Forum Post: should America use drones
Posted 11 years ago on March 23, 2013, 7:52 a.m. EST by mideast
(506)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
specifically to shoot down Assad's military aircraft ?
specifically to destroy Assad's poison gas depots ?
Seeing as how Al Qaeda agents are known to be the "Syrian Rebels", the drones could be used to take out America's arch enemies.
Oh, wait, that was three invasions ago. Al Qaeda are back on the payroll again.
Yeah, I am having a hard time understanding people like McCain demanding we get involved. This may have started out as a civil war in Syria, but it's become an invasion by other mideast countries/Al Quaeda. We have been arming the so-called rebels for quite some time. It's part of the real Benghazi story....why Stevens was in Benghazi in the first place. The recent news that everyone wanted to aid the 'rebels' except the Peace Prize Prez is probably meant to give him political cover for getting caught arming jihadists.
Withouting googling, I recall that the neocons had five nations targetted for regime change. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Iran is next.
What really gets my goat is that there's no huge public outcry that the supposed enemies of the nation are now clearly paid mercenaries, just like back in their cold war days fighting the Russians.
I would hazard a guess that nobody is willing to point out the obvious, because dissidents get killed these days. Just look the other way, and keep consuming.
Yeah, I had hoped the Repubs investigation into Benghazi would bring all this to light and get it out on the state media. That was wishful thinking. The Repubs don;t want the truth out, either. They just want to hear someone admit that Obama lied about the attack since it was during his reelection campaign. Duh, no shit and not the important aspect of the attack. I think the American public would not be too pleased if they realized we are handing weapons to the very same people that have shot and killed our own soldiers. I really can't get my head around our foreign policy...especially in regards to the Muslim world. It keeps me up at night if I dwell on it.
There's always more to things than meet the eye or ear, so perhaps we are all being duped. The Brits kindof let it slip that funds were being directed from their MI6 to Al Q'aeda, which gives me the thought that information like that should never be getting out.
Perhaps (and this is really frightening) that those pulling the strings no longer care at all that we know their plans. That should keep you up at night.
That's the ultimate high for the corrupt - doing it in your face - and no one saying a word in protest.
Sadly, it seems to be the case.
The unspoken intention behind the torture(sorry, extreme rendition) cases, and the latest stab in the back for habeas corpus. Our rights as individuals have been eroded to the point where we can legally be corralled and maced, before being trucked into the desert to dance the light fantastic.
Have you seen this video yet?
http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/
Bookmarked. Thanks.
I'm making dinner for the folks. Sunday evening here.
Has it ever been more clear at any point in history - that good people are under attack? Civilization?
Can it be that most people can't believe it could ever happen?
In the Land of the Free?
In the land of the free - hmmmmm - I suppose harder to believe than most anywhere else - as it has been a long long time since real strife has visited this nation. Strife such as the civil war or war of independence. This economic meltdown has for the most part been pretty gentle to most. No gunfire and burning towns - just people you don't know tossed out into the street.
Yes, a seemingly unconnected series of occurrences, and without an active and honest media industry, few people are connecting the dots. Those who do make the connection are ignored or labelled as tinfoil hat wearers.
Just call them truthers, and sweep them under the carpet.
Yep - attacked by a statement that they are nuts.
Ironic that one more English word takes on the opposite meaning.
Opposite? Different categories. Edible and healthy - and - Insane.
Truthers and Liars?
Thousands of architects, pilots, engineers, scientists on the one hand, and the NIST report on the other.
TRuthers? Ummm - will anyone know the truth of that day?
[-] 1 points by Builder (3681) 0 minutes ago
Truthers and Liars?
Thousands of architects, pilots, engineers, scientists on the one hand, and the NIST report on the other. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Yes, I hear ya, and If OWS had any balls, they'd be protesting against all these Yankee Middle-East aggressions...
Morality aside, these wars are what is taking down our economy.
I recall reading that the Iraq invasion opened the coffers of the US treasury, so the neocons could profit greatly.
I think they were right.
Are you saying that maybe #ows has been subverted?
OWS Subverted? I certainly believe so.
Economically speaking, the Middle-East wars which are continuing on today is the elephant in the room, and OWS is saying nothing.
Before all our economic woe, I hear they still want to do Iran.......
It's the neocon plan.
