Should America intervene in the Syrian Civil War?

Asked by: AaronDIJ
  • We Must Get Involved

    The Assad regime has determined to use chemical weapons, a source of suffering since they were first invented. This is a classic case of human injustice, and if it weren't for people's exhaustion with the Middle East, we would already be involved for such a cause. If we are to refuse to get involved and have the power to do so, then that is accepting these injustices. While Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Opposed entry into Vietnam, it was due to the fact we weren't fighting for human rights, we were fighting to maintain the status quo against communism. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Would probably ask us to get involved. Why? He said that disobeying an unjust law is holding the highest respect for the law, and those whom did nothing were part of the problem. We as the United States shouldn't be part of the problem, especially when the problem in question is the use of weapons of mass destruction being used in an unstable part of the world, whom have threatened us before and we have made their instability worst by getting involved and not finishing the job. We represent the international community. We are part of the permanent Security Council of the United Nations, therefore, by extension any international law passed by the UN is also the law of the Security Council, our law, even if other's don't want to honor their law, as a World Power we must honor our laws.

  • Chemical weapons use should be STOPPED.

    I would personally have preferred to see the UN intervene in force and do something about this situation. Unfortunately, both Russia and China seem to hold the UN hostage by vetoing any decision that needs to be taken against Assad.

    I think the US, as the world most powerful country, should set a precedent, attack and neutralize all the sites in which chemical weapons are stored. This debate is not whether the US should stop the massacre from going on (as there is no clear solution on how to do so), but rather on how to show the world does not accept the use of WMD's during conflict.

  • There are many forms of Intervention.

    Syria is in a dire state, and the United States should help the civilians. I understand that the situation is difficult to gauge, and it is tremendously difficult if not impossible to identify a group of people who are "bad" and identify a group of people who are "good," so that we can help them.

    Intervention could mean economic sanctions, it does not have to mean sending soldiers. (And I hope that it doesn't) The United States has a massive amount of technology and it's time we use it for some good. Diplomatic relations should be strengthened with Syria as a whole and not with Free Syrian Army or the Government. Because the moment one side is chosen the other side will want to attack us. Syria should stay united, through the use of international economic intervention, and other non violent methods.

    To those who say that money should be allocated to domestic uses are people with good intention. However, it is important to know that the US will likely spend less than a billion dollars on Syria if we use non violent force. With a budget of over 2 trillion dollars we can do domestic infrastructure improvements we so desperately need without losing our relevance in the international community

  • One word: Oil (natural resources)

    It seems to be where ever there are natural resources America are the first to initiate war. Obviously with the intervention it will greatly benefit the American economy however this needs to be scaled on a cost vs benefit factor. America is a powerful nation and world does look towards them for aid and assistance where possible. The game is not to show weakness otherwise this will raise tension with the likes of North Korea.

  • Yes protect those who can't

    Not an American problem? Who cares? We are the greatest power. It's our duty to protect those who can't . I've been there. I've been in combat as an adult. Not behind a desk but kicking doors down and ....... Did what we thought best. So tired of ignorant Americans who think they deserve anything just because they just so happen to be born in the us. Anything that happens in Syria will effect nobody but family and friends of those that get hurt or die...L. Nobody else cares. Let's go do something for the world..... Sacrifice a little

  • Generally agreed upon subject

    Not only should America intervene, but I personally think the entire U.N. Should do something especially considering that even in the war we agreed, through the fire and flames, not to use poison gas. Also I think it is especially wrong, morally, that someone or even a group of persons ignore such inhumanity. Lastly I think that the most important be that I don't persuade we bomb them just bring attention to the subject and cause them to stop with or without force.

  • They are bad

    They have killed innocent people and that is very bad and horible and we should stop it cause we dont want people to die and that is our calling as american citizens to stop horibble stuff like that and that is what should happen and we all need to group together to stop this

  • They are bad

    They have killed innocent people and that is very bad and horible and we should stop it cause we dont want people to die and that is our calling as american citizens to stop horibble stuff like that and that is what should happen and we all need to group together to stop this

  • Cuz hi mom

    Cuz ehqhf wjqwwjff qwqjqww hhjh qqe jhw qw wj q w w i m erkw w w e e e r rw w qewe qq w r wqe w r w wq e r qrrq e qwr wqr rwq qwr r qe q qw r wq qw ww r r

  • Yes its cool yeah


  • Hey guys? Remember Agent Orange?

    This is a laughable argument. Invade Syria? Out of the question. A military strike? Better, but foolish.

    John Kerry- "Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity"

    US in Vietnam: Poison Gases 400,000 people to death! 400,000!!! And ONE MILLION are disabled directly because of the Agent Orange attacks! 10 MILLION HECTARES of farm land destroyed! The poison levels are in many parts of Vietnam are still dangerously high and regularly cause birth mutations.

    US in the Middle East

    Drone Attacks:
    50 civilians die for every one terrorist!
    200 children killed in Pakistan

    Not to mentions the THOUSANDS of deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and other middle-eastern countries.

    What a laughable argument. What a disgrace. I have all the respect in the world for a soldier, and respect what he has gone through, but overall,what a disgrace. John Kerry, you are a disgrace.

  • No more war

    We do not have to interfere with Syria. We cannot afford it. We spend too much money on military support that is not even necessary. We don`t need the trouble. I think our government money would be better spent for the poor in our own country and help out our people. We need to stop putting our nose in every bodys business period

  • For the 100th time...NO!

