http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/us/politics/house-vote-isis.html?_r=0 Do they never learn . . . today's friends are tomorrow's enemies when it comes to the foreign policy of "arming/training my enemy's enemy?" How many times has this bit us in the ass?
Thinking.... who said that dirty word...... It is all politics at this point... no logic in the neighborhood of D.C.
Somewhere in an alternate dimension: "Mr. Speaker I would like to propose the question of WHY we should be asked to fund Syrian rebels and train them, when that's clearly the job of the CIA. I mean, after all the CIA has already trained and funded the IS militia and they certainly did the same with Al Qaeda and before that with the Mujahadeen."
I dont know why our government continues to work to overthrow secular Islamic leaders. Saddam used to execute radicals, they were afraid of him. Mubarik kept the muslim brotherhood in check. Now they want to mess with syria. Is not ISIL connected with the syrian rebels. The syrian government has been protecting christians from the rebels. The heads of state of most middle eastern countries are all about getting rid of muslim extremists but with our troops not theirs. I really think we need to speak softly and carry one huge stick. Nuke ISIL and be done with it.
Instead of training our future enemas, it would be more productive to try and stop our current enema's supply of arms. For, without those, they are nothing more than out-of-work, angry, rock-throwers. Those who supply the arms are the same ones who benefit from instability in the area. A peaceful Middle-East (while an impossibility), would seriously cut into their business. Another option would be to cut the source of the funds our enemas use to buy weapons. They don't have jobs, so, their money to purchase arms come from elsewhere.
Our government, for whatever reason (insert theory, conspiracy or not here), operates under the theory that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". As has been mentioned time and time again already, this hasn't worked out so well for us in the past. The theory is flawed at it's core. I don't know what it will take to get the message through to them but: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less.