• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's Why Arming the Syrian Rebels Is a Bad Idea

The problem, TDS, is that avoiding Syria doesn't solve any of the issues you have concerns about. What is going to happen if/when Assad falls? Will there be a continuation of violence and jockeying for power among the rebel factions? Probably (in fact that's almost as important a question as to whether Assad or the rebels win). What about the growing influence of extremist jihadists among the rebels? Staying out of it does nothing to alleviate these risks (and actually it invites a myriad of other risks into the equation).

At least when we intervene, we are granted some leverage in trying to steer events in the direction we want We can control which rebel factions get our weapons shipments, we can incentivize and strengthen the moderate groups.

Like it or not, the USA is still the leader of the world. Given the rise of China and the other BRICS it's not clear for how much longer that will be true, but for 2013 it is. And leadership has always been a painful job. No matter what decision you make, even if it is the right one, people will criticize and demonize you. A lot of people are concerned that Syrians might not be appreciative of our involvement. Let me put those fears to rest right now. I GUARANTEE Syrians will not be grateful for our involvement. But receiving "thanks" is not and has never been the justification for doing the right thing.
 
Kanstantine said:
He can borrow them from Reagan, who gave weapons to Islamic extremists 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. the batteries went dead on them years ago and they're just rust buckets by now. But hey, nice try. Are you claiming that supplying al Qaeda with weapons is a good thing? Maybe Obama can supply them with real heavy stuff like a nuke would that satisfy you?
 
the_recruit said:
The problem, TDS, is that avoiding Syria doesn't solve any of the issues you have concerns about. What is going to happen if/when Assad falls? Will there be a continuation of violence and jockeying for power among the rebel factions? Probably (in fact that's almost as important a question as to whether Assad or the rebels win). What about the growing influence of extremist jihadists among the rebels? Staying out of it does nothing to alleviate these risks (and actually it invites a myriad of other risks into the equation).

At least when we intervene, we are granted some leverage in trying to steer events in the direction we want We can control which rebel factions get our weapons shipments, we can incentivize and strengthen the moderate groups.

Like it or not, the USA is still the leader of the world. Given the rise of China and the other BRICS it's not clear for how much longer that will be true, but for 2013 it is. And leadership has always been a painful job. No matter what decision you make, even if it is the right one, people will criticize and demonize you. A lot of people are concerned that Syrians might not be appreciative of our involvement. Let me put those fears to rest right now. I GUARANTEE Syrians will not be grateful for our involvement. But receiving "thanks" is not and has never been the justification for doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

What will happen? What happened when communist backed afghanistan fell? I civil war with the Taliban emposed. Why do we have to be the magical police men of the world. Recent history shows that doesnt work out to well when we support one side or another. Is it really in our best interest to get involved in a long bloody civil war that can last for many many more years?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Here's Why Arming the Syrian Rebels Is a Bad Idea | Mother Jones

Do we really wanna get involved in a civil war? Both sides clearly are not good. If Assad falls the coalition of parties against Assad are gonna just fight against each other most likely for power, no matter what even if they are elections. Can we not learn from history!? This is clearly just gonna become more and more a bigger mess. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

The problem is that the Russians and Iranians are arming Assad and his victory would be a defeat for our interests. Haven't we learned from history? We appeased Hitler and look where that led. Allowing a victory for Assad the murderous dictator sends the message to others that they may suppress their people by ANY means and we will not interfere. Is that what you want?
There are no good choices but the least bad choice is what we are doing now. I think we can do wonders weakening Assads air power with some surface to air action while taking the minimum risks for our troops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom