Donate

Should the U.S. Military Intervene in Syria?

| August 30, 2013 | 147 Comments
  • Share:
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email
Carl Court/Getty Images

Carl Court/Getty Images


To respond to the Do Now, you can comment below or tweet your response. Be sure to begin your tweet with @KQEDEdspace and end it with #DoNowSyria

For more info on how to use Twitter, click here.


Do Now

Should the United States intervene in Syria if their government uses banned chemical weapons on their civilians? Does the US have a duty to take a stand on the use of chemical weapons in foreign countries?

Introduction

The conflict in Syria grew out of the 2011 Arab Spring protests, when Syrians peacefully demonstrated against Mr. Assad, who succeeded his father Hafez al-Assad, as president. This family had held the presidency for 40 years. Protesters demanded democratic reforms and the Syrian government unleashed security forces on demonstrators, killing many protesters and igniting a movement made up of secular rebels who aligned with the Free Syrian Army, and rebel militias, the most powerful of which are radical Islamist groups.

After two years of struggle and 100,000 dead, the conflict has escalated to new level. There is strong evidence that the Syrian government under President Bashar al-Assad’s forces has used banned chemical weapons on civilians. Last week hundreds of civilians were killed in this chemical attack on the capital, Damascus, which is home to Sunni-communities and Sunni rebels – the largest religious group in Syria.

This breach of international law presents a major challenge to the Obama administration in that Assad’s forces have crossed what the Obama administration has called a “red line.” “We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Mr. Obama said….. “We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized.”

“That would change my calculus,” he added. “That would change my equation.”

President Obama is considering limited military intervention to contain the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. This would not involve deploying American troops in Syria. The plan would be to target the military units that have used chemical weapons, but would not target chemical weapons storage facilities. But can this kind of engagement work? Can military involvement be controlled in this way?

US intervention impacts the Obama administration’s foreign policy and the path that is being forged. The strategy has been to reduce American military involvement abroad, having withdrawn forces from Iraq two years ago and planned withdrawal from Afghanistan next year. Should the US be embroiled in yet another conflict? Is intervention justified in this case?

Resource

PBS NewsHour video Should U.S. Punish Syria? Debating Legality, Effectiveness and National Interest – Aug. 28, 2013
Would a possible U.S. military strike in Syria send a message that chemical weapon use is universally unacceptable or make a bad situation worse? Jeffrey Brown gets three views from Hisham Melham of Al Arabiya, Ivo Daalder of Chicago Council on Global Affairs and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago.


To respond to the Do Now, you can comment below or tweet your response. Be sure to begin your tweet with @KQEDedspace and end it with #DoNowSyria

For more info on how to use Twitter, click here.

We encourage students to reply to other people’s tweets to foster more of a conversation. Also, if students tweet their personal opinions, ask them to support their ideas with links to interesting/credible articles online (adding a nice research component) or retweet other people’s ideas that they agree/disagree/find amusing. We also value student-produced media linked to their tweets like memes or more extensive blog posts to represent their ideas. Of course, do as you can… and any contribution is most welcomed.


More Resources

KQED Forum episode Syria: A Red Line is Crossed – Aug. 29, 2013
President Obama has said repeatedly that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would cross a “red line” for the U.S. With banned chemical weapons purportedly unleashed on rebel-held suburbs of Damascus last week, a U.S. intervention in Syria seems unavoidable. We’ll ask our experts what the next steps are for the U.S and Syria. And we want to hear from you: Should the U.S. intervene militarily in Syria?

PBS NewsHour Extra video White House Debates Best Way to Punish, Prevent Syrian Chemical Arms Use – Aug. 27, 2013
If the U.S. doesn’t wait for the U.N. to finish inspecting the alleged chemical weapons attack site in Syria before taking action, it may still rely on those findings in building an international case. Margaret Warner joins Judy Woodruff to discuss how the White House continues to consult allies and consider military action.

KQED’s The Lowdown post Six Excellent Resources Explaining the Situation in Syria – Aug. 31, 2013
On Saturday, President Obama announced his willingness to launch military action in Syria in order to punish the government of Bashar al-Assad for its alleged use of chemical weapons in a recent attack that killed hundreds of civilians. Syria has been embroiled in a state of civil war since March of 2011, when government protests began as part of the Arab Spring. Here are six excellent resources to help make sense of the conflict, why it matters so much to both the region and the world, and what the role the United States will likely play in it.



Explore: , , , , , , ,

Category: Do Now: Government and Civics

  • Share:
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

About the Author ()

Maxine Einhorn is from London and has lived in the Bay Area for 12 years. She has worked in adult education in London,UK, for over twenty years as a tenured instructor and department manager. She has an MA in Film and TV from University of London and has taught, moderated and appraised academic work in film studies and media literacy at undergraduate and college level. She runs the ESL/ Post Secondary project at KQED which offers media-rich resources for and created by ESL educators.
  • Nick M

    The question is not so much should we intervene as much as to what extent should we intervene? Syria has crossed a line with chemical weaponry, yes, but to instantly wage a full-fledged war would be a mistake. Diplomacy has always been the priority, and should still remain the priority in resolving the conflict. If we were to engage in combat, I would hope there would be a clearly-defined and effective strategy. Using chemical weaponry on innocent civilians is wrong, but civilian casualties won’t decrease with poorly planned U.S. intervention. Too much time may have passed since the last occurrence in Syria to respond now, but all eyes will surely be on Syria to see how they respond the the threats of U.S. intervening.

  • Nick M

    The question is not so much should we intervene as much as to what extent should we intervene? Syria has crossed a line with chemical weaponry, yes, but to instantly wage a full-fledged war would be a mistake. Diplomacy has always been the priority, and should still remain the priority in resolving the conflict. If we were to engage in combat, I would hope there would be a clearly-defined and effective strategy. Using chemical weaponry on innocent civilians is wrong, but civilian casualties won’t decrease with poorly planned U.S. intervention. Too much time may have passed since the last occurrence in Syria to respond now, but all eyes will surely be on Syria to see how they respond the the threats of U.S. intervening.

  • Victor Herrera

    The US goverment shouldn’t not intervene if Syria uses banned chemical weapons on their citizens because the Also A Untied Nations issue so therefore we need to come together as world to make a decision on Syria . The US doesn’t not have a duty take a stand on use of chemical weapons in foreign countries because this is more of a world issue not just The US issue . The world needs to come together and make a design on Syria .Also BBC says that if the US inter evens in Syria it will help al-Qaeda and it’s affialiates . Also it no there best idea for our military , we just got done fighting one of longest wars in Afghanistan . We need more support from other nations before we internvene .

  • Victor Herrera

    The US goverment shouldn’t not intervene if Syria uses banned chemical weapons on their citizens because the Also A Untied Nations issue so therefore we need to come together as world to make a decision on Syria . The US doesn’t not have a duty take a stand on use of chemical weapons in foreign countries because this is more of a world issue not just The US issue . The world needs to come together and make a design on Syria .Also BBC says that if the US inter evens in Syria it will help al-Qaeda and it’s affialiates . Also it no there best idea for our military , we just got done fighting one of longest wars in Afghanistan . We need more support from other nations before we internvene .

  • Victor Herrera

    The US goverment shouldn’t not intervene if Syria uses banned chemical weapons on their citizens because the Also A Untied Nations issue so therefore we need to come together as world to make a decision on Syria . The US doesn’t not have a duty take a stand on use of chemical weapons in foreign countries because this is more of a world issue not just The US issue . The world needs to come together and make a design on Syria .Also BBC says that if the US inter evens in Syria it will help al-Qaeda and it’s affialiates . Also it no there best idea for our military , we just got done fighting one of longest wars in Afghanistan . We need more support from other nations before we internvene .

