Should the U.S. intervene in the Syrian conflict?

  • From a humanist perspective

    I would be the first to contend that aerial warfare and indiscriminate shelling is condemnable. And President Obama's penchant for guided drone attacks should be the axiom as to why that type of behavior is abominable. If this is the manner by which the intervention were to be carried out, I would be in direct opposition to it. And doubly, if it consists of aiding a paramilitary organization that is radical and fundamentalist, murderous and unctuous, then that is also a thing which is utterly impermissible.

    But if proper provisions and discretionary measures were given their due placement, then what is our reason not to intervene in Syria? So we may depose a fascist regime? Isn't our pacifism tantamount to apathy, as the death toll surpasses 100,000 (that count consists, need we be reminded, of 5000 children), an internal refugee displacement toll of 2.5 million, 1500 foreign civilian deaths, 1 million other refugees, and an immense damage to the infrastructure of the country in large. Since this war began, the population, through killing by warfare, has depreciated .4%. This is a human catastrophe, and atop this atrabilious horror, numerous war crimes have been documented that are against the Geneva convention's sanctions; making the purported use of chemical weapons, in contrast, a trifle, and not the soul crux of what should determine our stance on what is occurring.

    The U.N covers wartime decisions concerning genocide. That, if we see the contemptible occurrence of genocide, we are ordered, through means of necessity and responsibility, to intercede. Fine, it may not be, by pure legal stipulation, genocide; but why should we be willing to overlook the mass murder of a population simply because it falls out of the jurisprudence of an inconsequential bylaw?

    We should have at least the moral fortitude to submit to a worldwide boycott of Syria, if we are willing to convey the cowardice that permits the placation of these atrocities, under the guise of pacifism and nonintervention. We should not be content with the void dream that surrounding militias will have the decency to respond to this imposition.

  • Yes

    The U.S. must intervene to prevent ultimate anarchy in the Middle East and it will also prove that the U.S. can keep its stuff together.

  • Just got out of one, cant/ shouldn't get into a new one

    America is not the global police, we have economical problems of our own, starting from the war that lasted for 10+ years and costed on average 100 billion per year. We rushed into the Iraq and Iran war the minute we heard that their were WMD', unfortunately thought after losing thousands of troops there were none. A question that we all have to ask ourselves is:

    " Why would the Syrian Forces uses Chemical weapons on their own people the day they knew that UN Inspectors would be rolling in? WHy would they use those weapons on regions they have burned through there assets on and concentrated a majority of its own troops?"


  • This affair is not ours to intervene in.

    We have no reason to place ourselves in the midst of Syria or its issues. We are not citizens of Syria, and people are not taking into consideration the retaliation that could be placed upon us if we decide to intervene. To begin, since an attack with Chemical weapons was confirmed, involving ourselves with Syria's affair could potentially bring about a Chemical weapon attack on US. Either way, people will be killed but there is no reason that innocents in our country should have to lose their lives because the government decides to involve itself in a situation that it none of it's concern. If anything, we should be staying at the sidelines and offering aid when this situation blows over.

    Instead of taking action itself, the government should be asking what WE, the PEOPLE want.

  • No

    We seem to always end up helping the wrong side anyway.

  • No.

    I don't think we had a place in Libya, and its most certainly not our fight. I hope they succeed, and I hope even more their government doesn't end up like Egypts is, but its not our fight.

  • Heck No!

    Our job is not to police the world. I support giving the rebels humanitarian aid, but even that's pushing it. We already waste enough money...

  • NO

    Make love, not war.
    Stay out of the worlds business.

  • Stay Out!

    Sometimes we need to just stay out of things. I agree with DontTreadOnMe we CANNOT afford another war. We have already spend way too much on the most recent war and we need to focus on making the US better right now!

  • Can't afford a new war!

    The USA can't afford a new war! They are in 16 trillion dollar debt, a war in Syria will put the US in even more debt. There is AL-Qaeda in Syria helping the Free Syrian Army, on record go look it up. AL-Qaeda is the US's sworn enemy, are they buddies now?

  • HELL no

    Libya was a walk in the park for the US who only had to fund rebels and deploy a few drones here or there. Syria on the other hand has 3 times as many people and is 9 times smaller than Libya. Rebels havent been able to hold a city any longer than a day, and the population density rules out drone attacks since civilian casualties would be massive. The only successful way to help out the rebels would be full military intervention similar to that of Iraq which is nothing that people in the US wants.

  • No way in hell

    The Syrian people can manage this war on their own. The one thing the American government can do is to tell the truth about what's actually happening in Syria. IT IS the rebels who are causing this. 'The Free Syrian Army' do not want freedom, nor are they from Syria. Well.. The *majority* are from foreign countries wanting Syria to become an Islamic State. America doesnt need to interfere with the Syrian people, more then they already have, funding the so called FSA a.K.A Al- Quaeda terrorists.

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