Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

nyabingi

(1,145 posts)
36. The "Free Syrian Army" has long since been pushed aside
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:29 PM
Jun 2014

along with the democratic aspirations of Syrians who initially protested Assad in favor of international jihad with the support of the US, Britain, France, etc. The "moderate" opposition that John Kerry and others in the Obama administration were so fond of speaking about haven't been major players for a while and since we haven't openly renounced over support for the jihadist elements in Syria, I think it is safe to assume that whatever assistance we're giving is going to al-Nusra and ISIS.

Saudi Arabia is and has been the biggest instigator of extremist violence in Syria and Iraq, and they stepped up their monetary support for the Sunni zealots after Obama failed to order missile strikes against Assad's forces. Saudi Arabia and Iran are on opposite sides of the Sunni/Shiite sectarianism and the US seems frankly confused about whom to support at this point.

While Saudi Arabia is the main bankroller of Sunni extremism in the Middle East, any honest person would not try to excuse Obama's role in the gains ISIS has made in Iraq (and against the al-Maliki government). I was condemning the US role in Syria from the very beginning, especially after seeing videos of the al-Nusra Front and ISIS types executing rows of men and posting the footage to YouTube.

Instead of cheerleading bad foreign policy because Obama ordered it, we should have been raising a ruckus to express our disagreement at his actions. Obama can never rationalize droning Sunni extremists in Pakistan and Yemen while supporting them in Syria.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I'd rather put that money into the building of a time machine. onehandle Jun 2014 #1
The afternoon after Bush's morning Inauguration, Bush went to the US Treasury Office to see how much DhhD Jun 2014 #2
How many is a brazillion? Renew Deal Jun 2014 #7
The Democrats need a good challenge from their left nyabingi Jun 2014 #4
No, no, no Swede Atlanta Jun 2014 #3
Someone told me lovuian Jun 2014 #5
It would depend on the type of bomb used OnlinePoker Jun 2014 #28
Obama and his State Department have been helping ISIS/ISIL nyabingi Jun 2014 #6
Our Syria policy has made this situation much worse. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2014 #13
And if we were largely weaned off of oil we wouldn't care... Swede Atlanta Jun 2014 #16
How so? KamaAina Jun 2014 #30
We HAVE been intervening in Syria. Just not to the degree some people want. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2014 #31
Yep. Totally bizarre situation the ballyhoo Jun 2014 #15
The US has not been supporting the ISIS/ISIL karynnj Jun 2014 #23
The "Free Syrian Army" has long since been pushed aside nyabingi Jun 2014 #36
I swear there ARE wmd's there ...now. L0oniX Jun 2014 #8
even if true, the move will not necessarily endear us to the Iraqi people yurbud Jun 2014 #9
88% percent! another_liberal Jun 2014 #11
since tens of trillions of dollars were at stake, his bribe could be quite substantial yurbud Jun 2014 #33
If our President agrees to order air strikes . . . another_liberal Jun 2014 #10
Exactly. I wonder if the ISIL rebels will start shipping ballyhoo Jun 2014 #21
We must by now understand . . . another_liberal Jun 2014 #24
Yes, I agree, but money will be the leader down ballyhoo Jun 2014 #38
They're shipping US equipment captured in Iraq to Syria, we'll see if it's true jakeXT Jun 2014 #34
Apparently, the Iraqi military is doing even less ballyhoo Jun 2014 #39
It's fascinating what can be done by disabling the leadership jakeXT Jun 2014 #40
When should we have left Iraq? We should have never gone there to begin with! another_liberal Jun 2014 #42
Yes. I said that in my second sentence. I ballyhoo Jun 2014 #43
Just agreeing . . . another_liberal Jun 2014 #45
We have to shock and awe them over there so they don't shock and awe us over here! Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2014 #22
Sounds pretty good . . . another_liberal Jun 2014 #25
Agreed absolutely. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2014 #26
True enough ... Nihil Jun 2014 #37
The guys that tortured protestors want us to bomb people.... hmmmm. Who pays? grahamhgreen Jun 2014 #12
USA! USA! USA! jtuck004 Jun 2014 #14
Well, at least you spelled it right! grahamhgreen Jun 2014 #17
*snort* n/t jtuck004 Jun 2014 #20
" I'm sorry.. the number you called has been disconnected...Goodbye" Rhinodawg Jun 2014 #18
our middle east policy-we'll bomb your enemies if you let us build pipelines. mopinko Jun 2014 #19
US just wants to put the tip in. Orsino Jun 2014 #27
Because the people in those towns are now expendable? You cowardly bastards want to run away while jtuck004 Jun 2014 #29
I hope we just say NO!.... Little Star Jun 2014 #32
If we bomb, we will hit many people who are non-combatants at this point. amandabeech Jun 2014 #35
Are we doing anything coherent in the area? AngryAmish Jun 2014 #41
OMG Cha Jun 2014 #44
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Iraq asks US to launch ai...»Reply #36