So... Syria

So with the U.S. poised to attack Syria with France's help (not sure if the UK will come since the vote failed in parliament) the question came to mind what will this accomplish?

The U.S. needs to act since doing nothing would give a green light to further chemical attacks. It would also send a signal to Iran that the west is not serious about lines drawn in the sand whether they be regarding chemical weapons or Iranian nuclear capacity. It is this very reason that something needs to be done, in order to show that such acts are completely unacceptable. Now this raises the question, if the objective is not regime change (as stated by the administration) and it's not to destroy the chemical stockpiles, what is the objective?

Lobbing cruise missiles to disrupt command and control systems to give the Syrian rebels the upper hand would be a novel idea if they were actually decent people. There are so many factions in Syria it's hard to know exactly who would be helped by this. There are elements in the Syrian rebel army that are tied to Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations. Does it seem right that by attacking Syria countries that have deployed assets and pledged political support we're helping the very people that want to destroy our way of life?

I'm all for military action to oust a dictator or secure western security interests but I'm not seeing the relevance of this intervention. The only choice I would be happy with is a policy of non-interference assuming the Iranian nuclear problem didn't exist. Let them fight their own civil war, no one interfered in the U.S. civil war or revolutionary war to aid either side.

The only other option would be to find a cohesive group in the rebel army that favours western ideals and launch a full fledged invasion to depose the Syrian government and the terrorist rebels. No one wants that now and it would certainly pose problems with the neighbours.

So what would you do?

It is a lose lose proposition. doing anything half way will just makes things worse for us. If we do not help the rebels, then more chemical weapons will be used.

But if we help the rebels, we're still helping people who are committing mass murders.

Neither side is good in western eyes. This is a lose lose situation, either we lose big or lose bigger. we help one side, the world hates us. We help the other, our allies hate us. So, either NATO and the U.N figures out what to do or we do patch up operations and help refugees only.

I say the US should sit this one out. Any US involvement right now in overseas affairs will be painted in a bad light after what happened with Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't understand this.. Someone please explain.

So. 1,000s upon 10s of 1,000s of people die by being ripped apart by metal and explosives. Fine.
100s die with chemicals. Everyone freaks the **** out.

It seems strange to me that THIS is the defining moment that everyone is demanding action. People have been fighting for the past year about this. How is one different from the other. I really don't get it.

^ That's what I've been saying for the better part of the conflict.

Aid was offered to Libya because there was no possibility of upsetting a neighbour like Iran. But when it came to a point where it gets difficult the answer is no. Thinking back it's possible that more lives could have been saved and it seems as though the fighters were more secular when the war first broke out.

The "red line" has been crossed. The enemy is aided if the strike goes ahead and if the strike does not go ahead the president embarrasses himself even more and his word is forever tarnished on middle eastern foreign policy.

Only 1236 days to go.

Also remember that chemical weapons have a big chance of lingering around for generations to come. See what Agent Orange did in Vietnam.

...No

Don't worry I'm sure they will find something else to waste millions of dollars on.

If he wants to handle it let him. The rest of the world does not give a rats *** about Syria. If we did give a crap we would have ended the civil war months ago.

How does it look for us? We save money and can put our feet up.