ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why We should stay out of Syria

Updated on August 24, 2013

Intervening in Syria

There are quite a few good reasons to stay out of Syria's 2 year old civil war. First of all the United States cannot afford to finance another military operation in the Middle East, and will Russia and Iran just stand idly by if we put troops on the ground in Syria? Also some of the rebel groups have claimed allegiance to the United States' worst enemy, Al Quaeda.

There is new "evidence" coming out of Syria that Assad's troops have used chemical weapons on the rebels in highly populated civilian areas http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/us-syria-crisis-obama-idUSBRE97M0E420130823. I believe this is a ploy by the "rebels" in Syria to provoke a response from the international community against Assad. They are seeking weapons and military help from the U.S., and their allies. These are the same people who have no problem strapping on a bomb, running into a densely populated area and killing innocent civilians, is it that far fetched to think that maybe they used the chemical weapons in an attempt to frame Assad's regime and receive the help they seek? Any "evidence" should be taken with a grain of salt, and without absolute proof of who actually used the weapons there should be no action taken, except that of closer monitoring of the fighting going on inside of Syria. These "rebels" have asked for weapons and the establishment of a no fly zone over Syria. These pose significant risks as well.

The "rebels" have asked for the U.N. to implement a no fly zone over Syria like they did in Libya to stop bombardment of civilian areas and rebel strongholds. There are a few differences in Libya and Syria. Syria has extensive air defense capability that would have to be taken out before the no fly zone could take effect. This is a huge operation that would command a lot of troops and support to carry out and quite dangerous due to the overlapping coverage of Assad's air defenses http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-air-defenses-pose-formidable-challenge-190837845.html. This would be a costly and dangerous operation that the united States can not afford.

There are a few questions we should ask ourselves before we get involved any further in this conflict and send weapons to these extreme Islamic militants. Haven't we let too many of our brave men and women of the armed forces die in some God forsaken desert halfway around the world? Do we really want to be responsible for putting the guns in the hands of people that end up killing someone's son or daughter in Afghanistan or Iraq?

Don't we already have enough on our plate? We are not the world's police force, this is OUR (the people of the United States) money being spent to finance these needless wars, drone strikes, and covert operations. If the international community wants to intervene in this 2 1/2 year war, then I say they fork up an equal share of the cost, and the troops.

In the following paragraphs I will go into detail on a few of the reasons we should stay out of Syria (along with a little rant about our government).


The Economy

The United States has just came through one of the worst recessions in recent memory. Unemployment soared to almost 10%, mortgage companies were repossessing houses leaving millions of Americans homeless, and businesses were going bankrupt.

In 2013 the sequester kicked in triggering spending cuts that will shave $1.2 trillion off of our national debt by 2021 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/14/the-sequester-explained/). The sequester calls for cuts in defense spending and discretionary domestic spending. Many military officials claim that the cuts to defense spending will hollow out our military and leave us vulnerable.

What most of us citizens fail to notice is that federal payrolls and pensions are exempt to the spending cuts. Our president currently makes $400,000 annually and when he leaves office after a 4 or 8 year term he will receive a pension that is equal to the current salary of cabinet members which is $191,300 annually.

The vice president and speaker of the house make $223,500 annually, senate minority and majority leaders $193,400, and rank and file members of the house and senate make $174,000.

It should be noted that in the middle of our worst recession since the Great Depression congress voted themselves a raise. Also there is a cost of living adjustment to their salaries every year. Members of the house receive an MRA allowance annually to help pay the expenses of their everyday duties as a representative. In 2012 the amount given to representatives averaged out to $1,353,205.13 each.

After they retire they will continue to receive money from our federal budget based on the amount of time served in congress. There are 413 retired members of congress receiving pensions ranging from $70,000 to $40,000 annually. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm)


While we as citizens of what once was the greatest and most powerful nation in the world struggle to pay our bills and raise our children members of our government not only do not feel the strain of our struggle to survive, they are set for life! They continue to receive increases in their pay and their expense accounts.

As I see it there is plenty of room to adjust their salaries and pensions which would help reduce government spending. We cannot get members of congress to work together on solutions that will help our country grow and become prosperous again because of their party affiliations but they voted unanimously for a raise in 2004 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/agencies/a/raise4congress.htm) and in December of 2012 President Obama ordered a raise for the vice president and all members of congress (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/obama-pay-raise-congress_n_2377714.html).

As of May 2013 our unemployment rate is 7.1%, salaries have gone down and prices have gone up on all of the essentials we need to work and survive such as gasoline and food. We send billions of dollars (around 50 billion annually) of aid to foreign countries (most of which hate the United States) while we have starving children in our streets. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/us-foreign-aid-by-country_n_1837824.html). We allow illegal immigrants to work and send millions and millions of dollars to their home country every week and our government wants to reward them with permanent residence.

Our economy has seen a slight turn upwards in the past 2 years but we are far from being out of the woods yet and these spending cuts will have a drastic effect on our economy.

Yet our government can somehow find the money to support terrorists in the Middle East with cash, food, and now weapons? http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/14/world/meast/syria-civil-war The United States has way too many personal problems to fix here and we need to stay out of Syria and let them handle their own affairs.

Al Qaeda

Among economic concerns with sending weapons and other aid to so called Rebels" in Syria there are some strategic problems as well. Counted among the FSA (Free Syrian Army) are groups who claim their allegiance to Al Qaeda (http://www.freep.com/article/20130614/NEWS15/306140065/Syrian-rebels-pledge-loyalty-al-Qaeda).

Have we forgotten what happened to us in 2001 (http://news.yahoo.com/photos/9-11-the-25-most-powerful-photos-1315611364-slideshow/)? These groups claim allegiance to Osama Bin Laden and the terrorist group that perpetrated the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor and we plan to send them weapons?

Didn't we do this once before in Afghanistan? During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the cold war in the 80s the United States sent cash and weapons to militant groups in Afghanistan to fight off Soviet occupation. Osama Bin Laden was in charge of one of the largest groups and received aid from the United States only to turn and attack the United States just a couple of decades later. How many of our soldiers have died in Afghanistan to our own weapons?

We should stay out of this conflict and let the chips fall where they may. We have no business arming terrorists halfway around the world who claim to be our sworn enemies. How long before these weapons resurface in Afghanistan to be used against our sons and daughters in the military?

Stay out of Syria

We have no business getting involved in a civil war taking place halfway around the world when we have so many problems at home that desperately need our attention. These so called "rebels" are foreign Islamic militants who have invaded Syria under the guise of disgruntled citizens. They have claimed that Assad's forces have used chemical weapons on them during the 2 year long civil war, but reports are that the rebels themselves used the chemical weapons to draw in U.S support and in hopes that the U.N. will impose a no-fly zone like they did in Libya.

If these jihadists take over Syria they will gain access to more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction that were provided to the Syrian government by their allies, Russia. Our government needs to listen to the people and look out for our best interests and by no means are we interested in another Islamic militant republic that we will have to fight in 10 years.


Should the United States provide weapons to Syrian Rebels?

See results

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.

    Click to Rate This Article