Humanitarian Intervention in Syria

by Sandrine C on June 14, 2013 - 9:46am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22899289

This article is about how the president of the United States, Barack Obama, has finally made a decision concerning sending arms and military aid to Syria, the US will be helping the Syrian rebels. This topic of humanitarian intervention is interesting because it really shows how countries choose not to make a difference and watch as other human beings die. What draws me to it is the humanity factor, these are people like us but they are forced to live in outrageous circumstances. 

The question we should be asking ourselves is should the US be intervening and sending arms in a conflict that does not involve them?

I think they should, the conflict in Syria has gone too far. In fact officials have reported 93,000 deaths since the start of the conflict, with at least 1,700 of them being children. The reason the Obama government has also reacted in favor of this intervention is that the Syrian regime led by Bachar Al-Asaad has allegedly been using chemical weapons against the rebels, which is something the US government does not approve of. The US has also agreed, like France and the UK, that if the war were to end with the Asaad regime still in power the outcomes may be disastrous. Because of the US's intervention, if the rebels "win" their cause, they might be able to push down Iran's influence over the Arab countries.

Something that has made a lot of people doubt the utility of this intervention is that the arms could also fall into the hands of the Hezbollah or as western countries also call them, a terrorist organization. There is also the question of Iraq and Iran (part of the US' "axis of evil") helping the Asaad regime. Could it start other terrorist attacks towards western countries? Since if the lethal weapons provided by the US would fall into the arms of the Hezbollah or the Asaad regime, there is nothing preventing them to point these weapons towards the Western countries. Others say that president Obama only decided to intervene because 150 Americans died because of the chemical weapons, basically it is only because people from his country were touched that he decided to help, not out of compassion for the Syrians.

Should we provide this kind of aid knowing that it could turn against us?

Other articles used for this:
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/features/readersletters/10458362.We_should_no...
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/wallid-phares-syria-obama/2013/06/13/id/...

Comments

This post is really interesting as it is talking politic and I really love politic. Plus, in the muslim community it has been a really important subject because of the tyrany of Bashar Al-Assad.

We should totally provide this kind of help even if it could turn against us in the future because who knows if the weapons will really go into the Hezbollah's hand or if it goes into their hands who knows for sure that they will use it against western countries.

Yes, the United States of America should be intervening and sending arms into this conflict even if it doesn't touch them directly. Indirectly this war will have a huge effect on the USA and in a bad way if Bashar win and in a good way if the rebels win. If Bashar win it will show the power that the alliance of Iran Russia and Syria is powerful in the other way, if Bashar's regime collapse it will show that Iran and Russia are not so strong and that America doesn't have to be that much afraid by them.

I doubt that Barrack Obama is sending that help only because of the 150 Americans killed by the chemical bombs. This problem have been going on for a while now and he always tried to solved it and to get into it but wasn't able because of Russia 's right of veto. However now that they used chemicals bomb it is a sufficent reason to skip the Russian's veto and to interven.

You might find this link also interesting: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/16/harper-g8-syria-russia-com...

About the author