What could possibly go wrong?
Obama + John McCain say yes. I think its absurd to inject ourselves in a conflict that is far older than our country.
Here’s the guys we are supporting:
If you have 2 sworn enemies get into a fight, you back out slowly and close the door. While they are fighting each other they leave you alone and which ever one wins emerges with fewer resources to come out after you.
War is hell and it needs to be in order to encourage peace. The victims tear at our hearts but thst is how civil wars work. We can’t force peace. We can hope that they settle it quickly bug we endanger ourselves if we give either enemy resources.
I completely agree. Usually I am a bit hawkish but this is stupid.
On one side we now have Assad,Russia Hezzbola and Iran.
On the other side we have Al Queda and other Islamist people who are our sworn enemies.
Who should we support?
Somehow our genius State Department thiks it can negotiate with Putin to abandon Assad,who is winning?
Where do we get these “leaders”?
Is this just an excuse to go to Ireland and have a pint?
Luann has it dead right.
Save the travel money and the time for some purpose that has at least a outside chance of success.
Republicans were for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan when Bush was in office, why are they taking the opposite position regarding Syria? They claimed we had to go in there because there were WMD’s. Then when it become 100% clear that there were NEVER any weapons of mass destruction there, you argued we had to stay for humanitarian reasons. Well what is more of a humanitarian reason to go into Syria than chemical weapons being used against the people living there. @luannkeller you say we should stay out so they leave us alone even though it will tear our hearts out, but I say you are completely turning a blind eye to the innocent people being tortured in this civil war. America needs to help these people. Going in to Syria has bipartisan support, John McCain, the guy Republicans supported for President in 2008, is for aiding Syria. What is the problem here? We need to help these people.
I don’t know how people here have guns, but those who do know how hard its been to obtain ammunition. Earlier this year, the government bought up a lot of ammunition, about 1.6 billion rounds for what they called “routine stockpiling”. So here we are now sending small arms and ammunition to Syria. Really?? To me it feels a lot like “disarming Americans” and “Arming our enemies” And I also am reminded of ” the Fast and Furious scandal in which we essentially armed the Mexican Cartel that resulted in the deaths of some border guards.
If we (The U.S.) want to help, then why not enforce a no fly zone? Personally we shouldn’t do a damn thing for them.
@skennedy @jwellfonder @luannkeller @epharmd @knofun @juliaw @grand-vizier now that the situation has become even more violent, I am curious if you guys still have the same opinion on assisting the rebels or at least coming down on the Regime for their use of chemical weapons. The Regime is again, using chemical weapons against the rebels and hundreds of innocent children have even been targeted. Should we still remain a bystander in this situation?
I have to say i’ve changed my opinion on this topic. I saw the footage of all the children and innocent people being killed by these horrific weapons. @epharmd I disagree that we should remain a bystander. This situation requires US intervention because it is a matter of chemical warfare. These weapons could be used on other countries as well. We have proof that they not only have them, but are willing to use them in desperate times. We should take immediate action.
This is one of those times to keep our noses out of it..
Either side will cheerfully cut the heads off our own children live on TV and brag about it.
Gas is terrible.
So is jumping out of a building to avoid roasting alive!
Assad didn’t do that to us. al Qaeda did. How much help have they got coming from us ?
@twocents you asked if my opinion remains the same. Yes. We cannot prevent others from doing violence (if we could we start that strategy here in the use where we have the authority) all we can do is  Send in weapons to increase the violence  Send in our soldiers to blow things up and kill people or  Send in medical supplies and food.
I have no confidence in our government’s ability to find the peaceful people of integrity in that area to give aid to. Rhiad Assad supposedly leads the free army but that group is not one of the 2 leading forces. The people fighting both hate the US and will use any weapons we supply to attack us if there are given the opportunity. The horror of what we see happening here will not stop because we start to see American soldiers in the casualty list.
Sometimes, we can’t fix things and this is one of those times, in my opinion. The only suggestion I have seen by officials has been to aid rebels – who want control so that they can oppress the people and attack us, so if you have a plan to fix the problem there I would love to hear it.
I still feel we should not be sending arms and ammunition to the rebels. The bottom line is even the people on the rebel side, although they are against the Assad regime, many are also surely against the west. And there is no way to know exactly who we are arming. I feel heartbroken and disgusted when I see the children who are being slaughtered in Syria. and I would love nothing more than to see Assad punished for the lives he has taken. And some day he will get his. much like Saddam Hussien and Moammar Qaddafi. This second large chemical attack does need to be dealt with. Even though there will more than likely be civilian casualties if we were to destroy Syria’s munitions with missile attacks, I think that is what needs to be done. I have to take in consideration though, doing so may cause us further problems with Russia and China. But these chemical weapons should not be allowed into the rebel hands either. One way or another they need destroyed. If they are not, we’d only be wasting our time. I remember this game of “where’s the chemical weapons” with Iraq. They kept weapons inspectors at bay for months that time all awhile the west were making threats of more flimsy U.N, resolutions. I was all for G.W. Bush doing what he did. did we learn lessons from the outcome? you be we did. But keeping dangerous chemical weapons out of out enemy hands needs to be taken seriously.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.