should the u.s. strike syria?

[Brew]

?

[Intensity guru]

No. For the love of god man stop with the wars.

[brycemus]

all out military or just drop some bombs from 10,000 ft up?  I don't really want boots on the ground

[a guest]

Agree with Bryce.  More information is needed.

My gut is saying "no"

No soldiers on the ground.

If we use airstrikes, how can we be sure to limit the casualties?  I am sure there will be innocent people who live nearby any chemical plant or storing facility.  If a storage facility for chemical weapons is bombed, how do we contain the smoke so others don't get injured?

Jordan and Turkey have taken on many refugees during the past two year civil war.  Can we support them more in their hospitality?

[ViseGrip]

Will anyone say yes?

[AKIN]

Nope

[Cougar1]

Even if you were an advocate of a "just" war there would be no sense to this. On one side you have a cruel dictator and on the other Al Qaeda. It's a lose/lose proposition.

[ViseGrip]

Id honestly like to hear the pro side of the debate from the yes voter, not really to debate but just to hear their viewpoint.

[a guest]

Id honestly like to hear the pro side of the debate from the yes voter, not really to debate but just to hear their viewpoint.

How about-

It is against international law (and a war crime) to use chemical weapons.  The commander in chief has repeatedly stated that using chemical weapons would lead to consequences. 

If the US does not act against the regime in Syria, what will deter another despot from doing the same  (to their own people or against people in another country)?

[Intensity guru]

Id honestly like to hear the pro side of the debate from the yes voter, not really to debate but just to hear their viewpoint.

How about-

It is against international law (and a war crime) to use chemical weapons.  The commander in chief has repeatedly stated that using chemical weapons would lead to consequences. 

If the US does not act against the regime in Syria, what will deter another despot from doing the same  (to their own people or against people in another country)?

The government has no right to take our money and use it in an attempt to deter evil on a global scale in perpetuity. It's a ridiculous notion.

[ViseGrip]

Id honestly like to hear the pro side of the debate from the yes voter, not really to debate but just to hear their viewpoint.

How about-

It is against international law (and a war crime) to use chemical weapons.  The commander in chief has repeatedly stated that using chemical weapons would lead to consequences. 

If the US does not act against the regime in Syria, what will deter another despot from doing the same  (to their own people or against people in another country)?

The government has no right to take our money and use it in an attempt to deter evil on a global scale in perpetuity. It's a ridiculous notion.

Its not a ridiculous notion to say that there are some acts that the US is not going to let go unpunished. For instance a nuclear strike. Do we really want to set the precedent that someone can go nuke a neighbor or one of our allies without fear of retaliation from the US? That is a very dangerous policy.

Now do gas attacks in one nation between two bad actors rise to that level of national resolve and emergency for the US at this time? Given who they are and what our financial situation is I dont think so in this case.... but it is NOT a ridiculous notion.

[ctc]

Let's give bad guys #2 weapons to kill bad guys #1.  Later, bad guys #2 can be green and recycle those weapons against bad guys #3 - the USA.

[Brew]

I think we should stop being a sheriff to the world and take a step back as a special deputy.

[Intensity guru]

Id honestly like to hear the pro side of the debate from the yes voter, not really to debate but just to hear their viewpoint.

How about-

It is against international law (and a war crime) to use chemical weapons.  The commander in chief has repeatedly stated that using chemical weapons would lead to consequences. 

If the US does not act against the regime in Syria, what will deter another despot from doing the same  (to their own people or against people in another country)?

The government has no right to take our money and use it in an attempt to deter evil on a global scale in perpetuity. It's a ridiculous notion.

Its not a ridiculous notion to say that there are some acts that the US is not going to let go unpunished. For instance a nuclear strike. Do we really want to set the precedent that someone can go nuke a neighbor or one of our allies without fear of retaliation from the US? That is a very dangerous policy.

Now do gas attacks in one nation between two bad actors rise to that level of national resolve and emergency for the US at this time? Given who they are and what our financial situation is I dont think so in this case.... but it is NOT a ridiculous notion.

We've been attacking countries and destroying lives and cultures for decades. It's not a secret that we will attack anyone. Yet, evil persists doesn't it? Perhaps it's because everyone else recognizes how ridiculous that notion is.

[Cougar1]

Id honestly like to hear the pro side of the debate from the yes voter, not really to debate but just to hear their viewpoint.

How about-

It is against international law (and a war crime) to use chemical weapons.  The commander in chief has repeatedly stated that using chemical weapons would lead to consequences. 

If the US does not act against the regime in Syria, what will deter another despot from doing the same  (to their own people or against people in another country)?

And yet the UN says it would be wrong for the US to attack. Go figure.