It will be drummed deeply into everyone's heads every time they switch on their news channels.
Most people assume that Iran is a third world nation. It is actually one of the most culturally significant historical places on the planet.
Yep, the same with Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
I think a good part of OWS is to steer would be anti-war protesters away from making anti-war protests.
Assuming they were ever off it to begin with. All things considered, you gotta wonder.
It's all very shady dealings indeed.
Yes, there is a whole lot going on behind the curtain. Personally, I'm thinking they've always been on the payroll, but only because that fits my preconceived notions.
They (Mujahedin) were given a lot of shoulder-mounted stingers, to take out the Russian attack helicopters. They were so effective, they only needed a small percentage of what they were given.
I think the working relationship is one of mutual fear. The most radical fundamentalists on earth were sought for the attack on Russia, and they were further radicalised with propaganda films.
Once you train up people like this, you either keep them on the books, or deal them down with extreme prejudice.
Robert Baer has a couple of books out after he retired from the CIA. One of them he describes the processes we put the Mujahidin through as ... taking their passports in Pakistan and setting them up for war in Afghanistan ... and when the Russians left we left these Jihadis in Pakistan-Afghanistan with out Passports and without a country to go home to. Afghanistan didn't want them back after they had been trained and become killers. So they were stuck in Pakistan and Afghanistan without a country.
Yes, I'd heard that this resulted in the Taliban taking control, leading to one of the most destructive periods, maybe twenty years, where religious icons centuries old were destroyed. It made me wonder why the west simply looked on.
Leadership is risk, but mostly it is strategy that only applies in this case if other people in the elite circle want something.
I mean look at Rwanda massacres. Plenty of reporters or reports came out about the killings back and forth. But the elites of the world didn't see what they could get out of any intervention. I'm sure there have been over 20 wars around the world in any particular year ... probably more like 28 wars going on in any year. Most of them are over looked or ignored. No one tries to stop killing in South or central America. Sure, the US is complicit or has an interest in the fight, but doesn't overtly ask for peace and send peace keepers. And Tibet ....
There were reports of Buddhist statutes being destroyed in Afghanistan ... but our strategy was specific and an attempt to insert without a lot of risk... we weren't going to stop the destruction, but would distract them with our deployment.
I don't pretend to be expert on Politics. But looks like #1 is Strategy for Specific Goals that benefit the powerful. #2 is don't say more than you have to, keep the message short like a meme (that is why we get half truths and news that makes us dumber. The reason is that the more they say the more their opponents or interest groups can nail them on). #3 It is all about speaking past the interest groups without getting nailed. #4 In politics never fight a battle for no reason. #5 Never speak in public without planning out the whole thing and reflecting on who will be listening and how they will react.
Politicians are not humans and they are not Leaders. We want them to be Leaders and problem solvers. But they are just disappointments. They are opportunists, they are performers, they are illusionists, they are Posers, They are Liars, They are bought and paid for.... but they are not our leaders.
Is that too cynical. A cynic stops fighting for government and for change and for solutions. I have to keep looking at this. I can be cynical about government laws and contracts ... but I should keep some sense of hope.
I think if we'd already given up all hope, we wouldn't be here trading information, and pairing up ideas.
Australia might be experiencing an economic boom, but the dearth of talent within our political spheres is depressing, if not, at times, quite comical. But it's not funny when you realise that they are being bought and sold, while play-acting for our benefit.
I think I just made a case for the audacity of hope.
Yes, well if you are pretending to serve the people it shows. Like you cant be authentic if you are lying or focused on deception. So only clowns volunteer and try to pull it off.
They must hate the fact that everything they've ever said can come back to haunt them on the web.
It's certainly not audacious to have hope. At least I hope not.
That's a hell of an 'either-or' isn't it? It's like a deal with the devil.
It's certainly changing how invasions are managed.
When you own the press, it makes things a lot easier.
No need to consult congress any more.
Yeah, who needs that stinkin' Congress anyway?
Domestically, the Feds climb in bed with the Mob, the Mob climbs in bed with the bikers.
Abroad, kind of the same thing.
It's kind of hard to tell who's who anymore.
GWB stated that "things would be a helluva lot easier if it was" when asked if the US was now a dictatorship.
Yeah - a hell of a lot easier for a dictator.
The checks and balance myth seems to have been checked and balanced.