  • David Jenny

    Yes, we should intervene. If it the roles were reversed and chemical gas was being let loose on our communities we would also be dying for help. Over 100,000 civilians have died so far. The UN hasn’t sent any troops to Syria because they can’t agree. A government that tortures their citizens for vandalization needs to be put to a stop. when citizen protested that President Bashar al-Assad should resign The government responded angrily, and on 18 March, the army opened fire on protesters, killing four people.The following day, they shot at mourners at the victims’ funerals, killing another person.
    The only reason I say we shouldn’t send troops is because I don’t want Russia upset

  • David Jenny

    Yes, we should intervene. If it the roles were reversed and chemical gas was being let loose on our communities we would also be dying for help. Over 100,000 civilians have died so far. The UN hasn’t sent any troops to Syria because they can’t agree. A government that tortures their citizens for vandalization needs to be put to a stop. when citizen protested that President Bashar al-Assad should resign The government responded angrily, and on 18 March, the army opened fire on protesters, killing four people.The following day, they shot at mourners at the victims’ funerals, killing another person.
    The only reason I say we shouldn’t send troops is because I don’t want Russia upset

  • adugan

    Because of the false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the question of intervening in Syria is complicated. As a nation, we don’t want another Iraq. But we cannot allow a regime to use chemical weapons against civilians, blatantly violating the Geneva Accords. Our position is also complicated as our ally Great Britain has decided to not intervene. I agree with Nick (above) in that if the US is to intervene, we need a clear and effective strategy that will focus on military, not civilian, targets (something we lacked in Iraq).

  • adugan

    Because of the false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the question of intervening in Syria is complicated. As a nation, we don’t want another Iraq. But we cannot allow a regime to use chemical weapons against civilians, blatantly violating the Geneva Accords. Our position is also complicated as our ally Great Britain has decided to not intervene. I agree with Nick (above) in that if the US is to intervene, we need a clear and effective strategy that will focus on military, not civilian, targets (something we lacked in Iraq).

  • adugan

    Because of the false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the question of intervening in Syria is complicated. As a nation, we don’t want another Iraq. But we cannot allow a regime to use chemical weapons against civilians, blatantly violating the Geneva Accords. Our position is also complicated as our ally Great Britain has decided to not intervene. I agree with Nick (above) in that if the US is to intervene, we need a clear and effective strategy that will focus on military, not civilian, targets (something we lacked in Iraq).

  • Jackie

    I think this is a very difficult issue. On one hand, I believe that Syria has crossed the line by using chemical weapons on their citizens, but on the other, other countries in the UN do not approve of intervention. I believe it is our duty to play a role in international affairs, but only with agreement of other countries. If we do invade, should we be risking American lives when there have already been Syrian lives lost? I think there might be a solution that is not a risk to Americans and more Syrians. I think the international community should get together and discuss how it can develop regulations and rules to make sure that the citizens of the world are all safe and treated with moral respect.

  • Jackie

    I think this is a very difficult issue. On one hand, I believe that Syria has crossed the line by using chemical weapons on their citizens, but on the other, other countries in the UN do not approve of intervention. I believe it is our duty to play a role in international affairs, but only with agreement of other countries. If we do invade, should we be risking American lives when there have already been Syrian lives lost? I think there might be a solution that is not a risk to Americans and more Syrians. I think the international community should get together and discuss how it can develop regulations and rules to make sure that the citizens of the world are all safe and treated with moral respect.

  • Alex M

    I believe that the US should not remain silent about this matter, but launching a full scale attack doesn’t seem very beneficial either. Throwing ourselves into another conflict doesn’t seem like a good idea for all parties involved. The use of chemical weapons clearly violates the Geneva Conventions, and this needs to be taken care of, but I’m not sure an attack or conflict is the way to do it, as this also puts thousands more civilians in danger, when far too many have already died.
    We definitely need to intervene to some degree, but not more than we have to, and definitely not by launching an attack.

  • Alex M

    I believe that the US should not remain silent about this matter, but launching a full scale attack doesn’t seem very beneficial either. Throwing ourselves into another conflict doesn’t seem like a good idea for all parties involved. The use of chemical weapons clearly violates the Geneva Conventions, and this needs to be taken care of, but I’m not sure an attack or conflict is the way to do it, as this also puts thousands more civilians in danger, when far too many have already died.
    We definitely need to intervene to some degree, but not more than we have to, and definitely not by launching an attack.

  • juan n.

    In my opinion I believe we should not attack Syria because we don’t need another war and if we do, this war can probably take longer than Iraq or as long as iraq

  • juan n.

    In my opinion I believe we should not attack Syria because we don’t need another war and if we do, this war can probably take longer than Iraq or as long as iraq

  • Vanessa Joubert

    No, I don’t think that the United States should get involved with Syria government if they use chemical weapons to kill their people because , if the United States help them that’s like saying they agree with it and are going to keep enabling them killing people with chemical weapons. Yes, I feel the US have a duty to take stand of foreign countries using chemical weapons because, they shouldn’t be allowed at all, all there really used for are wars and too harm other people.

  • Vanessa Joubert

    No, I don’t think that the United States should get involved with Syria government if they use chemical weapons to kill their people because , if the United States help them that’s like saying they agree with it and are going to keep enabling them killing people with chemical weapons. Yes, I feel the US have a duty to take stand of foreign countries using chemical weapons because, they shouldn’t be allowed at all, all there really used for are wars and too harm other people.

  • Renae

    I don’t know all that much about what is happening in Syria, but from what I’ve heard it just sounds a bit like what happened in the Vietnam war. I don’t think that the U.S. should get involved because it may just start a whole new war that we shouldn’t be in.

  • Renae

    I don’t know all that much about what is happening in Syria, but from what I’ve heard it just sounds a bit like what happened in the Vietnam war. I don’t think that the U.S. should get involved because it may just start a whole new war that we shouldn’t be in.

  • Monique A

    In my opinion I believe that the US should intervene because our country is known as the country that provides the most aid to many parts of the world and innocent life’s are being taken for no reason. I am not encouraging US troops to attach Syria but to take away deadly chemicals. I think we should give aid and help citizens, but if we go in with a fighting attitude then its a war they will get. Then again if they want a fight then maybe we should back off because fighting gets us no where.

  • Monique A

    In my opinion I believe that the US should intervene because our country is known as the country that provides the most aid to many parts of the world and innocent life’s are being taken for no reason. I am not encouraging US troops to attach Syria but to take away deadly chemicals. I think we should give aid and help citizens, but if we go in with a fighting attitude then its a war they will get. Then again if they want a fight then maybe we should back off because fighting gets us no where.

  • Monique A

    In my opinion I believe that the US should intervene because our country is known as the country that provides the most aid to many parts of the world and innocent life’s are being taken for no reason. I am not encouraging US troops to attach Syria but to take away deadly chemicals. I think we should give aid and help citizens, but if we go in with a fighting attitude then its a war they will get. Then again if they want a fight then maybe we should back off because fighting gets us no where.

  • http://twitter.com/EBA_Lupita Lupita

    I believe the United States should not get involved. Syria has gone to far by using harmful weapons on their citizens but if the US only get’s involved things would grow bigger. We have our own problems to worry about and before we go out “cleaning somebody else’s yard” we need to clean are own. If anything, different nations should come together to try to put an end to it, as it is a world problem not just a US issue.

  • http://twitter.com/EBA_Lupita Lupita

    I believe the United States should not get involved. Syria has gone to far by using harmful weapons on their citizens but if the US only get’s involved things would grow bigger. We have our own problems to worry about and before we go out “cleaning somebody else’s yard” we need to clean are own. If anything, different nations should come together to try to put an end to it, as it is a world problem not just a US issue.

