We can save millions of people and be more respected. Shouldn't the UN act? I mean this is the Holocaust all over again!! After World War II when the UN formed all the countries agreed that if something like the Holocaust happens again they would act immediately, but look at what they are doing right now ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!
We should arm the rebels because it will keep them fighting and if the rebels keep fighting then Syria will have to put more resources into the war and since Iran is helping finance this war it will also affect Iran's already free falling economy. Since Iran finances Syria and Hezbollah in this war it has the most to lose in the war. So it is safe to say that Iran, Syria and Hezbollah will put practically all their resources to win so the best solution is to make sure the rebels don't lose. That doesn't mean the rebels need to win because it was Henry Kissenger that said if a conventional soldier does not win he loses but a guerrilla fighter wins if he does not lose. It is basically the same strategy we played on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Granted we ended up fighting those same rebels. But that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do at the time. What I am trying to say is we can cripple or destroy three enemies (Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah) without putting one American soldier in Syria. If the regime wins then Hezbollah and Iran will have more presence in Syria and become the ultimate threat in the Middle East which could lead to us being in a full scale war yet again to assist Israel if they are attacked which would be a strong possibility. Although if the rebels win we could see a Somalia situation but it would be easier to get a new government in place without Iran or Syria using their U.N. presence to screw things up. Lets face it, al Qaeda doesn't have a U.N. presence so with a full international effort we can fix Syria in the aftermath. My answer: keep the rebels fighting and arm them and give them a no fly zone. Russia may get involved but they will back off once it gets too costly. They have history to remind them.
Why the hell not. Send truck loads of weapons all over the world. Arm one side then the other and back to the beginning. He just has to remember to keep upgrading the weapons as he goes so when he makes a return trip the first people have to buy the new ones. Then just stand back and when all the shooting is done and there is only one group left in each area swoop in and make a deal for all the natural resources without the worry of civil unrest.
It will sure save the lives of american soldiers who are getting killed now. They can just wait it out. It can just be a newer version of natural selection. At the very least it would be far more honest than the current track record of pretending to help.
Problems in the middle east happen constantly because of western entanglements inside the tumultuous region. In fact radical Islam and terrorism stemmed from the frustrations of the middle east in their dealings with western military strength. Western culture is looked on with distain, and there is no organization that the US should feel comfortable arming. As shown with Osama Bin Ladin many of the people we train, and arms we distribute are used to terrorize the region. America is not the world policeman it thinks it is. If we want to make an impact we should take in refugees, not try and tip the scale of war in our favor only to realize we broke the entire balance and Syria and Iraq go toppling into civil war once more.
How can we afford another middle east entanglement? Did we learn nothing from all the lives & money wasted so far? Bottom line is that we are broke! Someone needs to remind our government they they should be thinking about our problems first! If you take Iraq, and the billions spent by our government there... It DIDN'T make any difference!(except everyone with investments in the military, industrial complex got rich) Is this really what we are all about?
No we shouldn't arm them. Calling them freedom fighters today and we'll be calling them terrorists tomorrow. We had this with the Contras in the 80's, we had this with the Taliban, we armed them and look how that turned out...Not really good. I don't trust arming these third world nations. If I were in charge, there's no chance I'd be giving them arms.
The US shouldn't be acting as the world police, its views are inevitably skewed and the most important factor of all: there are radical Islamic fighters (those affiliated with what many refer to as terrorist organisations) on the rebels' side who are hellbent on the eradication of ethnic minorities. Furthermore, the Syrian government is clearly supported by both Russia and China to some extent; supporting the other side could lead to something similar to the Vietnam/Korean war along with putting many nations on an alarmed status.
We need to get our hands out of everyone's cookie jars. Even if we come out on the "winning side", we need to learn from history and know that there is no winner in war, just as there are no true moral absolutes. Helping rebellion to overthrow who we feel is a threat to democracy only leads to more anti-American sentiment in the world.
While I do believe the Syrians are justified in overthrowing their government, I would not want the US to get involved. The US government and its business backers have a nasty habit of exploiting other nations and setting up puppet governments. The backing may help the revolution, but afterwards Syria would be a puppet of the US.
No, President Obama should not arm the Syrian rebels. We as Americans need to focus all of our resources to helping ourselves here on our home soil. The needs and desires of other nations must take a backseat until we have made positive changes in our own country. We have plenty to do here with education, safety, illegal immigrants, and the list goes on.