Thanks..

I sit here wondering if the folks making decisions in D.C. will be watching.

those nuts over there.

Saw Rosewater today, and thought of him.

Do you count "double tap" drone murders in that tally? Or fire-bombings from F16's and helicopter gunships?

Do you add the number of people merely crippled to that number? The millions denied access to medical aid.?
Do you add the number of children born with birth defects in Fallujah to that number? Or is that just a petty detail, something "to be disputed"?
Do you count the US destruction of Iraqi, and now Syrian social and physical infrastructure, as being something significant?
Are you happy with the product of the US coup on Libya?

Do you think the current US plan is a good plan, one you want to continue?

I say that beheading is evil. Not especially more so when posted on YouTube to inflame the US public. Do you think the US has committed any evil acts in recent ME wars of choice? Do you think the thousands of classified photos of US torture should be released to the media, or do you agree with the US administration that such a release would be a bad thing?

Do you think "removing Assad" is a good moral choice, for US military strategists, worth spending billions on?

Are you a "Friend of Syria" - meaning, are you happy with the result of the US "leading from behind" in the war against Syria (and before that, Libya). Do you lay all the blame for on W. and Cheney, absolving the US, absolving the US people, and esp. absolving Dems?

Do you think that the US has earned a moral culpability for the devastation caused by the WoT in the ME over the past decade and a half? Are you willing to bomb the US, US military sites and associated sites, including associated infrastructure, to stop it?
Do you think US torturers, kidnap/renderers, should be tried in the Hague? Or do you think they are merely "patriots" acting out the excitement of the moment?

So many questions.
So many, many questions.

All war is bad.

I did get the kind of non-response that I expected.

I'm not watching the program, but I'm a Richard Engel fan, and he normally does very solid work, irrespective of whose feelings his reporting might hurt.

It's a wonderful story of secular (and USA!!!) fight back against militant religious extremism, where sexism/racism/any-ism doesn't exist in the ranks of the good cause that the US is fighting for. I have no doubt that it's a "true story", in this one carefully cherry picked instance. We'll have to wait a week or so for the next cherry picked "truth" to be broadcast by our fearless war reporter.

It now gets to do so. So, DU warmongers are hot to trot.
Richard Engel is just doing what he does best.

He's a smarmy prick who editorializes the battlefield.

including many women. No guarantees, but at the moment they appear to have 'control' of about 50% of the town.

The US hand in this region has been heavy, and military, and the US rings the entire territory in an extraordinary number of military bases.

What do you think that the US military, headed by CiC Obama, wants to do there?
How do you think that CiC Obama plans to achieve peace?

The 'Free Syrian Army' label was coined by SoS Clinton, I believe, in her days of "leading from behind", AKA proxying ME wars through US puppets, esp. in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. So far as I can see, the USA is continuing to go with SoS Clinton's plan. SoS Kerry has nothing on HRC for strength of purpose.
Can you explain a road from *that*, leading to peace?

Do you distinguish between a so-called 'Free Syrian Army' and IS?
How do you do that, against all the weight of evidence of cause and effect, of funders to those funded?

and it won't be "Islamic", at least within the Sunni vs. Shia context of the religious wars that the US has been encouraging.

I think the USA should dial back their fucking "War on Terror", which makes no sense and hasn't meant sense for a decade. Their war, I think, is making them depraved.

he mentioned the Marxist leanings of the PKK and how Isis and the Kobani fighting Kurds couldn't be more different. They live communally, females are among the strongest warriors and they are often atheists.

My criticism was about the presence of civilians. We see only one family and Richard exclaims that there are civilians - that didn't feel quite right considering the conditions we were seeing.

I imagine he spend very little time there and couldn't check things out much. That seemed to be mostly for the cameras. I can't blame them, they need help with their battle and indeed there are probably pockets of civilians but likely very few.

Do you think that that the US should just *quit* saying things like the elimination of Assad is its goal?
That the US should *quit* funding some "Free Syrian Army" to the number of $billions$, and that the US should just tone it down?

Or does it even matter?

<edited to delete profanity>

Isis is enough of a challenge. They'll train troops in Jordan and what will be will be. Of course they can't say that now. There was criticism of the force to fight in Syria being too small, my point is that it's symbolic and another way to keep stasis.

They aren't giving them much money, half a billion max I think.

I think they have to go after Isis, no one else will do it and the Islamic crazies are counting on that, they could just clear out Iraq if the US didn't get involved. They're thugs, it's more like crime control. It's not even war or terror anymore it's maurading hoardes. We have to help, I'm in favor but less so when advisors get involved. But that's the problem, without advisors we're wasting money dropping bombs without intelligence.

It's a clean up situation, cleaing up after Bush, what else is new.

I think Libya should have taught Obama and Hillary a lesson, just stop that crap. But Iraq and Kobani are not the same scene, we can't allow them to turn into failed states and can contribute without boots on the ground, the advisors are getting paid well that's their risk.

"they" "they" "they".

That isn't the same locution as when sitting around the table and discussing who "we're" going to bomb next, is it?

Nice that you point out the wonderfulness of CiC Obama not putting "boots on the ground". But wouldn't want "Iraq and Kobani" to turn into "failed states", though, would "we". "Iraq and Kobani" being so much on a par, in this universe where "Obama and Hillary" might "stop the crap"....

hoo boy.

He is an amazing reporter. I cannot imagine the courage he and his team have in doing this work. I hope some folk in decision making places were watching, but ...

that basically I am tired of war and against war. But ISIL does have to be confronted. Also had some interesting flashbacks watching the destruction of war as shown in this report. Have seen cities built on ruins on top of ruins. Now I have an understanding of how that happens. The next 'Kobani' will be built on ruins.

On the surface I thought we broke it and have to fix it but all through the reporting I felt that I was being manipulated into supporting a war.
Let's be honest whenever we fuck something up in the Mid East someone pulls out the Kurds card. Normally we don't give a fuck about the Kurds unless we need to justify sending our military to war.
I appreciate someone is reporting from war zones but what agenda are they representing. I'm not falling for it.