Should the U.S. intervene in Syria with military action?

  • Yes we are the leaders of this world

    We are the leaders of the world and enforcers of peace and justice. We go in other countries to create stability. We are being the role models and brothers of all these nations. Plus, Syrian rebels want us right now. They're requesting for help. How can we ignore them when we helped Libya and all these other countries?


    These people just want help. They are deprived of basic rights that we have. Imagine the U.S. with such a harsh government as theirs is. Look at what Bashar is doing to his people. He has killed over 70,000 and counting. There has been cases of rape, torture, and brutal murder in children and adults. We need to be role models to others to do the same. These people only want freedom. That is not something to be ignored. Syria is not the only country facing such a regime, but Syria asked for help and we are going to give them help. If we could, we would help other countries. Right now they are desperate for our help. How can we not help?

  • We Should Get Involved

    It's understandable that Americans are sick and tired of being involved in Middle East conflict and want to finally stay neutral, but we don't decide when we get the break. Even if we didn't get involved, we would have many of the economic problems everyone is complaining about fora while, and entering Syria isn't going to make our debt skyrocket. Plus, for those paranoid about a WWIII, the chances of it are very unlikely, because no countries are siding with Syria. Russia did not state that it will defend Syria and actually admitted that there is a chance it will support the U.N. Action if it is without doubt that al-Assad truly used chemical weapons. What are we going to lose if we join? Unfortunately, we will put more lives at risk, initially, but in the end far more will be lost if we stand by like cowards and say "there's nothing we can do about it" when we could have at least tried.

  • Humanity needs us!

    People in Syria need our help. If we don't help them, who will? If the U.S. gets involved and takes the initiative, soon other countries will join in too. We can't just watch TV and sleep in our comfy beds at home while hundreds of thousands are being killed on the other side of the world. Also if the U.S. doesn't get involved, the conditions will worsen and Assad will become stronger, so he might even attack other countries and use his chemical weapons there. If he and his chemical weapons are not stopped, they will spread outside of Syria. Once the issue has spread to other countries, it'll be too late to stop him and much more difficult because he'll have more power. Then everyone will regret his/her decision that the U.S. shouldn't get involved in Syria. Just because it won't benefit America by getting involved doesn't mean that it's useless! We'll be saving so many lives and stopping bad deeds! Humanity!

  • If we won't do it, then who will???!!!

    We want to set a good example for other countries. If other countries see that we are not dealing with Syria, they might also start using dangerous/chemical weapons too. We can not let this happen. America should show Syria that we're not afraid of them, and that we're not going to let Bashar-al-Assad wipe out the entire population of Syria by using chemical weapons. We did it with Al-Queda in Afghanistan, and we should not be afraid to do it to Syria.

  • If we wont help them, then who will?

    Listen guys, Syria needs our help. We cant just sit there and watch them get blown up by chemichal weapons. We helped Libya, and many other countries. More then 70, 000 innocent citezens including men, women and children got killed because of the harsh leader. Would it seiously hurt us if we stop all off this nonesence, and save these citezens? If we dont help them, then who will?

  • To set an example

    If Syria is allowed to disregard the Geneva Protocol, the US (and the rest of the UN) are opening the doors to other countries and groups who would like to use chemical weapons. A punitive strike is necessary to enforce the rules, and to set an example to deter other potential genocides.

  • Assad Crossed Red Line set not by Obama,but by mankind

    Assad used chemical weapons for his own gains against innocent civilians.If the United states do not want to get involve,who will?If nothing is done to enforce the law that chemical weapons is not allowed,who knows when they will use it again.A message needs to be spread-actions have consequences.If this message is not spread,countries will disregard the law and use chemical weapons should they want it to be used.

  • We have principles we MUST enforce

    America along with the u.N has set several charters for weapons of mass destruction.Those charters have to be protected and enforced,even if you don't like it we are still the largest and most advanced military power in the war.According to the US National Debt Clock, the US government has a $16.8 trillion debt, sounds bad right well what you may not know is that we annually make $14.99 trillion dollars annually so our debt could be easily fixed in a few years with careful budgeting and support form our currently corrupt congress fix congress and we fix our debt.Stop blaming our president and war for our debt.The only thing that stops a monster from slaughtering 400 children under a week is a well planned,congress approved,constant bombardment from our drones.