  • Jason W

    The US should not intervene in any sort of conflict that has no political or economic gain whatsoever. The US has told the UN inspectors of the chemical attack to leave Syria immediately before they can gain any evidence about the chemical attack whatsoever. The Syrian rebels(or FSA) is known to have connections to Al-quaeda, a terrorist group that the US and many countries have been fighting over the last 10 years in Afghanistan. Why would we suddenly drop all negativity for them just because we have a similar interest in any country. Plus, the consequences for entering Syria have already been made very clear. Iran threatens to completely bomb Israel if the US invades, Russia has also said they will not allow the US in Syria, especially after recent threats made by the Saudi Arabian prince. The prince has threatened to have Chechen terrorists attack the 2014 Winter Olympics if Russia doesn’t drop all support for Syria. Plus there is also lots of evidence that the FSA fabricated the attack to make it look like the Syrian government attacked its own people, in a civil war that the government is currently winning.

  • Jason W

    The US should not intervene in any sort of conflict that has no political or economic gain whatsoever. The US has told the UN inspectors of the chemical attack to leave Syria immediately before they can gain any evidence about the chemical attack whatsoever. The Syrian rebels(or FSA) is known to have connections to Al-quaeda, a terrorist group that the US and many countries have been fighting over the last 10 years in Afghanistan. Why would we suddenly drop all negativity for them just because we have a similar interest in any country. Plus, the consequences for entering Syria have already been made very clear. Iran threatens to completely bomb Israel if the US invades, Russia has also said they will not allow the US in Syria, especially after recent threats made by the Saudi Arabian prince. The prince has threatened to have Chechen terrorists attack the 2014 Winter Olympics if Russia doesn’t drop all support for Syria. Plus there is also lots of evidence that the FSA fabricated the attack to make it look like the Syrian government attacked its own people, in a civil war that the government is currently winning.

  • Ashlee

    My thoughts on this is that if the Syria government really did use chemical weapons then that broke the national law and well the United Nations should really figure out how to deal with this not just America. Also having a war may not be the best idea but removing the people who aloud the use of chemical war fair.

  • Ashlee

    My thoughts on this is that if the Syria government really did use chemical weapons then that broke the national law and well the United Nations should really figure out how to deal with this not just America. Also having a war may not be the best idea but removing the people who aloud the use of chemical war fair.

  • Ashlee

    My thoughts on this is that if the Syria government really did use chemical weapons then that broke the national law and well the United Nations should really figure out how to deal with this not just America. Also having a war may not be the best idea but removing the people who aloud the use of chemical war fair.

  • Areleesia B

    @KQEDedspace Yes, I do think that the U.S should intervene with this problem because there is no reason for Syria to use chemical weapons on their people. It’s just worng to harm communities like that. #DoNowSyria

  • Areleesia B

    @KQEDedspace Yes, I do think that the U.S should intervene with this problem because there is no reason for Syria to use chemical weapons on their people. It’s just worng to harm communities like that. #DoNowSyria

  • Heaven M

    I believe that the U.S shouldn’t intervene with Syria. I think countries should come together and decide what to do about Syria. They united nations should make a decision about Syria because they are violating codes and laws and killing innocent citizens. We don’t need another war. We have had enough wars.

  • Heaven M

    I believe that the U.S shouldn’t intervene with Syria. I think countries should come together and decide what to do about Syria. They united nations should make a decision about Syria because they are violating codes and laws and killing innocent citizens. We don’t need another war. We have had enough wars.

  • Daniel

    i believe that no matter what we, or the media, or even the Syrians have to say, America is going to send in troops and try to do its from of a take over, because you know America, were the world police -_-, don’t want our help, were coming in anyways

  • Daniel

    i believe that no matter what we, or the media, or even the Syrians have to say, America is going to send in troops and try to do its from of a take over, because you know America, were the world police -_-, don’t want our help, were coming in anyways

  • Daniel

    i believe that no matter what we, or the media, or even the Syrians have to say, America is going to send in troops and try to do its from of a take over, because you know America, were the world police -_-, don’t want our help, were coming in anyways

  • Brianna Stephens

    I think the US should not intervene. We were in too many wars. This isn’t even out problem. We should let Syria figure out their own problems, and if someone from there wants our help, then we can intervene. We should take a stand on chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are pure evil and can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

  • Brianna Stephens

    I think the US should not intervene. We were in too many wars. This isn’t even out problem. We should let Syria figure out their own problems, and if someone from there wants our help, then we can intervene. We should take a stand on chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are pure evil and can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

  • DianaSGD

    I believe that we should not intervene for many reasons. The most obvious is that it is none of our business. We are a different country and should not shove our noses in every problem our world has. The people of this world should be self-reliant and not depend on us to fix their issues. Yes its very sad but bad things happen; only the oppressed can make the change for themselves if they rise up and work for it. If we intervene it will only cause more burden on the citizens of the U.S.; burdens which we do not deserve since we had no part in the creation of this problem .

  • DianaSGD

    I believe that we should not intervene for many reasons. The most obvious is that it is none of our business. We are a different country and should not shove our noses in every problem our world has. The people of this world should be self-reliant and not depend on us to fix their issues. Yes its very sad but bad things happen; only the oppressed can make the change for themselves if they rise up and work for it. If we intervene it will only cause more burden on the citizens of the U.S.; burdens which we do not deserve since we had no part in the creation of this problem .

  • DianaSGD

    I believe that we should not intervene for many reasons. The most obvious is that it is none of our business. We are a different country and should not shove our noses in every problem our world has. The people of this world should be self-reliant and not depend on us to fix their issues. Yes its very sad but bad things happen; only the oppressed can make the change for themselves if they rise up and work for it. If we intervene it will only cause more burden on the citizens of the U.S.; burdens which we do not deserve since we had no part in the creation of this problem .

  • Lily N

    I believe the US should intervene with the Syria situation. they shouldn’t order a full on attack but leaving all those innocent people isn’t right either. I know this would put us into another war and cost more tax paying money but that country needs are help and we have the means to do it. its just the matter of fact if we are willing to do it as a country.

  • Lily N

    I believe the US should intervene with the Syria situation. they shouldn’t order a full on attack but leaving all those innocent people isn’t right either. I know this would put us into another war and cost more tax paying money but that country needs are help and we have the means to do it. its just the matter of fact if we are willing to do it as a country.

  • Maria Castro

    No the U.S military should not intervene with Syria , because it is a foreign country, and they are their own country and should be allowed to do what they want. Also it is just causing more conflicts, from which we already have plenty.

  • Maria Castro

    No the U.S military should not intervene with Syria , because it is a foreign country, and they are their own country and should be allowed to do what they want. Also it is just causing more conflicts, from which we already have plenty.

  • Maria Castro

    No the U.S military should not intervene with Syria , because it is a foreign country, and they are their own country and should be allowed to do what they want. Also it is just causing more conflicts, from which we already have plenty.

  • Francisco U

    no, we should not intervene with Syria because for one, we have so many of our own problems here as it is so why waste so many recourses to go and include ourselves into something that doesn’t even involve us. Now if Syria were to threaten us saying that they will attack us, then that’s when we should intervene. Don’t get me wrong, it really does suck that their government is using chemical weapons against their own citizens, but that’s life and we don’t need to waste so much money and fuel to go somewhere were it doesn’t involve us.

