Should the United States Supply Weapons to Syrian Rebels?

by Fox Report with Shepard Smith Posted 2012/08/02 17:45:22

Related Topics: United States, Syrian Rebels, Syria, President Obama

Read More

819 votes
Read all 655 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	127 votes	16%
	No	586 votes	72%
	Not sure	106 votes	13%

+29

Add a comment above

SJG 2012/08/02 20:45:15

No

+14
No, they will only be used against us later on!
>> See Replies

More polls by Fox Report with Shepard Smith

SW 2012/08/03 12:21:48

Not sure

Usually, no. In some cases though when there's a genocide happening and they have rape tents in modern neighborhoods and they're sniping 4 year olds on the streets of our allies we're required to defend by treaty (like in Bosnia) we should do something. In this case? No idea.

reply
All American 2012/08/03 12:19:24

Not sure

The question for me is, when Bahsir goes who's going to take his place?

reply
wwe.sodahead.com/RPG2011 2012/08/03 12:15:02

Yes

+1
I'm voting yes because I would guess that we probably already have.

reply
Georgia50 2012/08/03 12:13:16

No

+3
There is no upside for the US in this conflict regardless of who prevails in Syria. Al-qaeda opposes the government, Iran supports it. Kurds are caught in the middle. Christians are living on borrowed time.

I suppose we can console ourselves with the spectacle of Russia and China behaving as if they matter. There's no upside for them, either.

reply
JMCC 2012/08/03 11:17:54

No

+1
Because they would only find there way to Afghanistan after the conflict is over.

reply
Ben 2012/08/03 10:29:34

No

+1
But I wouldn't be opposed to some intervention along the lines of when France and the UK bombed military targets without actually providing ground support (unless SAS advisors count!).

reply
George 2012/08/03 10:28:53

No

+4
Enough with interfering in these crazy countries. Let them kill each other with bombs, stones and branches if need be and we can pick up the pieces we want to use for ourselves afterwards.
These morona are intent on shedding blood, there is no need to be a part of that if they dont really want peace. We cannot impose peace on morons who have no taste for it.

reply
MSG 2012/08/03 10:01:46 (edited)
Picasso... to MSG 2012/08/03 13:18:35

+3
Yes we went through that type of propaganda before we gave Osama bin laden and his army of al-Qaeda weapons, that his jihadist organization was responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Americans were inundated with such type propaganda before we gave in and armed Osama bin ladens army.
And look what happened.
And that's because most of the middle east people are driven, and governed by their Gods.
Their Gods who promote the killing of those who do not believe as they do, and you can't logically deal with people who believe in a fake-man-made-God.

reply
Jack 2012/08/03 09:27:26

No

+4
They may use the weapons to kill Americans elsewhere.

reply
PaulBot415 2012/08/03 09:26:05

Yes

+3
but absolutely no further involvement than that. it is not our fight. but the FSA is fighting a truly corrupt government and I support the cause.

reply
Michael S. 2012/08/03 09:11:43 (edited)

No

+1
Not just no, but hell no. We need to learn our lesson already and STAY OUT of other people's conflicts, especially civil wars. Whenever we get involved, we always end up creating enemies or arming people who later become our enemies. We do NOT need another Operation Cyclone.

reply
Artist 2012/08/03 09:07:48

Not sure

+1
I still haven't figured out why obama helped the Libyan rebels so why not? At least by his logic it would make sense...

reply
mrk5panzer to Artist 2012/08/03 15:47:05

+2
Not really its not helping at all picking sides, everytime we do it always back fires in our face. The only ones coming out ahead are the Muslim brotherhood and they hate use more than the old Gov. of those we helped.

reply
Artist to mrk5panzer 2012/08/03 18:13:14

+1
Yep...

reply
james.bowman.146 2012/08/03 08:56:19

No

+2
>.> It was stupid before. It isn't any smarter now. Support the rebels by voice and sanctions. Stop giving money to ALL countries.

