Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?

The press has been "pressing" this issue with articles like:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/23/world/syria-intervention/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


My question to you is:


Should the United States get involved in this conflict?


Here are a few suggested ideas & arguments:


1) The U.S. has become over-involved in international issues and has failed to focus on domestic ones.

2) It is our moral responsibility to act in defense of these people and to all peoples who seek liberty from tyranny.

3) We should leave it up to the Arab League to deal with their own issues for a change especially with their anti-American views.

4) Despite international disapproval, American isolationism is not the answer. We cannot sit back and watch injustice go unpunished.

5) If we were to provide military support to Syrian rebels, how would this effect international relations/balance of power (mostly in regard to Iran, China & Russia)?

Begin!

 

I believe intervention is necessary, and it needs to be done asap. There's going to be a price for this intervention. Russia and China are gonna get majorly pissed off. They've been the ones using veto's in the UN to stop military intervention. The atrocities committed by the Syrian government are without a shadow of a doubt horrendous and are crimes against humanity. Politics aside, these are real people being killed by their government for no reason at all.

Watch : http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/21/world/meast/syria-wounded/index.html

The tyranny needs to be stopped.

 

I don't believe interference by the US alone is necessary. We would be ruining relations with two huge forces in the diplomatic world. If NATO or the UN were to go in then I would support that, but a solely US peace keeping action would be negligible for a crisis that could be handled by another diplomatic force. Also the world can't always be looking to the US when things start going south. Where is the Arab League in all of this?

 

Everyone remembers Iraq and Afghanistan, right? We only were able to help Libya because European countries pushed the resolutions, there was already a fairly organized rebel army and government (which Syria only has to an extent) and we were able to do it without putting any soldiers on the ground. If the US just invades, we will just give the rest of the world more reason to hate us.

 

And be there for the next 5-10 years, nah.

 

No

Cant even sort jobs out for their own people, let alone run another country.

 

No. The sunni-muslims should overthrow the Iranian puppets themselves. If US comes into this, they'll make it worse for the people.

 

No, Fix your own country first before nosing into other people's business.

 

This isn't an intelligent argument. You should study up before you start posting.

 

No, I do believe it is our responsibility to defend other people. If the U.N. decides to intervene then the U.S. should be involved but we shouldn't solely go in

 

Russia and China do not want intervention for various political reasons. That means the UN will essentially never be allowed to do anything to stop the bloodshed.

 

I should have been more explicit. I don't care who intervenes, but it needs to be done as quickly as possible. The UN can't do anything because of the veto power of Russia and China. It's going to be up to Arab League.

As for the US solely trying to stop this, I believe we shouldn't. But I feel we have to been a part of the solution. No one is looking directly at the US and asking it for help. The Arab league has sent observers, they are discussing plans, and it's going to be up to them to stop the Syrian government. They've imposed economic sanctions, etc. Don't dare ask where the Arab League has been in all this.

 

I think this has to be a combined effort between countries.

 

True but their is still the Arab league,the U.S.A. shouldn't be the one to only country to help them. U.S. should only intervene to assist in efforts made by
other agencies. The Arab league need to step up and assist one of their own. If they require assistance, we should be there, ready. Also if we act by ourselves if we fail everybody will hate us. If we succeed nobody will take notice.

 

The Arab League doesn't seem to want to intervene without having the UN behind it. With that said, they seem to be willing to arm Syrian rebels and the such but that won't help much in the short term. Turkey has also basically said that it will invade and form a buffer zone within Syria if needed, but that is more for a humanitarian mission so that refugees have a safe place to stay that is not inside Turkey rather than a peace keeping mission.

 

I think all of the Arab League should do what Turkey is proposing. They need to go in as one so Syria won't blame anything that happens on solely Turkey.

 

The Arab League is a joke. They can't even fart without asking permission from Washington first. They are all talk, and I don't see any interests from UN/US to attack Syria, because of obvious reasons.

 

The American journalist was immediately stuck for an answer when Assad pointed out that the U.S. has failed in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror. Assad does not intend to be Obama's "Puppet".

Assad also makes the question of the reporter she believes the Arab League is concerned with human rights. Saudi Arabia and others in the league is known for some other things. Even NATO country Turkey is well known for othesr things
__
United States and the West shall not get involved in anything with their long imperialist fingers sprinkled in blood and human suffering. They involve themselves in any case no other than what serves Western strategic and economic interests.

First, Syria, then Iran. If the empire will secure world control then regime change in Syria and Iran, Libya, of crucial importance. This will be a large step towards control of the whole Eurasia. But the Russians and the Chinese have finally opened their eyes to what is about to happen, they will not allow these malicious ambitions for world domination come true. The Russians and the Iranians have sent warships to the Mediterranean. The situation is very tense and dangerous. We can only hope for a peaceful outcome, but I'm not very optimistic about a peaceful end, unfortunately

 

The thing about Iran is that their president is as crazy as Kim Jong-Il was. If they got their hands on a cache of nuclear weapons they would try their hardest to wipe Israel off the map, I mean Ahmadinejad has stated it on several occasions. I agree that the US needs to stop shoving democracy down everyone's throats but I also believe that Iran is dangerous.

Back to the main topic of the thread. L2 mentions Economic Sanctions but economic sanctions aren't going to help the cause at all. They need to get up and do something.

 

North Korea isn't even stupid enough to use nukes. Everyone knows that it is a death sentance to use them and Iran's President is just spewing shit just like the Republicans when they say "I'll get gas down to $2.00 a gallon (which they have basically no power to change it even a couple cents without removing taxes or subsiding it) or saying they will attack Iran if elected President. Iran's doing the same thing.