  • Francisco U

    no, we should not intervene with Syria because for one, we have so many of our own problems here as it is so why waste so many recourses to go and include ourselves into something that doesn’t even involve us. Now if Syria were to threaten us saying that they will attack us, then that’s when we should intervene. Don’t get me wrong, it really does suck that their government is using chemical weapons against their own citizens, but that’s life and we don’t need to waste so much money and fuel to go somewhere were it doesn’t involve us.

  • Chelsei White

    I think the U.S should intervene to help other countries because the other countries might help the U.S when they are in need of help. Then again the U.S shouldn’t intervene because it is not their buisness and that we are already in two wars and not have left them yet so doing this can increase everday exspences like gas and food.

  • Chelsei White

    I think the U.S should intervene to help other countries because the other countries might help the U.S when they are in need of help. Then again the U.S shouldn’t intervene because it is not their buisness and that we are already in two wars and not have left them yet so doing this can increase everday exspences like gas and food.

  • Chelsei White

    I think the U.S should intervene to help other countries because the other countries might help the U.S when they are in need of help. Then again the U.S shouldn’t intervene because it is not their buisness and that we are already in two wars and not have left them yet so doing this can increase everday exspences like gas and food.

  • Alexandra Michel

    Syria creating chemical weapons is a call for attention. Maybe even a cry for help. The U.S. should not intervene with war, for this will make matters worse.

  • Alexandra Michel

    Syria creating chemical weapons is a call for attention. Maybe even a cry for help. The U.S. should not intervene with war, for this will make matters worse.

  • kamonte m.

    its completely wrong for Syria to be using chemical weaponry on innocent civilians. The United States should most definitely take action and intervene with Syria’s miss-use of power; but only to a certain extent. Although Syria is entirely in the wrong, the United States also has a whole country to run and can not afford to dedicate too much of their time to a country who’s job is to protect and serve its citizens. It’s necessary for the U.S. to attempt to get to the core of the issue and to try to prevent this problem from happening again, but it’s not are job to get involved in anything more, especially not war.

  • kamonte m.

    its completely wrong for Syria to be using chemical weaponry on innocent civilians. The United States should most definitely take action and intervene with Syria’s miss-use of power; but only to a certain extent. Although Syria is entirely in the wrong, the United States also has a whole country to run and can not afford to dedicate too much of their time to a country who’s job is to protect and serve its citizens. It’s necessary for the U.S. to attempt to get to the core of the issue and to try to prevent this problem from happening again, but it’s not are job to get involved in anything more, especially not war.

  • Carlos Geobani Izazaga Munoz

    Should the U.S military intervene in Syria? I think that the US should not remain still although launching & attacking doesn’t sound like a great idea. The United States of America intervention in Syria looked unavoidable although I think that all this started as a conflict because of 2011 Arab Spring protest but after 2 years 100,000 people died and made the conflict more difficult while it escalated to other level.

    @KQEDEdSpace
    Carlos Izazaga

  • Carlos Geobani Izazaga Munoz

    Should the U.S military intervene in Syria? I think that the US should not remain still although launching & attacking doesn’t sound like a great idea. The United States of America intervention in Syria looked unavoidable although I think that all this started as a conflict because of 2011 Arab Spring protest but after 2 years 100,000 people died and made the conflict more difficult while it escalated to other level.

    @KQEDEdSpace
    Carlos Izazaga

  • Carlos Geobani Izazaga Munoz

    Should the U.S military intervene in Syria? I think that the US should not remain still although launching & attacking doesn’t sound like a great idea. The United States of America intervention in Syria looked unavoidable although I think that all this started as a conflict because of 2011 Arab Spring protest but after 2 years 100,000 people died and made the conflict more difficult while it escalated to other level.

    @KQEDEdSpace
    Carlos Izazaga

  • Sierra Windham

    I think that the US should not intervene with Syria because it will only create more conflict. However, if this were a matter of Syria trying to attack us I think that the US should be on the case immediately. But in this case Syria’s civilians should not be supplied with any chemical weapons of any kind because that will only fuel their fire and give them more reason to want to fight and they’ll have the tools to do so.

  • Sierra Windham

    I think that the US should not intervene with Syria because it will only create more conflict. However, if this were a matter of Syria trying to attack us I think that the US should be on the case immediately. But in this case Syria’s civilians should not be supplied with any chemical weapons of any kind because that will only fuel their fire and give them more reason to want to fight and they’ll have the tools to do so.

  • Moniecia Washington

    The U.S should intervene to help other countries because if the U.S. is in need of help, other countries would help the U.S. On the other hand the U.S. shouldn’t intervene because we are in two war as it is.

  • Moniecia Washington

    The U.S should intervene to help other countries because if the U.S. is in need of help, other countries would help the U.S. On the other hand the U.S. shouldn’t intervene because we are in two war as it is.

  • http://education.kqed.org/edspace/2013/08/30/should-the-u-s-military-intervene-in-syria/ Angelica F

    It’s not very bright for Syria to use banned chemical weapons on their own people. The idea of US getting involved or not seems very conflicted cause there’s so many opinions but there has to be a stop at some point. Will Syria continue to suffer or something else? As people read there is significant problems that some can say it just cannot be ignored. There’s the people who want justice in the world and US citizens who want to stay out of trouble. Within this conflict I hope we do not get into another war. Our country needs to make a smart move but there’s always difficult situations that take long periods of time. It’s nice to hear about creating hope and fixing things for foreign countries but it effects our country while in a fight. I am conflicted on this matter myself, either way can be for better or for worse on how Syria will act next.

  • http://education.kqed.org/edspace/2013/08/30/should-the-u-s-military-intervene-in-syria/ Angelica F

    It’s not very bright for Syria to use banned chemical weapons on their own people. The idea of US getting involved or not seems very conflicted cause there’s so many opinions but there has to be a stop at some point. Will Syria continue to suffer or something else? As people read there is significant problems that some can say it just cannot be ignored. There’s the people who want justice in the world and US citizens who want to stay out of trouble. Within this conflict I hope we do not get into another war. Our country needs to make a smart move but there’s always difficult situations that take long periods of time. It’s nice to hear about creating hope and fixing things for foreign countries but it effects our country while in a fight. I am conflicted on this matter myself, either way can be for better or for worse on how Syria will act next.

  • http://education.kqed.org/edspace/2013/08/30/should-the-u-s-military-intervene-in-syria/ Angelica F

    It’s not very bright for Syria to use banned chemical weapons on their own people. The idea of US getting involved or not seems very conflicted cause there’s so many opinions but there has to be a stop at some point. Will Syria continue to suffer or something else? As people read there is significant problems that some can say it just cannot be ignored. There’s the people who want justice in the world and US citizens who want to stay out of trouble. Within this conflict I hope we do not get into another war. Our country needs to make a smart move but there’s always difficult situations that take long periods of time. It’s nice to hear about creating hope and fixing things for foreign countries but it effects our country while in a fight. I am conflicted on this matter myself, either way can be for better or for worse on how Syria will act next.

  • http://edmodo.com Lucido Julian

    No, I do not think that the U.S. should fight in the Syrian war. They shot citizens protesting and that was wrong, but were they beginning to act violent? And they are banning citizens from using chemical weapons, they shouldn’t have chemical weapons to begin with.

  • http://edmodo.com Lucido Julian

    No, I do not think that the U.S. should fight in the Syrian war. They shot citizens protesting and that was wrong, but were they beginning to act violent? And they are banning citizens from using chemical weapons, they shouldn’t have chemical weapons to begin with.

  • http://edmodo.com Lucido Julian

    No, I do not think that the U.S. should fight in the Syrian war. They shot citizens protesting and that was wrong, but were they beginning to act violent? And they are banning citizens from using chemical weapons, they shouldn’t have chemical weapons to begin with.

