.
April 19th, 2011
04:39 PM ET

Should U.S. be funding Mideast rebel groups?

ALT TEXT

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

In the abstract, it's a noble calling: Support oppressed people's yearning to breath free. Over the years, the United States has made a general practice of coming down on the side of people who are fighting for their freedom. But now that there are a dozen uprisings in the Middle East, it's probably worth taking a closer look to see if it's really that good of an idea.

Syria, for example, has been the scene of unrest since mid-March. The Washington Post reports that the U.S. State Department has secretly financed several Syrian political opposition groups since 2005. The Post reporting was based on diplomatic cables the folks at Wiki-leaks got a hold of. The State Department refused comment on the authenticity of the cables, but a deputy assistant secretary of state said the State Department does not endorse political parties or movements. Baloney.

If you provide aid - military, financial, humanitarian - you do.

In Libya, nobody knows who we are supporting but by participating in NATO-led air strikes, we're supporting someone. And as tensions continue to rise in Yemen, Bahrain, Iran, and elsewhere, we may want to exercise caution about who we are getting into bed with...

Oh, and the other part is we don't have any money. We really don't have any money. And for people in this country who have been unemployed for years, can't find a job and are faced with the thought of their unemployment benefits running out, telling them we're giving cash to a shadowy poorly organized dysfunctional group of malcontents in some faraway middle eastern country ain't going to go down so well.

Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. be funding rebel groups in the Middle East?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

David:
As much as I hate to say it, no. Before we get ourselves involved in yet another military action we need to address our own problems, like the deficit, infrastructure, unemployment, failing school system, our broken government, broken borders, etc. We have way too many problems to be spending money on more bombs and bullets.

Kim:
Why not? It seems like we fund every murderous and corrupt dictator that's out there. If there are any rebel groups that control massive oil fields, or contribute to congressional election campaigns, then I'm positive we will find a way to waste taxpayer dollars on them as fast as humanly possible.

Kathie:
We need to stop funneling our money into everyone else's business. We bankrolled Iran, Iraq, etc until, at a later date, another president determined they were now our enemies. Time to take care of business at home!!!

Richard in Malvern, Pennsylvania:
Sure! Let's fund the insurgents in Libya, Bahrain, Syria, and everyone else that wants our money. Let's also give them high-tech weaponry. Along this line of logic, let's befriend Al Qaeda and the drug lords. Enough is enough! No one gets anything until the USA is solvent. You cannot buy good will. You would think we would have learned that by now.

Dennis in Florida:
The U.S. government has no idea who the leaders of the rebels are or who the rebel leaders really represent.

Bill:
No. When education is being cut, when state budgets are being cut, when bridges and highways are crumbling, when even the electrical transmission systems are rotting and rusting, money going overseas should be slashed if not stopped.

Larry:
Be much easier to just let them fight it out internally and whoever stands will still control the oil. Time to fold up our tents, come home and figure out a way to prevent $5 gas by summer. All about the oil.


Filed under: Congress • Government • Middle East • Senate • Senate and Congress • United States
soundoff (159 Responses)
  1. Tom in Desoto, TX

    No but they will. That's what republicans do to keep the war industry on solid footing.

    April 19, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
  2. Dave in Arizona

    No, we should be minding our own business and using that money here, perhaps give it to the rich since they are so unfairly treated in this country.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
  3. B.J., Quincy, Il

    Only if they have been researched and verified thet they want democrocy. If not let them have at it, it would be lone less we have to worry about, we'll only have to worry about the winner.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
  4. JENNA ROSEVILLE CA

    Should the U.S. be funding rebel groups in the Middle East?

    Jack

    Better we should fund the rebels than the dictators that abused their people in our name.

    Jenna
    Roseville CA

    April 19, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
  5. Greg in Arkansas

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but, didn't we try that in South East Asia (Viet Nam) back in the late 50's and early 60's?
    Didn't work out too well back then so I won't expect much different results this go around.
    Change comes from within and if the people in the Middle East (including the rebel groups) want that change, THEY need to figure it out for themselves. (I still remember that the Viet Cong could wreak havoc with sharpened punji sticks and home made booby traps)

    We need to Mind Our Own Business since that's the only thing we can afford to do at the present time.
    Our history shows that moral support usually leads to financial support that leads to boots-on-the-ground and eventually, American blood spilled on foreign soil for unappreciative people.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
  6. Cal Al

    I think the other countries involved should be funding the rebels. We did our part-with permission from NATO-to hamper Gaddhaffi's forces. NATO should now step in like they said they would and take over the rest. Preferably before Misrata is nothing but a dust bowl!

    April 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  7. Peg in NY

    No, the U. S. should not be funding Mideast rebel groups. We need to fix what is wrong here, first.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  8. David of Alexandria VA

    Gee, seems that that worked out so well with the Contras in El Salvidor that we should give it another shot. If the US doesn't have Alzheimer's already, it seems to be exhibiting all of the short-term memory problems of a sure candidate for the desease.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
  9. Al from Cal

    Although it would be nice to cover everybody that needs it under the USA's umbrella, it's just not realistic. Let's stabilize our own debt crisis before we lose our house while trying to help out the neighbors.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
  10. Rick McDaniel

    Not really. That can easily be construed to be funding terrorism within those countries.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
  11. Russ in PA

    Fund rebel groups? Want nonsense: we're broke, and stupid and/or corrupt politicians want to hand out more money we don't have to those we have no business trying to influence. Exactly what I expect from such clowns. Guess they never learned their lessen with bin Laden...

    Ron Paul in 2012...

    April 19, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
  12. Bizz, Quarryville Pennsylvania

    I don't think we should even be there, then alone finance weapons for the rebels. But that is better than having our own troops on the ground. All this talk about balancing the budget and there is no talk about ending the three wars we are involved in. It makes no sense, Iraq alone cost us over a trillion dollars and still counting. Leave the French and other NATO members supply the weapons.Then they should drop a bomb on Khadafy and get the hell out. The plain simple fact is we can no longer afford these wars, or we will go down the same road Russia did when they went bankrupt.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
  13. Ed from California

    We have to be careful with our assistance to any group. We've been burned w/the use of our own weapons against us many times. I'd give them "Stone Age" weapons, instead of State-of-the-Art weapon systems. or, better yet, let the British, French and the Germans lead the way!

