Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

According to a survey by Pew, 70% of Americans say that they oppose arming rebels. Do you agree with them? How do you interpret this survey?

It should be ignored. Foreign matters should not be judged by popular will, the whole Iraq fiasco and the amount of lies the government convinced people were fact shows that the people are not very well versed in foreign politics. When people go around believing that Al-Qaeda hates us for our freedoms (they never said anything of the sort) or when people go around believing that Hussein and Al-Qaeda collaborated (which is like Stalin going into an alliance with the Pope) I think their right in determining foreign policy should be weakened. What it should be handled by is through experts and diplomats who understand the situation and the culture rather than people who still have a hard time finding Iraq on the map. Not that it should be totally out of touch, obviously if someones foreign policy is weak like say Jimmy Carter's they should rightfully be removed from office, but the Public should not have such power over the specifics of a foreign policy.

70% have common sense and their brain on straight. Remember the last muslim rebels we armed? It was the mujihadeen fighting the soviets, who eventually became the oppressive regime known as the taliban. I don't think we should be funding any muslims period.

At 6/19/13 03:09 AM, LandonMP wrote: 70% have common sense and their brain on straight. Remember the last muslim rebels we armed? It was the mujihadeen fighting the soviets, who eventually became the oppressive regime known as the taliban. I don't think we should be funding any muslims period.

Um no it was I think the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. Other than that remember the last Muslim army we didn't arm? Oh right the Bosnian army. That move led them to get defeated and led to more genocide.

At 6/18/13 01:48 AM, Warforger wrote: I think their right in determining foreign policy should be weakened. What it should be handled by is through experts and diplomats who understand the situation and the culture rather than people who still have a hard time finding Iraq on the map

How can you ensure that you are weakening only the stupid voters? Politics is the very method in place that people use to make decisions, if you change the entire system to change 1 decision the system has made then the new system may start to make all sorts of other stupid decisions.

30% of Americans do not believe we should abandon the rebels to Assad's death squads and watch Syria become an insular totalitarian regime, I'm sure a proportion of the remaining 70% sympathize, what this poll tells us is they fear being dragged into another pointless war. If the system needs to be changed we need one which is more goal oriented, so that we don't sweep up legitimate critics along with stupid people while at the same time leaving the practical matters to the experts.

At 6/18/13 01:48 AM, Warforger wrote: It should be ignored. Foreign matters should not be judged by popular will

What happened to democracy?

At 6/20/13 04:31 PM, T3XT wrote: What happened to democracy?

Good question; we never had it. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. No one wants a Democracy at the national level that had already ended up in complete failure in ancient Greece. The way the government was set up was so that the popular will has a say in government, but doesn't determine it. So there are less democratic institutions which serve as a way to weaken the popular will such as the Supreme Court, the Electoral College and formerly the Senate (it was elected by State Legislatures) along with fixed terms over things like votes of no confidence. The idea was so that they would prevent "mobacracy" or a "tyranny of the majority". Such a scenario would end up in complete disaster as Democracies sabotage military campaigns or call for things like balanced budget amendments.

At 6/20/13 11:46 AM, HibiscusMallow wrote: How can you ensure that you are weakening only the stupid voters? Politics is the very method in place that people use to make decisions, if you change the entire system to change 1 decision the system has made then the new system may start to make all sorts of other stupid decisions.

I'm not saying it's weakening stupid voters, I'm saying it's weakening voters in general. The government should do things which are unpopular as long as it was right. This is something that was in the intent of the Founding Fathers

At 6/20/13 10:07 PM, Warforger wrote: Good question; we never had it. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.

This is wrong. The usual definition and by most technical definitions, the word democracy encompasses a republic. The US is a representative liberal-democratic federal republic.

At 6/20/13 10:43 PM, Feoric wrote: This is wrong. The usual definition and by most technical definitions, the word democracy encompasses a republic. The US is a representative liberal-democratic federal republic.

To some extent. When the Constitution was first ratified the only members of the Federal Government which were elected by popular vote was the House of Representatives. To this day the people still don't directly elect the President (though they pretty much do given how the electoral college works). But a Democracy is not necessarily a Republic, surely you mean the word Republic encompasses Democracy?

Well, duh.

Only a complete retard, like this president, would support arming Al-Quida

That what is happening to Syria and what world media tell us are two different stories.

At 6/25/13 06:03 PM, Fim wrote:

At 6/22/13 02:09 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, duh.

Only a complete retard, like this president, would support arming Al-Quida

....

i'm aware. Unfortunately, the people are not in charge, and the president is doing it anyway.

