­

Hey guys let's go arm more terrorists! Perfect idea! This obviously hasn't bit us in the ass before! [1 year later] US Troops enter Syria.

The Syrian conflict is insane. It's basically this: Syrian Rebels/FSA Islamist groups USA + some EU countries Israel vs Syrian Government Iran Russia Hezbollah This is despite some of the groups being "partners" or enemies. The lines drawn are like a bloody Tom Clancy novel. You've got Russia sending in an aircraft carrier to aid the Syrian government, Iran and Hezbollah sending in thousands of fighters,[b] vs[/b] Mujahideen terrorist groups/rebel mixture/FSA, with some limited US/EU support.

Brilliant thread, OP, that rejects the action with arguments that raise legitimate points against arming rebel factions. I applaud your endeavor to educate the masses with such eloquent prose.

its about time he stopped half-assing the issue and despite what you might think, the rebels are fighting a tyrannical dictator and they've been asking for military aid for years now. we can't afford to take half measures

I can't believe I read every comment/reply to this thread.

I don't see what's wrong with what he's doing.

why cant we just stay out of the business of other nations?

[i]Meanwhile in Congo[/i]

The Republicans have been demanding Obama send full military support to Syria for a good two years now. Considering the political pressure that has been leveled on him, he should be commended for limiting the US' involvement as much as he has. Unfortunately, Syria is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If the US were to do nothing, and the rebels are defeated, the West will be condemned for not helping Syrians overthrow a ruthless dictator, which will drive many civilians into the pro Al-Quaeda camp. But if we do help them defeat Assad, there's a risk that the only Al-Quaeda aligned forces will pick up the pieces and form a new government. There's three possible outcomes to this war, IMO: 1. Assad remains in power, yet is forced to deal with low level insurgencies for years. 2. The rebels win and the radicals are prevented from taking power. Same situation as above, except with a much weaker government lacking the military support Assad has. 3. Assad is defeated, but Al-Qaeda backed forces take power. A Sunni state is established, hostile to Iran (Shia'a), Hezbollah (Shia'a), Israel, and potentially Jordan and Turkey. Bloomberg has an interesting article on Syria, which I've linked above.

Well someone had to interfere at some point, unfortunately it was the Americans.

how is supporting a rebellion against a hostile, totalitarian dictator who has been killing his own people and even using chemical weapons on civilians a bad thing? seems to me like stopping a madman and helping some folks who really need it. Also: say hi to the NSA and CIA OP, they're watching

I think the OP is trying a bit too hard to be edgy.

Tell me OP, of what interrogation method are you most afraid the American government will use on you after they read this post, raid your house and throw a black sack on your head?

I for one completely support sending in weapons to the middle east. Not even to a particular side, just send them assault rifles and grenades and let them all kill each other if they want. edit: and if they decide to attack us, we drop a few bombs indiscriminately like they try to do now. If you ask me, the best way to fight terrorism is with terrorism. Golden rule and all that shit.

Congrats. Threatening the president's life even in a passive aggressive manner just landed you on the FBI's watch list.

-_- Syrian Rebels are Al-Quada members though!