No, wait - let us back the winner: Syria, the arms trade and the West

The United States of America, (U.S.A.) Congress has now agreed to supply arms to the Syrian rebels. There has been confusion as to whether the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom,(U.K.) would arm the rebels at all after France, the U.K. and the U.S.A. decided to arm the Syrian rebels.  It was recently announced: Telegraph.co.uk (blog) that the U.S.A. and the U.K. would not arm the Syrian rebels as they felt it was a lost cause.  

Recently France and the United Kingdom, (U.K.) voted and agreed that the anti-government troops in Syria may be supplied with military arms to aid their fight against the government of President Basher al-Assad.

This follows the decision by the United States of America, (U.S.A.), to supply the opposition rebels who are almost entirely Sunni Muslims with arms to aid their fight against President Assad’s Shiites Muslim government.

It can be no coincidence that the U.S.A., the U.K. and France are in the top six of world arms exporters. The U.S.A. being first, France 3^rd and the U.K. now sixth after dropping from fifth after China increased its arms exports.

It appears that once again money from the arms trade exceeds in importance to France, the U.K. and the U.S.A. in who they supply arms to. Have the ‘Big Three’ of the Western world arms suppliers not learnt from history how arming zealots can turn against you when they have accomplished or not what they aimed to achieve. Also how can they guarantee that the weapons do not fall into the hands of an extremist Islamic organisation or group of individuals who think nothing of killing and destroying any one, an establishment or a philosophy that differs from theirs?

Remember that they attempted to kill a 16 year old girl who was going to school and had the tenacity to speak out for her right to an education.  Fortunately she survived the assignation attempt and has recently spoken at the United Nations.

McTaggart