Don't need such in a dictatorship. Not any that are real - anyway.
I must have missed that quote. Well, he should be pretty pleased now since "things are getting a helluva lot easier."
Hmmm, my link to that video has been removed.
I wonder why? heheheheh.
Censorship is alive and well on the internet.
There has been quite a few time recently I've tried to load a page in Google only to get the infamous "sorry, page not found" message. But I'll try to load the same url into Giburu, and voila! No problemo.
I've been told to avoid the googmonster like it's the plague.
It's like that song by Sting, "every move you make, every step you take, I'll be watching you..."
I've heard that too, but it's Firefox's default search engine. I guess I just use it out of convenience since I also have Giburu.
Sting's song turned out to be quite prophetic, didn't it?
Yeah, I've played around with a few alternatives to the googie, but like you say, it's too convenient. And fast.
Did notice some weird things happening a while ago, when both my email accounts got hacked.
On the Sting thing, the three W's must be a control freak's wet dream.
BTW - rail against the BS that is happening with the best comment board today. I have been attacked for many thousands of points in the past and currently - and that has not all been negative votes either.
"Who asked you to downvote a good comment?"
Well, then what the fuck are you asking me to do when you said this:
"BTW - rail against the BS that is happening with the best comment board today."
Please explain.
You see nothing wrong with the excessive amount of twinkles given to these comments? ( mine included ) Attacks on individuals have not always been stinkles - but have included twinkles - to make people wonder how this comment got so many twinkles - good comment or not - over 5 is a rare number of twinkles.
Understanding now?
You and odin and many others are not the only ones ever to have been attacked. By stinkle or twinkle.
Attack people with twinkles. Good one, DK. What's that accomplish?
Just what I said - makes people wonder why this comment got so many twinkles - makes people wonder if it was not a sock/bot up-vote. People have been attacked this way before to discredit what they stand for - due to excessive twinkles. Don't believe Me ? Ask around.
For instance - this comment would normally be attacked by the gun nutters/shills/trolls:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/are-you-a-member-of-the-stinkled-club/#comment-949270
But is currently a plus 9.
I've seen a lot of funny points today, even in threads. A lot of 6's and 7's for no apparent reason. Someone's playing games, but I'm not going to go in and downvote the best comments just because they seem excessively high. What's the point? I'd rather spend my time in discussions.
Who asked you to downvote a good comment? You agree or like a comment - feel free to give it a twinkle or not ( your choice always ) - you disagree with a comment - feel free to give it a stinkle or ignore it - as YOU choose ( always ).
What's wrong with it?
Zero points for Bernie? That is an outrage. I'm serious 13 points 20 hours ago by ZenDog (14361)
How often do you see 13 points - a legitimate 13 points for any comment let alone a measly 5 or 6 points. Fucking with points is not just a negative approach.
"Did notice some weird things happening a while ago, when both my email accounts got hacked.
On the Sting thing, the three W's must be a control freak's wet dream."
Some weird shit going on. I've been hit with malware four or five times in the past few weeks. Two got through.
And what do you mean by the three W's? The World Wide Web?
Yeah, the original W's.
I think anyone with training can hack into our machines.
It might have been made obvious as a kind of warning.
They absolutely can, I think. I assume there's a 'back-door' in most commercial software nowadays. Definitely Windows.
[Removed]
Like knocking out Sadam's WMD?
After the Sadam debacle why should anyone believe Assad has poison gas to throw on people?
All sounds like Iraq, or Libya all over again.
Just face it, the Yankee evil oligarchy is out to take over the planet, and will even drone Americans if they have to.
IF he has chemical weapons should we use drones to destroy them?
Should we use drones to stop assad's air force from killing Syrians?
No! Have you not learned the lessons from that bullshit of WMD in Iraq? Look at all the misery we created there, and for what?
Even if Assad did have chem weapons and such, he never had an inclination of using them. The only reason he is firing off weapons now is because the U.S.A. with its proxies are making a war with him.
We preach all this King Gandhi non-violence in our activities here Stateside, but when it comes to the Middle-East why is it that we are so fast to drop bombs?
How many weapos has USA shipped to Syria to support the rebels?
Do you believe assad has chemical weapons?
