Syria - What should the West do?

[RichLB]

Let's assume chemical weapons have actually been used by Assad (spelling). I'm sure Obama will be condemned whatever decision he makes about the crossing of the red line. But, I confess I have no idea what I would do if I were in his place. What actions, including none, should be done in response to this escalation and what consequences do you see as a result of your suggestion?

[Gaybutton]

I'm opposed to intervening. I don't know the exact number of countries in the world, but how come it always has to be the USA doing the intervening? The last thing I want to see is yet another Afghanistan or Iraq. The USA has poured billions in aid to many of the Middle Eastern countries over the years and they still hate us. As far as I'm concerned, if they want to kill each other, fine with me. Let some other country intervene for a change.

I also agree with what Bill Maher said on the most recent "Real Time." He said what is the point of this 'red line' about chemical weapons? They're still killing each other whether they use chemical weapons or conventional weapons. Either way, they're just as dead. If the USA was going to unilaterally intervene or try to form yet another coalition, what have they been waiting for? Why wait for chemical weapons to be used before that becomes the time to start intervening?

I believe the consequences would be a lot of dead civilians, a lot of dead American soldiers, and an enormous amount of money spent by the USA when the economy is already tottering on the brink of collapse as it is. I think what John F. Kennedy said about Vietnam applies to Syria too: "It's their war. They're the ones who have to win it or lose it."

[Alex]

I agree with GB, the West should do nothing.

We've got enough problems without yet another intervention already. "Regime Change" shouldn't really be on any foreign government's agenda, leave it to the locals.

[christianpfc]

Nothing.

Sorry about people dying in that war, but we can't help them.

Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt. These had stable dictatorships, that in some cases even tolerated religious minorities (Jews and Christs). Now there is chaos with Muslim fanatics reigning.

There is a choice between a stable dictatorship that incarcerates and tortures and kills people who are against the ruling dictator and Muslim fanatics with a reign of chaos who incarcerate, torture and kill people who are of a different religion or ethnic background. I prefer the stable dictatorship.

[bao-bao]

All anyone has to base an opinion on is what we're told by the media, and that's been proven to be slanted/misleading/incomplete/prejudiced tens of millions of times. I'm not condoning anyone's bullying/murderous actions, but we (meaning the USA) have shown a corporate bias often enough that I'm personally suspicious every time we set out to play - as Phil Ochs sang - "the cops of the world".

Tom Lehrer's tongue-in-cheek tune from the early 1960's may fit this time, too:

[Gaybutton]

"I have a scheme for stopping war. It's this - no nation is allowed to enter a war till they have paid for the last one."
- Will Rogers


And George Carlin is still timely:

[Jun]

Nowadays, only the USA spends enough on defence to have any effect. Actually, they spend way too much and Europe spends way to little, but it seems the lessons of history are easily forgotten in Europe.

Anyway, considering Syria has scope to become another Iraq, "the West" should avoid getting sucked into conflict and should act in it's own interests. So do as much as we can to prevent Syria becoming a terrorist base. No less no more. Besides, if we encourage civil wars all over the middle east, eventually there might be one in Saudi Arabia. Now why would we want to do that?

Much more important is stopping North Korea before they have the ability to actually deliver those Nuclear weapons.