reply
Illjwamh 2012/08/03 08:09:58

Not sure

+1
That's a really tough call to make. On the one hand, it seems like the right thing to do now. On the other, it didn't really work out so well for us in the long run with the Mujahideen.

reply
redhorse29 2012/08/03 07:19:15

No

+3
These people hate us. Several years ago they blew up a marine dorm and killed/injured scores on our boys. Let them fight their own battles. Anything we do will be use as reason to further hate us and used against us in the future.

reply
Matthew Schwarz 2012/08/03 07:06:33

No

No, both sides of the conflict in Syria are Muslim. Muslims that follow the Coran are enemies of the US and Israel. There is no reason we should support our enemies.

reply
Janoy Davis 2012/08/03 07:00:25

No

+5
If it is a civil war, we have no right to intervent in such affairs.

reply
rustyshackelford 2012/08/03 06:50:12
Jenn 2012/08/03 06:37:28

No

+2
No, they should not.!

reply
Eric 2012/08/03 06:23:23

No

+4
Our government giving weapons to terrorists, that's nothing new.

reply
Transquesta 2012/08/03 06:14:31

Not sure

+1
Send 'em a boxcar load of Jimmy Dean smoked sausage links.

reply
Picasso... to Transqu... 2012/08/03 13:24:04

+2
Yea, and a few truck loads of Bob Evens biskets and gravy, that should end the violence, Lol.

reply
Kingarthurup 2012/08/03 06:09:04

Yes

+3
but keep it under the table so that you can appease your libtard base and win the election.

reply
Korgull to Kingart... 2012/08/03 10:16:57

+1
Thing is, most of the "libtard" base are the ones who want to help the rebels and protesters, because, unlike the Iraq war, this is a good cause.

reply
Transqu... to Korgull 2012/08/03 17:46:03

Bingo! Republican wars BAD; Democratic wars GOOD.

. . . .;-\

reply
Korgull to Transqu... 2012/08/03 22:48:00
Transqu... to Korgull 2012/08/04 06:49:06

The choir cheers!

Preach it, brutha! Preach it LOUD-n-PROUD!

reply
Picasso... to Kingart... 2012/08/03 13:24:52

+1
Always has worked before.

reply
gvc 2012/08/03 06:05:34

No

No, but He** NO!

reply
mwf122090 2012/08/03 06:03:33

No

+3
Give them food, give them water, give them medical supplies. Keep their innocent civilians alive and allow the rebels to fight their own battles.

We really should be lessening our involvement in other countries in the Middle East, including Israel.

reply
TheTruth1313 2012/08/03 05:59:26

No

+3
As I have said so many times before, it is time to stop acting like we are the world police and tend to the issues at home.

reply
Picasso... to TheTrut... 2012/08/03 13:27:18

+1
Why is it that I see so many online that are tired of both democrat and republican leadership, and yet when we vote, we vote to continue the stupidity once again ???????

reply
TheTrut... to Picasso... 2012/08/04 06:46:22

+1
That's the million dollar question indeed.

reply
Picasso... to TheTrut... 2012/08/04 13:35:40

+1
And here's your answer...........

reply
TheTrut... to Picasso... 2012/08/05 07:18:05

+1
LOL. Thanks. I'll look for this book. Thank you for the info.

reply
Jimmy 2012/08/03 05:56:13

No

+3
It didn't work too well with Osama Bin Laden or Saddam I don't think it'll work here.

reply
GINGERBREAD 2012/08/03 05:43:36

No

+2
There is an old saying: "WHEN YOUR ENEMY IS FIGHTING EACH OTHER, JUST GET OUT OF THE WAY, LET THEM DESTROY EACH OTHER". Now whether we help them or not, what do you think will happen, when one faction in that country gets the upper hand, over the other faction. Will they be "FRIENDLIER" to us? Or will it be the same? Or will it be worse? I'm guessing that whoever wins out in the end, the Syrian people will still have a dictator. Maybe worst than the one they replaced

reply