  • http://comcast Blake Jensen

    I believe that the U.S. should get involved with the Syrian War. If there are chemical weapons that could be used, they need to be stopped. I also believe that if there is a way to accomplish this without bringing troops to Syria, then it would be safer to do it that way.

  • http://comcast Blake Jensen

    I believe that the U.S. should get involved with the Syrian War. If there are chemical weapons that could be used, they need to be stopped. I also believe that if there is a way to accomplish this without bringing troops to Syria, then it would be safer to do it that way.

  • Faith H.

    I don’t think that the US should intervene with the Syrian war. I believe that if we get involved with the war for so many reasons. There are a few that I have noticed, Why would you band chemical weapons when you really shouldn’t have chemical weapons to begin with. They shot there own people because Protesters demanded democratic reforms and the Syrian government unleashed security forces on demonstrators. For this they were killing the protesters and they acted like there wasn’t a problem with it. How will we know if eventually Syria won’t go against us and do the same thing to us. I think that in return we get nothing back for helping and we spend money saving them when we can’t even afford some of the important things we need in everyday life.

  • Faith H.

    I don’t think that the US should intervene with the Syrian war. I believe that if we get involved with the war for so many reasons. There are a few that I have noticed, Why would you band chemical weapons when you really shouldn’t have chemical weapons to begin with. They shot there own people because Protesters demanded democratic reforms and the Syrian government unleashed security forces on demonstrators. For this they were killing the protesters and they acted like there wasn’t a problem with it. How will we know if eventually Syria won’t go against us and do the same thing to us. I think that in return we get nothing back for helping and we spend money saving them when we can’t even afford some of the important things we need in everyday life.

  • Norisha Edge

    I believe that the United States should intervene with Syria and step in to stop the horror that is going on because of the use of the deadly chemical weapons which was banished years ago. There are many inccent people that are dying especially children. If we help Syria then Syria will help us when we are in need. We are already having problems with gas prices increasing. That could be us in Syria; if I lived in Syria, I would want someone to help my family and I. I would not want to stay in Syria to suffer and die.

  • Norisha Edge

    I believe that the United States should intervene with Syria and step in to stop the horror that is going on because of the use of the deadly chemical weapons which was banished years ago. There are many inccent people that are dying especially children. If we help Syria then Syria will help us when we are in need. We are already having problems with gas prices increasing. That could be us in Syria; if I lived in Syria, I would want someone to help my family and I. I would not want to stay in Syria to suffer and die.

  • http://rt.com/news/china-russia-syria-g20-476/ Jayme Angelo

    I believe invading Syria would be a poor decision on America’s part because both China and Russia have openly sided with Syria and they are both known to have strong militaries and nuclear weaponry. Also, China has pointed out that if we do indeed strike on Syria, then they will inflate our gas prices. Lastly, our only ally that is in full support of a military strike is France and they are known to have a poor military. And Britain, one of our strongest allies does not support a military strike at all.

  • Grier Wilson

    1) we should not have to react to the use of banned chemical weapons as we are not involved and dont need any more conflict, but Obama had to go and say we would respond if they were used, now we are obligate to act.
    2) We do have a position as the lat real superpower in the world to set guidelines and stipulations for the use and nonuse of various things around the world, in tandem with the UN, but action is not necessarily the first thing we should do.
    3) the last thing we need is another problem to deal with, especially since its non-domestic. the way i see it, unless somebody is messing with us, we should just stay home and do some cleaning around the house as it were.

  • Rodrigo Luzuriaga

    I believe that the united states should intervene in Syria if concrete evidence of the government using chemical weapons surfaces. Chemical weapons is a clear violation of human rights. Anytime human rights are infringed around the world the united states should intervene.

  • Aric Boss

    What Syria did in terms of using chemical weapons against its citizens is unforgivable and a known world crime throughout every nation. I do think that the United States along with other countries that are part of the UN are entitled to intervene somehow, but how is the big question. It is as close to genocide as you can get and when that happens people wonder why the US did not step in sooner. The fact is Syria needs to be punished and that every country of the UN should take a stand because if not who is to say that other countries wont just join into the chaos as well?

  • Maciah Thomas

    I do believe that the United States should intervene in Syria. After two full years of fighting and over 100k deaths it is most certainly considered a genocide, just like Rwanda and the civil wars of Africa in the 90’s. I understand that the United States may not want another Sudan incident like the 90’s and the film “Black Hawk Down” depicted but it is certainly time for action. Whether the action be funding, or sending troops; some super power of the world needs to step in and help.

  • Phil B

    I honestly don’t think the US should get involved in Syria just because it will open up even more problems for Syria and not to mention other countries that would be dragged into war indirectly through affiliation with the countries surrounding. I feel we aren’t obligated to do so either. I think its a good idea to try and help but it could just cause more problems for US and making it even harder for the US to fix its domestic problems.

  • Michael Amedeo

    The United States should indeed attack Syria for their use of chemical weapons on their own people. While it is unnecessary to be the world’s “policeman” so to speak, atrocities such as this must not be tolerated. The U.S. is justified in their attack because Syria broke international law and cruelly killed civilians. This is unlike past involvement in Iraq, where we were trying to fight a war without a clear enemy. In this case, we know who we are fighting and we must stand up for human rights.

  • Rachel C.

    I think that the US and the rest of the United Nations has a job to get involved when it concerns chemical warfare. They have the responsibility to protect the innocent and help those in need. Also to help fix the government and make life a little easier for them. People are dying and losing their rights and we have to help them in any way we can. Chemical weapons are dangerous and if they have them and threaten people with them, we have to keep people safe because if they are in the wrong hands, we could be in serious trouble.

  • Sarah Neal

    1. No I do not believe the United States should intervene on what is going on in Syria because it is not our business to constantly get involved in what is going on in other countries. We have many issues of our own and we should figure those out rather than try and fix everyone elses problems. We shouldnt have to be the police of the world.

    2. The US can certainly have an opinion on the use of chemical weapons,but since it is not happening in our country, we do not have the right to tell them what is right and what is wrong. The US can state that it is wrong, but we cannot ban them from doing so because it is not our country.

    3. No, we should not have embroiled in another conflict when we have many of our own to continue to figure out. what happens in other countries is none of our business unless they are attacking us or greatly affecting us.

  • Mandy Quarantillo

    The United States should intervene in Syria if their government uses banned chemical weapons on their civilians, because those weapons are banned for a reason, they are harmful. May innocent people are dying, including little kids who can’t even grasp the situation. US should be involved, because the Syrian government is killing its own people, and we need to help intervene. They might help us down the road.

  • Alexa Simon

    We should not intervene because we do not have the power to do so, but we should intervene because if the us is in need of help, we should help them.But we are not trying to start another war, we want them to end. We are constantly at war and we do not have that kind of power to control. We do have the power to intervene but we should try not to force an attack with this weapon.

  • http://blogs.kqed.org/education/2013/08/30/should-the-u-s-military-intervene-in-syria/ s100530

    I think that the US does have a say in the mater but should not try to get involved in another war. They can try and talk to he president again. we should try to help but in different ways.

  • Aurora Simon

    I think that the United States should not intervene Syria when their government uses banned chemical weapons on their own civilians, because it could be very dangerous and cause them to use more, and maybe use it on us.

    The U.S. doesn’t want the banned chemicals and weapons falling into the wrong hands, and causing more issues.

    I think that the U.S. should not be embroiled in another conflict, because that could cause more hatred.

