Do you think the US should intervene in Syria?

A lot of posts about this topic lately. Seems a definitive poll is appropriate. Why do you think so. if you care to share?

dont care, im immune to caring about wars as are most americans at this point... its as normal as that morning cup of joe for me.

Ideally there should be some neutral party to intervene.

The US has the capability, but unfortunately is not that neutral party.  The US have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted.  Everyone is suspicious of their motives. 

America is already in a shit hole; fix the damn economy and stop with the useless wars. ScottMescudi

Ideally there should be some neutral party to intervene.

 

The US has the capability, but unfortunately is not that neutral party.  The US have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted.  Everyone is suspicious of their motives. 

Audacitron

No way.  Frankly I don't like either side and I find the US's support of rebels that include terrorists and Islamic radicals to be appalling and very short sighted.  That's going to come back and bite later - further destabilizing the region, creating a new breeding ground for radicals, more sectarian violence and worse conditions for minority groups such as Christians. 

Also enough with the interventionism - the greatest threat to American power is the country's own internal problems.  Focus on the economy and other areas that need the money.  Many great empires throughout history have fallen not to external foes but because they over extended themselves and ran out of money. 

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

Ideally there should be some neutral party to intervene.

 

The US has the capability, but unfortunately is not that neutral party.  The US have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted.  Everyone is suspicious of their motives. 

LJS9502_basic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_%28international_relations%29

The point is it should be the decision of an international body, not a single country.  When it's  America spearheading the whole operation, everyone becomes a whole lot more dubious about the situation.  Especially with all this 'think of the children' talk.   

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Audacitron"]

Ideally there should be some neutral party to intervene.

 

The US has the capability, but unfortunately is not that neutral party.  The US have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted.  Everyone is suspicious of their motives. 

Audacitron

The point is it should be the decision of an international body, not a single country.  When it's  America spearheading the whole operation, everyone becomes a whole lot more dubious about the situation.  Especially with all this 'think of the children' talk.   

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Audacitron"]

Ideally there should be some neutral party to intervene.

 

The US has the capability, but unfortunately is not that neutral party.  The US have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted.  Everyone is suspicious of their motives. 

Audacitron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_%28international_relations%29

The point is it should be the decision of an international body, not a single country.  When it's  America spearheading the whole operation, everyone becomes a whole lot more dubious about the situation.  Especially with all this 'think of the children' talk.   

No we should not. Their problems are not our problems. I just want politicians to stop being morons and doing things that make life harder for American citizens. I want them to stop acting like their constituents are little money-generators that exist only to enable their social/military crusades.Laihendi

It's about time for someone else to step up and do the heavy lifting, and to take the PR hits.

Besides: After the Muslim Brotherhood takeovers in Libya and Egypt, I'd rather see Assad win.

Yes.

It's about time for someone else to step up and do the heavy lifting, and to take the PR hits.

Besides: After the Muslim Brotherhood takeovers in Libya and Egypt, I'd rather see Assad win.

OrkHammer007

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

It's about time for someone else to step up and do the heavy lifting, and to take the PR hits.

Besides: After the Muslim Brotherhood takeovers in Libya and Egypt, I'd rather see Assad win.

EagleEyedOne

eh, it's not like we have anything else to shoot missles at.  We got to stay in shape

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

It's about time for someone else to step up and do the heavy lifting, and to take the PR hits.

Besides: After the Muslim Brotherhood takeovers in Libya and Egypt, I'd rather see Assad win.

OrkHammer007

I dont give a F. about these people killing each other, but when they start harboring terrorists attacking the US, then we will have to intervene. Until then, who cares.

Helping Saudi Arabian Own Terroists the Rebels backed by Turkey whom are killing the Kurds? i would say no.

The U.S. should intervene in Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, and all the other high death toll ghettos within this very country before they go around preaching about humanitarian ideologies...

If the Americans can't take care of their own back yard,then why are they trying to solve everybody's problems.No country in the world should not try to make things right in other countrys when your own place is full of sh*t.It's the fvcking U.S. gov'nt is the problem,not the citizens of America.I don't like Obama.

No.

I think the United States should help the Syrian people and rebels fight against their regime with the use of intelligence gathering and special operations, as well as supplying them with weapons and other necessities. Yes the rebels aren't perfect but an Assad regime is not something the free world wants and the United States can help form a new democratic government in its place.

However, I don't support sanctions. Time and again sanctions have proven to be a failure and end up hurting the people inside the country. Intervention and occupation of Syria is not something we want but it can be possible and successful if we learn from our previous successes and failures from our past occupations. Although no one wants another Iraq or Vietnam, those wars were long and arduous due to incompetance from military brass and government officials who failed to adapt and micromanaged everything, while the media constantly painted a picture of hopelessness.

Personally, I don't want to see another war unless it's necessary. We should help the Syrian people but full on military intervention or even limited strikes might not even help. We really need to be smart on what we do.

No, it should be obvious.

[QUOTE="Jagged3dge"]

The U.S. should intervene in Chicago, Detroit,Oakland, and all the other high death toll ghettos within this very country before they go around preaching about humanitarian ideologies...

Ackad

Quoted for Truth.

Chicago (Along with the others) are in a complete shithole not only because of the violence, but because of corrupted politicians. Cook County (also known as Crook County) has the highest tax rates in all of the United States.

The people in those parts of the country have the oppurtunity to elect someone who can enact change and they're not being persecuted, killed, or having their rights violated in any way as a majority.

The Syrian people can't.

No, too many lies and fabrications going around to get us involved at this time, and it's too late....you had 2 years to intervene when things were more clear.  Now it's a clusterfvck.

peace and diplomacy.........

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="Ackad"]

 

Quoted for Truth.

Chicago (Along with the others) are in a complete shithole not only because of the violence, but because of corrupted politicians. Cook County (also known as Crook County) has the highest tax rates in all of the United States.

Ackad

The people in those parts of the country have the oppurtunity to elect someone who can enact change and they're not being persecuted, killed, or having their rights violated in any way as a majority.

The Syrian people can't.

Idgaf about Syria, and we are already in enough debt.

[QUOTE="Ackad"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

The people in those parts of the country have the oppurtunity to elect someone who can enact change and they're not being persecuted, killed, or having their rights violated in any way as a majority.

The Syrian people can't.

Master_Live

[QUOTE="Master_Live"][QUOTE="Ackad"] Syria was peaceful before the 2011 debacle. SwagSurf