    April 19, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
  14. Phyllis G Williams

    Should the U.S. be funding rebel groups in the Middle East?

    The nation should first find out what the rebellion
    is about and if they are helping a good cause.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
  15. Kim Smith

    Why not? It seems like we fund every murderous and corrupt dictator that's out there. If there are any rebel groups that control massive oil fields, or contribute to congressional election campaigns, then I'm positive we will find a way to waste taxpayer dollars on them as fast as humanly possible.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
  16. John from Alabama

    Jack: Equiping and training rebel groups in Libya is a good policy, but funding rebel groups is wrong. Giving money can lead to fraud, funds go to the wrong groups, and money cause corruption and violence. The CIA has given funds to select individuals for information and loyalty, but many times this policy has failed. We tried to buy folks in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, but it failed.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
  17. Rudy NYC

    Of course not. Everytime that it has been attempted it has backfired and blew up in our faces, up to and including several foreign governments put in place as a result of U.S. rebel support.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
  18. David

    No, they should be presented with a schedule of fees for various services and make a firm commitment to pay for whatever they need to succeed. It is financially irresponsible to just keep donating to every global cause.

    April 19, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
  19. Bonnie from NJ

    With what, money borrowed from China? This is ridiculous, we can't afford Granny's medicare, we can't afford to fix our crumbling infrastructure, but we can afford to fund Libyan rebels. I think the politicians better start understanding the American people don't want to give money to foreign countries anymore. I hope the rebels are successful and achieve their goal of a true democracy, but our till is empty!

    April 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  20. Kirk (Apple Valley, MN)

    Didn't we fund the Afghan "rebels" back in the day? Wasn't that 30 years ago and look at where we are now. So I guess my answer is not only no, but hell no!

    April 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  21. bob z fr ,pa.

    no they will only turn on us

    April 19, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
  22. Norm Grudman

    Everything this country has done militarily starting with Reagan thru Bush,Clinton,Bush,Obama has been a disaster. War is not a political game. Either you go to war with the mission to win and exit. Never get involved in piece meal combat with no clear end game and exit.. I think a 500lb bunker buster should be dropped on all Khadafi's know residences and end this idiotic conflict. They will just go back and forth with incompetent leadership against a medeocre military. Neither side has the ability,know how and equipment to end this fight.

    April 19, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
  23. Harry H. Snyder III

    Sure that has always worked for us in the past. We've always been good to our friends...sometimes even better to our enemies.

    April 19, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
  24. Dave, Orlando, FL

    We don’t even know who these people are. Would you give money to a complete stranger? Neither would I, but Obama seems to think it’s OK. But when you’re spending OPM who cares? Oh, and I seem to recall a promise to end a couple of wars. I must be misremembering. He must have promised to start another war instead.

    April 19, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
  25. Rich McKinney, Texas

    Probably not Jack but since when has our government ever spent money wisely on war? The irony behind the last 2 wars is that none of them even had to happen. A hand full of people attacked America on 9-11 not a country or a group. Instead of quietly going after those responsible for crafting and orchestrating the attack we invaded Iraq, attacked Afghanistan and sent drone hunting predators to attack targets in Pakistan. 10 years later and 14 trillion dollars in debt still no Osama Bin Laden. Can you say, "Waste of money!!" and " Tragic waste of life!!".

    April 19, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
  26. Richard C.

    Sure! Let's fund the insurgents in Libya, Bahrain, Syria, and everyone else that wants our money. Let's also give them high-tech weaponry.
    Along this line of logic, let's befriend Al Qaeda and the drug lords.
    Enough is enough! No one gets anything until the USA is solvent.
    You cannot buy good will. You would think we would have learned that by now.
    Malvern, PA

    April 19, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
  27. Annie, Atlanta

    At present we have a new catfood commission trying to determine how to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, the poor, the disabled, and the rest of the downtrodden, while protecting the interests of the rich (read campaign contributors). Feeding the military industrial complex doesn't even make the list of importance, personally.

    April 19, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
  28. Kevin of SD CA

    Should the U.S. be funding rebel groups in the Middle East?

    Donald Trump is correct!

    The US should be re-reimbursed for all our activity in the Middle East by the Oil Rich Nations around the world, for all our military industrial activities in all corners of the world!

    April 19, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
  29. Joe Tyrrell

    Yes, these governments are authoritarian, repressive, fundalmentalist and even the "friendly " ones basically against the US. Any change is likely to be an improvement.

    April 19, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
  30. Pete in Georgia

    No.................No.....................a thousand times NO !!!!!!!

    When will we learn that our so called "Intelligence" is a joke. Over the past 60 years we have been "taken" by every shrewd, caniving, crooked regime on the planet.
    When will we ever learn to stay away from things where we don't belong ???

    When ???

    April 19, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
  31. Bryce

    No, we can afford the two wars we had going already. Stop foreign aid and bring our hard working troops home, after a decade of war they need a break.

    April 19, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
  32. david -seattle

    Hell No!.....they have proven to be hateful and hippocritical to the west.
    Let them prove thier will and take over with their efforts... We should not be doing the devils dirty work...
    Liberal policies are allowing Qaddafi and family to remain in power. As if the old saddam hussien policy of leaving him in office is bettor than the alternative of allowing another powermongerer in...obama/clinton know where qaddafi is but refuse to call in the air strike... Never shouild we give more weapons to people who hate us ..look at afghanistan.. were arming drug addicts who cant read or write cuz the amount of drugs they do.

