Should the US or other nations help the Syrian Rebels?

United States
March 16, 2013 1:20pm CST
One of the great humanitarian crises in the world is happening in Syria (and Mali and ... you get the idea, but for now lets talk about Syria). Should the Syrian Rebels get arms and aid from NATO or other countries? (Hey what could possibly go wrong with that?) Should we all stay out and let the fight come to its own conclusion (in how ever long that would take)? Or something in the middle? OK, you are the decision maker for your country - what do you do?
2 people like this
9 responses
• Serbia
16 Mar 13
I am the decision maker of my country, i stay out of it unless it affects me. But this is much bigger than that. America wants to take Syria by installing a pupped regime like they did in so many other countries, while Russia wants to keep Syria. So its actually still America VS Russia. There are no rebels in Syria, maybe few. It's mostly US funded mercenaries. If America stayed out of the situation. There would not be a situation at all to begin with.
1 person likes this
16 Mar 13
Oh Dear - I conspiracy loony... Too many movies and too much time. Syria is supported by Russian and Iran - The a grwing number of the rebels are Islamist fundamentalists or Jihadist. The original revolutionaries are becoming more and more reluctant to be involved with any further action or possible peace talks
• Serbia
16 Mar 13
It's controlled by Russia and Iran, so naturally supported. And so the US, Vatican and them folks want to take it away for themself, so that they can control it while at the same time weakening Russia and Iran. Yes the Islamists and Jihadists were always the easiest people to control and send to war and manipulate... When i say mercenaries im mostly talking about those guys, and to a lesser extent european mercenaries. It would be harder to conseal it with european mercenaries dying all over the Middle East, so they use natives... It was clearly shown in the 1999s in Kosovo when they used the Albanian Islamists over there to steal a piece of Serbian territory.
@mariaperalta (19094)
• Mexico
17 Mar 13
Its great for every nation to help each other. But the usa has many that need help, before the usa helps others. Sorry just my opinion on the matter.
@lampar (7597)
• United States
19 Mar 13
I can not agree more with you on this. There are more people in US that need help first before thinking about Syrians. Unfortunately, politicians in Washington D.C could care less about poor and ordinary people hardship here unless it is critical to their re-election victory into high office, they always think foreigners can not solve their own domestic political problem without intervention from superpower.
• Mexico
19 Mar 13
I once saw all the billions in the us budget for other countries. How about their own?
@lampar (7597)
• United States
21 Mar 13
There is nothing left for our own people, that is one of the main reason why USA is in so much debt (16 trillion), so much tax dollars are wasted in arming rebels oversea and supplying weapons to militant groups fighting against regimes that is not a favorite of political elite in power at home.
@stringer321 (3124)
• Kiryat Ata, Israel
16 Mar 13
My country, Israel, has a common border with Syria. Some of the fights there even threat to reach our area. Well, I don't know who all the rebels are and what they all want. I wish the killing would stop and that we can live in peace with them side by side. Syria is not a friendly country with Israel and no one is allowed to get there. The fight there has been going for more than a year and I think it is even 2 years now. I guess no one can tell what will happen when one of the sides defeat the other. Many of the rebels are Sunists, and they are less hostile. Nevertheless, a chemical weapon artillery may fall into the rebels hands and who knows what they will do with that. I guess they want to live life of peace and dignity like everyone else.
• United States
16 Mar 13
Thank you for your thoughts. Any thoughts on what you may face when "one of the sides defeats the other"?
• Kiryat Ata, Israel
16 Mar 13
We will need to spread some defense weapon to explode the artillery in the sky : We have a special weapon that is used to shoot fast and accurate missiles to bomb hostile missiles from an enemy. When our missile hits a hostile missile, they explode together while in the sky far from everyone. We will also need a lot of information and spies to tell us where the weapon goes to and when. We will need to prevent every potential threat on our country. We will need a lot of consideration before attacking to defend ourselves. I hope the rebels don't plan to attack us if they defeat Asad. If Asad defeats, he will remain the ruler of Syria and, so far, we know we are not friends. We will keep being focused and see what goes there and get ready to whatever situation will happen. Our defense is our main concept.
@elmiko (6640)
• United States
29 May 13
no, people like that in the past have turned on us. think of bin laden when when the U.S. aided him against the soviets. he turned on us. we can't trust them. why is it necessary for america to get involved anyway? why can't we just mind our own business?
@WakeUpKitty (8706)
• Netherlands
23 Mar 13
To be honest I don't know, also it depends on the kind of country and kind of rebels. I am getting sick and tired of all countries who Always seem to think they have to interfere in other countries their business (or wars). Pesonally I don't see the reason for it (ít's fine with me if we put a wall around them and they kill eachother if they love to keep fighting, in so many cases people fight already for years and even don't know the reason why they do so at all). I am also getting sick and tired of all those people who claim to fight for freedom, their rights but in reality don't know what it means at all plus are forcing their opinion upwards to someone else. People who are not able to respect others, will end up with the same kind of dictator they once hated and want to get rid of. Why? Because they are not raised with the knowledge and experiences of what a democracy is for real. What it means to have freedom of speach. On the other hand if it comes to Mali (for example) I am happy the French army went over there. But still I can't help thinking how come we live in 2013 and so many countries still live (including their opinions) in the middle ages. Might be there would be way less wars we we let everybody fight his own one and would not interfere at all. I am afraid the answer on your questions are just not that simple.
@lampar (7597)
• United States
16 Mar 13
No, we don't even know who are these group of rebels fighting inside Syria, there is no unifying voice and goal coming from those rebels groups fighting against Assad dictatorship, some of them are belong to Al-Queda organization and other Islamic terrorist groups, while others may have legitimate concerns on toppling a dictatorship in establishing a free society and a political system within Syria. Until UN and US have a handle on this civil war within Syria, they should never get involve into an in fighting of some armed militants that may turn out worse than Assad regime after the unrest. There is more works need to be done by UN; US and international community before the world should get involve right now.
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
16 Mar 13
I've thought about this since the whole thing started. I lean towards no. The reason being that there is no benefit for us. Yes, Assad is a dictator. Yes, he's more than happy to use the military to murder his own people. So getting him out should be a good thing right? It should make the country better right? Wrong. We tried that in Egypt. We supported their revolution and now, instead of having a brutal dictator who is friendly towards the US, they are ruled by a dictator who hates the US. He'll still take our money and our planes, but he's NOT our ally. Our decision to oust Gaddafi didn't go so well either as evidenced by the Benghazi attack. There's a reason these brutal dictators rule these countries. That's the kind of ruler these people CHOOSE. The only difference is who they want their dictator to be brutal towards.
@robspeakman (1705)
16 Mar 13
Simple answer - NO. We need to keep our nose out. Only Assad can bring stability to that country at the moment. The US provided weapons and money to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to assist their fight against the Russians.... Those weapons are now being used against allied troops. The French supplied weapons to the Libyian revolutionaries in their fight against Gaddafi... Those weapons are being used by warring factions in Libya now. Those weapons have now also found their way to Algeria and Mali The UK and France want to lift an embargo, this could lead to weapons being provided to the rebel fighters.... WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG? There is also the assumption that the rebels are fighting under the same agenda or are united - That isn't the case. Assad by some strange way is preventing the country from descending into a countrywide bloodbath and land grab.... keep out of it
@MoonGypsy (4613)
• United States
16 Mar 13
the u.s. need to stopped getting involved in other people's affairs. we are not the police of the world. we need to tend to our countries national debt.