Should the U.S. give more help to the Syrian rebels?

  • In the future we might get something out of it.

    If we help the Rebels, they might help us in the long run if we ever need something. We could join the Rebels and they could also help us try to get rid if ISIS. Granted they might not be the richest people in the world, but they could financially and physically help us.

  • Joining the Bandwagon

    Since over 78% of people are saying no I'm going to say no to so I can be on the winning side. Personally I don't care about Syria there good arguments on why we should and shouldn't. Personally aiding the rebels won't work since most go rogue cause that's what rebels do, they rebel.

  • The U.S. Administration is playing it safe in Syria.

    The U.S. Administration ( the President and his cabinet ) are playing it safe in Syria. It doesn't want to arm potential terrorists so it is selecting "friends" in the region carefully. At the same time, it wants to prevent the regime of President Assad from receiving international assistance from the international community.

    It's a difficult path to tread, but a safe one. One that I actually agree with!

  • We must arm

    If we dont help them now. Russia will fill the country will S300 missiles which threaten the entire region. Now with Hezbollah fighting right along side Assad who knows where this is going. They actively have and admittedly have terrorist fighting for them. This is bigger then meets the eye. Russia is using this a a bargaining chip in the many issues it has with the US. Unless the EU wakes up and sends weapons the rebels are done. No need to send high tech stuff. Guns,ammo,motors, artillery...And medical/food supplies. Can world powers not get this together? If we fail to do this. You empower Hezbollah,Assad, Iran and Russia. We can't come off weak. We are a global leader...

  • It is a cause for good.

    I think that it is a good idea for the United States to assist the rebels in Syria with their fight against the regime there. We did the same thing, and then some, in Iraq so I fail to see why we cannot do the same in Syria. It is for a good cause.

  • Joining the Bandwagon

    Since over 78% of people are saying no I'm going to say no to so I can be on the winning side. Personally I don't care about Syria there good arguments on why we should and shouldn't. Personally aiding the rebels won't work since most go rogue cause that's what rebels do, they rebel.

  • Each country should self-determine itself and Assad it's the lesser evil

    The conflict could have ended a lonf time ago or even had never started it the West,Russia and some other regional players(Saudi Arabia, Quatar, etc) would not interfered.I'm one of those people who cannot stand the arrogancy and the double standards, especially the West's ones.Our hands are drenched in Iraqi,Lybian,Somali,Syrian,Kurdish and even our own blood beacuse of int crimes commited in the name of democracy.It's time quit sticking our nose in other countries bussinesses.

  • There isn't much difference between ISIS, FSA or AlNusra

    All these factions commit serious crimes against the humanity, all of them behead people, are religious extremists who are seeking power.
    The FSA consists in several different armed groups who don't agree with each other.Even if the FSA would overthrow Assad, what would be the consequence of such victory?Another unstable Libya?Another 16-continuous-years-war-torn Iraq? I get the point where the U.S. wants a country's oil, but....Can't they simply buy it as anybody else(Without waging war, killing millions people, etc)?

  • Relations W/ Countries

    The US can't drop troops in Syria. It would require Baghdad's permission, could create confrontation with Iraq, Iran, and Russia. It would also take a lot of careful planning. Not to mention the actual fighting. We would have to send 90k troops plus 270k support. We can't afford to do all of this fighting.

  • Losing them to ISIS

    Reports of rebels going to ISIS and US weapons in their hands. Proxy bs. Stop it. What is the true purpose and who is calling this shot? Can't fight ISIS and Assad. Let's stop screwing with other leaders for our benefit. Who cares if Russia has influence there. Our need to dominate is sickening.

  • No, we shouldn't.

    We don't want a repeat of Afghanistan. We already have a bad relationship with the majority of the middle east because of our extensive involvement, which they view as military invasion. The U.S. needs to take care of its own interests before we get involved risking American lives in domestic affairs.

  • Bashar Al-Assad is a better alternative.

    The majority of the Syrian rebel groups are jihadist terrorists. The FSA (Free Syrian Army) is one of the major rebel groups. They openly "wage a war against terrorism," but actions speak louder than words. There have been many instances of civilian killings and such, that are unrelated to war. Also, there is speculation that the FSA is linked to ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), the largest known terrorist network of the day. Regardless of their ties with ISIS, it is clear that they are jihadist terrorists. The common argument advocating more funds to Syria is that if we do not help them more, they will lose. The FSA is supposed to
    1) fight the Syrian government, and
    2) fight ISIS in the region.
    But wait.... Isn't the US funding the rebels to fight the Syrian government? If they cannot overcome their own government, then how can they beat ISIS? Also, the FSA is a terrorist group in and of itself... The "bad thing" about cutting aid to the rebels is that they will lose and the oppressive government will take it's place again. But what is the purpose of this American policy? To stop human rights abuse? If the US could stop human rights abuse, then they would be a god. There is even "human rights abuse" when kids are bullied in American schools. Since the US cannot fix this, we must look for a better goal in policy. If the goal in policy is "US best interests," then pulling out of Syria is no problem. "What about Assad?" the cries go up.
    Question 1: Has Assad ever directly attacked the United States?
    Question 2: Have terrorist groups ever directly attacked the United States? *cough, cough* 9-11 *cough*
    Would you rather have an oppressive dictator that abuses human rights in a far away land or a terrorist group that wants to take over the whole world and torture them forever for the sake of their religious beliefs?

  • The US should stop helping the Syrian Rebels entirely and work with Assad.

    All of the Rebel organizations including the "Free Syrian Army" have proven to be untrustworthy and unreliable. The FSA has been surrendering en masse to ISIS and working with Assad and the Syrian Government is a good stop to ending ISIS and will also see US and Iran relations improve greatly. There are no "Moderate" Rebels in Syria anymore as all of the groups are either hardline Islamist/Jihadist or heavily infiltrated by said hardline Islamists and Jihadis.

  • Keep the U.S out.

    Although it is clear that both sides have committed heinous human rights abuses, it is imperative that the US does not come to aid the Syrian rebels. It has already been proven that many rebels are affiliated with al Qaeda and giving them weapons would be a threat to our national security. With the US arming the rebels and Russia arming the government, this would turn into a proxy war. Syria is far too unstable for us to act right now. We have to focus on dealing with our problems at home before helping others. Keep our troops out.

  • The US should stay away.

    The US should stay away from foreign intervention especially when giving away weapons. Selling weapons is the only reason wars are started and giving away weapons just creates the need for more weapons. As one side grows strong, the other strong gets more weapons and it is an endless cycle.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.