Do you think the US should arm Syrian rebels?

[Cicero]

Do you think we should help Syrian rebels?

[Hypers]

No. Look what happened in Afghanistan.

[Abyssal Echo]

No !

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Never interfere.
Don't do this; for George Washington, wise general of the American Revolution.

[Sugaree]

I only believe that humanitarian aid should be sent, i.e food, water, medical supplies. As for armaments and the like, other nations have been sending them these things for months. We can support them through humanitarian aid just the same as supporting them through armament aid.

[Harry Smith]

The problem with Syria is that unlike Libya there is not one unified council for resistance. Syria is mainly a combination of street gangs, ex soldiers and extremists. There is not a popular uprising as was seen in Libya.

However I do believe that there should be a UN sanctioned Peace process involving power sharing in the country. A non fly zone enforced by Nato with the backing of the UN so that humanitarian workers can help the most important group- the civilans.

Also the problem with arming them is that they have a large number of small arms but what they would need would be anti tank weapons and armored vehicles so that they would be able to take on the Syrian Army. Also it would be heard to actually get the weapons to them

[TheBigUnit]

No. Look what happened in Afghanistan.

Beat me to it haha

I only believe that humanitarian aid should be sent, i.e food, water, medical supplies. As for armaments and the like, other nations have been sending them these things for months. We can support them through humanitarian aid just the same as supporting them through armament aid.

We really can't support the rebels for the reasons stated below
Vvvvvvv
The problem with Syria is that unlike Libya there is not one unified council for resistance. Syria is mainly a combination of street gangs, ex soldiers and extremists. There is not a popular uprising as was seen in Libya.

However I do believe that there should be a UN sanctioned Peace process involving power sharing in the country. A non fly zone enforced by Nato with the backing of the UN so that humanitarian workers can help the most important group- the civilans.

Also the problem with arming them is that they have a large number of small arms but what they would need would be anti tank weapons and armored vehicles so that they would be able to take on the Syrian Army. Also it would be heard to actually get the weapons to them

I personally think the UN should try to find a truce in this fighting, the rebels really aren't the "good guys" for us to support them plus syria isn't as oil rich as libya to shed our influence on them, unfortunalty that's a main reason why I believe we supported the libyan rebels, who were winning slightly, plus we wanted to get revenge on ghadaffi

[CharlieFinley]

No.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/03/201336171046932274.html

[Harry Smith]

We still need to introduce some way to help secure the whole area. A no-fly zone is the only way that we would be able to do this, along with a aggressive intelligence campaign which would cut off the vital arm supplies for Al Assad. I'm convinced that he was commited war crimes and could be tried in the Hague as a result. The hard thing to to unify the resitance against him into one council which is democrat and commited to helped Syria start as a democracy not an Islamist republic like Iran

[MrMundane]

this is a civil war, we should have no part of it and should not decide for countries who is going to win.

[Southside]

Saudi Arabia,Qatar,Turkey and even Western companies have been funding the rebels. They are is no shortage of weapons..

[Harry Smith]

Throughout History countries have always taken side's on civil wars. And this is a civil war between a man who's family have ruled with an iron fist for the last 50 years and people who want to live in a democrat society. Remember this was started in the arab spring. We need to do something before we have a full blown crisis on our hands.

The problem is that the rebels need heavy weaponry such as anti-aircraft guns to counter the might of the syrian army.

[CharlieFinley]

Throughout History countries have always taken side's on civil wars. And this is a civil war between a man who's family have ruled with an iron fist for the last 50 years and people who want to live in a democrat society. Remember this was started in the arab spring. We need to do something before we have a full blown crisis on our hands.

The problem is that the rebels need heavy weaponry such as anti-aircraft guns to counter the might of the syrian army.

They also just committed a hostile action against UN peacekeepers, per my link above.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

And see the Taliban use those guns against us in a few years? No. We've done that once, and I hope to God we're not stupid enough to do it again.

The rebels can get their hands on weapons. Manpower is what they need. And no, we shouldn't supply them with troops either. No reason to get involved in yet another war that could drag on for who knows how long.

[Jess]

Most definitely not. The US needs to stay out of other countries' business...like this.......

[PinkFloyd]

No. The answer is no. Us Americans need to mind our own business!

[Southside]

And see the Taliban use those guns against us in a few years? No. We've done that once, and I hope to God we're not stupid enough to do it again.

The rebels can get their hands on weapons. Manpower is what they need. And no, we shouldn't supply them with troops either. No reason to get involved in yet another war that could drag on for who knows how long.


You can have all the manpower in the world(Such as North Korea with 1.4 Million troops) and garbage weapons and lose battles. Manpower means NOTHING in modern warfare. It is all about who has the best equipment and precision. I often ask people this question when they bring up the manpower, who would win, 100 Troops with Machine Guns/Automatic Rifles or 10,000 with stones and sticks?

[Korashk]

We need to do something before we have a full blown crisis on our hands.
This shit right here is why people hate America. The full blown crisis would not be on our hands. The crisis would have literally nothing to do with us. Which is why we need to stay the fuck out before making things worse that they would be otherwise, which is something that ALWAYS happens when America fucks around in other country's shit.

[Harry Smith]

This shit right here is why people hate America. The full blown crisis would not be on our hands. The crisis would have literally nothing to do with us. Which is why we need to stay the fuck out before making things worse that they would be otherwise, which is something that ALWAYS happens when America fucks around in other country's shit.

I'm british mate, I support the involvement of NATO along with a Un resolution. Look at Sierra Leone and Bosnia, both examples of where Nato intervened. The rebels are not going to win, if we fail to help at least broker peace then our doctrine for the last 50 years has been misguided

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

You can have all the manpower in the world(Such as North Korea with 1.4 Million troops) and garbage weapons and lose battles. Manpower means NOTHING in modern warfare. It is all about who has the best equipment and precision. I often ask people this question when they bring up the manpower, who would win, 100 Troops with Machine Guns/Automatic Rifles or 10,000 with stones and sticks?

The rebels have enough equipment. It's not like they need Predator Drones to bring down Assad.

They have enough equipment, but they lack soldiers.

[Human]

No. A lot of the FSA are Mujahideen (Jihadists) and remember what happened the last time America armed Mujahideen... *hint* it helped set up al-Qaeda *hint*

[irishguy123]

it is hard to say. just because the current president is evil, does not mean that a rebel president would be much better to be honest.