  • Ben G

    I think using Syria’s use of chemical weapons as rationalization for military action is really hypocritical. The United States used chemical weapons numerous times, both during Iraq and Afghanistan, in the form of white phosphorus and depleted uranium bullets. Depleted uranium bullets are used because uranium is very dense, but it also leaves huge amounts of radiation.
    I think the United States might have a duty to use military intervention in some areas, but not because they actually want to help anyone in those countries. The United States spends over 20% of its budget on the military, more than any other country on earth, because of our huge and expensive military industry. Military intervention actually makes us money, and the lobbyists for the profiting industries make sure politicians will support it.
    I don’t think the US should be involved in another conflict similar to Iraq, although at this point I think it might be inevitable. This situation is not going to turn out like Libya; once ground troops are needed, we won’t have the NATO support we did last time. And once we send in ground troops, it’s going to be years before we get out.

  • Julia Z

    -I believe that what they are doing is unacceptable and wrong, but I also believe that the U.S. should truly only intervene if they are a direct threat to the U.S. or our civilians. I’m not justifying the usage of the chemical weaponry in their country on their civilians, but I do think that if we try to get too involved, they could retaliate and target the U.S.

    – We should not, I believe that it is not our job to fix other countries issues, but the U.S. has in the past intervened and successfully rendered weapons and warfare inert.

    – I personally think that the U.S. is already way too involved in our own issues and should not be trying to fix other countries conflicts, besides,these are not small conflicts either, these are very intense, dangerous situations that the U.S. does not need to be involved in.

  • Sarah Neal

    1. No the United States should not intervene on what is happening in Syria because it isnt our business. We should not be the police of the world and have to go into every single country that is having issues when we have issues of our own to figure out. While the use of chemical weapons is wrong and shouldnt be happening, we cannot tell them what is right and wrong and ban them from using them.

    2. The US is a great country and we have many advantages that other countries do not have, however, we are not the leaders of the world, and we cannot determine what is right and wrong and expect others to abide by that.

    3. No, the US should not have embroiled in another conflict because we have issues of our own that need to be solved before we intrude on another country. They have leaders of their own, and while they may not be that great, they are still in power to take control over the country.

  • Patricia M

    The US shouldn’t intervene with Syria because it would create more complex problems. Syria brought major damage to their own citizens. The US should only have to take a stand on the use of chemical weapons in foreign countries, only if it is being used. Overall, the US shouldn’t be in conflict with Syria.

  • Brent McCollough

    I believe the United States should intervene in Syria. While I don’t believe killing civilians is a good thing, I do think it would be smart to stop the use of chemical weapons is Syria. If that means invading Syria to do so then so be it. I think it is the duty of the United States to stop the use of chemical weapons from getting into the wrong hands.

  • Meagan Sharpe

    No, the United States should not intervene if Syria uses the banned chemical weapons on their civilians. By the US getting involved we are putting our own men at risk. I think by the US getting involved it will only cause turmoil in the end. An intervention in this case should not occur.

  • Nicole Z

    I believe that the US should not intervene with the Syrian issue at this moment. We should let the United Nations deal with the issue and we should not take an attack as reason for us to invade the country. The US does have a duty to take a stand against chemical weapons, they can voice a strong opinion. The US should not take this as a incentive to invade and start another war. The intervention would be justified because of the taking of innocent lives. I don’t think that the US should be involved in another conflict. We just brought our troops home for Iraq and we don’t need another opportunity to send them back out. We have our own issues to solve.

  • Marisa

    I think we should help Syria’s people out, against their terrible ruler. He only got to become the president because his father was, and shouldn’t even be ruling. The United States doesn’t have to take a stand on chemical weapons in other countries, but it is a “red line” for us, that Syria’s leader has crossed. That is why we should go in, because if he is using these chemicals on his own peopl, what would he do to other countries?

  • Trevor L

    I do not feel the United States should intervene in the problems in Syria. Yes they did break the universal law of no use of chemical weapons but they used it on their own land and people. They do not wish for conflict from other countries because if they did then they would have used these chemical weapons on another nation. Yes they are killing innocent people which is morally wrong but it is their problem not ours. If those people want safety they can flee Syria to another safer more stable nation. Sticking our nose in that just puts our nation at risk. It would be a risky move to intervene and I do not think it is a risk we should take.

  • Bailey Skubon

    From my understanding on the situation, I do not believe that America should get involved in Syria’s issue. This is their issue that we do not need to be dragged into. If we were to intervene on this matter, the situation would potentially only get worse. Syria does not want our help nor should we forcefully put help towards then on a situation that has no direct involvement to the United States.

  • Matt B

    I do not believe that America should get involved with Syrian problems. It would cost a lot money for attack Syria. i think if this problems grows out of Syria into other country then the U.S. should become involved. I believe that the U.S. should only have the duty to intervene with our allies and if they ask for our help.

  • Grant Austin

    I think the USA should intervene in Syria most definitely. Obama said awhile ago that if Syria was going to use chemical weapons on their civilians that he was going to intervene but now he is very hesitant to even after hundreds of civilians were killed. I also think we should intervene because no troop will put on the ground their so no one will be in danger of being hurt, Obama plans on just sending a couple airstrikes to send a message to Assad so that they understand that we will not let this happen. I also don’t think it fair to the innocent civilians that are being killed, and we should just put a stop to it.

  • Nicholas K

    When a nation violates the Geneva Convention and uses chemical weapons on its own people, the United States has an obligation to respond. On the one hand, the US doesn’t want a repeat of Iraq. On the other, Syria has committed the morally reprehensible act of using chemical weapons on its own citizens. When something is wrong, something needs to be done about it. If the nations of the world were to sit back and allow atrocities to be committed – what then? If it is true that Assad has used chemical weapons, the United States needs to respond.

  • Alex C.

    While it is not our responsibility to oversee the Syrians’ actions I do believe we have a moral obligation to do something and to try to mend the immoral problems and hardships Syria is facing. If we do act, the result of our intervene is unknown, but we would also most likely be sending more troops into foreign countries. It is a very controversial topic on what we should do but I believe we should intervene in the current situation occurring in Syria.

  • Marisa

    I think we should intervene, because using chemical weapons on innocent people is terrible. The only reason that their ruler is president is because his father was, and he just recieved the power. He is a terrible person. The United States doesn’t have to intervene, but we do when other countries cross a “red line.” And they have. If he is doing this to his own people, what would he do to us?

  • Andrew G

    I believe that the US should not get involved in the mess that Syria and the president created with the use of chemical weapons and the statement that the US will intervene. There ate several reasons that the US should not intervene, one if the red line was really set by the whole world aka the UN as a whole as stated by Obama then the entire UN should be getting involved not just the US. Secondly why must the US government give itself the job of being the police of the world? Isn’t that what the UN was made to do, if so why not let them take care of it and not waste more lives of US soldiers? Finally the US cant afford to be in another pointless conflict, the last two put us deep in debt and make it that much harder to take care of it’s own problems.

  • T

    If the U.S. Government really wants to intervene, then they should do so in secret so that we don’t end up in another horribly long war. Otherwise, we they should put in their two bits at the U.N. and take action that way.

    As a whole, we should not do anything that will spark a full-fledged war. If we help the protestors with our people, others will help the Syrian government with their people, and we would have a full-scale war on our hands where tens of thousands would die instead of just thousands. Don’t let it escalate!

  • Ben Warner

    I think that the U.S. does not need to intervene with military force, but Obama needs to keep his word and not say one thing and do other things. He said that if the “red line” is crossed we will take military action, and we have not yet taken action, while Syria has used chemical weapons have been used. The other day he came out and tried to blame us not taking military force saying its not the US line but the whole worlds line. If we are going to take action take action but if not don’t blame it all of the rest of the world. I am ok with using the air force in Syria if we do but if we don’t thats fine too, Obama needs to own up to what he said.

