The U.S. Will Send Arms to Syrian Rebels

Comments

1
Too little, too late, and the US just can't be the name attached.

When Assad's repression/murder became too much, there was a window where NATO (NOT the US) could have said, "we will bomb Syrian army installations, we will stop materiel from getting to the Syrian Army, we will drop food and medical aid, and we will enforce a no-fly zone for the next X months. We won't be involved on the ground no matter what happens. What the Syrian people do with that window of assistance is up to them."
2
It's never too late for the U.S. to intervene and prevent more indiscriminate murder.

It certainly would have been better to send arms to the rebels sooner, but there was no public support for it. In fact, even with the confirmation that Assad did use chemical weapons, most Americans still don't want to intervene. This was the best worst option.
3
How to over take a country 101: Covertly fund, train, arm, and release guerrilla groups to destabilize and terrorize your target country; use the proceeding violence as an excuse to enact a "no-fly" zone (a 'we're going to indiscriminately bomb the living shit out of you zone'); destroy the sovereign government and kill it's leaders, open up said country for western corporate plunder. It worked like a charm in Libya, it's been working great in Iran's neighbor.
4
@Spindles Instead of arms, maybe we should send the rebels fluoride. That stuff is deadly!
5
It worked great in Afghanistan!

Has there ever been a time when the United States supporting rebel forces didn't result in a catastrophe?
6
Well, I certainly still trust Obama, and dearly want to believe in his wisdom....
but man, those rebels have done some horrific shit too.

I just dunno....