According to the New York Times, 24 March 2013, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands With Aid from CIA. " The U.S. is directly supporting arming rebels in Syria. The New Yorker (see the article "The Redirection" by Symour Hersh 5 Mar 2007) was already reporting way back when the U.S. was arming rebels for military actions against Syria. If this was not going on there would be no war.
I believe Assad has about as many chem weapons and other WMD as Sadam had; that is none. Even if he had WMD that is no reason to go to war.
The U.S.A. is complicit in a blatant military aggression against a sovereign Country.
I am NOT an advocate for war
I have no idea if assad has chemical weapons
IF you were president & you had proof, would you use drones to destroy the chemical weapoms? IF you had proof that assads's air force was killing 100 people per day would you use drones to shoot down his planes? What if the number was 1000/day?
With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.
The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.
As it evolved, the airlift correlated with shifts in the war within Syria, as rebels drove Syria’s army from territory by the middle of last year. And even as the Obama administration has publicly refused to give more than “nonlethal” aid to the rebels, the involvement of the C.I.A. in the arms shipments — albeit mostly in a consultative role, American officials say — has shown that the United States is more willing to help its Arab allies support the lethal side of the civil war.
From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. The C.I.A. declined to comment on the shipments or its role in them.
I only ask who is perpetuating the war and atrocities in Syria? The answer should be obvious. My question is rhetorical. the answer is clearly; not Assad.
specifically - where do you get that "fact" that assad is not responsible for atrocities
Common sense. If the rebels were not being funded to make war, there would be no war. If there was no war, Assad would not be shooting back. Nobody would be getting killed. Simple.
The atrocity is making and perpetuating war, and that is not being done by Assad, but by those supporting the rebels.
So your statement of FACT has no foundational source beyond
what you choose to believe.
The American revolution STARTED w/o outside support
The French revolution STARTED w/o outside support
The Russian revolution STARTED w/o outside support
Fact is outside support is driving the war in Syria.
Fact is Assad is not the aggressor; he is the one under siege.
Fact is the war is killing a lot of people.
Fact is killing a lot of people is atrocity.
Fact is war stops when the aggressor stops aggressing.
.
What other sort of "fact" are you looking for?
P R O O F Where is the evidence?
THIS IS A YEAR OLD The Syrian question. This now appears to be the defining struggle of our times.
Will the international community stand idly by while a Syrian dictator’s tanks and artillery crush demonstrators who began peacefully, and some of whom now arm themselves with AK-47s to defend themselves against the highly advanced war machines and state security apparatus of a modern state?
Will it stand idly by because this dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad is backed by Russia, both at the U.N. and more directly with arms sales and munitions deliveries, a world power with nuclear weapons which has its own history of state terror, Stalin’s purges, the deliberate starvation of the Ukraine, and of its own tanks crushing freedom fighters in Poland (1953), Hungary (1956), and Czechoslovakia (1968), not to speak of the terror tactics used to take control of the occupied countries of Eastern Europe after World War II?
Will the international community stand idly by because the al-Assad dictatorship is also backed by Iran, which has crushed its own internal opposition Green Movement since 2009, and which is also a sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah?
Will the international community stand idly by because China, a world power of great importance to the United States and Europe, refuses to assume its responsibilities as a constructive leader in the Security Council where, hiding behind Russia, it blocks effective United Nations action?
Current events is Syria are reminiscent of the Spanish Civil War, when Nazi Germany and Italy brought their modern weapons of war to Spain in support of Francisco Franco’s fascist army’s battle to the death against the republican forces of Spain, as Europe stood idly by.
One thinks of Zawiyah and the victory of Qadaffi’s forces there, or Misurata and Benghazi and what their fate would have been without international military intervention.
An image from the Spanish civil war, Pablo Picasso’s painting “Guérnica”, may express the terror which confronts the Syrian people. Ironically, a tapestry based on that painting, which symbolizes the horrors of war (see above), adorned the entrance to the Security Council chambers until Colin Powell insisted that it be removed before his press conferences justifying the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is now on loan to a gallery in England, pending “remodeling” at the U.N.
So should the “international right of protection” be forgotten at Homs, just as constitutional government was left to shift for itself in the 1930s in Spain?
Is that the kind of world we want to live in, in the 21st century, where tens of thousands of citizens are slaughtered by their government as the world stands by, helpless, because the dictator has the support of two permanent members of the Security Council?
