Does anyone give a damn?

That's the Al Qaeda affiliate. And ISIS rival.

These guys just might survive.

It's so hard for me to keep up, the US supported rebels are the good guys, of course.
They must have tons of equipment and logistical support, as well as air support, so they must be winning this battle against Assad, right? For the good team?

There aren't very many of them, relatively speaking.

They don't have tons of equipment. The US has committed to training and equipping a few thousand, but that hasn't happened yet.

Speaking of air support, I haven't heard much about the air campaign in Syria lately. Except around Kobani, when we were helping the Syrian Kurds, we just seem to bomb ISIS without coordinating with other rebels. I don't think there are many others in the ISIS heartland.

And those dang moderate rebels, such as they are, keep coordinating with the Islamists, including Al Nusra, and sometimes bands of them get folded into Al Nusra, and then our equipment and our training ends up with the local Al Qaeda affiliate.

Kerry hinted recently he was open to talking to Assad instead of insisting his departure be the starting point of negotiations. A negotiated settlement and then everybody going after ISIS and Al Nusra would be progress.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (in the main), didn't happen.
Cool, I didn't think so either. I heard so little about it on the news, in the MSM, that I knew it couldn't be happening. And on DU, there's been total negation. Friends of Libya, Friends of Syria, didn't happen. I like that, to be freed from awareness.

Guns and money. Some of it went to the FSA--the moderate rebels--some of it went to Islamist factions. The problem was, there was never any unified armed opposition; it was (and is) a bunch of armed militias vying with each other as much as Assad, and the Islamists, whether Al Nusra, ISIS, or others, have done a better job of kicking ass.

I think the CIA had a secret program to train and equip "moderate rebels" before Obama made it official. But it was chump change compared to what the Saudis and Qatar were/are doing.

The US hasn't intervened decisively enough to change anything, just to add to the fuckupedness. In general, we've been a baleful influence there, encouraging the rebels who have already lost to keep bleeding the country in order to pressure Assad. That's a pretty cynical game.

I call bullshit on you.

those weapons are now everywhere in the ME.
......
seems rather decisive to me

And I don't know how you know where those weapons are.

I used the word "decisive" in regard to US policy in Syria. The US has not done anything decisive. It has not directly intervened militarily. Its assistance to "moderate rebels" has been more symbolic than anything. It has not done anything to stop the fighting, but rather has acted quite cynically to encourage it.

Don't get me wrong. I think the US should stay the hell out of Syria. It's not our country. It's not even our neighborhood.

that much is obvious

Or do you have any evidence to back your claims?

Who sold the weapons for cash? And to whom?

I mean, yeah, we don't know where they are, so they indeed "ended up in parts unknown." But other than that, what have you got?

The notion being floated, that the US accompanied by it's partners Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, has had no appreciable impact on the war on Syria is ludicrous. How can one discuss the issue rationally with people who would deny such a basic as that?

I said the US had not acted decisively, either by doing something really stupid like invading or by actually working to achieve peace. Instead, it seeks to cynically bleed Syria.

I mentioned the US as a baleful influence and cited the role of Saudia Arabia and Qatar.

I never said that US policy "has no appreciable impact."

You seem to want to deliberately misinterpret what I say. Why am I wasting time on you? You've got nothing but snark.

"The US hasn't intervened decisively enough to change anything"