    April 19, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
  33. Loren, Chicago

    How do you know we're not? And if we're not, given how inept our policy makers are, do you suppose they would have any better skill in picking the right rebel groups to support? I know everyone would say that the Mujahaddeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets was a success, but the Taliban and Al Qaeda were the result of that effort, so my view is let sleeping dogs lie.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  34. Dee in New Paris Ohio

    We might as well, haven't we funded rebels and insurgents and all manner of other folks with a conflict in many countries all over the world? Why stop now.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  35. Layne Alleman

    Jack, Sure, why not?, "our" government is running with all kinds of surpluses these days. We seem to be out-sourcing most of our military operations anyway, why not "hire" some more whack-jobs and this way, if, and when they fail, we just turn our backs and walk away. Layne A. Antioch, Il.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
  36. Michael in Albuquerque, NM

    Be careful with this topic, Jack. Earlier in this decade I had been called a conspiracy theorist and a traitor for even suggesting that we were financing mideast rebel groups. Because the groups we were financing are the Taliban, Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Wahabi, were portrayed as the enemy then. They are being used as our tools to overthrow mideast governments now. We should not be financing them or involving ourselves in their wars. It is all a lie to force our interests on the mideast.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
  37. David Scott Doherty

    As much as I hate too say it NO. I'm truly pulling for the rebels and their cause. But before we get ourselves involved in yet another military action (to late) we need to address our own problems, like the deficit, infrastructure, unemployment, failing school system, our broken government, broken borders etc. We have way too many problems to be spending money on more bombs and bullets.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  38. Ralph Spyer

    First the U.S. Government should fund to fix the pot holes in our streets so I can get to work and pay taxes with my job, that has not gone to China yet. Next the U.S. should fund Social Security and put back the money they stole so we can retire at 65 and then a young person can have my job. The Israeli lobby has a lot of money Jack so if you do not want to be called anti -semite we will keep giviig the Middle East money Jack do not lose your job,like Rick

    April 19, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
  39. Joe R - Houston

    The U.S. should start funding rebel groups in the Middle East right after they've earned the citizenship required to deserve constitutional protection.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  40. Alex in Bremerton, WA

    Hell NO, Jack!!! We armed the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 1980s and they morphed into the Taliban. That is the most egregious example of our good intentions coming back to bite us... again!

    April 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  41. Remo, from beautiful downtown Pflugerville Texas

    Sure we send you a bullet, you send us a barrel of oil.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  42. Sandstone.

    "Do you have any compassion? Do you need the oil? Which is the strongest feelings in the USA? No you don't have to help anyone, and they don't have to help you. There is only one planet and if it is not policed? It will be like the movie: The Day the Earth Stood Still! Every resource on this planet, belong to everyone, and trade is 'Number One."

    April 19, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  43. Dennis in Florida

    NO WAY ! ! !

    The U S government has no idea who the leaders of the rebels are or who the rebel leaders really represent.

    ***************************************************************

    April 19, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
  44. Dennis north carolina

    did France fund and support us when we were rebels? we just need to know them and their causes.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  45. Bill

    No.

    When education is being cut, when state budgets are being cut, when bridges and highways are crumbling, when even the electrical transmission systems are rotting and rusting–money going overseas should be slashed if not stopped.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  46. Steve in Michigan

    The US needs to stay out of The Middle East in general. Let them all kill each other.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  47. Kathie

    we need to stop funneling our money into everyone else's business. we bankrolled Iran, Iraq, etc untill, at a later date, another president determined they were now on enemies. time to take care of business at home!!!

    April 19, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
  48. Bradley, Portland, OR

    We're so massively in debt., we're talking about getting rid of Medicare and giving senior citizens discount coupons for their medical costs to save the government money.

    If it's important, let one of the rich oil sheikdoms pay.

    We just don't have the money to be the world's policeman anymore.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
  49. pat

    NO,I think the U.S. taxpayers have funded just about all they need too.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  50. Mike in Denver

    Funding the rebel groups sounds like a noble cause, but considering our track record when it comes to meddling in the Middle East, HECK NO!

    April 19, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  51. Larry Feierstein

    Be much easier to just let them fight it out internally and whoever stands will still control the oil. Time to fold up our tents, come home and figure out a way to prevent $5 gas by summer.
    All about the oil.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
  52. Randy

    No. We shouldn't be funding ANYONE in the middle east. Our president and congress have no problem telling the american people that we're broke and can't afford this or that. If we can't afford safety net programs for americans we definitely can't afford ANY foreign aid of any kind.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  53. Thom

    Sending monies to the rebels is not the way we should be supporting them in this half-hearted war. We should be supplying weapons not money. We should also be doing it now. If we are not going to be directly involved in this civil war, then we should see to it that the rebels have up to date and sufficient numbers of weapons to actually win the war against Gadahfi's forces or get out entirely. Gadahfi is not considered by the international community to be the bonified leader of his country any longer and should be considered a war criminal or terrorist and be hunted down. His capture or death would be a huge turning point in favor of the rebels and may even turn his troops against him. To alow him to roam free is also a criminal act of war.

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    April 19, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  54. dave in nashville

    Why not, our politicians fund each other don't they?

    April 19, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
  55. calaurore9

    OMG Jack. There are so many things we shouldn't be funding. First and foremost the wars. Napoleon had nothing on us and look what happened to him. So the answer is NO!!! But thanks for asking.

    April 19, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  56. Kedre Eakin

    Over the years, I have agreed most of the time with helping the world but looking in the eyes of the people of this country that are trying to hold on for another month, not now, I say.

    There are too many people in this country that are trying to hold on just one more month, just one more day. Saying to themselves, that job will be mine tomorrow, or the next day, or the next day.

    My family, as many others in this country, have talked politics around the kitchen table, and have had some faith in the system. Right now, I cannot even explain to my 17 yr old what is truely happening. Why the Congress cannot come up with a budget when HE has to balance the family budget in cash since we cannot afford the fees from a bank.

    We need help and NO ONE is listening. It brings tears to my eyes. Hope has left the room.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  57. Simon Tremblay Quebec City Canada

    Yes of course ! Give the Rebels the 30 billions of Ghadafi's frozen assets its the Lybian people's money anyway. Then sell them the equipment they need to kick him out and make a nice profit. That way the U.S.A. would also gain a lot of popularity in part of the world where Anti-American sentiments are the strongest, No boots on the ground they have people ready to fight but you can sell them a few hundred tanks...

