Get involved in Syria: Yes or No? And why/not?

[Anonymous]

What's your opinion and please back it up. It would be great if this thread didn't devolve into a name-calling mess, but being DCUM I don't have much hope. Let's see how long we can keep it civil and intelligent, though.

[Anonymous]

No, No, No. Not the world's policeman, can't afford it, not out of the last war yet, don't want any more pissed off future terrorist ten year olds, tired of this shit in the middle east. No!

[Anonymous]

Ger, you offered no content on the topic yet took the time to upbraid the entire forum before a word has been written. You deserve what you get on this thread.

[jsteele]

I oppose intervention.

It is not clear to me how bombing Syria will improve the conditions of the Syrian people. More than likely, we will kill a significant number of civilians and I would not be surprised if we end up killing more civilians than were allegedly killed in the gas attack. At the end of the day, we will leave the country worse off than it is now.

Those most likely to benefit from our involvement are groups linked to al-Qaida. Such groups are currently imposing Sharia law in formerly secular Syrian cities. Why anyone believes assisting such groups is in the US interest in beyond me.

The US obviously is not concerned about Syrians being killed. There are far better ways of preventing that than bombing them. Rather, Obama laid down a red line and that line was crossed (at least in the US interpretation of events which I for one take with a grain of salt). So, what is at risk here is Obama's and by extension, the US's prestige. So, I ask, how many Syrians must die for Obama's prestige? Frankly, I don't think it is worth a single individual. John Kerry famously asked, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" There is a certain tragic irony in seeing him offer justifications for the killing of many more for another mistake.

[Anonymous]

I agree with jsteele. I usually do not agree with him. My husband, says that we must do something because of the use of chemical weapons. He thinks it could get much more widespread if we don't.

[Anonymous]

Sure, why not? It might be fun. You never know till you try.

Actually, thinking about it a bit more, it is probably a bad idea. There was that whole Iraq thing, and I am not sure how great things are in Libya right now. Better leave them to it.

[Anonymous]

NO NO NO

We need to stop trying to "police" the world.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of whether it solves Syrias problem, there is a separate issue if deterrence. There is value in the message that if you use chemical weapons the major powers will bomb you. I haven't had time to read today's news so I withhold judgment in this case until I can read up. But deterrence is not a small matter in a world with dozens of countries with cw.

[Anonymous]

There is also value in leading the world to put pressure on Assad, instead of acting alone.

JSteele is right -- if we get rid of the current bad guys, we simply pave the way for new bad guys.

Have we learned nothing?

[Anonymous]

No. Plus, I'm not sure I fully believe our government that they have good evidence it was Assad. Probably was, but I don't feel we have credibility on that assertion after Iraq and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Help people, don't kill more.

[takoma]

Reluctantly, no. I would like to see Assad deposed, and action taken to forestall future use of chemical weapons, but I think we know too little of who would replace Assad, and the message of our intervention might be less that chemical weapons will bring retaliation and more that the US thinks it owns the Middle East.

[Anonymous]

No, no and no. There is no course of action that, even with moderate probability, helps either Syrian people or ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Obama is into 'punishing' Syria. All about him

[jsteele]

I don't know if this is the best thread to bring this up in, but in the UK the Parliament will vote to approve military action against Syria. In the US, Congress will have no such vote. Apparently, our Congress is quite satisfied to relinquish it's constitutionally-provided power to declare war.

[Anonymous]

No. Because I'm not sure Assad is behind it. Who benefits from pulling the U.S. into a war with Syria? I think we need to look very, very carefully at this question.