deleted

[deeteekay]

deleted

 

[KyleLawes]

I don't. Not one bit. Let them duke it out amongst themselves.

 

[MaximumD2]

The US shouldnt be personally getting involved into it. We have done this for decades, with useless outcomes, korea, vietnam, iraq, iran, ect. It should be the UN's job to go in. They couldnt keep the peace, so now they should start making it.

 

[FBC]

I don't. Not one bit. Let them duke it out amongst themselves.

I agree on this one, If you want to save these people from getting killed just send in some chopper to pick them up and transport them to someplace else than letting them die or... Just, well... watch them nuke each other for apparently no reason. Sad

 

[kowalski]

I do not support intervention in Syria. The U.S. has no business sticking its nose into another worldly problem. Also, many of the rebels are or are linked to al-Qaeda. President Bashar al-Assad's government, while a dictatorship, supports equality for free practices of all religions, and does not practice the abusive and radical versions of Islam. If the rebels gain control, certain Muslim groups will be persecuted, and other religions will be persecuted. Women will be abused. Look at Egypt, what happened when their rebels gained control. Therefore, the U.S. should guard its own borders instead of the crazy people fighting each other thousands of miles away.

 

[Kannon]

I mainly agree with all of this, except a few points. First of all, if we do not intervene wouldn't we be sending the message that chemical weapons can be used with impunity? These weapons could later get used by Assad against Israel or other U.S. allies, or be given to Iran, or get into the wrong hands. therefore the weapons should be destroyed.

On another point, I have heard a long debate about wether or not the rebels are Al Qaeda affiliated. I have noticed that political talk show hosts and others without experience in the military say that the rebels are mainly al-Qaeda. General Jack Keane, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, Allen West, John Kerry, Oliver North, and other contributors with experience in the military and international matters, agree that the extremist portion of the rebellion is too small to be considered a threat. They, and their sources on the ground, concur that military actions are a good idea, if executed right.

Finally, I do not want military action to be taken at this point. I believe that so much notice has been given that our military is going to strike, that a strike of any kind is now going to be counter productive. Assad has certainly moved his chemical weapons out of our reach, and is most likely getting his air force away from target areas. In addition, Assad has most likely moved innocent civilians into target areas, thus creating anti American sentiment in the region if we do attack.

In conclusion, I supported military action against Assad, but now think that it is too late.

 

[CommandoBeta]

What would one reach with a military intervention?

 

[Freshblood]

no I don't

 

[PuLse_ORiGiN]

Am i the only one that thinks they should?

 

[MaximumD2]

Am i the only one that thinks they should?

You would be the only one.

I find it funny how half the posts on your opinion topic, are from you. Lol. Seriously, you guys need to learn to trim it down.

 

[CommandoBeta]

I don't see why he shouldn't post in the topic just because he made it. After all, he's trying to get us to discuss this subject - and undoubtedly he's interested in it too, seeing as he chose it. It would therefore only be logical that he joins the discussion.

To go back on topic, Kannon does have a point here. Chemical weapons are illegal by international treaties, and in my opinion, for good reason. Assad used them, so what would be an appropriate answer to this?

 

[SucceededKiller]

well...: http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/non-member-states/
But
http://news.sky.com/story/1139734/syria ... al-weapons

 

[CommandoBeta]

I was not aware that Syria hadn't signed that Treaty, but that raises an even deeper question. Should the world tolerate things that most people view as inhuman and inherently wrong, just because the people doing it didn't say they wouldn't?

 

[Dogfighter]

There is no reason for USA and Russia and the rest of the super powers to get fired up over that small country. The only reason the rebels are pretending to like the US is so they will help them. After that, they will go back to hating the US again. Just like Libya.

 

[Kannon]

The appropriate answer would have been an arial intervention.

 

[Dogfighter]

Well the US bombing Syria would be like Russia bombing South Korea, the US wouldn't just stand by, just like Russia wouldn't stand by.

 

[Kannon]

More importantly, there are no longer any targets in Syria to bomb. Assad has moved them because Obama gave him two and half weeks and counting to prepare! Now if we strike, it will be at best similar to flicking a wolverine, and at worst we could have civilian blood on our hands.

 

[Kannon]

Give me your source of that incredibly dubious information, then we'll talk.