    April 19, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  58. Nancy, Tennessee

    Funding for the Middle East unrest is wrong for so many reasons. Its time that we stop putting on airs and admit to other nations that the well has run dry. We joined a global economy with many third world nations and now we are being dragged down to their level. Politicians can proclaim that the United States is still a great nation, but they haven't looked in their backyards to see Americans who are going under for the thrid time. It's time to close our pocketbook and remember charity begins at home.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
  59. Donnie H. Bay St. Louis, Ms.

    This is a trick question right Jack? What did we freeze their assets and bank accounts for? The only way we should fund the rebels is if it comes from those frozen assets. We should be doing the same in Iraq and Afghanistan. I promise you if we start putting the cost on their tab you would be amazed how fast they could train their own security forces and take over the fight themselves in order to save some of that money. Greed isn't exclusive to the U.S. you know...

    April 19, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
  60. Cee, La

    Not no but Hell No.......we are constantly barraged by politicians saying we are broke, we are going to cut Medicare, SS, Medicaid,Teachers,schools, Parks-recreation, the EPA, FDA. to name a few.........we are already bogged down in 2 long term ill advised Wars....Todays friend is tomorrows foe............No No NO......

    April 19, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
  61. Ralph Nelson

    Yes. Only way to get rid of these dictators who have to own everything. Vet them out as best you can to avoid another "Wilson's War". Maybe military advisors (I was one), but no American troops (the people just end up hating you). US forces should be used to defend the country, not invade and control other countries. Many of the war mistakes we make are socialogical, that is, 21st century America invades 14th century country and tries to apply 21st century economic and political models...Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan..

    April 19, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  62. Gigi Oregon

    Is it the US or is it corporate America? I think it is corporate America greasing the palms of our congress for votes. Mostly Republicans who support the business world. Which many have corporate interest in these countries. And the Republicans have given the rich tax cuts so they don't have to pay high taxes here and made it legal for them to keep other profits overseas as well as jobs. So who really is wanting these rebels supported by American dollars. Is it because we really care about the oppressed, I doubt it. We have children and families going to bed hungry and we are cutting off jobs and funds for them.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  63. Phil

    Instead of funding anyone outside this country we should be funding the people in this country , there's homes in SE Ohio that have no running water unless we haul it in ourselves, we don't have access to DSL, and they are a lot of families that only make under $70,000 a yr that pay almost 50% of their earned income on taxes, taxes that is sent to help these rebels that turn the weapons on our brave men and women later and kill, Then they call us the evil infidel's we really need to focus right here instead of over seas and Follow Teddy Roosevelt policy walk softly and carry a big stick

    April 19, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  64. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    Ike, that's a former President and leader in WW II once warned us to not get involved at all in the Mid-East but we failed to listen to a man that knew it is a futile cause and very expensive. We really do not need to fund anyone in their movement to seek freedom, we need to clean up our own house first.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  65. Dick B

    If we went back 150 years, I suspect our Federal Government would be funding the Confederacy.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  66. Jared Dean

    The U.S shouldnt be invloved in the funding of any rebel group, no matter where or for what cause. We have no business getting invloved in the affairs of other countries, there are always unintended consequences. We supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war, then we wound up Invading Iraq, and we're still there. We supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, now we've been fighting them for ten years. At a time when the United States is 14 trillion dollars in debt, running yearly trillion dollar budget deficits,fighting three wars and borrowing money to pay for it all. How can we afford to fund Syrian rebels?

    April 19, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  67. Ken in NC

    Sure Jack. They finance Big Banks and everyone else with a hand out except our citizens. When it comes to helping create jobs for Americans, the US has no money.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  68. Susan from Idaho

    Not unless they're guarding our southern border.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  69. Jim in Alabama

    You can bet the farm that we wouldn't be funding Iraq, Afghanistan or the rebels anywhere IF oil were not at stake. To Hell with t he old big lie that we are fostering democracy when we don't even have democracy here at home anymore, or hadn't you noticed. The U.S. is now ruled by corporate America and the military as well as those congressmen and women who are in their back pockets. Here, the minority rules and has for years.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  70. Judith Hollenbeck

    No we should not be funding the rebels in Libya. We can't even take care of our own.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  71. Deborah Seibert,. Co

    Absolutely NOT. We need to let them fend for themselves. We also need to get out of Afghanistan, we aren't going to catch Bin Laden anyway, I don't care about Pakistan and we have completed our mission in Iraq. It's time to come home and take care of the problems here.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  72. Alan Braslow

    We need to fund our own people....those that are out of work, living in poverty, have no medical insurance, etc. Seeing Americans go hungry while we supply arms to the world (gee, I wonder who makes money on those dollars spent) makes me sick.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  73. Walt

    A quote my Father used many times, a two war 20+ years service man
    "Not only no but Hell no"

    April 19, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  74. April

    Hell no! My husband is unemployed and has been for the last serveral months. Money is tight. We have been living on cheap grocery's for the last few weeks. What kind of country worries about foreign uprisings when people in this country are having to get by on the skin of their teeth?I think funding overseas wars and uprising groups is a bad idea. Plain and simple.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  75. Larry

    Come on Jack. You've got to stop listening to FOX News. The US is not broke. Not even close to it. If we were our credit rating would already have plummeted. Secondly, do you really think our government doesn't know who they're backing in Libya? I don't think so.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  76. Dennis R Kuhn Sr

    Did we back Binladin at one time. Did we not learn anything from that ??

