Giving money and arms to the Syrian rebels was initially a way for the US to conduct a proxy war on the Assad government, but since that failed we’re now going to just do the job ourselves. As far as your question goes, it can’t be simple stupidity. Maybe they’ve found it politically expedient to have radical groups armed to the teeth and running loose in the Mid East.:shrug: I know that the United States and Israel were both furious when Putin prevented their last attempt at war with Syria. Maybe this way they can be assured of always having an excuse to operate when and where they want.
The Islamic state isn’t an OPEC member, meaning that the oil they plunder from Syria and Iraq won’t be subject to OPEC price floors. Once that oil gets flooding into the market (And they have been selling it) worldwide prices could drop, leading to a favorable situation for the US.
So business as usual then. I admit to knowing very little about the different groups in the ME, but who’s to say that the Syrian rebels will not join up with ISIS in the longer term, especially since changing their name from ISIL to ISIS - to be more inclusive.
More funds to the rebels just means more hits against Assad.
The gist of his speech was that he declared an open ended war in the Middle East. He said he has the authority to act without Congress’ approval, which, of course, is a red herring, considering Congress/AIPAC has been lusting after open war on Syria for more than a year, and also because it’s 100% illegal whether Congress overtly backs it or not. International law very clearly states that no nation may attack another nation unless it’s in self-defense. Not to even mention the fact that President Assad is an objectively more legitimate ruler than Obama is or ever has been. Independent monitors report that 89% of Syrians entirely approve of President Assad and wish for him to remain their leader. Obama has never been anywhere near that. And obviously President Obama didn’t mention in his speech that Assad has been one of the most vociferous and outspoken enemies of ISIS since it’s very beginning, before it even had that name. So it was just that kind of speech: Obama grinning like an idiot because he knows he can do anything with absolute impunity. He can send drones into Syria to bomb the hell out of the Syrian populace all in the name of the war on terror, and he will never be impeached or made to stand trial in front of the ICC in the Hague.
And another problem often mentioned is that the $500 million dollars, supposedly going to the FSA, may very well end up in the hands of ISIS. Instead of throwing away this $500 million dollars in Syria, why doesn’t he help the poor working class families who cannot afford to send their children to college. With more and more people working near the minimum wage, the cost of one year of college oftentimes exceeds their annual income, expecially when you take into account all the deductions. Why not have some compassion for these working class families struggling to pay for the water and winter heating bills? I know of a family who in the wintertime has ice on the inside walls of their apartment because they cannot afford too much heating. These politicians just don’t seem to care, but they can always find billions and billions of dollars, even trillions, to fight wars that go nowhere except to harm innocent children and other law abiding civilians. Why don’t they attempt to solve these political issues peacefully with experienced and educated diplomats working out the solutions instead of waging these murderous wars where children are being slaughtered?
For goodness sakes, I do think that protecting people from being slaughtered by these murderous, conscienceless evilists is a good use for our military and our taxes since private armies are outlawed. It’s not like people of that type are likely to engage in reasonable political discussions.
Isn’t that the problem? We have outlawed armies so that other nations cannot build military structures. We supposed to be the" good guys" and fight the battle. Only it costs a share fortune and none of these other countries give a dime or seem to care. It’s like it all up to us now.
Then we hear from our own government, well, we’re going to the UN. Huh! Did I miss something. Why even say it?
You are forgetting that many of those who belong to the FSA (supported by the USA) have gone over to ISIS. Where will this $500 million dollars go in the end? Well, some of the rebels will join ISIS and take the money with them, others will be killed, and some of the money will end up in the hands of corrupt individuals. The rebels and ISIS have the same goal: they want Assad out. So it is counterproductive to give them $500 million dollars.
especially starting at 13:50, Although the whole discussion is interesting the question of giving the $500 million to ISIS is addressed beginning at 13:50 or so. youtube.com/watch?v=IQ2KzjNtDTc
Also, I am not convinced that a peaceful solution to the problem is not possible. I am in favor of peace and peaceful means of solving these questions. The USA has spent trillions of dollars on wars and what has been the result? Tens of thousand of innocent civilians and children killed. The situation in the Middle East just gets worse with these wars that seem to go on without end. War is not the answer. Professional diplomacy between the parties is the peaceful and the best way to solve this.
Do you really think that spending trillions of dollars on wars during the past 40 years has led to a more stable, prosperous and happy situation for the people and countries involved?
500 million is Obamas favorite number off the top of his head. Same number he used with immigration.
If I’m not mistaken one of the moderate Generals just left for Isis also. Pretty much how this works, and is part of this process with radicalization.
Boehner stated yesterday that though Obama wasn’t his choice for President he was willing to give him limited authority in training and funding, and support him. Members of Congress are split on the issue and thats both Democrats and Rep.
No we always have and if we will continue remains a doubtful concern. You can’t cut spending and remain the top military in the world. We use to stay 20-years ahead of everyone. Not so anymore. If we continue our present path incidents will continue to occur with Russia and China. Today we are still the leading military in the world, China second and Russia third. We should keep it that way, its smart thinking which began during WW-II.