U.S. airstrikes in Syria

And we wonder why all of these people don't like us over there... 

911 happened as we we leaving the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.  If al Qaeda hadn't attacked, we would have nothing but few planes in Kuwait to keep Saddam in line, 

I say from a conservative point of view, for a man with no strategy, Obama plays one mean hand of poker.

Can't wait to see the River.  Betting on bootprints with liberals folding.

Why don't you people admit it, no matter what Obama does, it's too late, too soon, too much, or too little. Fox has got y'all programmed for no, no, no. That's all

--------------------

Never watch Fox. Tell me what/when they (who) said anything about no, no, no.

Obama knew about the growth of ISIS for about a year, but still referred to them as JV.  He's poll driven. It took the revulsion of the beheadings and mass killing of non-believers to motivate him as the public came around.

Historically, the only way to handle the fanatics who attempt to bring about the descent of the Seventh Iman to become the Mahdi, or a false Mahdi is to kill the follower in droves.  That causes them to admit that they are following a false leader.  Its happened before many times since about 720 AD.  For a more modern example, read about the 19th century fall of Khartoum and it defender --China Gordon.  It took a British punitive expedition to put an end to it.  The true believers are no friend to their fellow Muslims. In the Sudan. half the population died of disease, starvation, or violence under the false Mahdi — before the British annihilation of the Mahdi's forces at Omdurman.

The effort will be bloody -- let it be theirs. 

What has happened--a brief summary from one point of view:

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their fellow neocons spun a bogus reason to invade Iraq.

Many wise voices (historians, anthropologists, political analysts--those "eggheads" of academia so often despised by the "New American Century"  crowd) cautioned against such a course of action, arguing correctly that attempting to establish anything like a democracy within a nation historically and currently characterized  by incurable internecine strife and hatred between and among tribes and religious factions would be a fool's errand.

The fool's errand proceeded.  The result?  This poking of he Iraqi bear attracted to the battlefields many thousands of dissident, non-Iraqi, murderous Islamic fanatics, seeing the U.S. invasion as a ready excuse for taking on the "Great Satan" that dared to insinuate itself into the affairs of a Muslim state.

Thirteen years of death and destruction followed, leaving hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, half a million or more displaced as refugees, and a factional Shiite regime in place, predictably engendering continuing sectarian discontent.  U.S. Losses in lives, lifelong debilitating injuries, and treasure are well-documented and need no detailed recounting here. An Iraqi army, trained by the U.S. at enormous cost  to keep peace and order following American withdrawal , cravenly abandons the field of conflict at the first provocation, laying down those arms supplied by American largesse. 

Sectarian Islamic fanaticism, feeding on this conflict and the war in Afghanistan, is expanding apace,  engendering a plethora of terrorist sub-sects [e.g ISIL,  al Qaeda of _____[(fill in the blank with the name of your favorite strife-ridden Middle Eastern nation, and that recently arrived newbie,  Khorasan)].

The above is one take on this complex matter.  But I will acknowledge that there are other viewpoints that deserve consideration.  Here is a thoughtful article from the Atlantic (please do not dismiss this out of hand because you view that magazine as a left-wing tool; the article certainly does not accord with that perception). Is there still hope?

http://www.theatlantic.com/int...k-on-the-war/277362/

If the Kurds will fight, give them guns and ammo to fight with. Give them air strikes for assistance.  After that, stay out of their way.

Kurds will fight to protect their lands. Also to protect their kinsmen in Syria.  When they have metastasized to engulf much of the Middle East, what then?

______

In the unlikely event that would happen, they would be one RICH nation--or tribe or whatever--because they would be the oiliest folks in the region and the envy of **** Cheney and other patrons and actors in Big Oil. Then the sleazy neocons would have to figure a way to invade the Kurds and control their oil.

______________________________________________________________________

My reference to the Kurds is that they will only fight to protect Kurdish lands and the nearby borders.  The "they" I was referring to was the jehadim. 

You got a better solution?  We've already proven time and time again that we can't do ourselves.  And it's for **** sure that we can't pick a leader from their population. Remember all the failed, moderate democracies we "set" up.

____

Then you should have worded your post to that effect.  Your "they" is naturally interpreted to apply to the antecedent subject in your opening sentence, namely "the Kurds."