• Syria should stop.

    Because Syria needs to be stopped from putting poison on their own people, so U.S. Should stand up for people rights. That's why the U.S. Should stop the Syrians from doing these things to their very own people, because people from the same country should stand up for each other, not poison one another.

  • Yes! Now is the perfect time!

    We all know that the US is going to invade Syria since they eventually invade every country in the Middle East anyways, but since the country is in a massive civil war right now the US could invade and claim to be invading to end the civil war and bring stability to the Middle East instead of having to manufacture claims of WMD stockpiles and ties to Al-Qaeda like they did with other invasions. Then we can go ahead and set up our own puppet-regime democracy in the nation and have exclusive access to whatever oil they have in their country.

  • The government is randomly killing its civilians

    Such type of human tyranny should be abolished from the world.The government of Syria is supported by some of the countries like Russia and others. Democracy should prevail.
    People's voices should be listened to because if the civilians are not safe why government,why constitution and why the states.Therefore with the help of international community Syria should be taken under custody.

  • The US should attack Syria.

    The US should attack Syria because the are suspected to be carrying chemical weapons. This could, in some cases, destroy the world or could cause harm to people. If the US attacks Syria, then Syria might confess that they are carrying chemical weapons or the US could defeat Syria in a war, and then make Syria confess that they are carrying chemical weapons.

  • Duty to the World

    Either the United States has a duty to protect the citizens of the world, or it doesn't. Politicians from every corner of the political spectrum have sought to establish American supremacy all over the globe. If it is willing to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations for money, resources and political power, it should also be wiling to intervene in the event of a humanitarian crisis. The people of Iraq, despite the blatant lies the Bush administration told us to justify the war, are happier, freer & more satisfied with their country today than they were a decade ago. Allowing dictators to oppress their people is never the right thing to do. The west must help them. I would hope if the situations were reversed, and Syria was in the position to liberate the United States from a cold-hearted, unelected military leader who had no qualms about using chemical weapons on his own people, they would do the same. It's not arrogance, it's duty.

  • Holocaust We Remember

    Does anybody remember what the German politic group the Nazis did to millions of European Jews. This was a government just as syria is. It is sad that we are not going to step into a war that we all know is wrong but no one wants to admit to it. We turned our backs on the jews now the syrians. Chemical warfare is not a good thing if we have proof now we better stop it while we can or we could have another cold war on our hands. Good luck Americans some of you only worry about yourself , but i am here to tell you all that the world is bigger than our families. You don't want to lose family in a war against syria. I agree with you all on that, but how many jews wanted to lose their families. We turned our back once.We should never do it again.

  • Lets go ahead and do it.

    Obama needs to show he has as much balls as Bush did. He needs to stop sucking up to other nations and remind them all that America still beats them all. Syria used chemical weapons, the Obama administration has confirmed that much. We need to go ahead and act now.

    -Al Carter

  • If it is found that the Syrian Government deliberately gassed civilians.

    Taking a deontological standpoint, the US has a moral obligation to defend the weak from the strong and liberate the oppressed people. Since the US has one of the most superior military capabilities, it should liberate the oppressed people of Syria from such heinous and ruthless regime. This, of course if it is proven that Assad's regime was behind the massacre. No such act should go unpunished and it's punishment should be swift and decisive. Furthermore, people in Syria are looking for regime change. They cannot be living under such oppression anymore. The US should intervene and then once the deed is done and all the bad guys eliminated, the UN MUST step in to facilitate the regime change. Possibly they may have to deal with a tinge of civil unrest, but that would go away with time. No more killing, and a better future for the Syrian People.

  • Chemical weapons attacks on civilians cannot go unpunished.

    If and when it is confirmed that the Syrian regime were behind the heinous use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians then the international community, including the US, should act. Ideally this would be done with the backing of the UN Security Council but Russia and China are almost certain to veto resolution authorising a military strike on Syria.

    With this being the case, both the US and the UK have the ability to launch cruise missiles from navy vessels currently located in the Mediterranean. In addition, Britain has war planes based in nearby Cyprus and America has planes based in Qatar that could be used to launch surgical air strikes on Syria.

    Hopefully, Turkey, France and Italy could be persuaded to join the fray.

  • Syria should be attacked by U.S.

    Syria should be attacked by U.S. Because the President of Syria killed his own people and did cruelty to them which should not be allowed in any country,even in an undeveloped country or a developing country.Also the President of Syria used chemical weapons against his own people.Chemical Weapons should not be allowed in any country but it can be used for world wars.

  • Our failures in the middle east should be a red flag for the U.S. Today

    There is no point in getting involved in the Syrian conflict. It is their own civil war, let them handle it. Did Syria get involved when we had a civil war? NO. Also the rebels have declared allegiance to Al Qaeda, so why would we want to help terrorists. There has also been no concrete evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons so why make a mistake and attack them. The only reason someone is on the pro side is because they think they are somehow connected to people over in Syria and it is their duty to protect them, when in reality they don't care about your life and what kind of a person you are. In the end it is you as an individual and should help yourself, and not pretend the world is a society that cares about everyone.

  • NO. U.S. Bombing has not worked in the past.

    Bombing Syria is going to end up with our troops over there we can't loose any more men and women fighting in another country. I understand the side we would be helping if we did any bombing are the same group of people who killed the four Americans in Benghazi. So, what's really going on? Why can't Obama just show Russia the proof they are asking for? Maybe if Obama could tell the truth once in awhile it would be easier to trust what he is saying about Syria.

