Amazon.com Widgets

Should the U.S become involved in the Syrian conflict in light of the recent chemical attacks?

Asked by: blue_charles
  • Yes, we should.

    It is the duty of any morally just country to prevent countries from violating the human rights of their own citizens. It is almost without doubt that the Syria regime used chemical weapons on the people, killing 335 men, women and childern. This is not something that we can stand by a allow to happen.

  • Yes, in a limited but effective way

    We cannot allow use of chemical weapons go unpunished., period. Even if it is Muslim on Muslim violence in some country we don't give a darn about. Sets a terrible precedent. Everybody was all gung ho about going into Iraq and we couldn't even find any weapons. Now somebody has killed civilians with them and we are like...."yeah, so?"

    No boots, just bombs on strategic military targets

  • An international social contract says that we don't use chemical warfare.

    I think that since this "social contract," (if you will) has been broken, we need to intervene. I'm not much for military intervention, but our national security is being threatened. Who's next? There could be an attack on American citizens, and it could be too late before we initiate defense. The people of Syria cannot defend themselves, so we need to help in any way we can. Then on to the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • We Didn't Get Involved In Other Stuff

    I don't like the mentality that because it doesn't directly effect us we should ignore it.

    We ignored Hitler's regime. 6 million jews died, 11 million total people died.

    We ignored Rwanda's civil problems, 1 million africans died in genocide.

    We need to stop treating America like we are above and beyond other people's problems. America can't isolate itself from the world forvever. We know what's right and we know what's wrong.

  • National, allied, and humanitarian reasons for intervention.

    American national interests are threatened by a butcher in control of a powerful country with chemical weapons and backed by Iran. Declining to intervene will destroy our capability to deter Iran in their quest to produce a nuclear weapon; we will be seen by them and their Russian and Chinese allies as weak and unwilling to enforce international condemnation of chemical weapons. Additionally, full intervention is the only way to assure that radical Islamist rebel groups don't seize control of the government after the regime falls. Furthermore, the very existence of one of our most important allies, Israel, is threatened by our inaction in the face of an escalating Syrian civil war. Finally, the only way to prevent the loss of tens of thousands more civilian lives is to eliminate the Assad regime and bring a swift end to the civil war.

  • Does this not shock your conscience?

    After WW2 your ancestors signed an agreement saying things like the holocaust will never happen again. Chemical, nuclear or biological, they will not be tolerated. We have yet to stop many current genocides from the Rwanda genocide to the gulags in russia, we cannot just turn the other cheek on everything we need to do things, not for the civil war but for the children and mothers who are dying without a reason.The chemical attack on the city killed nearly 500 children each had a family, and a future. How can you be proud of your country which in the pledge of allegiance says for liberty and justice for all. "I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel.

  • U.S should get in for Syrian conflict

    US had made it clear about Red line which is not to use chemical weapon. However, Syria regime used the chemical weapons on civilians. They crossed the red line in which, broke the international law. Moreover, UN is organized by US and they have right to involve in Syrian conflicts to reduce the causalities of civilians. The faster war finishes, less people would die or suffer. The problems about Syrian chemical weapons usage could be used for threating world peace. Therefore, U.S has to come in to solve this problem.

  • Pro humanitarian intervention

    I am proud of the restraint the US/Obama has shown...Remember the republicans were calling for strikes a year ago...There must be enforcement of international law against chemical weapons. I wish the United NATIONS would handle this...Gassing one's own people and chemical weapons are also illegal..Glad I don't have to figure this problem out..Hard to see the images coming out of Syria of the victims...My wife has been saying for a year now "Why don't they DO something?"..Meaning the UN not US..This is a more complicated issue than anyone knows and the possible future ramifications are daunting..Now Syria is threatening Isreal with chemical weapons...Remember Syria has more chemical weapons than ANY other country in the mid-east..By the way those weapons are probably already on their way to Iran and being hidden in other places within Syria. This is a cautious/pragmatic US president..Not a cowboy Bush!!! Gotta add that a very good friend of mine in the US is Syrian and was pro Assad...Was...But both of us fear what will come after Assad..If Syria would have allowed the UN to do its job, instead of shooting at them..They would not be under the US microscope..Obama and the US really don't want this war "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
    Thomas Jefferson

  • Yes they should and so should Britain and France

    All countries have an obligation to uphold international law, the gas attacks were a war crime and therefore Assad should be brought to justice, given a fair trial and be convicted for his crime, this might end the civil war which is always nice. China and Russia should stop vetoing resolutions for foreign intervention, although the US shouldn't occupy the country like Iraq and Afghanistan, simply strike military assets only.

  • This is a right thing to do...

    Traditionally, I am against US intervention, however, this is one of the few cases where, I think, the US must intervene. The US has made it clear that it was going to attack Syria,if chemical weapons were used by the regime. If Obama didn't intend to attack, he should not have drawn the red line in the first place, but now that the line has been drawn, the White House can't take its word back. If America doesn't act, this will have a serious impact on our prestige around the world and that should not be taken lightly. If our enemies start thinking that America is no longer powerful enough to keep its promises, then these hostile regimes would pursue any ambitions that they have. The U.S has to send a clear message to the international community, to show that we are still capable of keeping our promises to our allies, our enemies, and more importantly, to ourselves. Secondly, what is happening in Syria can be easily spread to other parts of the world. Chemical attack on Syrian is a testing ground for Syrian regime. Tomorrow, these weapons can be used against other nationals of countries, including Americans. Finally, it has been argued that the US should not intervene, because America is not the world police. That is true, which is why we are not doing it alone, but rather we are doing it collectively with our allies. The US troops wont even have to put their boots on the ground, as the US is planning to bombard Syrian objects from the air. By using modern technology, we can minimize American casualties and maximize the damage on Syrian regime. Using chemical weapons is clearly against the international law and this violation must not go unpunished . Aside from the law, what happened in Syria is simply inhumane. You must be sick to watch these videos and feel no compassion or desire to help. As Niemoller once said: " First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist....Etc, Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me." In other words, what happens in Syria today could happen to almost anyone in the future. Turning away would mean betraying any sense of morality or humanity that we have left in us. That is why a quick and decisive blow on Syria should happen, but we should not be stuck in there like in Iraq or Afghanistan.

