Syria - do you support US military intervention

[Coito ergo sum]

So, what's your view on whether we need to take military action against Syria?

[Audley Strange]

It doesn't need to and no I don't support U.S. military intervention. Let the west sit this one out, let Islam sort out it's own messes for a change. Any intervention should be agreed international intervention dedicated to only protecting the civilians of Syria from the excesses of the civil war.

[klr]

"We"? Can only US citizens vote on this?

Anyway, there other dimensions to this, not just whether it's UN-legal and/or Congress sanctioned or not. They would cover things like:

- Goals (what exactly do "we" want to achieve? What demands would be made of the Syrian regime?)
- Means (what sort of forces are weapons are we going to use?)
- Extent (how widespread will the campaign be? and for how long?)
- Contingencies (under what circumstances would the action be escalated, scaled down, or stopped altogether?)

It doesn't need to and no I don't support U.S. military intervention. Let the west sit this one out, let Islam sort out it's own messes for a change. Any intervention should be agreed international intervention dedicated to only protecting the civilians of Syria from the excesses of the civil war.

I don't like bundling up any group of people into some collective entity like that. Many of the people most badly affected in Syria are just victims of circumstance. There but for the grace of God go you or I. It's a matter of life and death, not some trivial matter that a society could sort out for itself.

[laklak]

Nope, not even with UN approval. Not our business.

[HomerJay]

[Seabass]

Fuck no.

Also, the U.S. should quit the U.N., NATO, Geneva conventions, and all other entangling alliances/treaties. This world police business got out of hand a long time ago. I say let the rest of the world stew in its own goddamn juices.

[JimC]

Generally no, certainly as things stand at the moment, but there could be circumstances, with a blatant use by Assad of chemical weapons, and approval by both your congress and the UN, where action would be warranted...

[Audley Strange]

It doesn't need to and no I don't support U.S. military intervention. Let the west sit this one out, let Islam sort out it's own messes for a change. Any intervention should be agreed international intervention dedicated to only protecting the civilians of Syria from the excesses of the civil war.

I don't like bundling up any group of people into some collective entity like that. Many of the people most badly affected in Syria are just victims of circumstance. There but for the grace of God go you or I. It's a matter of life and death, not some trivial matter that a society could sort out for itself.

I meant only that any action taken by the west will be seen as aggression across Islam. Given that this is a civil war which is itself part of a larger sectarian schism , let them sort it out. Yes it is a matter of life and death a horrible, tragic one but this isn't merely a tsunami or some act of nature. This was orchestrated and wilful and lots of innocent people will die but any action we take will merely be us washing our hands in their blood unless part of a larger international concern.

[piscator]

Why should we get in the way of them killing each other?

[Clinton Huxley]

Bomb the rubble, potentially release nerve agents in the attempt to destroy them, in an "unbelievably small" attack and at the same time materially aid forces allied to Al Qaeda AND increase anti-western sentiment and produce more terrorists?

On balance.......best not to stick your unmentionables into a wasps nest.

[pErvinalia]

yes if un and congressional.

otherwise butt the fuck out.

edit: or better yet, tell the Arab League, or whatever the fuck they are called, to sort their own shit out.

[Clinton Huxley]

There was an article in the Grauniad today in which their security correspondent, Timothy Garton-Ash, put it this way - if you don't like a world in which the US intervenes militarily, try living in one in which it does not, and see if you like it any more....

[mistermack]

There was an article in the Grauniad today in which their security correspondent, Timothy Garton-Ash, put it this way - if you don't like a world in which the US intervenes militarily, try living in one in which it does not, and see if you like it any more....

That's a completely false argument though, just about up to the normal standard of the Guardian.

If you like the good bits, don't criticise the bad bits? Timothy Garton-Ash is a twat.

Like , '' don't moan about catholic priests buggering children, look at the all the charities they run ''
or, '' maybe Jimmy Saville did rape a few under-age girls, but he raised a lot of money for that hospital ''
or, '' so what if the police beat the shit out of you, just try living without a police force ''.

[Tyrannical]

Why is there no bomb the rebels choice?

[mistermack]

Why is there no bomb the rebels choice?

No need really. Asad is doing it for us every day. But it's still a valid point. It's not proved, but it looks like they did the first chemical weapon attack. It's just a fog of mis-information.

Having said that, I think there is a difference between a disjointed bunch of rebels, and an organised government.
You can hold a central government to account, as having responsibility for what happens.
But with a scattered bunch of rebels, you can hardly punish one lot, for what another lot did. If it were possible to bomb the actual people who did it, I would say go ahead and bomb them, no matter who's side they were on.

In the case of the government, that's the man at the top.