U.S. delivers 50 tons of ammunition to Syria rebel groups

[Fast Walker 52]

Source: CNN

U.S. military cargo planes gave 50 tons of ammunition to rebel groups overnight in northern Syria, using an air drop of 112 pallets as the first step in the Obama Administration's urgent effort to find new ways to support those groups.

Details of the air mission over Syria were confirmed by a U.S. official not authorized to speak publicly because the details have not yet been formally announced.

C-17s, accompanied by fighter escort aircraft, dropped small arms ammunition and other items like hand grenades in Hasakah province in northern Syria to a coalition of rebels groups vetted by the US, known as the Syrian Arab Coalition.

All pallets successfully were recovered by friendly forces, a U.S. official said.

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/12/politics/syria-rebel-groups-ammunition-50-tons/index.html

---

This is insanity. I can't believe we are perpetuating this conflict. And you have to know that some if not a lot of this ammo will get to ISIS.

[jwirr]

1. We stop training them but we send them ammo. Can't stop

the munitions industry from getting their profits.

[Fast Walker 52]

2. it's simply evil. I would contact my Congressman, but the GOP is too dysfunctional

to do anything right now. I don't know what Obama is thinking. I hope he's is not pushing this. But who's decision is it?

[TwilightGardener]

9. This is what I can't figure out. Supposedly there aren't enough "moderate" vetted rebels to

train and turn into a force to fight ISIS, so our little $500 million program failed, and yet there are several thousand Arabs in Northern Syria who are fighting with the Kurds who are all somehow pre-vetted and all we have to do is drop ammo and weapons to them? I mean, where were these guys when the training program was up and running? Why didn't they want to be on our payroll for doing what they were doing anyway? And another question: why did we send out--in two tiny batches--our vulnerable newly trained rebels into Syria and NOT embed them with these already-present, vetted, and supposedly friendly forces? I think this is all a fucking joke.

[JDPriestly]

3. I have this strange feeling that we are not being told the whole truth about what is going on in

Syria.

And my question for today is, "Are we going to war with Russia, or are we fighting on the same side essentially as Russia?"

And whatever the answer is to the above questions, why are we doing this?

What are the stakes?

Who or what third party are we protecting, or does some fool really think we have a stake in that war?

Are we protecting third parties, countries or interests not directly involved in the war?

Whey are we involved at all? Is there any gain for us? Is this just a war to profit corporations that don't even pay taxes in the US?

What is the real target in all of this?

Why can't we get our act together and start using more alternative energy here so that we can jut let the Middle East rot in its own Hell?

FINALLY, HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS WAR? WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS DROP OF AMMUNITION AND HOW MUCH DID IT COST?

All simplistic questions that beg for simplistic answers, I'm sure, but if those questions are overly simplistic, at least please answer the first few and then I'll ask the questions that come to mind after that has been done.

[christx30]

4. I disagree with you.

These are not simplistic questions. These are very necessary questions. Russia is going after our (for lack of a better term) allies in the area. The ISIS good guys can't really be trusted, (and wouldn't have a chance hell of winning, even if they could be trusted) no matter how much ammo they have.
So why are we still spending billions to supply them? They can't win. The war could spread and spark a regional conflict. Where is the upside for us? I mean, besides putting money into the pockets of the weapons manufacturers?

[Fast Walker 52]

15. Good questions and I don't really know the answers except

that the weapons manufacturers are making bank on this fucked up situation.

[PSPS]

5. Wonderful. This is like Amazon Prime for Al-Nusra.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

10. They get "drone speed" delivery!

[daleo]

12. Next they will want Kindle Unlimited

Best airdrop a few million kindles, just in case.

[Lychee2]

6. This is turning into a proxy war between the US and Russia.

In a very general sense, this is what our involvement in the Middle East has been about all along: who will control the natural resources (oil and uranium) of the region--Russia or the US?

[Igel]

7. Narrow focus.

Syria's natural resources aren't the big deal.

What Russia wants is good access to the Mediterranean and to be able to project power in the ME and elsewhere. They want a multipolar world, if they can't have a unipolar world to their liking. Part is imperialism; part is paranoia. Lots of both on the part of the Poutine.

It wasn't a proxy war a year ago, now was it? What's changed is a clue as to where you get to assign the blame.

[Lychee2]

8. No.

My comment was about the ME, not just Syria.

And it's not "part" imperialism; it's all imperialism. And now two empires are headed toward collision.

[uawchild]

11. No, its a proxy war between Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

The sad thing is Russia and the US are acting like the proxies of those two theocracies, respectively. Both Russia and the US have little to gain here and are doing the heavy lifting for Iran and Saudi Arabia. We are both THAT stupid.

[daleo]

13. Russia is a big oil exporter

So is Saudi Arabia. I suspect that is part of it. Oil prices plummeted when the Saudis flooded the market. This could be payback, by Russia.

[ozone_man]

14. Obama should get another peace prize! n/t