This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Should the United States get directly involved in the Syrian Civil War?

#1Sativa_RosePosted 6/14/2013 8:39:25 AM
Should the United States get directly involved in the Syrian Civil War? - Results (111 votes)
Yes, we should intervene militarily
9.01% (10 votes)
10
Yes, we should be supplying the rebels with arms
3.6% (4 votes)
4
Yes, we should be supplying the rebels with non-weaponry aid
8.11% (9 votes)
9
No
79.28% (88 votes)
88
This poll is now closed.
Vote
---
Not changing my signature until Canadian citizen and marijuana legalization activist Marc Emery is released from U.S. federal prison.
#2DJStrongPosted 6/14/2013 8:44:15 AM
i gotta lean towards no, if there was a rock solid gov't in exile with popular support and all that we needed to do is take out Assad then maybe, but it still probably wouldn't play out well.

I think the prospect of another Iraq/Afghanistan wont sit well with anyone.
---
"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"
#3YouAreCrumbsPosted 6/14/2013 8:45:16 AM
When has interfering in the middle east not gone well? Literally every time? Oh.
---
joey444
We elect Obama and all the capitalists will be executed. This is a legitimate concern of mine. - OMGWTFPIE, 2011
#4itcheynessPosted 6/14/2013 8:54:06 AM
Can we intervene 00 Gundam style?

We go in and kill the **** out of both sides until they knock it the hell off and quit fighting.
---
Mankind has had ten-thousand years of experience at fighting and if we must fight, we have no excuse for not fighting well. -Thomas Edward Lawrence
#5headmasterevilPosted 6/14/2013 8:55:48 AM
No way. Not only would it foster increased tensions and hatred towards the U.S. in the region, but it would cost a lot of money and there's no knowing if the new regime would be any better than the old.
---
How may I help you?
#6Sir WillPosted 6/14/2013 8:56:42 AM
I don't know. I was no, I want to say no, everytime the west gets involved it just goes badly, and a lot of these rebels are not great people. But the chemical weapons do concern me. I don't know.
---
River Song: Well, I was off to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I thought 'Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish, I think i'll kill the Fuhrer'
#7CharliesixPosted 6/14/2013 9:02:18 AM(edited)
For me the Syrian civil war just has too much opportunistic maneuvering involved. When central Africa recently had a series of wars that claimed 3-6 million lives, the West just sat around and mostly did nothing. So all the humanitarian / pro-democracy posturing just feels hollow and fake when it comes to Syria. This really comes off as anti-Iran, pro-Israel, and pro-oil.

That being said, I do greatly sympathize with the anti-Assad people and hope they win. But I think that some European group should support them, so that any backlash hits them, and not the US. The US already has enough people trying to retaliate against the US.

The usage of the chemical weapons bothers me but at the same time, when Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran, the US didn't care, and actually helped him do that. And most Democrats and Republicans were fine with that then. So there is a big sense of hypocrisy and opportunism here.
#8AnclationPosted 6/14/2013 9:15:49 AM
Hell no.
---
We Endorse The Creation of Majora's Mask 3D:
http://www.facebook.com/OperationMoonfall
#9LuigisBroPosted 6/14/2013 9:27:09 AM
no aid, no weapons, nothing
---
2013 megatons - 3DS redesign with no 3D, WiiU flops, DS player for WiiU, no new PS or Xbox, MH4 flops
#10King PazuzuPosted 6/14/2013 10:51:07 AM
I like how the most popular answers here are the most extreme (not doing anything or being involved militarily). Giving non-lethal aid seems to be the most sensible option.
---
In a 6 person hot tub, there should be a maximum of 3 guys.