U.S pentagon considering arming rebels and even a military strike on Syria.

[Sepiraph]

Typical U.S. imperialism.

[hagbard]

Wish someone would liberate us of Harper and the American's of all their leadership.

[flashy_mcflash]

Isn't this how al-qaeda started? With the U.S. arming Afghan rebels to help drive out Russia? Unfortunately, they helped out a guy named OSAMA BIN LADEN.

noobs.

Don't forget that the US and Donald Rumsfeld armed Saddam in the 80's too.

[bionicbadger]

I believe in Africa, there was a genocide, and nobody did a thing, including Canada.
This is a good opportunity to help the rebels and spread democracy in the region, as some might say.

Totally different context. In Rwanda hundreds of thousands people were being slaughtered because of their ethnic background.
In Syria several thousand people have been killed because they (or their family members) are protesting/opposing/trying to overthrow the government and being egged on by the west. The regime in power has lost over 1200 soldiers to violence trying to suppress the insurgents.

[DearSummer]

Totally different context. In Rwanda hundreds of thousands people were being slaughtered because of their ethnic background.
In Syria several thousand people have been killed because they (or their family members) are protesting/opposing/trying to overthrow the government and being egged on by the west. The regime in power has lost over 1200 soldiers to violence trying to suppress the insurgents.

So it's OK for al-Asad to tortue and murder anybody who speaks out against him? That's not a clear-cut human rights violation? Syria has a terrible human rights record.

[Hitman21]

The US needs to just stay out of this. The US doesn't care actually care about the people dying

[Muney]

Wish someone would liberate us of Harper and the American's of all their leadership.

Stupid liberals always jumping on Harper. This is about the US and Syria, nothing to do with Harper. Liberals are still butthurt the Cons for a majority eh?

[Simaahoy]

Link 1
Link 2

Once again, seems like the U.S just can't seem to mind their own business and instead continue on to police the world despite the fact the majority of Americans are tired of the nation building and policing their government is involved in. The irony is that it is mostly "conservatives" such as John McCain calling for arming the rebels and even a full out strike on the regime. Funny how the neo-cons call themselves conservatives, but yet believe in spending taxpayer money to collapse nations and then build them from ground zero.

Can the U.S and NATO ever learn to mind their own damn business and not get involved in things that have nothing to do with them (not a threat to their national security)?

United States clearly have their own agenda's. There are many parts of the world where people are being killed and have no rights for many many years. Yet, the UN and US doesn't care and even support the governments that are doing this. Do you see them going into Zimbabwe or Ethiopia? Nope, they don't give an eff. Are they doing anything in Yemen? NOPE, in fact they even invited the dictator in to the country for medical treatment. That is a huge insult to all those who want rights and bring opressors to justice.

[DearSummer]

United States clearly have their own agenda's. There are many parts of the world where people are being killed and have no rights for many many years. Yet, the UN and US doesn't care and even support the governments that are doing this. Do you see them going into Zimbabwe or Ethiopia? Nope, they don't give an eff. Are they doing anything in Yemen? NOPE, in fact they even invited the dictator in to the country for medical treatment. That is a huge insult to all those who want rights and bring opressors to justice.

Can the U.S. police the entire world? No.

Is military interventionism always the right answer? No.

Are these extremely complicated issues that most posters here are just glossing over? Yes.

Everybody is damning America for trying to help Syria ("they don't even care about Syrians!") while simutaneously saying that America is trying to police the world ("they need to mind their own business!").

[DearSummer]

How to set Syria free
Getting rid of Bashar Assad requires a united opposition, the creation of a safe haven and Western resolve
http://www.economist.com/node/21547243

The outside world, to its shame, has shown no such resolve. A vote on February 4th, in the UN Security Council, condemning Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, and calling on him to hand powers to his deputy, was defeated thanks to vetoes from Russia and China. For Mr Assad, this was the impunity he needed to redouble the killing. Earlier a ramshackle mission to Syria by the Arab League had ended in bickering. Division has eviscerated international co-operation just when the turmoil whipped up by the Arab spring makes it essential.

The people of Syria deserve better. With the number of dead rapidly climbing above 7,000, the world has a responsibility to act. It also has an interest. Syria occupies a vital position in the Middle East, jammed between Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, and allied with Russia and Iran. The country is a cauldron of faiths, sects and clans seething with grudges and mistrust. Many of Syria’s minorities are sheltering with Mr Assad’s Alawite sect only because they fear a bloody reckoning if Syria’s Sunnis, the largest group, are victorious. A lengthy civil war in Syria would feed mayhem and religious strife in an unstable part of the world.

So shifting Mr Assad from power as fast as possible is essential. It is too late for him to negotiate an accommodation with his people by overseeing reform and an increase in democracy. Mr Assad’s repeated resort to violence has earned him the permanent distrust of most of his people. Any freedom they gain would immediately become a means to resist him. For the good of Syria and the region, therefore, the aim must be both to dethrone Mr Assad and also to minimise the loss of life. The pity is that, just now, those goals are at odds.

[iEyeCaptain]

How much oil does Syria have?

I know Libya had a lot.

[NorthYorker]

The choice in Syria is between Muslim Brotherhood and Assad dictatorship. Sad but true. Anyone who's denying that helping anti-Assad groups is equivalent to arming islamic militants is a hypocrite. Mr. Kap, DearSummer, zz000ter, are you ready to support Muslim Brotherhood militants? Yes or no?

[manmanny]

How much oil does Syria have?

I know Libya had a lot.

Its not for Oil but that word. For "Israel". Israel, Hamas, Lebanon,Iran connection. Election time baby.

[Hitman21]

The US already helped create the Taliban in Afghanistan, an even worse dictatorship in Lybia and it will do just the same if it helps Syria.

[NorthYorker]

Its not for Oil but that word. For "Israel". Israel, Hamas, Lebanon,Iran connection.

To the best of my knowledge, Israel is very cool about this whole idea to support anti-Assad opposition, precisely because they know the opposition.
That's what DEBKA says, by the way: "If the Russians continue to obstruct the US, European and Arab role in backing the Arab revolt and the Muslim Brotherhood, The United States, the Europeans and the Gulf Arabs are likely to redouble their efforts to unseat Bashar Assad. "
http://www.debka.com/article/21710/