    April 19, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  77. Jason

    The US should be concerned with funding unemployment benefits, medicare, medicaide and everything that benefits Americans. Stop wasting out money on these idiots that will want to kill us for helping them anyways. It is absurd and I hope we start revolting like the Middle East if it isn't stopped and soon!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  78. Dan K

    Think about all the money the US pored into Iraq and Afghanistan: Iraq may end up stable; Afghanistan will revert to a failed state within 6 months after we depart.
    All those funds could have funded universal health care, funded all the bail outs and probably allowed the US to adopt the Ryan 25% tax rate.
    When we will learn? And remember all those politicians who voted to spend – OH excuse me – borrow that money!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  79. Thomas Yellich

    NO!
    It should be funding American projects on American soil, the American people who are legal citizens, and only those issues.
    This is all about the New World Order and what it chooses for the planet, and how to manipulate the US Government and it's Military for their own gain.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  80. David Herr from Crown Point, Indiana

    If we fund one rebel group in the name of freedom and democracy, we would be hypocrites if we did not fund all other groups in the Middle East that are fighting in the name of freedom and democracy. As you had said earlier, Jack, our economy and financial situation is still too fragile for us to be pouring money all over countries like Syria, Bahrain, Iran, and Yemen. Therefore, we are in absolutely no position to fund every single rebel group throughout all of the Middle East. It is just impossible!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  81. Scott

    No, the US should not fund Middle Eastern rebel groups or any rebel group for that matter.
    Look what happened in the 80's with arming the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua, the death squads in El Salvador....this list goes on. All of these attempts backfired!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  82. Joshua in Phoenix

    No Jack, of course not...we should just let some well organized terrorist group fund those freedom-wanting ragtag bunch of rebels and save our money for the many wars we'll have to fight when they get so pissed at us for not helping that they start bombing every inch of our soil.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  83. martha camp

    we are the greatest army going the most weapons and men yet we can win a war and we're giving money to people we don't know and you wonder why we're going down the hole in a big hurry

    April 19, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  84. Scott

    No. First, we just don't have the money. Also, we don't know who we are funding. These people could us our money against our troops when the rebelions are done.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  85. Iain from Ohio

    Yes, I think we should. If the French had not helped us out when we had OUR revolution, we might not of won the revolutionary war. This is one way of getting democracy in the Middle East.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  86. Scott Stodden

    I Don't Think We Should I Personally Feel That We Should End All Wars & Conflicts Right Now We'd Actually Billions Of Dollars. I Feel That The Only Time We Should Be At War Is If Our Country Is At Risk Especially With How Fragile The Country Is. Couldn't That Money That We Give To Rebel Groups In Other Countries Go To Good Use Here At Home?

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Illinois)

    April 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  87. Dale Robinson

    Rebels for democracy, yes. Rebels against brutal, repressive dictators, yes. Rebel ghihadists, obviously no. Women there are the most repressed, and this is their time, finally, after centuries. And, that region was the birthplace of mankind, and is supposed to be where mankind will end. I think it's worth a part of the one percent of our national budget to make sure that doesn't happen anytime soon.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  88. Cindy

    No. I wish them the best and would be for sending money in a better economic climate, but we have too many other problems that need funding here at home. – still unemployed in Texas

    April 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  89. Kitty

    Whatever happened to the premise " Charity starts at home?" The US is a very benevolent nation but we cannot continue to be the ATM for numerous countries.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  90. Felix Navarro

    Of course they shouldn't. We have more important things to deal with here at home. So what if the government goes through an awkward moment getting oil from Libya, we have no business in their government situation. We need Libya for oil, and I'm pretty sure that helping the rebels won't give us free oil. Let them deal with it themselves. they started it, they should finish it. America isn't a world moderator that has an obligation to interfere with EVERY problem in the world.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  91. Rex Beachum

    How is the heck do we know who the good guys(rebels) are for Goodness sake?
    They turn on each other like the wind changing directions. There would have to be some way of identifying who's who first.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  92. HURRICANEPAUL from Hawaii

    The anti-Kadaffy rebels in Eastern Lybia are getting support from Al Qaeda.

    Jack, how is it possible that America is supporting Al Qaeda in Lybia while figting against them in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan?

    April 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  93. Mack-PembrokePines, FL

    Be careful who we get into bed with, Jack? Saddam Hussein used to be an ally, with funding & weapons support from US. And Bush cronies took Gadhafi off the axis of evil list so they could do business with him. As long as some politician can advance in career or get rich, they'll get in bed with ANYBODY.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  94. Carmen South Carolina

    NO! We should not be helping anyone if we can not help our own. We keep hearing that the budget has got to be cut, and we can not take care of our elderly, or our unemployed(who have lost their jobs due to NO Fault of their own), but we keep sending money everywhere else! I am not going to feed the kids down the street if I can not feed my own! The jobless rate isn't down most of te people have run out of benefits, because jobs are not being created. Believe what you want to believe!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  95. saeid

    NO NO NO stop the madness. We don't need to finance another war. Let the UN do what it can.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  96. JUSTIN

    These are historical times. The middle east is finally moving out of the first century and that can only serve America's interest. Yes, we should support the freedom-fighters because it is the humane thing to do.

    Justin
    Carneys Point, NJ

    April 19, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  97. Frank Smith

    Jack:

    We should not be supporting any groups in the middle east. We only do so for cheap oil, if we did not want the oil we would not even blink at the middle east. Do us all a favor and put together a report investigating the true cost of gallon of gas to US consumers by determining the cost once you add in the defense dollars spent (and American lives lost and maimed) to keep the flow of oil coming. Only then will people get serious about alternative energy and getting away from the instability in the middle east.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  98. Major John

    The US does not need to fund rebel groups, but what is more important is that it should stop supporting governments who torture their own people like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  99. Syed Husain

    I think we had enough of dabbling in the Middle East politics. Fighting other's war at American tax-payer's cost has gone too far. If the Govt wants to help UScitizens, thenit should stop funding foreign wars.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  100. Robert Melco

    My answer to this problem is Trump !
    He knows what is the right thing to do and has the courage and clear sight of how to do it.
    R. Melco

    April 19, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  101. Brenda

    No, we should be taking care of our own citizens that are in distress from illness, unemployment, taxes, etc. We are not the police of the world and should let some of these nations take care of themselves. We cannot stop uprisings, famines, deaths in the whole world. When we do, we are then told by these same peoples – Yankee go home!!!!
    We need to stay home in all of the political issues and take care of our own politics that are in trouble now. We need to find someone who can win an election against a man that is helping this nation to ruin.
    Oregon

    April 19, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  102. Tracy, Newport Beach , CA

    Thank you for saying what we are all thinking! Our country is in our own crisis yet we continue to fund wars in the middle east to the tune of 59% of our yearly budget. Its time to bring the focus home.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  103. Charles Brooklyn, New York

    Honestly, I believe the saying, "take care of your house first" applies here. Our house, America is rotting from within. The foundation of Wall Street lies has finally brought us to a point where there isn't even enough money for government to continue. NO, we shouldn't be funding Middle east rebel groups.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  104. William M.

