The self-appointed world's policeman (US) would never allow it.

I don't think the use of chemicals or gas should be the deciding factor. The deciding factor is that the people are fighting for their freedom.

The bottomline is, the people of Syria are trying to overthrow their ruthless dictator. They want their freedom. As the world's most powerful democracy, the United States has a moral and ethical obligation to help them. And in the long run, having more democracies makes the world, including the United States, safer.

Yeah, Al Qaeda is fighting the Syrian regime in order to turn the country into a conservative Islamist state.
Now that's freedom.
Ask Afghan women about it.

Furthermore, assuming the WMDs are in the regime's hands and the regime falls, Al Qaeda will then have acquired the means to attack the US in a way they never could have otherwise.

No, the bottomline is, SOME people in Syria are fighting the govt. Most are trying to get the Hell out of there. They are being killed by the rebels, by the govt,and soon, by us. The people fighting the govt include Al Qaeda and others who don't care about the innocent civilans. There is no true freedom being offered by either side. Victory by the rebels does not mean democracy. Do you consider Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan to be real democracies? Regardless, it is not our moral or ethical obligation to get involved in their civil war. It is up to the citizens, all of the citizens, to fight for what they want. Supporting Al Qaeda will not make things better for them or for us.

What happened last time the US supported Al Qaeda?
9/11 is what happened.
So consider another 9/11 invilving chemical/bio weapons.

I've stayed out of this thread because I still have mixed emotions ~ I recognize the "humanitarian" issues ~ I also recognize the "humanitarian" issues in places like Darfur and Rwanda ~ and I also recognize the "humanitarian" issues right here at home ~ the problem for me with Syria is there is just too much we don't/can't know with certainty ~ there is no question Sarin was used ~ but there is no proof WHO used it ~

I'm conflicted because of my deep belief that the US is in a precarious situation here at home ~ we have our own, serious problems ~ and I believe deeply that our own problems must be our FIRST responsibility ~

Sooz

I'm not being facetious, SciFi ~ but when exactly will the "United States ... moral and ethical obligation to help" focus on ... our own problems?

Sooz

Sooz, I agree with a lot of that. I too have mixed emotions on this issue, but must admit the more I learn the more I am willing to support limited action.

These situations are difficult, often the most difficult decision required of a president.

This started with citizens protesting and the government responding aggressively. That led to more protests and stronger action by the government, including the use of military force. The use of chemical weapons fits the pattern of the Syrian government. Millions of Syrians have fled the country.

I question anyone who is 100% certain about their stand regarding what we should and should not do. Any action or inaction could prove to be wrong.

It started with SOME citizens protesting. Do we know how many? Do we know if they represent the majority of Syrians? Do we even know if the ones fighting are all citizens? Al Qaeda is part of the group fighting the Syrian govt. Use of chemical weapons also fits the pattern of groups like that. Appears to me the majority of Syrians are not fighting for either side. Our bombing will not help them.

We can bomb away and the Syrian govt or whomever could still use the chemicals. We can not bomb and the Syrian govt or whomever could still use the chemicals. The Syrian govt has the support of countries like Russia. Do you really think they will back down because we used our big stick? Or will they do even worse both inside and outside of their country?

Why should the US do this and not the UN? How does one country have the right to bomb another because they didn't mind us? Why Syria when so many more are dying all over the world? Can't be moral obligation because we don't take action at those other places.

I am 100% certain we should not do this. I hate that chemicals were used on some people. I will hate even more us killing them with bombs.

Why should the US do this and not the UN?

Because the five with the veto power have totally undermined the UN with their arrogance and silly posturing.
Millions have died and continue to die because of it.

I guess its good that you can be so sure, Jeanne. I sure as hell can't.

While I'm not suggesting that your view is wrong, consider these questions;

What happens if we don't act and the next time there is many more than 300+ killed by chemical weapons?

How are the bordering countries supposed to deal with the millions that have fled Syria?

I hate that chemicals have been used to kill people too. And I hate the possibility that a strike by us could kill people too. I also hate the idea that Assad will do more of it and that he will remain in power, much like Saddam did the late 1980's (with our help).

We aren't going to remove Assad. He will use his weapons whether we bomb or not. He is more apt to use them and do even more if we bomb. Our actions will not be meant to remove him or the chemicals so the only thing that will change is how many people we have killed with all of our bullshit. We do not know that Assad used the chemicals. It could have been the rebels, Al Quaeda or others. If more die from them it is not because we didn't act. It is because sadists used them. The sadists will remain whether we bomb or not. Perhaps you think the chemicals would be better in the hands of the rebels (Al Quaeda)? The people will be just as dead. We are aligning ourselves with Al Quaeda. Do you really consider them to be preferable to Assad? Do you really think the innocent Syrian people would have it better under them? Sometimes both sides are wrong and we have no right to take sides. Only the Syrian people can choose.

As far as the neighbors go, if it's a problem they are the ones who should be doing something about Assad because he is an immediate threat to their stability. They have reason to act, we do not. We can give humanitarian aide to the countries taking them in.

You should replace Obama, or at least Lerry.

I also am conflicted. No way I can say I know enough about it, but I know it's a wildly complicated situation. There must be 6 or 7 distinct religious and poltical groups fighting the government, and some of them are not our friends. Some we wouldn't mind helping, some we'd better hope never come to power. And never get their hands on nerve agents.

People are going to die whatever we do or don't do. I have no idea.

lesson from War Games:

if the only outcome is that everyone loses, the smartest move is NOT TO PLAY.

With so many arguing that we should not get involved or take any action, I find myself considering the following;

Is there a point at which you would see things differently?

If Assad was carrying out a Nazi-like genocide program, would that be different?
If Assad uses chemical weapons again and the death count is in millions, would that be different?

To ask this another way, should the U.S. not get involved no matter what happens in Syria?

With so many arguing that we should not get involved or take any action, I find myself considering the following;

Is there a point at which you would see things differently?

If the rebels were carrying out a Nazi-like genocide program, would that be different?
If the rebels use chemical weapons again and the death count is in millions, would that be different?

To ask this another way, should the U.S. not get involved no matter what happens in Syria?

Is the US under threat?
If not, butt out until the UN has completed its investigation.
Unfortunately, the US and the other four nations that have the veto have made that chore nearly impossible with their constant political posturing and undermining of UN efforts.

If the rebels were doing these things I would support the Syrian govt getting rid of them. I would support any govt protecting its people from genocide within that country. That's the govt's duty and responsiibilty not ours.

I say no, the world should be involved. The countries there should be involved because the threat to them would be very real.

I have had to sit by while millions of children die from starvation and preventable illnesses with aide not getting through due to corrupt govts in Africa. Children are forced into becoming soldiers to kill other children. Genocide. We apparently feel no need to do anything about those deaths. So, no, I do not support killing innocents by bombing in Syria because of these. If we are talking numbers, the need is greater elsewhere. The bombing is not about doing what's morally right. We don't care what's morally right.

I did support Clinton's actions when there was genocide against the Muslims during the Serbian/Croation conflict. That was Nazi-like genocide and was international.

The civilians should just leave and let the rebels (mostly sectarian or otherwise organized) shoot it out. Stalin waited at the edges of Warsaw because he knew the Polish underground would fight it out with the Nazis. Sometimes it's better to let your enemies duke it out between themselves. It weakens both sides.