• Moral obligation to do so

    Thousands of innocent civilians are being slaughtered. To stand by and allow this atrocity to occur when it is clear who we should be supporting is an absolute shame on the history of the U.N. If a majority of nations in the U.N. Are willing to intervene on the same side then by all means the U.N. Should stop the civil war in Syria.

  • This Is Why The UN Exists

    The United Nations was created to promote world peace and end conflict. In this case, you have a Security Council Member standing in the way. Ultimately, this could end up just like the Balkans or Rwanda where the UN could have saved lives but couldn't due to geopolitical and institutional flaws like the Security Council.

    Posted by: rpr
  • Yes, that is the purpose

    The United Nations is supposed to be a group of nations working together to make sure that no single government is corrupt and hurting its citizens. Whenever there is even a hint of problems within a country, the United Nations needs to investigate. When appropriate, they should intervene. That is the reason they are around.

  • Muslim extremism is now a global event

    While the UN appears to be focusing its efforts solely on humanitarian causes, they are in effect content to address the symptoms of the affliction not the root cause. The development of a global Islamic guerilla army broadly attacking modern civilization represents an opportunity for the UN council to rally the developed nations in addressing the scourge of extremism in a coordinated and effective manner and re-establish itself as a relevant organization instead of applying ever more bandages to wound that requires immediate cauterizing.

  • People often ask why God doesn't stop such atrocities, and yet God could ask us why we don't

    The Syrian regime is much like the Nazi regime: using fear and torture to submit all those who condemn it, but it has been allowed to happen by us. Humanity has the capacity to stop it, yet it does not. George Orwell is one of the greatest humans who ever lived, knowing exactly how such regimes worked. His words can be attributed to so many conflicts and regimes throughout time, and yet nothing stops them from reoccurring.

    If the west really gave two shits about what was happening in Syria they would do SOMETHING, as opposed to relying on an outdated, ineffective, bureaucratically-blocked UN.

    Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

  • Ya because un

    They shud becuz Syria is kinda mesed up rn and theyyy rly need the helps frm th Uniten NaITonz 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 #OBAMA2016

  • May As Well Disband the U.N.

    I'm sorry if I'm missing something here, but isn't this what the U.N. is for? This is not only some war, but it is a crime against humanity and massacre with rape, torture, use of chemical weapons, etc... Isn't it our duty as human beings to help,or are we just going to watch innocent people and children die? The answer is up to you.

  • Of course, the UN intervene in Syria

    If not the UN should intervene in Syria, where half the population is fleeing from war and genocide, we might as well close down the UN.
    It is inconceivable that the UN and the international community just sit idly by and see that rabid factions in Syria eradicates the civilian population.

  • UN may not concern about the civil war, but refugee crisis should be taken care.

    In my experience, when we see a war, in any scale, the only thing matter is profit not conflict. Therefore it would be hopeless to expect UN intervention to stop profit collecting event like Syrian civil war. However, please think about another impact which is getting uglier by each day past, the refugees crisis. It takes years to solve a war, but decades to settle refugees crisis. So please stop it.

  • Children are dying

    2 million children are refugees, and many more are suffering within its borders.

    All sort of war crimes are being committed, e.G murder, torture, rape, massacres etc.. If UN doesn't act against these war crimes, then UN will fail it's purpose. No one will the international law it lays seriously when their law can be broken with impunity

  • We Should Not Intervene

    I do not think that the United States should intervene in Syria. We have a really bad habit of intervening and it really needs to stop. Let people fight their own battles. We have a lot of troubles on our homeland and we need to be focusing on those as much as possible.

  • Nawh they shud nat

    America has no obligationjs to go save them. They are stealing our jerbs. U s a u s a u s a u s a u s a u s a u s a u s a u s a u s a u s a. Vot donald trump !

  • No UN in Syria

    The UN should not go in Syria , people will died in numbers , and the UN is kind of useless, take example in DRC there have been there for a while but still the conflict is not over , ... Every side in Syria should stop fighting and find peaceful way to finish the conflict, and to elect a new president

  • Too much Risk

    The Americans, and the other countries, will most likely send troops if the decide to fight. But this could cause multiple deaths that can be prevented. Those are men and women who have decided to fight, but they can also be used for greater purposes, happening both in America, and the rest of the world.

  • It's an internal conflict.

    What's happening in Syria is a civil war, and it's none of the U.N.'s business what is happening there. While conflict is distressing, especially the loss of civilian life, it would be impossible for the rest of the world to get involved without taking sides -- and ultimately, that means the side with the best concessions to an ally wins, not the citizens of Syria. We have to let what's happening play out, let them figure it out for themselves.

  • No, it might become worse, besides its a CIVIL war.

    Remember what happened in Iraq? There was a war that happened from 2003-2011. The United States intervened in the war, and guess what? Things got worse. Besides, it is a Civil war. The UN isn't allowed to intervene a civil war unless requested from the country itself. To add on to that, if there is a military intervention, innocent civilians' lives may be threatened.

  • Look at the precedents.

    I'm entirely pro stopping deaths but if you look at what's happened the other times the US have interfered with Arabic countries the result has been much more death and resentment than there would have been in an ordinary Civil war. Additionally the regimes that win have become entirely distrustful of the west as a result which doesn't help anybody. Unfortunately for the citizens of Syria, I think we're just going to have to let them fight this one out.

  • You need to choose between a civil war or a military occupation.

    The little partnership which American and the Arab countries has can be too easily destroyed. Russia and China have the right of veto at the Security Council and with this the United States cannot act (legally...). The only way to assist them with the army in their battle is to go on the ground. On the air, they have Russian counter fly to shoot some of our planes. Bombs can't be launched so high because the population is too concentrated together. If nobody had won, it's probably because the government isn't ready to fall... For now, the United States doesn't have much to do there. They don't have a lot of petrol like in Iraq and Libya. Sometimes, you can really do things and the interaction in this conflict by the USA will kill more citizens.

  • NO, They Shouldn't

    The United Nations should not intervene in Syria. It is a sovereign country that is having a civil war, and the United Nations has a habit of butting their nose in and only making things worse for everybody. Let them fight it out for themselves, and let the victors truly and fairly claim the land for themselves.

  • NO

    The United Nations should not intervene in Syria. It is a sovereign country that is having a civil war, and the United Nations has a habit of butting their nose in and only making things worse for everybody. Let them fight it out for themselves, and let the victors truly and fairly claim the land for themselves.

    I would say that if there was some kind of real proof that there was a massive amount of chemical weapons or nuclear weapons being used against totally civilian populations, then that would be different. However, it would have to be a very extreme case before intervention would be warranted.

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