  • An easy solution

    Is just to launch an ICBM on wherever Bashar is. Easy, fast, and as absurd as using bio weapons. It would make it easyer to the rebels to assume government, and after this, they would just do wherever they want. Of course, syria's economy is completly f**** for the next 40 years...

  • Not our fight

    It's not our fight. Syria government have murdered their own people BEFORE the chemical attacks. There are also other problems & debts needed to be taken care of. It will start another World War. There will never be peace in the Middle East. The U.S cannot fix all of the world's problems. We are in a huge debt ourselves. How will we even pay for the war?

  • Syria has many allies, Russia is one of them.

    Syria has may allies. Russia is included and doesn't like us. If we get involved it can be the initiation of World War 3. And then this will cause a major economic drop and lives of the people lost. This can cause a major army draft. If we get involved there is no one to support in our fight and instead of us getting involved and maybe helping some refugees, that help will probably backfire. We may die because if Asaad killed his own people , what can he do to us.

  • I say NO!

    Most American citizens don't even want the military to intervene, its expensive and we don't want america to be bankrupt again, it creates yet another potential enemy, it doesn't threaten the american population so why should they get involved? It doesn't really make sense because its seriously none of their business.

  • Just Say NO

    We should not engage in any military action in Syria. The USA needs to fix our own problems and quit sticking our noses in other countries problems. I, along with thousands of other citizens in this county are still unemployed because of this crappy economy. Health care is unattainable to thousands of people because they can't afford it. Our infrastructure is totally falling apart. The crime rate is running rampant. People are losing their homes and are ending up homeless. Education is also becoming too expensive. The United States is going down the tubes. Money used to get involved in military action could be better spent fixing these problems and helping it's own citizens. We are not the country we used to be and it is a shame and disgrace. I've been unemployed for two years, after working my entire adult life and using up my entire savings and 401k to survive and hang on to my home and everything else I've worked hard for will find myself out on the street. My situation is shared by so many other people and we have absolutely no recourse. NO - we should not get involved in Syria!!

  • Six of One and Half Dozen of Another... Who Should the United States support in Syria?

    The facts about the civil war in Syria seem to be blurred despite what Americans have been told by our leaders. The repercussions of any intervention by any country could possibly spark a World War. Nations seem to be choosing sides already.

    America has enough economical and political problems without trying to take on those of any other country. "People in glass houses...". Perhaps our country could regain some of the international respect that it once enjoyed if its leaders would stop trying to force other countries to surrender to its will in all matters.

    My heart is heavy if, in fact, nerve gas has been used on even one person. It would be a horrible way to die or to be disabled. Americans must, however, put this possibility into global perspective.... Every day that we survive on this planet, thousands of people die or become incapacitated in many ways caused by guns, cars, bathtubs, drugs, alcohol, suicide, disease, neglect, etc. Many of those are children, too. Perhaps the time, money, and energy that we might spend launching conscienceless drones to carry destructive forces against the Syrians (which Syrians) would be better utilized trying to solve other problems or to develop effective procedures for treating nerve gas exposure.
    Americans should not stand by while the country takes military action against another country because someone drew an imaginary line in the sand that someone chose to step across or to make it appear so. That is all that I have to say.

  • The United States is not the Police Force of the Planet

    This mindset that America HAS to go in and "save innocent lives form oppressive regimes" has crippled this nation. The UN was created exactly for this purpose. The international community should form a mandate that authorizes a combined forces intervention. Only then would military action on part of the U.S be necessary and it should be in part along with other nations like France, Great Britain, Turkey, and other nations on the Arabian peninsula. We cannot afford to have things boil over with the Assad regime by being heavy handed. This is Syria's civil war, let them sort things out on their own. I know it is hard to say, because innocent people are dying, but this is not the U.S's responsibility. It is the international communities responsibility to hold Assad accountable for his actions.

  • No good guys in this fight...

    Assad is a brutal dictator but the rebels are a mis mash of various factions with their only commonality being a desire for ruthless violence. The Syrian people need to decide this on their own and live with the consequences. There is no immediate risk to US citizens or our national security; let them blow the place up on their own...

  • We are not the World Police Force

    People die everyday. It's cold and callous, but true. Chemical warfare is brutal and horrible. I understand that. The fact of the matter is, however, that the evidence for chemical warfare is shaky at best. The fact of the matter is that we have no business getting involved in someone else's civil war, especially when it means wasting our citizen's lives and spending money we don't have. Also, the legality of intervening in Syria is sketchy at best, and we'd have to get it approved through the U.N. Security Council, which is unlikely, as other nations aren't exactly falling over themselves to help Syria. In short: we are not in a position-economically or authoritatively- to intervene.

