Hellobee Boards

I agree about being conflicted. I think if we had other countries agreeing that something should be done, then yes...in fact I think all the countries SHOULD go after them. But, I don't think we should go it alone.

But, I think of the poor people in that country that are praying for help...they need something.

I agree I think we need to do something, but I think MILITARY intervention is only putting our citizens in danger and creating (more) enemies. I vote humanitarian aid... I would never vote to do NOTHING.

My sister is somewhat close by in Armenia for two years and has refugees coming into their country. She has seen first hand what we're all learning about and also feels the same way I do. I also hate the idea of anything starting up over there while she's there, selfishly.

I really worry that if we were to intervene that we may unintentionally start WWIII. Russia and China have already threatened us if we do anything and our allies don't seem interested in helping. I think we need to slow down and wait for the UN to agree with Obama (as much as I hate the UN).

I don't think military action is our best course. While there is evidence of chemical weapons use, there was evidence of weapons of mass desctruction in Iraq, and we ended up in war for 10 years. I don't want to see that with our military anymore. Sometimes the best course of action is to just lend a helping hand without coming in guns hot.

@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: I totally know the proof never existed and people lied, I think my point is we should be less likely to lead with guns first and should not want to put our country through another war.

Humanitarian aid only. At least for now.

I think the UN should intervene rather than the US for now. I think its hard to be the leader of the US because when the US does intervene people complain that its a waste of tax payers money and loss of US lives, but then when we dont intervene people still complain.

Also not sure. We're "the watchdog" for a reason--we always get involved! And it's not always ideal. Humanitarian aid would be good.

I'm also selfishly conflicted on military strikes because, well, it's job security for me.

@hilsy85: If you recall, US went against UN security council and invaded Iraq the second time around. With Syria, it will never pass UN because Russia and China will block it.

Humanitarian aid only for now. The Syrian government poses no threat to the US or US government, so there is no argument for a military strike.

For now, i agree with this article that came out recently: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/a-brief-argument-against-war-in-syria/279078/

I think this is a UN problem, not a US one. The UN should be determining how to deal with it.

I think military intervention would be a very, very bad idea. I'm all for humanitarian aid though.

This is a really complicated question and I don't think there are any great answers. I certainly don't pretend to be an expert on the Middle East... and no matter how diligently I follow the news and politics from there I'm not sure I have any great answers.

Chemical weapons was the "red line" that the administration drew, so I know they must feel compelled to act.

Over 100,000 people have already died in this conflict.

President Clinton says that his one great regret of his presidency was not intervening in Rwanda sooner.

I guess all of these facts lead me to think that there should be some kind of intervention to try and quell the humanitarian crisis there. What that should look like? I have no idea.

I think we need to intervene, I say "we" because I'm kind of surprised the UK have voted against it... I thought it was a certainty a few days ago. I'm not sure military action is the *best* action, but I don't think we can sit back any longer either.

@Mrs. Jacks: I don't think anyone has an answer as to what the right decision is. This "conversation" reflects the back and forth as to what is the way to go: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/the-debate-over-intervention-in-syria.html

All we know for sure is that it's a horrible and sad situation over there.

@blackbird: my dad has this same conflict (job security coming from military strikes). His industry has been (sadly) booming throughout the past decade or so.

@Mrs. Jacks: Thanks for that. I'm a little more educated this afternoon, thanks to you!

@Freckles: honestly, sometimes! I mean, this is why I have a job! And I LIKE my job. It's interesting. I love that the products provide support for our troops on the ground. I'm proud of what we do here. But at the same time, I'm like, "ugh, more war" (especially as a military wife...i know what it's like!).

@shutterbug, yup, exactly.

Please, do NOT intervene (unless it is with good intentions and *not* self serving intentions)
The US, like any other country, is self serving. They will intervene and then: they will stick around and implement whatever policies they see fit.
Te people of Syria are trying to fight against a oppressing government, and would like to establish and Islam-friendly government based in th needs of the Syrian people.
How would the US know the needs of Syrian people? (Refer to Iraq, please)

I voted, Humanitarian Aid. Syrian people are going through pure hell and torture. You guys have no idea unless you have been there or have family there (we have, we do). They are human beings and they need humanitarian help.

For the record, the countries that should intervene are the Arab countries! Get off your behinds, Arab countries!

Eta: reason Arab countries haven't intervened is because many of them are in bed with The US &/ Russia

@TurtleDoves: Why should the Arab countries intervene and not the US? Wasn't sure I followed that part...