  • Absolutely not. The United States is not the world police.

    The US should stay right where it is. This is no time to mobilize a very expensive army to yet another middle eastern desert-scape. Being an ally is one thing. Traipsing around the world looking for the illusive terrorist is another. Terrorist hunting, third world invasion, and paranoia should not be the mission statement for the American Army, or the US, for that matter. The army should be cut down and used as a defensive measure, not a political one.

    It's time to learn some lessons, ahem, Iraq, ahem, Vietnam, ahem, Korea, and stop being so testosterone tongued and over-american. Calm down.

  • No! We should not!

    The simple fact we're denouncing the use of chemical warfare is an absolute joke. Remember agent orange? And how comes we didn't complaint when Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza during 08/09? We are concerned about the well being of people in another country and we are the one who nuked Japan twice??? (i know i know pearl harbor yari yari yari but at least they attacked a military installation we did it on CITIES) There are diplomatic channels that can be used and any action should be the result of a joint effort of multiple countries and the UN. Our traditional allays have refused to join us, China,Russia and Iran have threatened to retaliate if we act, are we going to let our ego propel us into world war 3??? And besides, how comes there are all sorts of budget cuts internally but the moment there is a chance to war we magically have the money?? We have been looking to go to war with Iran for a while now and we know very well that if we attack Syria, Iran would have to jump in and give us a chance to retaliate.

  • Muslims will be Muslims

    Not to be cruel, but this is not my problem. Muslims have been killing one another since the beginning of time and as long as they are alive and breathing there is nothing we can do to stop them.

    Bashar Al-Assad is an awful dictator but he is far superior to the radical Syrian rebels. Assad is actually very tolerant to Christians and a majority of Christians in Syria support Assad. The radical Muslims that make up the rebellion are extremely anti-Christian and Jews.

    Like it or not, Assad is the best leader Syria's got.

  • The safety of people in Syria and the soldiers in the US lie in the midst of this situation.

    My cousin is enrolled in a 3-year contract for the army. If the US goes to war with Syria, If he goes, he will be at risk of losing his life just like he was during the last war with the Middle East we had. Money will be used up in the war and military supplies. An also, if we try to help Syria's citizens we not only get rid of the weapons stashed there, but we may also kill citizens in the process. Also, if the citizens are for the terrorists, we will be helping terrorists at the same time.

  • Not US's problem.

    So Syria used chemicals, its fatal and devastating. Doesn't mean that the US must invade Syria. US has nothing to do with them. Just like when US invaded Panama. Panama did not even do anything that involves USA. And suddenly they're all over Panama. Making false accusations and making cover-ups for their attack. Syria may not be the same, but my point still stands. US has nothing to do with them. Every country should let Syria solve it its own problems, or use the UN. After all, the United Nations is made to solve conflicts, and their task here is to do so. NOT THE USA

  • Very tough issue

    I guess i'm not sure what you define as "involved".

    As for military intervention and forced pacification, no. The last ten years have shown America just how unsuccessful democratization through force is.

    In terms of humanitarian aide, I'm all for it. Set up a charity, volunteer, do whatever you can to help the innocent Syrians in danger. But the American government already doles out billions in aide to the entire world including Syria. We provide the majority of UN funding. We are also in terrible financial shape domestically. Why does the US government need to spend more money that it doesn't have? Maybe somebody else in the international community should step up.

  • No unless the

    United States have solid evidence the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against its own people.
    I'm not saying the regime isn't bad enough.. We all know it's bad enough to do it but are they mad enough to do it?
    Many reliable sources claim that the rebels used those chemical weapons. Plus, the evidence provided by the US isn't convincing.
    Any action against Syria many must be limited and backed by the international community.
    We shouldn't forget Iraq.
    I say we should put a stop to the atrocities happening now as we speak in our beloved Syria without causing collateral damage.
    I say, the best way to put an end to the regime is by backing the rebels with some serious arms without any foreign intervention.
    Thank you.

  • No unless the

    United States has solid evidence the regime used chemical weapons. Any foreign intervention in Syria not backed by the international community may have devastating consequences leading to a regional war involving Israel and Iran.
    A regional war is 10 times worse than the use of chemical weapons.
    If the West wants to put an end to the regime's crime they should back the rebels with some serious arms which can accelerate the process.

  • It will only make things worst!

    Obama should not get involved in a war that has nothing to do with us. Obama authorized drone strikes that kill thousands of children in the middle east. He should be put on trial for war crimes and the killings of thousands of innocent people. The majority of American people do not support obama on this one. If he does get involved. Then prepare for WW3.

  • No, Assad has already cooperated in handling over the chemical weapons

    Americans you should know that your country is already in huge debt, high unemployment, high college tuition fees which leads to debt, gun control laws to handle and you wanna start another war? US is full of problems and your politicians want to solve another country's problem. No please fix your own country.

    And also, the chemical attacks had stopped. Why go to war?


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