At 6/25/13 06:03 PM, Fim wrote:

At 6/22/13 02:09 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, duh.

Only a complete retard, like this president, would support arming Al-Quida

....

i'm aware. Unfortunately, the people are not in charge, and the president is doing it anyway.

At 6/25/13 06:03 PM, Fim wrote:

At 6/22/13 02:09 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, duh.

Only a complete retard, like this president, would support arming Al-Quida

....

Oh, you didn't know that the Syrian rebels are supported and funded by al-quida. I'm gonna keel over and die from not surprised.

syria is gonna turn into ww3

Obviously the U.S can't support Al-Assad's regime, killing and oppressing it's own people while being backed by Iran and Hezbollah. But then again, I'm not sure we should be arming rebels that get a lot of support from Al Qaeda and Chechen rebels. Even if the rebels manage to win this war, I don't think they'll let us take advantage of them, thus meaning no matter the outcome of the war Syria will remain a state sponsor of terror.

At 6/27/13 12:48 AM, Fim wrote: That's not what you said originally, to be honest are you really that surprised that after 2 years of the west watching the situation spiral into a bloody civil war with their arm folded that they are accepting help anywhere they can? Wouldn't you if you were in their position.

I don't give a flying fuck what THEY do, I'm more worried about what our president is deciding to support

And anyway al Qaeda are only affiliated with al nursa at the moment, not the broader rebels. Al nursa is already classified by the US as a terrorist off shoot of the rebels so they wouldn't get anything anyway.

Right. Because the rebels are gonna be picky about who they give the weapons to. Didn' you just say they'll team up with anyone who supports them?

At 6/26/13 10:30 PM, tyler2513 wrote: Obviously the U.S can't support Al-Assad's regime, killing and oppressing it's own people while being backed by Iran and Hezbollah. But then again, I'm not sure we should be arming rebels that get a lot of support from Al Qaeda and Chechen rebels. Even if the rebels manage to win this war, I don't think they'll let us take advantage of them, thus meaning no matter the outcome of the war Syria will remain a state sponsor of terror.

Which is exactly why we should stay out of these conflicts that have exactly zero to do with the united states.

At 6/27/13 01:50 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 6/26/13 10:30 PM, tyler2513 wrote: Obviously the U.S can't support Al-Assad's regime, killing and oppressing it's own people while being backed by Iran and Hezbollah. But then again, I'm not sure we should be arming rebels that get a lot of support from Al Qaeda and Chechen rebels. Even if the rebels manage to win this war, I don't think they'll let us take advantage of them, thus meaning no matter the outcome of the war Syria will remain a state sponsor of terror.

Which is exactly why we should stay out of these conflicts that have exactly zero to do with the united states.

Obviously very true, but we can't have Syria becoming a safe haven for terrorist organisations either. More importantly, I can just see a bunch of groups stepping in to turn the place into an Islamic State.

At 6/27/13 10:30 AM, tyler2513 wrote: Obviously very true, but we can't have Syria becoming a safe haven for terrorist organisations either. More importantly, I can just see a bunch of groups stepping in to turn the place into an Islamic State.

Fucking let them. If we focus our money on strengthening things HERE, when whatever they do become irrelevant.

BTW, we're funding the terrorists anyway, so if the rebels win, then it becomes a terrorist state.

Just because a government is run by a psychotic dictator doesn't mean the people fighting him are nice people with good intentions. Did anyone stop to consider that an entire country might be populated entirely by [relative to our own standards of acceptable behavior] barbarians who will kill, enslave, and oppress one another regardless of who the USFG decides gets the weapons and training?

Why can't we just let the third world be poor and miserable on its own terms.

How would you react if Chinese government officials were having serious public discourse over whether they should fund, train, and arm the Tea Party. That would be quite the psychodrama.

I had this weird thought: support the rebels, but only to a point that would maintain a stalemate.

Right now, Assad's forces are retaking towns, thanks to support from Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah forces. We cannot let Assad win, as it would show that he could get away with his actions.

The rebels have been increasingly dominated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Supporting them and giving them the ability to wipe out the Assad regime will result in a new Al Qaeda safe haven. The rebels would reward America by bombing elementary schools and daycare centers, or some other sick terrorist attacks. We cannot let the rebels, as they are now, win either.

Whichever side wins, it will be a negative for America. So let's push to maintain a stalemate. Unless an acceptable solution can be found to end this crisis, let both sides destroy each other.