  • We don't even know who did it!

    For all we know, I could have been Iran or even Israel to drag the US into another war. Last night, a man who was held captive in Syria came out in an interview and said that he does not believe that the regime was responsible for the attack. All this would do is bring radical islamists to power.

  • We can not afford another war.

    Not only will we be going in to Syria without our British ally, but Obama has hollowed out our military so much, there is no way we have the power to do anything major. There is no way we will be in and out in three days, and do we really expect that every body will just sit there and take it? This can easily be the beginning of WWIII. (United States, Britain, Syria, Iran, China, Russia, and possibly North and South Korea. Nothing good can possibly come from this. What did Syria do for us during 9-11-01?

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-09-13T05:27:21.367
Can somebody honestly tell me what all this is about in Syria? Is there a link to Iraq, Iran, Israel, Libya or any other countries in the Middle East? Is this about control of an oil pipeline, too? Surely, it cannot be only about the use of chemical weapons on women and children. Do not insult my intelligence! Why must the U.S. Think that it needs to be involved in the affairs of a country that does not appear to have any direct national security implications to the United States currently? What is the rule of engagement for getting involved with a violent, hostile action? Who are we indebted to, and are we being used as mercenaries so that somebody else does not have to get dirty hands? Is not there a moral responsibility, if you want to play that card, to get involved in repairing what is wrong in the United States first?
wmatychuk says2013-09-20T20:07:03.317
More military spending = Less money, which then leads to a depression, due to having NO GOD DAMN MONEY.
wmatychuk says2013-09-20T20:07:14.457
Which the USA already has none of.
BrandonFromCanada says2014-07-03T02:49:15.160
I honestly can't decide.

I should probably share that I'm Canadian before posting all this, so here's my 2 cents.

For starters, it just doesn't seem right that a government can use illegal weapons to kill thousands of it's civilians, and then just... Get away with it. The Syrian rebels are trying to make those in charge pay for that, and I think that's needed. We live in a sad world if we let Assad's people get away with that all.
So, the human part of me rushes straight to the side of this that concludes that military action is necessary. But, as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, these things can backfire quickly.
If, in hindsight this turns out to be another 'weapons of mass destruction' thing like in Iraq, as in Assad's forces were not responsible for gas attacks, then we'd have made extreme actions on the right intentions, but without knowing all of what we could. We'll never know everything, but one of the most important things here is to determine how much we need to know before ending lives in another part of the world.
It's obvious that things in Syria need to change.
And it's also obvious that American/British/Nato involvement would tip the scales in the Rebel's favour. If we're confident that the rebels are on the right side of history here, then siding with them seems morally right. Even honourable. But if it turns out that they, or we, are wrong, then we could end up exacerbating an already massive problem. (To put it into perspective, the Syrians have lost an estimated 100 thousand people, which is around 40 per cent of the number lost by America in the second world war. )
With that figure in mind, you can hopefully grasp the gravity of the situation.

Also, not punishing mass killings of civilians feels wrong, and a lot of people, in fact, a vast majority would agree. The reasoning behind the use of military force is "If we can stop the killing of civilians, then why wouldn't we?"
Well, that's true, but on the other hand, there's no guarantee that we CAN stop the killing. In fact, if recent history has shown us anything, it's that you can't just pick a side, kill the leaders of the other side, and expect things to settle. There will always be, particularly in this part of the world, and in this specific case, another person with an opposing opinion willing to take the lead.
The only real way to stop this sort of thing is to teach (And sometimes attempt to enforce) tolerance. The only way to end the killing on all sides would be if every faction involved would just agree to not resort to violence.
But, with players like ISIS and other extremists in the mix, I doubt anyone else is willing to let down their guards.

In summary of my opinion, we don't have enough information to act on right now. (To refuse helping people in this much need on an economic principle seems disgusting). But we still need to be patient. I doubt complete 100% confirmation as to whether it was Assad behind the chemical attacks will ever come, but at the moment it seems like we need to keep ourselves from rushing in on emotion alone.
But like I said, I'm undecided. Not punishing mass killings of civilians feels wrong.

And there's my opinion, please don't hate me for it, we all have our own, and mine is no more important than yours.
Just try to be good people, everyone, that's all any one of us can do.