  • Jasmine Stovall

    Should the United States intervene in Syria if their government uses banned chemical weapons on their civilians? Does the US have a duty to take a stand on the use of chemical weapons in foreign countries? I think that the U.S should intervene because, they know what is going on and they know it is wrong. Even though this has nothing to do with the U.S, they want to do what is right and I hope Obama is cautious, if Syria’s government will use these banned chemical weapons on their civilians, imagine what they would do to a country.

  • Bujka Battsooj

    Yes the United States should intervene in Syria’s government use of banned chemical weapons on their civilians because it will demonstrate to the rest of the world that America will not tolerate the use of banned chemical weapons. If we ignore what Syria has done to their civilians other countries will mimic Syria and Syria will continue the use of chemical weapons to kill it’s people.

    I believe the United States of America as the world’s superpower has the responsibility and the duty to take a stand on the use of chemical weapons in foreign countries to protect everyone regardless of their nationality.

  • Kody B

    I agree with Bujka, the United States needs to intervene. They cannot let other countries see this and let them think this goes without consequence. The United States has a duty to show that this is not taken lightly. Even if they are a different country, it doesn’t change what needs to be done.

  • Adam Orla-Bukowski

    I believe that the Obama administration should not undergo a military strike, however, they should talk to the U.N. about seriously intervening. We have enough problems in America already, and we cannot take on the responsibility of being the police of the world. Regardless of what President Assad has allegedly done, we should focus on America’s problems before we try and solve the rest of the world’s problems.

  • Gabriel Llamas

    I agree with Adam. The US should not get involved with Syria’s problems. The civil war in Syria is their problem. There is no threat to the US and although innocent people have been harmed, ther are many people in the US who need our help. Guns kill just as many people as chemical weapons and sometime more. I agree that we can not solve the world’s problems.

  • Justin Stewart

    While using chemical weapons is against international law, it is simply no place for the U.S. government to step in and cause more death with cruise missiles. Obama has said that he does not want to create a situation like that of Iraq or Afghanistan, and that the U.S. must stop policing the globe, but his actions regarding both these statements make them to appear quite hypocritical.

  • Ryan Kelley-Cahill

    Yes! The United States needs to intervene. There is a world ban on the use of chemical weapons and that needs to be enforced. It’s not the job of the US to police the world, but when a conflict emerges and an oppressive power fires chemical weapons on innocent people, you can’t just idly sit by and let it go unnoticed. I believe that the whole world needs to step up and let them know that this is not okay and it won’t go without consequence, but when the rest of the world is unwilling to take action, then sometimes we need to take a stand and do what’s morally right, not whats necessarily in the best interest for our country. If we do not act now, the Assad regime will continue the onslaught of it’s people and it will show the rest of the world that America and the other Super Powers don’t care about the laws that they’ve created and it only opens the opportunity for more chemical attacks across the world. The way I see it, Assad should be given two options, One: Give up the weapons to UN control. Or Two: Have the weapons destroyed. If he “had nothing to do with the attacks” and that he “wouldn’t break international law” then he has no need for the weapons in the first place.

  • Ryan Kelley-Cahill

    I was the Guest, deleted my account…

  • Ellie Teare

    I think America gets too involved with other countries. I think if we send a missile, we are basically just declaring war and its pointless to start another war like Iraq. We cannot send in a missile just because another country is having conflict, I think it will just make more conflict. It’s not worth the deaths that could potentially happen by starting another war, America needs to solve its own problems before getting into others’.

  • Sophia Moore

    I believe that to consider this situation thoroughly, one needs to go back to the beginnings of political science because the best way to think about a complex situation, is to break it down to its basics. The first literature on political science dates back to the time of the renaissance. Niccolio Machiavelli, a humanist of the time, wrote the 71 page book, The Prince, concerning the most effective way to rule. One of the key points in this book is keeping the support of the people, because without their support, your country will not stand a chance. In this case, (based on polls) a huge amount of US citizens do not support this war. Obama cannot charge into battle without a majority of his people backing him.

    “…one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.” (The Prince, page 4) In this situation, I believe that if we chose to attack, we should definitely expect revenge given in hard blows. We would need to attack quickly and extraordinarily harshly as to completely wipe them out, if this is not absolutely possible, then I do not recommend it. Even if we manage to “crush” the Syrians, as Machiavelli puts it, we would not be able to do the same to all of Syria’s allies. These allies would feel the injury that was inflicted on Syria, but not being injured themselves, they would take full-fledged revenge on us. We cannot risk being attacked by Syria’s allies, such as Russia and Iran, so this leaves us with the only other option Machiavelli gives us and that is to leave Syria alone.

  • Michael Richie

    The United States is always poking its head in other peoples business, and it just possibly surfaced another conflict after Iraq. As for the engagement plan, I’m not entirely sure of it, because attacking ONLY the military government that used the banned weapons could only just receive more from the storage compartments (But then again, I guess it would be worse if we bombed the storage and their property).

    Its obvious that Syria just crossed the “Red Line”, but why should we get involved?

  • Matthew Cunanan

    I believe that the United States just needs to stop getting into other countries’ problems. They should not send a missile, or it will be Iraq all over again. Syria is having their issues, and we should not get involved. Since Syria is having their problems, we should not send a missile or it will simply just make it worse.

  • Branden Christman

    i think the united states should not intervene in this situation just because of the use chemical weapons, even if the we intervene it wont do any good it will mos likely just create a big mess like Iran and the effects of an attack could me bad for all the surrounding countries. i think Obama should think out his plan better if he wants to send a message to the Syrian government, but he should do this in a nonviolent way though.

  • Tino Mahoney

    Let’s all take this into consideration and be honest here. When conflicts like this emerge I have a really hard time believing are government is going to help Syria out of the goodness of their hearts. In all cases like this, every thing really comes down to the financial and strategic interests of the U.S. . Does it make sense for us to spend millions of dollars just so we can help Syrian rebels fight against the Assad Regime without us getting anything in return? I’m sure that this is a part of that, and we would like to send aid to these rebels but it all comes down to financial interests. When people say we have no business in Syria they are probably right, but don’t you think we have other interest in Syria? I mean wasn’t the whole Iraq war was about? George Bush said we are fighting it to bring down terrorist groups, and Islamic militants, (which we did do some cases) but the government was really after the oil as I’m sure a good well of you know and benefit from a broader strategic influence in the region .

    Examples of the United States reluctance to get involved with genocidal tragedies due to a lack of financial and strategic gain, would be Bosnia and Rwanda. On the other hand Syria is a perfect example of us having financial and strategic gain. For instance this isn’t talked about a lot but if we did intervene with Syria it would help are ally Israel by potentially eliminating one of their regional enemies and also if we were to bring down Assad we could have a stronger influence and strategic gain in the region and isolate Iran a ally of Assad and a hostile towards the U.S. . As you can see from what I wrote we actually do have a tangible interest and whether or whether not we should is another question. Basically I’m oppose to the United States getting involved but I wanted to make a point why our government would want to.

  • Ameena

    Their are many reasons why I think the USA should not intervene in Syria but their are two reasons that I think really show why. The first reason is that the USA has a lot of domestic problems that need attention like education, immigration,and health care. These things that I listed above are important and we really need to deal with them if we wants the USA to be a better place to live. Also the USA doesn’t have alot of money so we should prioritize on what is important. Another reason that I think we should not intervene is because I really don’t think that the USA government is doing this because they actually care but because they have other interests. Even though Obama says he won’t, I really don’t want Syria to become another Afghanistan or Iraq.