    Jack, we should not be funding the rebels in Libya; instead use Gaddafi's money that was frozen. How many billion was that!?

    April 19, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  105. Robert Kerecz

    Jack, how can we take care of other parts of the world when we can't even take care of ourselves? Tell me what countries came to our aid after 911? With the deficit we face, let trhe rebels figure out their own funding or are we going to continue to fund terrorism? America is going broke-face reality!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  106. Scottie

    Well Folks.."IF" we dont fund the rebels, you can bet recently deposed Mubarack, and Osama Bin Laden, and every other "Billionaire" in the Far East who has a grudge against the west, sure will. Pick your poison.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  107. David

    Jack:

    No we should not – but Obama is following the footsteps of many Presidents that think we should be the policeman of the world.
    Oh! yes it was Bushee that thought we could turn the Middle east into a Democracy, Supported the guy that told us about all of the weapons of mass destruction – supported forces in the invasion of Afghanistan and let Osama bin baby get away! It ain't all of Obama's fault.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  108. Rose Starnes

    Who's funding us? Hello?.....does anyone in Washington realize that we are broke? And just who are these rebels? Who do they represent? Are we funding terrorist groups? Are we going to fund every country in need of assistance? I dont see anyone coming to our aid. When and I do mean when we become a third world country who will fund us? That's the way this country is going lately. This administration is spending us into oblivion!! I have to laugh when I hear Obama going around the country preaching on how we can not spend and have to live within our means. He inherited 1.3 trillion from thr Bush administration and now we are at 14.3 trillion. Ok....just spend then tell us we have to stop spending moron!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  109. chris

    No Jack, we should not fund them. But I think now would be a good time to empty out our Prisons and dump them on thier shores and save money like Castro did.....give them some rations and a pitchfork...let them destroy thier country like they have ours....

    April 19, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  110. Henry

    thaks Jack for the great comment ..

    you did it for me and the rest of americans who are tired of having our money spent on foirent wars ...while we are are in desperated money needs for americans .. lets take care of americans firts before we think of the rest of the world .. thaks again .. you are the voice of the mojarity .. Henry Matos God bess America !!!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  111. Wiliam Dobson / St Croix USVI

    NO aid to anyone in any form untill budget is balanced and no deficit!!This should law.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  112. C.D.W.

    No way, bring our troops home all over the middle east!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  113. bernard xuereb

    the usa should get out of evrywhere ,and balance the budget,canada.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  114. Auro

    No, if theres one thing I agree with Donald Trump on it's the "old days" when countries fought their own civil wars and whoever won won, end of story. Let the countries determine their own destinies however they may play out, with whatever resources they may have. As the old saying goes, "All's fair in love and war."

    April 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  115. John

    Absolutely not ! Look what happened in Afganistan. We dont know who we are funding. When we were giving weapons to the Afgans to fight the Russians who would of known it would of turned out to be Bin Laden ! We have to fix our own problems thats why we are in such a mess here. Public and private workers alike are being laid off and told the states have no money but we are giving weapons (money) to people we dont even know to turn around and bite us later.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  116. Hasan4589

    Of course not the U.S. should not fund any groups in the middle east or else where. I think as nation we should stay out of any overseas affairs because people there will think we are taking sides and in the long run it will eventually come back in a negative reaction. We should stick to the policy of what our first President George Washington of not taking any sides and always staying neutral. Besides you never know these groups we are helping now can back stab us in the future. Let's not forget our support for the rebels in Afghanistan,they soon became the Terrorists that bombed us in 9/11.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  117. Patricia

    Absolutely not. We have our own war here at home.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  118. Jesse

    Jack

    No, we should not! When will we ever learn our lessons? We picked Saddam against Iran, exporting to him chemical and biological weapons. Look where that got us; we had to go to war to get them back, only they were gone! We supported Osama bin Laden against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, where we now fight to keep it from being a terror-state. Why don't we get it? Those in the Middle East are sick and tired of having their economic resources exploited by CIA Black OPS or what have you, for the gain of the West and I imagine our soldiers tire of burying their brothers for the Black Gold of the Arab world.

    Jesse
    Battleground, Washington

    April 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  119. angel

    We should get out of middle east and mind our business. There is an organization of Middle East countries and the Middle East is rich. Why do we empty our resources supporting groups whose intentions we cannot predict.?

    April 19, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  120. John

    Yeah, thats a great idea. Let's dump money into someone else's problems and make the people that make up this great country pay for it while we talk about ways to reduce the deficit and create budget plans.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  121. John Hatfield

    Capitalism has proven throughout the course of history to be more and more outdated. It evolved from the monarchies in Europe during the 16th and 17th which are failing just as capitalism is failing in Europe and America now. Henry David Thoreau in his Civil Disobedience wrote, "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government." The evolution of government has fallen behind the evolution of the people.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  122. David

    As much as I want to help those trying to be free we need to take care of those whose Unemployment Benefits have run out first.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  123. Jason G., NYC

    Yes, Jack we should. Foreign policy is very complex. We cannot afford to let certain Middle Eastern countries fall into the hands of Al Queda, Hamas, etc... If we do it will certainly cost more in the long run. We cannot afford to be, as Benjamin Franklin said "penny wise and pound foolish."

    April 19, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  124. Jason G., NYC

    Yes, Jack we should. Foreign policy is very complex. We cannot afford to let certain Middle Eastern countries fall into the hands of Al Queda, Hamas, etc... If we do it will certainly cost more in the long run. We cannot afford to be, as Benjamin Franklin said "penny wise and pound foolish."