    America should not go to war with Syria. While the Assad Regime is certainly no friend of the United States, neither are Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). They are Al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic terrorist groups. America has lost it's sanity to even contemplate spending at least $1 billion a month to become Al-Qaeda's Air Force in Syria. President Obama already committed an impeachable offense by illegally going to war in Libya and his cover up when the Jihadists attacked our embassy, killed our ambassador and four others. This at a time when policy in Afghanistan is a colossal failure, American deaths are much higher under Obama, and basically the Taliban will be free to retake the country. It makes no military sense to get involved. There is no threat to America or it's people.

  • No I don't think it would be advisable at this moment

    No America should not rush in this Syrian conflict. Its a war, unfortunately , that we are not ready for economically and mentally. After burning through our assets and billions of dollars of tax payer money, I think its time our government starts looking more domestically in solving problems like poverty, education, college loan interest rates, and feeding the thousands of children that only are fortunate to have 1 meal a day. A famous individual once said, its better to solve the problems at home before helping other with theirs.
    Yet we still cant just sit around and watching of thousands children turn into orphans and hundreds more mowed down in gun fire. So I propose more diplomatic talks from both sides, and if not possible than more UN Sanctions, and only in dire situations may we consider small indirect help

  • America needs to pull their fingers out of the rest of the world's pies.

    America, in general, has always intervened in other countries' businesses. Most of the time it is just for financial gain but masquerades as "spreading democracy" or "fighting terror". America has enough problems here at home without spending money, time, and military lives in places we shouldn't be in in the first place. Let each country deal with its own problems. With regards to the Syrian conflict, I believe America should just stay out of it.

  • Chemical Weapons is not a reason for war.

    It is becoming popular to compare the potential war we will fight in Syria to the first Gulf War, which is viewed as a successful war. It seems to me that the civil war in Syria should be viewed as a special case. This is the first time since Saddam in the 1980's that chemical weapons were used on civilians. But that is not what prompted Desert Storm. It was the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait, and many nations were united to drive him out. Desert Storm was successful because of a coalition effort. Keep in mind that we will be on our own in attacking Assad's forces. There was also an exit strategy in the Gulf War. Saddam was driven out, and it was over. There is no clear objective by bombing Syria. We have sat this one out for 2 years so far, why not wait until the Arab nations find it in their interest to go to war as well? Otherwise it could become an open-ended conflict i.E. Iraq War and Afghanistan. We did not attack Saddam in 91 over gas attacks in the early 80's. We should not attack Assad over these gas attacks.

  • The U S has no concrete evidence

    The only reason the United States wants to carryout military actions against Syria outside the U N’s authorization even with Russia saying that if the evidence proves the guilt of the Syrian government that they will agree to actions is because such a thing cannot be proved. If the U S had such conclusive evidence as they claim they would be the ones hammering through the process in the U N

  • Mind Your Own House

    There is no national American interest at stake in Syria. It is better to have a stable Russian puppet government, than anything the Syrians can come up with. The USA should stop trying to play world policeman for two very good reasons: 1) it's no good at it 2) it's no good at it. I just thought it was worth repeating.

    Posted by: SPR
  • Niggers are dumb

    I hate niggers d d d d dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ddd d d d d d d d d d

  • This is much more than a humanitarian mission

    As I see it, there is a rift between the Pentagon , and civilian leadership , and that sounds dangerous. No one in the news media is asking why our military attacked the Syrians. Did the US Military do it on purpose to scuttle the talks? No one is investigating this “accident”. Obama’s lack of leadership and ambiguity ruined our chances of gaining the upper hand in Syria by backing off on the red line deal. We had our chance to intervene after chem attacks but failed so now diplomacy is the only answer and now we must do so from a position of weakness since Putin now has the upper hand. This is driving our proud US Generals nuts. They want to trigger military option and risk all out war with Russia possibly to teach Obama as well as Putin a lesson. Hard to believe but I think pride is a big factor here as evidenced by bellicose statements from army Generals and political/military disagreements. Also Kirby’s statement about body bags and Russian cities being attacked was stupid and out of character from his usual boring Obama spin. He must have blurted this out of frustration because Russia wont bend and we don't have cohesive leadership. I also wonder what negotiations / concessions were discussed between Kerry and Lavrov? Did you notice those details are not being shared with the American people. Did the US insist on getting rid of Assad at all costs with no other political options? What about Ukraine and Nato encroachment? You can be sure this was part of the negotiations and it sounds like the US isn’t budging on build up in Baltics. Nato artillery is close enough to hit Russian cities including St Petersburg. Russia hasn’t seen this kind of activity on its border since the Nazi invasion. As a result Putin and the Russian population are on nuclear hair trigger alert. They didn’t run nuke attack drill for nothing. Putin is all in on Syria. He expects a continued cycle of escalation. In his mind Putin needs Assad to squash terrorists before they spread to his country. If Assad is ousted by US force he would have another Libya or Iraq on his door step. Sure , we don't want Russia to be the new middle east sheriff but that ship sailed when Obama gave it away via the invisible red line. In the meantime the US media is in la la land and just talks about the election. Putin is going full boar and consolidating his position since hawkish Hillary is favored to win. Our citizenry seems self absorbed and unaware of the convulsions within our government. The decisions being made at this very moment could have cataclysmic consequences. We watch presidential debates from the comfort of our easy chairs. We’re going to be the next humanitarian catastrophe if we don't settle this with diplomacy.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.