Not that I can remember. Sounds like a solid plan to me, where do I sign up? Oh wait...

Just so we're clear, one side is the Syrian government, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. On the other side are Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel. Who are the good guys, and what national interest would this serve again?

Who are the good guys, and what national interest would this serve again?

'Murica, and freedom.

Just so we're clear, one side is the Syrian government, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. On the other side are Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel. Who are the good guys, and what national interest would this serve again?

So Israel and Al Qaeda are on the same side? That's a first.

Just saw this (though it was written on the 16th). Leaving F-16's in Jordan:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/16/us-to-keep-f16s-missiles-in-jordan-post-exercise.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

So we'll give weapons to the rebels in support of their fight against Assad (but make sure only the 'good' rebs get them), but we are prosecuting Eric Harroun for fighting with the rebels (at one point he was allegedly with a group labeled as an AQ affiliate....allegedly).

?

So we'll give weapons to the rebels in support of their fight against Assad (but make sure only the 'good' rebs get them), but we are prosecuting Eric Harroun for fighting with the rebels (at one point he was allegedly with a group labeled as an AQ affiliate....allegedly).

?

Makes about as much sense as restricting my right to own firearms while simultaneously selling thousands directly to the Mexican mafia.

When has arming a group of religiously motivated rebels in the Middle East ever backfired for the US?

Seriously, what could go wrong?

I can't believe we're getting involved with these f#%?s. Let them kill themselves off.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352251/Horrific-video-shows-Syrian-Catholic-priest-beheaded-jihadist-fighters-cheering-crowd.html

Gen Dempsey outlines options for Syria. Here are the possible options as listed in the article:

At the least invasive end, he said, is the option of training, advising and assisting the rebels. The next level up would be conducting limited strikes on "high-value regime" military targets.

The three other options are increasingly costly and risky.

They include:

• A no-fly zone, which according to Dempsey could cost up to a billion dollars per month and would include shooting down regime aircraft and conducting strikes on their airfields.
  
• The establishment of "buffer zones," which would be "specific geographic areas" where the opposition would safely organize and train. This would require thousands of U.S. ground forces, Dempsey said, "even if positioned outside Syria," to protect these zones.
  
• A campaign to secure chemical weapons. This would entail destroying portions of Syria's stockpile, interdicting shipments and seizing other components. At minimum, Dempsey said, this would include a no-fly zone and thousands of special operations and other forces to secure critical sites.
  

Hey, bro, we're going to have to furlough your paycheck for 11 months when you get back from Syria so we can afford to send you to Syria. Cool?

Smoke screen to help change the narrative from the scandals, NSA issues, and the weak economy. Clinton used it when Lewinsky came up, Bush did it in 2002/03 when the economy was still weak, and now it appears Obama might dabble with the same playbook in regards to Syria. It's always about politics over country.

In fairness, John McCain seems more eager to get into a war in Syria than Obama.

I'm still waiting for a good argument from the war-hawks in Congress as to why Arabs killing Arabs in Arab countries is my problem.

In fairness, John McCain seems more eager to get into a war in Syria than Obama.

I'm still waiting for a good argument from the war-hawks in Congress as to why Arabs killing Arabs in Arab countries is my problem.

This.

In fairness, John McCain seems more eager to get into a war in Syria than Obama.

I think the "maverick" is senile.

Recommend watching on mute so you don't have to listen to "Alluh Akbar" be yelled 69,000 times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxkjs-1ks2U

Behind the scenes article in this month's Wired Magazine about the Syrian rebel weapons makers:

https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/diy-arms-syria/

Hard to say who is using them though. I know reports are Assad regime, but strong potential it's al Nusra front. Either way the civilians are suffering. Think this will lead to an escalation or fizzle out like the last time someone used chemical agents but source was indeterminable?

Why would Assad use chemical weapons just when UN inspectors arrive in his country and he is apparently winning?

The next time that Putin and Obama get together I can see their new joint announcement on Syria; " U.S and Russia to form a joint coalition in support of Bashar Al Assad and his government forces". It may be better to deal with the enemy we know and Russia very well could be right on this one, now that would be a curve ball. An even better solution would be if the big four (U.S./NATO, Russia, China, India) could get together on at least the one issue we all have in common and that would defeating radical Islam.

https://www.defensenews.com/article/20130824/DEFREG02/308240004/4-US-Destroyers-Positioned-Near-Syria-Obama-Security-Team-Discuss-Options Anyone think this is going somewhere?

Still how I feel.

https://www.defensenews.com/article/20130824/DEFREG02/308240004/4-US-Destroyers-Positioned-Near-Syria-Obama-Security-Team-Discuss-Options Anyone think this is going somewhere?

Eventually. Some good insight:

https://www.amazon.com/The-New-American-Militarism-Americans/dp/0195173384