  • Watch from the sidelines

    As an American, my cold-blooded, realpolitik evaluation is that the Syrian Civil War in its current state is advantageous to the US and US interests. The combatants on both sides are virulently anti-American & anti-Israel. Every indication is that Syria is rapidly draining resources on both sides, resources that might otherwise be deployed against US interests. Yes, innocent women and children are getting killed on both sides, but there is little to indicate that even civilians would change their mind about the legitimacy of Israel or Jihad against the West in response to intervention. There is every reason to believe that US intervention would bolster the opposition. Look at Egypt. The Egyptian consensus in 2011 was that the US was propping up Mubarak, even after the US called on Mubarak to leave. Two years later, the same Egyptians believe that the US supported Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Middle East is incapable of rational thought about the US, with good reason given our irrational track record. Anti-Americanism is a constant that wont be improved by intervention on either side. The important exception are the Kurds, who continue to prosper as Iraqi, Turk, and now Syrian control diminishes. The Kurds continue to improve relations and trade with the West. In many ways, a de facto Kurdistan is proving more useful than a recognized state.

    Israel's position is clear. They'd like to see both sides fight to extinction, with a slight preference for a rebel win at the end of the day as a blow to Iranian dreams of hegemony. The US would be wise to follow Israel's example. By all means, there should be condemnations of chemical warfare, and humanitarian aid to refugees (cheap at twice the price in terms of propaganda). Containment is a priority and UN intervention in Lebanon might be required. But no feet on the ground in Syria and few or no air strikes. If the rebels need supplies, a few crates of stinger missiles might be appropriate. In general, watching from the sidelines is the smart play here.

  • Haven't we done enough?

    When we help people, they hate us. When we don't help them, they hate us. Meanwhile all this money we have spent on these campaigns - and infinitely more important, young lives we have sacrificed - have done nothing to help our own country. We will never be a great nation again until we start focusing our attention and resources on what's going on in our own backyard. Atrocities are happening everywhere and always will. Funny how we seem to single out the ones to get involved in that will make the rich richer over here.

  • America Should Stay Out

    America has no business in Syria; while the Assad Regime may be deplorable, the same can be said of the Al-Qaeda affiliated Islamists operating in Syria. America should steer clear and avoid this conflict. Let our foes fight among themselves. I was very skeptical of the "leaked" footage purporting to show a chemical attack, which looked staged and was amazed so many nations without any concrete evidence leaped to issue condemnations and calls for military action.

  • Leave Syria alone

    The question should be can we afford another military strike. We have been trying to fix our economic situation and we simply will not help it by attacking Syria. The president is once again jeopardizing the people of the united states. He says he wants to have a balanced budget and to increase the debt limit, we cannot do it by starting another trillion dollar was in the middle east. I hope the dead locked congress will stay deadlocked on attacking another muslem country. The president has ost so much of his likeability and this could be the last stand. Again maybe he should put himself in deep whole that will be his legacy.

  • Stop War, Peace is Best!

    We believe that the U.S. Should not attack Syria because there may be World War III and many innocent people will die! Israel may be attacked and they have nothing to do with what is going in Syria. The U.S. Needs to wait until the UN conducts its investigation. No WAR!!!!!

  • Innocent until proven guilty.

    The U.S. Should not attack Syria until the UN have finished their investigation and it is proved beyond any doubt that the Assad Regime is behind the chemical attacks. It would not be wise to declare war without a proper reason - and even less wise to do it under the guise of 'protecting the U.S.' since Syria isn't attacking the U.S., but (allegedly) its own people. The occurrences in Syria are horrifying, but how can they be stopped by declaring war on a regime that we cannot (yet) prove are guilty? It's essentially like burning a woman for witchcraft because she happened to be nearby when the milk went sour. Check the facts before drastic action is taken, it's all I ask and expect from a civilized country.

  • NO.. Where's the evidence it was the Syrian government or SAA?

    NO. Seems a little fishy that this chemical weapons attack happened not long after Assad agreed to let U.N. Weapons inspectors inside the country. The government has possibly been setup by rebels groups since the war has turned somewhat in the SAA and government's favour recently. There are multiple rebel groups including al-nusra and ISIS that are possibly responsible for this attack and may have sourced their chemical weapons from captured government military installations and weapons depots or even obtained them from as far as Libya.

  • NO.. Further investigation from multiple and independent sources required.

    We need PROOF this was the government and SAA.. And not the rebels. There are multiple rebel groups in Syria that could have been responsible for this attack including Al-nusra, ISIS, etc. There are also multiple chemical weapons sites which could have been raided and looted by rebel groups with the possibility also of rebels obtaining chemical weapons from Libya.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
fractaldreams says2013-08-29T13:11:59.603
This is not a question which can answered by a yes or a no. If you're asking whether the US should attack Syria, then the answer is very obviously no. However, if you are asking whether the West has a moral obligation to intervene, then I believe the answer is yes. Having said that, intervention can take many forms - some more effective than others. It is a shame that China and Russia are not being more straightforward in their condemnation of Assad (who, frankly, I think just needs to be removed, perhaps, that's why I wouldn't make a good politician). The situation in Syria is extremely complex and volatile, all sorts of extremist groups are operating in the area and any action we take collectively will have consequences for us.

Still, the issue remains whether we, citizens of any civilised nation which has signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention, can stand by and not take action/measures to help innocent civilians from these illegal attacks. It is looking increasingly likely (from US and UK intelligence) that the Assad regime is responsible for the chemical attacks and, from what I caught of the headlines this morning, it also looks like the UN inspectors will be pulled out early (which means some sort of action is imminent). Think about it for a minute, if the people of the US were under such attacks, would you expect the world to stand by watching, as atrocity upon atrocity was perpetrated against your people? I really doubt it...