    Jason G., NYC

    April 19, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  125. Habib Khan. Brooklyn, NY

    The real question is should we continue to fund the dictatorships in the middle east that are the cause of the rebellions.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  126. Feedup Withit

    Funding these "Rebels" is a bad idea. Unless and until we have assurance as to what and who they really are it is the height of insanity to "upgrade" their ability. This is like going into a bad neighborhood and handing out weapons to anyone and everyone and hoping they won't use them on us!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  127. Nurse Lisa in Shelton CT

    Never; but our military budget is rife with funds used for just these purposes. Who, today, will make a deal that helps us fund our oil gluttony and advance the GOP/corporate agenda? Who tomorrow becomes more powerful and difficult to control and needs to be taken down by expensive and futile war efforts? It is just sickening. And then they want to moan about the cost of basic healthcare for our own citizens.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  128. Benjamin Delfin

    Should we be funding the overthrow of tyrannical governments when we can do it at low cost to America, and with no American lives spent? Yes.
    Should we be supporting the cause of liberation? Yes.
    Should we be supporting the overthrow of governments that support terrorism, cause strife throughout the region, and constantly work against America's interests? Yes.
    Could the results of such revolutions be worse for America? No. We've only bred resentment by constantly supporting governments that oppress their people. Imagine how much better things would be for America if we were loved for supporting freedom, instead of hated for supporting dictatorships.
    Should you be ashamed of yourself for referring to people who oppose a dictatorship as "malcontents?" Yes, you should.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  129. John

    No. We should not and it seems like alot of people feel that way. What happend to we the people. It seems like its just WE the government !

    April 19, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  130. Donna Ellis

    It's hard for me to believe that we would defend the "rebels" without there being some distinct advantages to our businesses, since that seems to drive our foreign policy ie: Iraq.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  131. Bronek Ruszkowski

    That's is the problem with our government nowadays. I guess in the 70's spending abroad (for various reasons) was necessary to confront communism./ The US economy was much better back then. Now... we are almost bankrupt. How those in charge in Washington justify borrowing money just to spend on some questionable operations is beyond me. We got plenty holes to fill here in the good ole USA!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  132. Steven Wise

    You got to be kidding....I live on S.S. and I cant hardley pay my light bill and I only eat One meal a day!!! Sonedays,,,that is nothing more than
    toast....
    Steven Wise
    Newtown Indiana 47969-0166

    April 19, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  133. Nick

    Yes! Now isn't the time to be frugal. We should pay our way out of world problems whenever possible. Paying foreign fighters is a lot cheaper than having to nation build one country at a time. Had the US spent more in Afghanistan on schools and infrastructure after the Soviets pulled out perhaps 911 attacks and the War in Afghanistan could have been avoided.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  134. Bill B

    Ever since the World Trade Center tragedy, the US policy should have invested the massive amount of money spent by the present and previous administrations on military expeditions, to come up with an alternate source of energy. Lets be real, this is the nation that went to the moon. This way our dependency on the Middle East would stop, we could make a profit by selling the new energy, and the Middle East would have to reorganize its economic policies. Anything else is a smoke-screen to maintain the status quo.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  135. Kevin

    Jack, it seems like a ploy by these powerless groups and their uprisings to bait the US to pump in the relief money, That could be a large reason as to why they do it. Our increasing involvement in the middle east has been for told numerous times by some of the greatest minds and with grim outcomes. You would have thought with the consequenses of operation "mongoose" in Cuba in the early 60's we learned from the almost fatal mistake that caused. We are broke and also foolish to support these radicals for the sake of creating democracy.

    Kevin
    Warren, MI

    April 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  136. Carol Tomassacci

    No. We need to stop shelling out the nation's money to everyone and start taking care of our own people. We can't help everybody! Other countries are building new cities on our dime and we can't even have safe bridges and roads. I would love to have money to help other people, but I barely have enough for myself due to all the taxes we have to pay to pay for the loans the government took out! Would the government care to give me some?
    Carol – PA.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  137. Kho Raja

    No lets improve foreign investment into the US. The U.S. has had a wake up call we are in Debt because of our out of control fiscal policies and the US dollar is weakening everyday. How can the millions of Americans afford rising food prices and oil prices once inflation is out of control and the S&P lowers US credit ratings? The GDP is falling and China as well as emerging markets Brazil, India are getting flooded with currency maybe because they don't fund rebels in other countries and are flooded with foreign investments. Plus China is building 4 mega refineries and oil companies will leave the US and follow the Oil.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  138. Mitch

    Jack,
    I have no problem helping the outside world as soon as every single American is able to be properly employed, medically covered, educated, and can individually afford to donate a sum of money to cover this generosity. Until then I guess the rest of the world should ante-up and send some billions our way, or better yet our government should have the common sense to take it from them for their liberation. Charity starts at home boys and girls. The humanitarian tradgedy is the richest and strongest country in the world is about to crash because its government doesn't have the good sense to send out a bill and collect.....bet no one gives us a free ride when the time comes!!!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  139. Guido Melo

    I agree with Mr. Caffertys comments RE: getting into bed with the wrong people, and we dont have the money but isnt this what the U.S. wanted and have been fighting for for freedom to spread in the world. Now it's happening and this could be a great opportunity to somehow take advantage of it.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  140. George

    No!!.. but the oil companies should,along with paying for all military conflicts this country undertakes in this part of the world. After all Most Americans are aware of the fact that our interests in the Middle East have nothing to do with freedom or Democracy but everything to do with the production of fossil fuel and SOMEONE ELSES BOTTOM LINE.
    It boils down to our government aka the people we elect continuing to throw lives and our money out the window,if this now considered the norm and going to continue they should all be held accountable in a court of law. Starting and funding unnecessary wars for all the wrong reasons is considered by many to the very war crimes our society rails against.
    George
    Chester,Ct.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  141. Paulette in Dallas,PA

    No. We should mind our own business and attend to our problems here in this country. We can't police the world and the way it works is if we get involved then we own the problem. Time to practice isolationism again. Bush came in saying he was going to do just that and then started wars all over the place. Obama did the same. Bring our troops home and fix America.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  142. Benjamin Delfin

    Why is it more outrageous to spend a pittance on supporting democracy than it is to spend dozens of times as much per year on weapons programs that don't work? Why is your (and our) outrage supposed to be reserved for the smallest expenditures? Is this any different from Republicans screaming out how our country was being "bankrupted" by earmarks that constituted less than 0.1% of our budget?

