{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Sapphire
Edited by Dustin:
2/21/2013 7:15:46 AM
11
Do you support the decision to hold off on supplying weapons to Syrian rebels?
[url=http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/07/pentagon-state-and-cia-backed-plan-to-arm-syrian-rebels/]Article[/url]
[url=http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2013/02/21/pkg-watson-syria-rebel-terrorist.cnn]Video[/url]
The Obama administration is basically only supplying nonlethal support to the Syrian rebels because many of the freedom fighters are allied with terrorist groups that could hurt us down the road (10% of the Free Syrian Army is allied with al-Qaeda, the group is also known as the Al-Nusra Front).
I'm a bit indifferent on the decision. While I recognize the security concern towards the United States, I also recognize the 60,000 dead in Syria in the last two years (much of whom are children) and the fact that the Assad regime is far from falling.
The other decision (instead of isolating ourselves from the whole issue) is to just burst the bubble of war and let it all out. US bombs Syria, Iran bombs Israel, cluster-blam!- ensues with China and Russia's stance being put on the spotlight. None of which sounds fun.
What's your opinion on the decision and thoughts on the situation?
-
We just need to turn that country into a crater already.
-
3 RepliesEdited by Diplomat: 2/22/2013 12:20:02 AMI think what people misunderstand about the FSA is that it's more of a conglomerate than an actual cohesive movement, similar to the freedom fighters that fought against the Soviet Union during the 80s. Now, what everyone is getting up in arms about is the fact that when we did this before, many members ended up joining the Taliban and A.Q., which is what we're worried about now. However, Afghanistan is not entirely applicable to Syria, in my opinion. Different enemy, different war. The reality is that as I said before, there exists a wide variety of groups and movements within the FSA that lean either indifferent towards the US or are secular. Sure, they may be the minority, but they exist nonetheless. What the United States needs to do is fund these groups so that they WON'T go to A.Q. Remember, a lot of FSA factions have publicly stated that they would only go to extremist groups if they had to, but they'd prefer to deal with the West. In Syria, we're dealing with a sizable westernnally oriented youth bulge, which don't want to see their country fall into the hands of extremists, or worse, collapse into a state of prolonged civil war, like Afghanistan did following the power void left by the D.R.A.'s death. As Baph said, there also exists the option for the United States to just let the Syrians deal with this themselves. Many people argue that sizable intervention would tip the sectarian pot over, creating an even bloodier and unstable Middle East. Certainly, this is a valid point. However, I think it's a point that the U.S. shouldn't base its policies on. Wether we like it or not, Syria will continue to devolve. What we need to do is create or at least attempt to create an environment that will not harbor feelings of anti-western animosity, at least not to the extent to which it manifests itself to militantism.
-
There are maybe three people in this thread that have any idea what they are talking about. GG B.net.
-
2 RepliesEdited by DeclinedA1: 2/22/2013 1:08:29 AMYes. Didn't we supply al -Queda's predecessor's to fight the Soviets? Look how they repayed us.
-
2 RepliesEdited by M37h3w3: 2/21/2013 7:10:43 AMI'm not interested in starting World War 3. Nor am I interested in starting another Afghanistan. We supplied al-Qaeda with weapons when the Russians were trying to start shit with them. That shit didn't turn out well down the road. Meanwhile the third option, effectively do nothing, doesn't make me feel better as a person.
-
I think we should give every one of them a nuke withe a GPS that detonates it if it leaves their country. Then let them sit there nervously staring at one another to see which one would set theirs off first...
-
5 RepliesEnding the conflict will be nice, but we'll have turned a stable, secular government into yet another Islamic right-wing theocratic state. And in that region, there's already way too many of those. Given who some of those other states are, it's getting scary.
-
I can understand it, if we give weapons to them and they fall into the wrong hands, or even worse those weapons end up killing Americans, it would not go well.
-
I think we should have armed them earlier so they wouldn't have such a resentment towards us. But my guess is that there are secrets between the US and Syrian governments which would be let out into the public is the US went against the Syrian government. But now that these rebels have turned to Islamic extremist groups, I have no sympathy for them. I hope both sides tear each other to pieces.
-
Edited by Mags: 12/29/2013 6:30:44 PMI don't know where you're getting the "10% of the FSA is allied with AQ...". The Al-Nusra Front is a separate entity from the FSA, but they are allies. What we're seeing is al-Nusra and other jihadist groups like the Muhajireen Brigade or Ghuraba al-Sham working together alongside the FSA. For more information on al-Nusra, [url=http://longfightahead.blogspot.com/2013/02/al-nusra-front.html]here's[/url] my blog post on it. Now, the problem of us arming Syrian rebels is obviously the fear that these weapons fall into the hands of members of organizations like al-Nusra. However, much like various American officials, I support arming Syrian rebels. Not al-Nusra, not any of their jihadist allies, not Kurdish fighters, but a rebel group. The Syrian National Coalition is where you'd have to look at for a group suitable to obtain weapons from us. A secular, democratic group(s) would have to be the one(s) who gets our funding. The problem here would be making sure they are the victorious group. By victorious group, I mean when Assad falls and all these opposition groups fight for power. In all honesty, I'm betting one of two things is gonna happen. One: Coalitions of different groups fight each other for power, much like how Afghanistan was post-Soviet withdrawal; or, two: A legitimate government comes into place, but groups such as al-Nusra try to undermine them. Either way, a major point to funding a group is making sure they're victorious. [quote]The other decision (instead of isolating ourselves from the whole issue) is to just burst the bubble of war and let it all out. US bombs Syria, Iran bombs Israel, cluster-blam!- ensues with China and Russia's stance being put on the spotlight. None of which sounds fun.[/quote]I'm willing to bet that the US doesn't get involved unless the UN finally passes a resolution. Being that Russia has vetoed three so far, I doubt that's going to happen. But, with Russian support waning, I could be wrong. Now, we could still get involved militarily, just covertly; as in sending in CIA, special operations forces, etc. This would go back to the funding of the rebel group(s) that match our ideals. The weapons would be going to this group, and the US assets such as the aforementioned groups, would be alongside the group as advisers or even involved in the fighting. This helps both the rebel group be more victorious and it could potentially help track where the weapons go. I am also in favor of this move, as well. The fact of the matter is, the chances for a diplomatic end to this is deteriorating. The longer this goes on, the worse it becomes. As for the al-Nusra Front and other jihadist groups affiliated with al-Qaeda (or for the case of al-Nusra, [i]are[/i] al-Qaeda) the longer this conflict goes on, the stronger they get. Something has to happen, but it's a complex situation. EDIT: Wow. Both my opinions and several "facts" I pointed out here have changed. Very interesting how the dynamics of a conflict changes so rapidly.
-
At this point, I'd seriously consider just letting the situation resolve itself without American intervention.
