Do you support military action against Syria?

Discuss

I am for it.

I only hope it goes sufficiently far enough.

Generally I'd leaning towards "it's none of our business", but the Chemical Weapons issue clouds that for me. However I would much prefer that IF the USA gets involved, that it would be as a small part of a multinational force.

This. Once we get the US committed, we need to go and get NATO on board. Not everyone has to participate, but the action should be under it's auspices, with Arab League support and GCC funding.

C'mon Kerry, earn your paycheck.

I used be all warhawky as hell, but I'm truly sick and tired of it. A big "fuck no" from me.

Syria should kill its citizens with only certain deadly weapons, not chemical ones!

this, and frankly I don't care to believe any of them on who deployed the CW. It no longer matters.

Playing world cop is no good when the dispute is another country's domestic issue. They'll just go back to killing each other the moment you leave or one of them gets bail.

Not our problem. Let the UN figure shit out without the US taxpayers footing the bill this time.

teh baba.

You forgot the "HELL FUCKING NO!" option

Whatever you do it'll just go back to being a shithole. I can't think of a larger waste of time and money.

This. Also, Syria's close relationship with Iran and the former Soviet Union complicate matters.

[YT="30 years later and still relevant"]9j6ODvgaQVY[/YT]

It's villainous shitheads versus villainous shitheads. Let them fight it out, while we stay out.

Yup. Basically this.

I don't buy the "it's a civil war, we should stay out" argument. Should we have stayed out of the Rwandan genocide? Or not intervened in Kosovo?

I don't buy the "They're Muslims so we can't help them!" argument, because it's overly simplistic.



If nothing else, the world can't afford to let chemical attacks on ones own citizens become something governments feel they can do without consequence. That's not a door you want to leave open.

get rid of both sides while protecting the civilians. make it the seventh israeli province. peace & quiet ensues until next wednesday

The poll options are woefully insufficient. It is true that evidence of Assad's guilt is lacking and it is true that the west should not involve itself in Syrian civil war under most circumstances. But there are other conditions that would need to be satisfied before I considered an intervention just.

These include the exhaustion of peaceful options, the real prospect that action would make things better and compliance with international law.

Do you mean the international "law" allows Russia to veto any response, no matter how justified?

I'm still wondering why Asaad would gas a civilian population. What exactly did that gain him? I mean, if I were him, the LAST thing I would want to do is give the West an excuse to intervene, which is completely forseeable when the President of the United States tells you that using chemical weapons will bring such an intervention. He would HAVE to have known that using chemical weapons to kill civilians en masse would be tempting fate. So why do it? It's not apparent he needed to. It's not like he gassed a rebel army that was about to overrun his headquarters or something.

I'm getting the distinct feeling we're being played.

If we know--beyond any significant doubt--that Asaad ordered, enabled, or permitted this, then we're going to have to hit him because we've stuck our credibility out there. But I'd like to get some assurance that we're not being drawn into something.

"Other." - I think we should help get innocents out of the line of fire/out of the country, but that we shouldn't otherwise be involved.

What did gassing Jews gain Hitler?
He could have just kicked them all out.

To where?

No nation was really into accepting thousands, let alone several millions, of Jewish refugees at the time.

Even better.
Use the refugee crisis to fuck up other countries as a tactical thing.
Turn people into ash, you get nothing out of them.
Except soap, I guess.

On the other hand, what's the point for the rebals - whoever they are - to mass murder their own people?

Well, that sort of happened. I mean, they founded Israel out of a big chunk of Palestine (rather than actually, y'know, live in the same country with them) and things have been pretty fucked up ever since.

Said it all along, shoulda/coulda put 'em in Wyoming.

If the United States is unhappy with that situation, it can withdraw from or renegotiate the relevant treaties What I won't agree with is the hypocrisy of insisting that the rules apply to everyone but themselves.

That actually was his first preference, you know. But it was completely impractical in the midst of a world war.

Poor guy....

In Hitler's worldview, the Jews--a race that kept its bloodlines "pure" by largely shunning intermarriage--were a threat to the supremacy of the Germanic peoples. Control of the world belonged to the race that did not become "mongrelized." Hitler's actions toward the Jews had some rationale--albeit a twisted one--behind it.

It's not that I think Asaad is morally above using chemical weapons--I doubt very much that he is--but if he did allow their use--when he had nothing to gain and everything to lose--he's incredibly foolish.

I mean, are we to believe something like this happened?