    April 19, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
  143. Faisal

    Yes , we should help any and all countries , just make it a business deal. They pay for the services we provide them. We have a fortune waiting for us.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
  144. Walt

    Makes perfect sense to me, back the rebels to overthrow a government we have been backing, and sending foreign aid too for countless years so another one can take over and we can continue to do so. After all Jack how else could the wealty contractors get more wealthy.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
  145. Lowell Woods

    The US does not have the financial resources to support the amount of foreign aid we offer. Current budget requirements to reduce spending means we must reduce USA benefits in unemployment, Medicare, Social Security, education, food services, etc. Our debt is outrageous! These budget reductions emphasize the need to stop supporting foreign groups and foreign countries...regardless of our good intentions and regardless of their needs. I balance my personal budget, Obama should balance the USA's budget.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
  146. Alvena

    As much money as we spend on the defense budget, let them RENT out our armed forces if other countries want help—we need the income.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
  147. Steve C, Wisconsin

    Without being able to determine an opposition leader in the Libyan conflict it seems unreasonable to believe that this conflict will come to a quick and determined end. In a tribally divided country such as Libya, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to reach concessions with all parties impacted. We need to work as a partner in the coalition-and ensure that if Gadhafi is replaced that the new leader represents a majority of Libyans and not just the U.S. interest. Allies are great, but will only remain allies by their own free will...

    April 19, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  148. Danny O

    Jack,
    No we should not fund the Mid-East, we should charge them One Million dollars a day plus expenses. Oh and while we're at it, the US Government should file for bankruptcy In 3 Months we would be debt free.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  149. jessejames

    Why comment on what we support,the people on the hill are not going
    to listen to the people anyway!They don't care what we think,they are going to do what ever they want to do.The so called Chief of this
    country,is trying to be the police,czar,the welfare and whatever else
    for any other country his own.we should take of the good old USA and
    then help out afterwards.TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN FIRST! That
    will never happen.I am a VIETNAM VETERAN,I begging to wonder
    where the freedom is that I fought for?

    April 19, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  150. Army Intel

    If they are moving foward they are Freedom Fighters. If they are moving backwards they are Innocent Civilians. Guess who invented Cluster Bombs... US! If you are under them were not trying to kill you just destroy your equiptment! All around the world we are accused of sticking our nose in other countrys business. I guess if we spent that money on our own country we would have a better economy! For GOD SAKES do the math, one million dollars a missle! How many dictators are there in Africa or for the world for that matter. I guess as long as they don't have anything we want they are safe.. for example Darfur! No matter how this turns out the Arab world will blame us for somthing. It's a Arab Problem. Anyone wonder why the Arab world is not spending its money footing the bill? Get Smart Mr. President, spend teh money on US!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  151. Steve C, Wisconsin

    We should use the money to rebuild our failing infrastructure. Infrastructure creates and holds jobs, and much of the Federal Highway Act programs from the Eisenhower era is beginning to expire. Put Americans back to work fixing the lifelines that fuel our economy.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  152. Alvin

    Well Jack, they have been funding covert operations for many years in this region. It is no longer a secret what their intentions are. The instability is the whole idea. We are not a priveledged nation to get untampered with news reports. There is much more to the story but you cannot print it as you would be in breach of contract. America is waking up and hiding the truth from us will be much harder if the awakening continues. We will suceed.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  153. JENNA ROSEVILLE CA

    Should the U.S. be funding rebel groups in the Middle East?

    A second thought Jack,

    Had we supported the rebels that were trying to overthrow Saddam like GHW Bush promised then we wouldn't be in Iraq today.

    How much would we have had to shell out then in Taxpayer dollars and American lives? Million/0.

    And how much have we shelled out in Taxpayer dollars and American Lives now? TRILLIONS/Thousands.

    Food for thought Jack.

    Jenna
    Roseville CA

    April 19, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  154. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    Yes, in exchange for oil.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
  155. BILLY D MARSHALL

    yes we should be supporting rebel groups in the middle east, because DEMOCRACY is AL-QAIDA ENEMY OR WHAT THERE AGAINST, THEY BELIEVE IN DEVINE RULE.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  156. Dariel, Santa Rosa, CA.

    The US is not funding these countries for the sake of oppression or democracy. It's for the Big Money interest, whether it be arms manufacturers or oil. It's the same cycle that made "we the tax payer" less wealthy and the super rich wealthier. It funnels tax payer dollars to pay for the million dollar bombs from the bomb manufacturers, and it opens the oil fields for BP and the such, who just reported a 5.6 billion dollar quarterly profit, as a result of the fuel prices increases. Chevron Shell and Exon will most likely show huge profits also. In a roundabout way, tax payers fund the military, which in turn has to buy the bombs from the silent "Arms Manufacturers". With the old Bill Clinton's "NAFTA"' and George Bush's Oil Hunger, they have made the wealthiest wealthier from who? bottom line? "THE TAX PAYER".

    April 19, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  157. Bob in Kansas City

    What's the difference between Middle Eastern terrorists and the corporate variety that shovels bribes to the right honorables in DC?.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
  158. Jesusdude from D.C.

    To be honest, I am sick of the United States rushing to fix the issues of other nations, but too laid-back on its own! So no!!!!!!!!!!!!

    April 19, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
  159. Cal (Maui)

    It is believed that unless we learn from our mistakes we are doomed to repeat them, I don't even know the amoant of times we have been burned by giving arms to rebel forces that ultimately use those weapons to kill our soldiers, but if history is a judge, I guarantee you the stupidity of our past acts will come back to haunt us and we WILL do it again.

    April 19, 2011 at 5:55 pm |