To Go To War: Intervention in the Syrian Civil War

If the question existed in a vacuum, the answer would be yes, the U.S. should intervene. Chemical weapons or not, the Assad regime is brutal. But, living in the world that we do, the U.S. will only create more problems by getting involved in another middle eastern country. Not only will we not end up helping the Syrians in the long run, we will create even more enemies at an even faster rate than we currently do. It will also drastically escalate the tensions in the region, if not sparking all out war.

If we're going to do something to aid the rebels, let it be supplies and intelligence. Air or missile strikes will not be winning us any friends, and the rebels we're helping now we'll be fighting tomorrow somewhere else anyway.

 

I oppose all US military interventionism as this has nothing to do with providing for the "Common Defence... of the United States" as authorized by Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. I support the closure of all US foreign military bases (the US government has no delegated role to defend other nations in the US Constitution) and bringing all US military forces home to US military bases. The only members of the US military that should be assigned to foreign countries are the US Marine units that guard the US Embassies in foreign countries.

 

That's true but that's the reason he is asking Congress He is TALKING here, not launching missiles. There is nothing in the UN Charter that says a member nation cannot express strong disapproval of another nation's conduct and, so far, that is all Obama has done. If old 'bring 'em on' was still in office we'd have had troops there a month ago.

By the time Congress reconvenes I think we will know these chemical attacks were a complete fake, (at least the chemical part) and the American public will be back to blaming Obama for high gas prices, food prices, the fact that they're gaining weight and wondering when the Republicans will restore the Fantasy world they think the 50's were.

 

If the United States has any problems or concerns with what's going on in Syria it should be bringing the matter before the UN Security Council. That is ALL that President Obama should be doing.

 

Syria is crossing a big red line in using chemical weapons if we don't intervine it will send a message to the rest of the world that chemical weapons are ok. It might seem more appealing in the short term to do nothing but in the long term it will cause more pain and death than war.

 

No because of the person who is current Commander in Chief along with his cabinet is totally incompetent to take us into a military conflict. Intervention should have occurred months ago, over a year ago. He has already shown his vacillating and indecision and lack of courage and foresight to take action and already the world sees him as weak and feckless.

 

NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND!! that is why the Benghazi massacre took place because the USA refuse to send ground troops to save the ambassador and his bodyguards.

A THREAT TO US NATIONAL SECURITY THAT WILL EMBOLDEN OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN, well Iran has been a threat long before Syrian rebels rip Syria apart and the USA have failed and allowed Iran to pursue nukes the same with North Korea and now they want to take on Assad who has done nothing against the USA????

The US will fail just like thy failed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Lebanon, Palestine and going further back Vietnam.

 

No! It is none of our business. It was none of our business what Saddam did, Or the Viet Cong, or the Koreans.

 

simply put we have no business over there what so ever. if they wanna kill eachother, let them and leave them alone. honestly it wouldnt hurt the world if Syria destroyed itself.

 

I have noticed that a theme nearly all conversations on Syria are lacking in one thing: what do the soldiers that we are potentially going to order to kill/murder because the Will of the People say so think. Should we seriously ask members of the US military whether they want to aid the Syrians? I mean, these same soldiers are killing the rebels in Yemen who are of the same stock and ideology as the rebels in Syria. Also, for those who claim we need to intervene because of the humanitarian reasons, how does adding to an already high death count contribute to humanitarian efforts? Why not spend $50 billion on aiding the Jordanians and Turks in integrating the Syrian refugees, not in killing and murdering thousands of soldiers and civilians; government forces and rebels, alike? There is a lot of "we need to intervene in Syria" which also translates into "we need to kill more Syrians" because let's face it, intervening will KILL thousands. Many will be soldiers and many will also be civilians. The war isn't taking place in a far away desert, it's taking place in downtown Homs, in the middle of Aleppo and in the suburbs of Damascus. Even missile strikes will kill civilians.

 

Lulz... No. It's claimed that Assad's government used chemical weapons, but this remains unproven. The "red line" is the government's latest tactic to create the illusion of a casus belli, but it's far from being a good enough reason for me even if Assad's government was behind it.

All the while, http://www.questia.com/library/1P2-5078877/yet-again-we-choose-to-ignore-butchery-in-africa ...

 

There was no doubt that chemical weapons was used to kill about 1400 Syrians just like 3000 civilians were killed in 9/11 in 9/11 the attack was carry out by Al Qaeda the Bush Administration knew that and wanted to pin or relate that with Iraq so the Bush-USA invaded Iraq. Now we have Obama-USA doing the same thing this time they insist Syrian government carry out the chemical weapon attack on civilians without any evidence as to who really did it and IMHO it was carry out either by Islamic extremist or by CIA agents. And this is the reason the world refuse to support Obama's invasion plan the same reason why the world refuse to support Bush invasion of Iraq they know that in both cases the American government were responsible.

 

No, it's not in our interests to get directly involved in Syria. When your worst enemies are at each other's throats the best thing to do is sit back and watch them kill each other.

 

I have to say in a more current world, the breach sounds like he is talking about Iraq and U.S military interventions.
You could also say that Civil war IS the norm unraveling and there is a civil war in Syria!

We know people die in war. horribly. Nobody is saying that this strike will end the Syrian civil war. Syrians were dying in many ways where they didn't have a chance to survive before the gas. What will change in that scenario, what relief will military intervention bring into Syria when it will kill more Syrians? If we cared about whats happening to Syrians and were so concerned about the world watching us, protecting Israel and U.S security and felt we had to do something we should be trying to do whatever it takes to stop the war not create an escalation.

I think the gas attack was to see if we had strings to pull to get us in there. (if we strike Syria we know there will be a response. What's that going to be? How many Americans will be killed?)
Why should we allow ourselves to be directed around like this? Do we want to send a message to the world that If you gas your people (whatever side you're on) we'll be there? Wouldn't that encourage use? If military intervention is protecting the people, our enemies will attack them rather than fight our military directly Shocking youtube footage ensues. Look how horrible they are. We need to do more.

 

No............

 

The was no pinning 9/11 on Saddam or Iraq that was a leftist canard. We knew it was al Qaeda. What was a concern was Saddam aiding and abetting and even supplying terrorist groups with WMD so they could conduct another attack after we saw how willing they were to attack us on our on soil.

 

Stay out!