Maybe.
But then maybe the international community should not give up.
Maybe it should be prepared to present new resolutions to the Security Council, calling for the grant to the International Criminal Court of a mandate to investigate and prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Syria.
Maybe the international community and leading powers should call for the establishment of humanitarian corridors or safety zones in Syria where the civilian population can seek refuge and receive humanitarian assistance, with whatever military protection of the corridors may be required.
Maybe President Sarkozy or even President Obama needs to call for an urgent meeting of the heads of state of the pemanent members of Security Council, to be held within a week or two, where a collective solution that can halt the attack by al-Assad on civilians might be hammered out. Such an effort, if successful, might help preserve the recent precedents of collective action based on consensus among the permanent members of the Council, hammer out a new framework for restraint in the use of the veto, and help avoid any backsliding into the Cold War thinking and Security Council paralysis of the past.
Something must be done right away.
Referring the matter back to the Arab League after two months of failed efforts, with no means of obligating al-Assad to halt the killing, does not seem to be a promising strategy to pursue, at least not as the main strategy.
Above all, action is needed now, before al-Assad kills off the opposition and succeeds in imposing a “solution” to the internal conflict like the one his father, Hafez al-Assad, imposed in Hama in 1982, when some 10,000 to 20,000 people or more were massacred.
Maybe the Security Council should meet once a week, in public session, to discuss and seek solutions to the Syrian crisis, until the killing stops.
This is the defining struggle of our times.
Those willing to support democratic movements and to defend the fundamental rights of man, which now represent the overwhelming majority of nations in the world, stand arrayed against those who would use or defend the use of the terrible weapons and security apparatus of the modern state to murder and crush those who merely seek to exercise their fundamental human rights.
Just as Hitler’s crimes against humanity and conquering armies in Europe posed an existential threat to the Allied free countries of the world in 1939-1945, the ongoing Syrian slaughter poses a defining challenge for the world community, today, and every day on which it continues.
Could we ever negotiate with the war criminals led by Bashar al-Assad, who commit crimes against humanity as we speak?
His proposed referendum on a new constitution is a merciless joke, as the necessary conditions for the deliberate study of the proposed constitution, public debate, and a free and fair referendum are not even remotely imaginable. Al-Assad’s track record leaves him with zero credibility.
Would you sit down with someone who had just killed your wife and sister, to discuss rules which you should follow in the future in mutual relations between your families?
If the international community stands by while tens of thousands of Syrians are slaughtered by the al-Assad dictatorship, what kind of a world will we be living in after these crimes against humanity have claimed their victims?
Hassan Lakkis of The Daily Star (Beirut) has just reported that a final assault on the opponents of the regime in Syria is imminent:
Figuratively speaking, we stand at the outskirts of Srebrenice, a day or two before the massacre of over 7,000 Bosnian men and boys by Bosnian Serbs and Serbs under the command of Ratkó Mladic (in 1995).
What is to be done?
Who will lead the international community?
It is time to act.
If not now, when?
In contemplating the answers to these questions, one might well reflect on the painting by Francisco Goya entitled “The Third of May” (see below), which seems to represent the probable fate of thousands of Syrians if the international community does not act, effectively, now.
Geeez, if ya can't say it in a few lines, ya might as well not say it at all.
But let me try to put all that you put before me together: You say we should go and kill a lot of people, so to keep somebody from possibly going out and killing a lot of people? Huh? How is it that that doesn't make any sense?
I dont want to kill or attack anyone
where is your PROOF of this absurd statement:
"Fact is Assad is not the aggressor; he is the one under siege."
Simple, who's country is being sacked? It is not like Assad is invading the U.S.A. or anybody. The rebels are trying to oust Assad. That is what they are saying they want to do. That is what the U.S.A. government is saying it wants to do. It is Syria that is under attack, not any other country. It is thus Assad as the leader of Syria who is being attacked. How much more simple a proof does anybody need?
What is it that you want to believe, that keeps you from recognizing the basic facts at hand?
Bensdad, note that the American, French, and Russian revolutions were brought about by citizens who were EQUALLY ARMED as the oppostition. These citizens possessed 'weapons that only belong in the theater of war'. Strange, huh?
But I don't get your point about started w/o outside help? We needed the French to beat England, but the other 2 did it on their own. The Syrian uprising may have started w/o outside help, but the killing and suffering would be long finished if we were not helping arm the opposition.
