originally posted in:Sapphire
View Entire Topic
[url=http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/07/pentagon-state-and-cia-backed-plan-to-arm-syrian-rebels/]Article[/url]
[url=http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2013/02/21/pkg-watson-syria-rebel-terrorist.cnn]Video[/url]
The Obama administration is basically only supplying nonlethal support to the Syrian rebels because many of the freedom fighters are allied with terrorist groups that could hurt us down the road (10% of the Free Syrian Army is allied with al-Qaeda, the group is also known as the Al-Nusra Front).
I'm a bit indifferent on the decision. While I recognize the security concern towards the United States, I also recognize the 60,000 dead in Syria in the last two years (much of whom are children) and the fact that the Assad regime is far from falling.
The other decision (instead of isolating ourselves from the whole issue) is to just burst the bubble of war and let it all out. US bombs Syria, Iran bombs Israel, cluster-blam!- ensues with China and Russia's stance being put on the spotlight. None of which sounds fun.
What's your opinion on the decision and thoughts on the situation?
-
Edited by M37h3w3: 2/21/2013 7:10:43 AMI'm not interested in starting World War 3. Nor am I interested in starting another Afghanistan. We supplied al-Qaeda with weapons when the Russians were trying to start shit with them. That shit didn't turn out well down the road. Meanwhile the third option, effectively do nothing, doesn't make me feel better as a person.