Us to provide arms to Syrian Rebels

I'm surprised no one has talked about this on here yet. The Obama administration yesterday announced that it'll provide arm to the Syrian Rebels with the justification that the Syrian Regime used it's Chemical weapons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

Russia has also denies such reports, sticking by it's ally.

To me this thing has officially become a proxy war, I hope that we don't start an arms race in Syria...if we haven't already. By this I mean the Russian backed Syrian government, and the Us backed Rebels. One side adds weapons the other will proably do so too,until one side beats the other.

It is an arms race. Syria is allied with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran as well. They're only doing this now because it seems that the regime as made significant advances lately and might win. What would make me laugh is if they're pitching in too late in the war, so they drag it out by another year with the rebels losing anyways. That would be just one more humiliating moment in US foreign policy.

You would think we would have learned our lesson about outfitting rebel groups with U.S. tech. It literally always comes back to bite us in the ass later. However, this conflict keeps dragging on and if Russia's going to back up Assad it's kind of a given that the U.S. would aid the rebels eventually.

Horray.

We are one step away from North Korea 2.0

Any bets on how long before this comes back to bite the US in the ass?

Livewire said:

You would think we would have learned our lesson about outfitting rebel groups with U.S. tech. It literally always comes back to bite us in the ass later. However, this conflict keeps dragging on and if Russia's going to back up Assad it's kind of a given that the U.S. would aid the rebels eventually.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean look at who helped Al Qaeda out in Afghanistan...we did. Now Syria's rebels may end up similarly...hopefully not but there are parallels such as the Russians (the largest of the former USSR states (as in nations)) are in it and we are joining in too. Now let's hope that one of the sides in this thing doesn't end up bankrupt...

As you've all said, it's not going to end well. However, you have to appreciate that at least this century the US has been overthrowing dictators, as opposed to the Cold War policy of supporting dictators such as Pinochet.

A bit off topic there, but with this whole thing my main hope is that Britain doesn't get involved. It looks like we probably will, along with France, now the US has decided to send arms. Even though everybody knows they're probably just going to be used by terrorists / future dictators once the war is over. If it ever is. I'm just hoping Nick Clegg would destroy the coalition rather than assist the rebels.

foolish we gave arms to the taliban to fight the russians n look where that got us......

Yeah, all these arms are going straight to Al Nusra the second they're out of their packaging. Interestingly, the US are now pretty much aligned with Sunni Islam against Shi'ites. Absolute morons. Also, Iran have pledged 4,000 troops. Either the US go into this (and drag the UK and probably France into it in their wake) and threaten an international incident with Russia whilst simultaneously dragging out the war for the next 10-20 years plus instability after that, or it'll be over by christmas and Assad will still be in control. That's my 2 cents on it anyway.

How would this actually benefit the US (or Russia) in any way?

Realistically, it wouldn't.

It doesn't matter who is victorious in Syria - The US is going to get screwed either way.

Both sides are supported by differing Terrorist orginizations. The government by Hezbollah and the Rebels by Al-Quaeda.

The US is spitting on the graves of the victims of 9/11 and all the soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq by supporting the Rebels. That we are giving support to a Terrorist group who has attacked us in the past and continues to plan more attacks is a insult to them all.

Oh well. We can consdier the war on terror over at this point - Afterall, how can the US claim to be fighting Terrorists when we are supporting one of the largest collections of Terrorists in existance?

Edit - If anything, it will benefit China. Once this little trainwreck gets going, they are going to be sitting back laughing their asses off at the other nations bickering. Oh and, just like in Iraq, they would rapidly snap up any resources that could be made avaliable when the conflict dies down.

Do political leaders EVER learn from history? Have they even taken high school history classes at all? I mean come on.....this is so humiliating.

America, STAY OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS IF YOU AREN'T GONNA ACTUALLY HELP THEM LONGTERM! I wouldn't mind if they were giving diplomatic aid to start with, and then helping the rebels with peace talks, but this is textbook American ridiculousness. Assad is a murderer of his own people, and his regime has committed so many atrocities during this entire civil war, and yet America comes in NOW to supposedly help. This is truly a lose-lose situation, because Assad is just going to step up his massacring of civilians to counter the increased firepower of the rebels. Not to mention that America's toxic relationship with the Middle East has just become even worse.....

Powerserge said:

Do political leaders EVER learn from history? Have they even taken high school history classes at all? I mean come on.....this is so humiliating.

America, STAY OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS IF YOU AREN'T GONNA ACTUALLY HELP THEM LONGTERM! I wouldn't mind if they were giving diplomatic aid to start with, and then helping the rebels with peace talks, but this is textbook American ridiculousness. Assad is a murderer of his own people, and his regime has committed so many atrocities during this entire civil war, and yet America comes in NOW to supposedly help. This is truly a lose-lose situation, because Assad is just going to step up his massacring of civilians to counter the increased firepower of the rebels. Not to mention that America's toxic relationship with the Middle East has just become even worse.....

Click to expand...

Its not only that, but who says we should support the rebels at all they are just as bad.. hell they had an article about one of the rebel leaders eating a heart.. really? Neither side is worth supporting, and if the rebels do win then what? you're gonna let your country be ran by a bunch of farmers/herders/boys/ the whole situation smells really bad and I don't think we shouldn't step into the mess(pun intended)...

If we wanted to do something our time had come and past for that, now we just gotta sit back n let them handle it.. perhaps one of their neighbors could lend support instead of people always looking to the US we have our own problems that need to be dealt with..

It's all strategic posturing and politics.

Russia is currently nice and cozy with Syria. So they want to back the current regime and keep their influence in the region. The US sees its opportunity to not only remove Russian influence, but insert their own.

Iran also wants to see the current Syrian leadership remain intact, it'd be bad for them if yet another middle eastern country becomes pro-US. So they send in 4k troops to aid the Syrian government.

The whole business about chemical weapons being used.. How do you trust the same people who lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Is this also going to end with nato intervening on behalf of rebels or something along those lines?
Not going to end well. ._.

I haven't read if chemical weapons have been used. Perhaps the stories are fabricated. But let's say that Assad's forces have deployed chem wep. If the US doesn't feel like intervening, it says "the Syrian government may have used chemical weapons, and we're still investigating". If the US does feel like intervening, it says "we have determined that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons".

And Canada and the UK saying they "believe" that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. Like I "believe" in the constitution, I "believe" in the right to life, I "believe" in family values. What meaningless speech.

I think they're saying "believe" not in the same way as "I believe in God" - where there's no evidence. More that there's certainly some evidence to suggest the use of chemical weapons, but a) to what extent, did some get damaged, people got hurt, rebels found the bodies and claimed "Assad is using chemical weapons!". b) By which side? Both are doing horrible things, as tends to be the way in the Middle East (And any war really, but I don't think any US/UK soldiers ate Iraqi hearts), and c) Does that justify intervention when we know even if we kick out Assad Syria's just going to be a hotbed for terrorists waiting to get back at us because while we saved their asses, we didn't pray 5 times a day, or we treat women as equals, or they're bored, or something like that.
Saying "we believe" is just being politically pragmatic. The fact of the matter is that Assad could use nuclear weapons (if he somehow had them) and any intervention would only lead to more violence.

It doesn't make it any less stomach-churning. The fact they say that without providing any proof to the public makes it even more nauseous to hear. I know it's expected, but bleuarghhh.