As far as I can see, we have sent NO AMERICAN ARMS into Syria.
Do you have any proof to the contrary ?
The US is definitely sending arms to the Syrian rebels.
your proof is ?
hopefully not breitbart or faux noose gnomunny's link below does not go to any PROOF
It doesn't seem to be much of a secret. No, not Breitbart of faux news, neither of which I've paid one minute of my valuable time paying attention to.
https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+sends+arms+to+syrian+rebels&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
That's because the link was incorrect. My mistake. Click it now, bensdad.
Jobs for weapons workers
Spring - Andrea Potts
That was cool.
And the Syrian "rebels" are the same crew who destablised Libya, and Iraq.
It's Al Q'aeda, or the Mujahedin. Been on the payroll for a long time. Cheaper than sending troops, and no worries about minor details like war crimes or congress approval.
Exactly what I was thinking. Checking off General Clark's list one by one. The order doesn't really matter. More important to take Syria before Iran anyway. The better to divert those precious resources to the Mediterranean rather than the Arabian Sea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
FROM GEOMUNNY's LINK - a google results page: that says nothing about American arms sent by America to Syrian rebels
‘Sending arms to Syrian rebels is now legal and covered by the Arab League’ Get short URL Published time: March 26, 2013 23:52
Trends Syria unrest
The Arab League has affirmed member states' right to give military support to the Syrian insurgency. But Syria Tribune editor-in-chief Ali Mohamad says it was the legalization of existing military aid in a bid to let the media report freely on the issue.
The Arab League summit on Tuesday has granted the Syrian seat in the body to the opposition Syrian National Coalition in a symbolic move presented as an important victory against the Syrian government.
The summit also issued a draft resolution on Syria, reaffirming “the right of every [member] state to offer all forms of self-defense, including military, to support the resistance of the Syrian people and the Free Syrian Army.”
“Syrian people alone should determine who rules the country,” the leader of the foreign-backed opposition delegation, Moaz al-Khatib, proclaimed upon taking the seat despite his earlier official resignation from the body. Khatib was accompanied by the recently appointed prime minister of the SNC, Ghassan Hitto, a Western-educated former businessman and US citizen whose candidacy had faced resistance not only within the self-proclaimed governing opposition body, but also among the divided group fighting on the ground.
No statement of America shipping arms to Syria FROM YOUR LINK- the rebels often adapt their language and appearance in ways they hope will appeal to those distributing weapons. For instance, many rebels have grown the long, scraggly beards favored by hard-line Salafi Muslims after hearing that Qatar was more inclined to give weapons to Islamists.
The Saudis and Qataris are themselves relying on intermediaries — some of them Lebanese — who have struggled to make sense of the complex affiliations of the rebels they deal with.
“We’re trying to improve the process,” said one Arab official involved in the effort to provide small arms to the rebels. “It is a very complex situation in Syria, but we are learning.”
One only needs to hear what is coming out of the U.S. Secretary of State's as well as the U.S. President's mouth to know where the support from the rebels is coming from.
Besides where do you think the Saudi's and the Qatari's are getting their weapons from? .. and the U.S. CIA is directly involved. The U.S. is even training rebels in Jordan. Check out Antiwar.com.
of course
Depends. If the goal is to simply remove Assad and let them figure out the rest- no.
If the goal is to remove the entire government, and install pro US dictators, then....
America should spent its wealth for helping the world, not using an army to control it. Unfortunately, Americans are addicted to war and control.
Is that why America spends so mu ch money on foreign aid ?
generalizations show a lack of reason or ignorance
Bad writing shows a lack of reason, and/or ignorance.
Without the use of the comma, Your sentence reads "Generalizations show a lack of reason or a lack of ignorance.
The basic tool humans use to acquire knowledge is generalizations. Smart people use them all the time. To define something as special, we must first define the generalization which the special thing challenges. Empirical knowledge is created by using categories. Categories are generalizations. Without categories, we could not understand anything. Everything we know is based on generalizations. Scientific models are generalizations. Etc...
Should America be constitutional? If it was would the OP have the title it does?
Should "America" use drones?? And who exactly is leading America? That would be the village idiot Obama. Who you re-elected.
the word is " frauded", not elected.