barrels of #### out of fighters who have been major assets in their fight against the Syrian government forces.

Not only that, but President Assad is claiming that he's working with us to combat the Islamic State forces in Syria. Still with me here?

Just whose side are we on in all this mess?

Then there is the collateral damage. Much was made of the Israelis causing civilian casualties, despite their doing what they could to warn civilians in the target areas that bad #### was inbound. What are we doing? Are we even giving a warning? Or are we just letting innocent civilians die?

Just what are we trying to achieve? And how far down the rabbit hole are we prepared to go to achieve it?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-struggles-blunt-syria-rebel-anger-strikes-25803457

Its feeding the perception that something needs to done, certainly.

I have no idea what should be done here, or why indeed the US is getting involved unilaterally. It serves no clear purpose and there are no obvious outcomes - like trying to fight a fire by pouring petrol on it, just doesn't make any sense. Seems to me this situation is what the UN was created for...

[Pooky 3,807]

Its feeding the perception that something needs to done, certainly.

I have no idea what should be done here, or why indeed the US is getting involved unilaterally. It serves no clear purpose and there are no obvious outcomes - like trying to fight a fire by pouring petrol on it, just doesn't make any sense. Seems to me this situation is what the UN was created for...

If the UN, as a body, was principled and had teeth, I might agree with you. But it doesn't, as the ongoing fiasco in Syria goes to prove.

I'm not talking about the current military action, but the preceding three years of civilian slaughter, enabled by the impasse at the UN. Russia was never going to do anything other than back President Assad and only fell in with the removal of chemical weapons because Secretary Kerry managed to make them look good, while doing nothing to disrupt the killing. China just backed the Russian position, because ... well ... it suited them to see the US floundering about, impotent.

At least the US isn't acting unilaterally, though you disagree. Getting Arab nations to join in this folly has shaken things up quite a bit. They must be concerned that they helped create a monster, funding the Islamic State, and that the monster might come back to bite them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the UN, as a body, was principled and had teeth, I might agree with you. But it doesn't, as the ongoing fiasco in Syria goes to prove.

I'm not talking about the current military action, but the preceding three years of civilian slaughter, enabled by the impasse at the UN. Russia was never going to do anything other than back President Assad and only fell in with the removal of chemical weapons because Secretary Kerry managed to make them look good, while doing nothing to disrupt the killing. China just backed the Russian position, because ... well ... it suited them to see the US floundering about, impotent.

At least the US isn't acting unilaterally, though you disagree. Getting Arab nations to join in this folly has shaken things up quite a bit. They must be concerned that they helped create a monster, funding the Islamic State, and that the monster might come back to bite them.

I dont believe that country goes to war for purely humanitarian reasons. No one cared about Rwanda to stop the genocide there because there was no strategic advantage in doing so. Much the same in Cambodia and the former Yugoslavia - genocides went on in those countries for years without any concerted effort by the international community to help in a meaningful way.

We are only interested in IS because of the implications it has in a region that serves our business and economic self interest.

Who thought that opening Pandoras box in Iraq would create a power vacuum that would be filled by groups friendly to the US? The government knew what the likely outcome would be, they just didn't care.