General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you approve or disapprove of the CIA Sending Military Supplies To Syrian opposition groups?
5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Strongly approve | |
0 (0%) |
|
Approve | |
0 (0%) |
|
Strongly disapprove | |
3 (60%) |
|
Disapprove | |
2 (40%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
sibelian
(7,804 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I tried a similar poll on the president's most recent national speech and was accused of bias.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I don't know from this poll how well the groups being equipped have been vetted.
pampango
(24,692 posts)to work out agreements with other countries to stop the flow of military supplies to all sides. This would force all sides to the negotiating table instead of thinking they can win a military victory.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)But better than air strikes or boots on the ground.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I do not see a benefit in exchaning one asshole for a different set of assholes via the chaos of a civil war.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)to any nation or organization in the Middle East. This poll is too narrow for me to vote on any of its options.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Discussing the poll and not the contents.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Just on a broader basis that your poll allows.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Where's the problem?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I'm just a little sensitive because i was accused of bias in my last poll.
I enjoy kicking back and watching the results.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I don't mind the idea of sending them medical supplies or food - either side for that matter.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I don't think that there are any clear good guys.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)This article is from more than a year ago - but I think the points are still very, very relevant. I strongly recommend reading this article in full - in salon.com by Gary Kamiya:
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/
snips:
This is not a knee-jerk left-wing response. It has nothing to do with Iraq. Nor does it have anything to do with the proxy war between the U.S. and its allies and Iran and its allies. It is not driven by pacifism or opposition to all war. All U.S. wars are not axiomatically foolish, evil or driven by brutal self-interest (although most of them since World War II have been). The airstrikes on Kosovo and the Libya campaign were justified (although the jury is still out on the latter intervention). If arming the Syrian opposition would result in fewer deaths and a faster transition to a peaceful, open, democratic society, we should arm them.
That analysis has been provided by a number of in-depth reports, most notably a new study by the International Crisis Group, as well as the excellent on-the-ground reporting of Nir Rosen for Al-Jazeera. The bottom line is simple. The war has become a zero-sum game for Assad. If he loses, he dies. But the only way he can lose is if he is abandoned by his crucial external patron, Russia, which is extremely unlikely to happen absent some slaughter so egregious that Moscow feels it has to cut ties with him. Assad has sufficient domestic support to hold on for a long time, and a huge army that is not likely to defect en masse. Under these circumstances, giving arms to the rebels, however much it may make conscience-stricken Western observers feel better, will simply make the civil war much bloodier and its outcome even more chaotic and dangerous.
The key point concerns Assads domestic support. Contrary to the widely held belief that most Syrians support the opposition and are opposed to the Assad regime, Syrians are in fact deeply divided. The countrys minorities the ruling Alawites, Christians and Druze tend to support the regime, if only because they fear what will follow its downfall. (The grocery on my corner in San Francisco is owned by a Christian Syrian from a village outside Damascus. When I asked him what he thought about what was going on in his country, he said, Its not like what you see on TV. Assad is a nice guy. Hes trying to do the right thing.) As Rosen makes clear, Syrias ruling Alawite minority is the key to Assads survival: Absent an outside invasion, the regime will not fall unless the Alawites turn on it. But the Alawites fear reprisals if the Sunni-dominated opposition, some of whose members have threatened to exterminate the Alawites, defeats the Assad regime. The fear of a sectarian war, exacerbated by the murky and incoherent nature of the opposition, means that the minorities are unlikely to join the opposition in large numbers.
...
Our national instinct is to come riding to the rescue. It goes against our character to simply sit on our hands. Our sincere, naive and self-centered belief that America can fix everything, and our equally sincere, naive and self-centered belief that moral outrage justifies intervention, is a powerful tide, pulling us toward getting directly involved in Syrias civil war.
But in the real world, we cannot always come riding to the rescue. Sometimes, we have no choice but to watch tragedy unfold, because anything we do will create an even bigger tragedy.
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)a potential new Taliban. Fuck that.