  • Winnie Zhou

    I have to agree with some of the other comments below. If we do undergo a military strike, we’re basically saying it’s war time again. And I’m not sure if that’s a good idea for America right now, because we have all these other problems to deal with. But, using chemical weapons to kill people especially ones who were innocent is a serious matter we need to take in consideration. However, war is not the answer. We do not need to upset the rest of the world since they’re dealing with their own problems and so are we. I, like many others, oppose to the military intervention in Syria.

  • B.N. Benedetto

    As much as I usually feel the USA government needs to stop trying to intervene with other countries because they think they’re the voice of reason over every country, what’s taking place in Syria is such a horrible thing and I feel like not getting involved (not only America, because it’s not just our responsibility, but every country that it has been brought to attention) is abandoning these people in a time of need. We’re people before we are citizens of a country, and it’s our duties as humans to help our brothers and sisters of the world to help when we have the power to do so. I understand that America has it’s own problems at hand like our “lack of money”, education system, and yada yada, but they are NOTHING in comparison to what is happening in Syria. But aside from that, I agree with others that any countries government would not take a stand unless there was any possible gain for them in the long-run. But even if we do end up sending of missiles, that is just leading them by example to create more violence. I feel like there are other ways to get through to them besides tearing things up some more.

  • Jake Ng

    I agree that chemical weapons should be dealt with, but I don’t think the repercussions that would surely follow a military strike on Syria are worth it. America needs to realize that we can’t solve all the foreign issues when things aren’t going so well back home. Also, it wouldn’t be our best interest to piss off other countries who are allied with Syria.

  • Hank Smith

    I personally don’t feel like the Us should intervene with seria without the full support of the Un. America shouldn’t stand alone during this and instead act with the Un to decide what to do because it’s not just America’s laws that have been violated by Syria’s government using chemical weapons.

  • Cami Galt

    Cami Galt

    What they’re doing in Syria is terrible but I don’t think we
    should interfere in their countries problems. America seems to be under these
    illusions that if we tell countries not to do something they would actually
    listen. We need to think about what would be best for America as well as Syria.
    The last time we were in this situation it lead to a war. If anything we would make it worse by getting involved in Syria. I feel so bad for the citizens in Syria but there is nothing we can do to fix their country.
    p.s. sorry its late. my computer was out being fixed

  • eli.park

    i agree with what most other people are saying . putting forward a strike on Syria would just cause more problems and more issues than what they started with in the first place.i say do not strike Syria.

  • Bryan Voeltner

    This is a very challenging situation. I don’t see how any kind of strike, limited or otherwise, would not lead to war. I do not think we can afford the human and economic costs of another conflict like this. The situation is also challenging as it has polarized so many people in this country and around the world. We look like war mongers if we invade their country, and we look uncaring if we stand by and do nothing. No easy resolution to this problem.

  • Kyasia Thompson

    - I think the U.S shouldn’t intervene because you can work things with out destroying and fighting other countries.I think they should come to an agreement like real people and fix their problems.

  • Abigail Yager

    This is such a scary and disheartening situation and its hard to think of a “good” reaction for the US government to have because there really isn’t anything good about either of the options. If we don’t intervene then hundreds upon hundreds of people will keep dying and it will soon turn into the second Holocaust. If we do intervene then it will cause a war between us and Syria which we really don’t want. But honestly we can’t just call Syria up and “talk out the problems.” We aren’t teenage girls dealing with boy drama, we are countries and government dealing with chemical gases and people dying. This is serious so yes, I do think that the government should intervene.

  • Chandler Ewart

    I do not think that we have the right to fight against them because of their chemical weapons. We had our own civil war once upon a time and it is none of our business to be sticking our nose where it doesn’t belong. They may have used chemical weapons but we are hurting women and children on the other side and hurting just as many people as they are if not more. That’s why i supported the protest to pull the troops out of Syria. It is just more bloodshed and we are killing people just as they are doing. Americas logic is we kill people who kill people, because killing people is wrong.

  • Daysia Adams

    I believe that the U.S. government should at least do something to help the people in Syria. I believe they should because honestly it is not fair for them to be using chemical weapons and hurting women and children who are for the most part innocent. There really isn’t anything good about what is happening there and honestly it would be selfish for the U.S. not to help Syria at all. I see that it has been said that we need to stay out of there business but at the same time I think to leave them alone and let people die is blood on the U.S.’ hands. I do not believe though that they should help with more violence. There should be a good way to resolve this without hurting anyone and creating more problems.

  • Breanna Dean

    I don’t think that the united states shouldn’t get violently involved with everything that has been happening in Syria. They shouldn’t because I feel like more problems would happen if they went there with military forces and tried to do more damage. That would cause a war with Syria and United States. There has to be a good way to fix what is going on there.

  • Cheyenne Hair

    The U.S. should get involved with Syria because like the article says we need to let Syria know that chemical weapons will not be tolerated. If Syria is doing this with their citizens they must have bad motives, and whats to stop them from later doing it to others? Syria is killing their own citizens.Though, if the U.S. does get involved with Syria I don’t think it should be timid attempts to get rid of the chemicals. If we are going to get involved we need to be sure about it and get the job done.

  • Ashlynn Tanner

    I think that the united states should mind its own business. Syria isnt attacking the united states, yet anyways why should we attack them. Thats like another country coming after us because we have better and more advance weapons than they do. I think that if the U.S were to get involved, Syria wouldnt like it and a war or something bad would come up. If Syria is killing their own citizens, why not let them take out themselves? The less there are of them the more of us there can be. It sounds wrong, but so is The u.s getting involved and killing syrians because theyve created better weapons than us.

  • Rachel Offerman

    I think we should stay out of Syria’s problems and start worrying about our own.

  • Kennady Paige

    I think that there is a line that America should cross when it comes to trying to save people. We can’t save every body; we’re already in dept!

  • Pingback: Young people speak out about Syria | Muse  Video

  • jordyn gaines

    @KQEDedspace

    Should the United States intervene in Syria if their government uses
    banned chemical weapons on their civilians? Does the US have a duty to
    take a stand on the use of chemical weapons in foreign countries?

    i don’t think that they should intervene because they aren’t doing anything to us…i don’t think its right that they are doing that to but it is their country, so yeah that’s all i have to say you.

    #DoNowSyria

  • jordyn gaines

    @KQEDEdspace

    Should the United States intervene in Syria if their government uses
    banned chemical weapons on their civilians? Does the US have a duty to
    take a stand on the use of chemical weapons in foreign countries?

    I don’t think that we should intervene because they` haven’t done anything to us… i don’t think that what they are doing is right but it is their country and if that’s what they want to do then that’s what they want to do.

    #DoNowSyria

  • Jamie Ramos

    @KQEDedspace:

    -Should the United States intervene in Syria if their government uses banned chemical weapons on their civilians? Does the US have a duty to take a stand on the use of chemical weapons in foreign countries?
    A: I don’t think the United States should intervene with Syria. Although it’s wrong to be using chemical weapons on civilians, and banned ones at that, I think it would just cause more conflict if we started to involve ourselves with them. We also don’t know the outcome if we decide to get ourselves into their issues.

  • Dylan

    If someone came and used chemical weapons in your town would you want help?

  • Lexi L

    I think the U.S. should intervene in Syria. How is this whole conflict going to be resolved if someone doesn’t step in? I know that the U.S. is not the world police, but if we don’t do anything, then we are just as guilty as Syria. We can’t just be quiet while innocent people are being murdered. Syria will not end this war on their own. They already have proven that. If other countries hadn’t gotten involved with previous wars, then those wars could have ended a lot worse without others helping.

  • Abby L

    if people are being killed by their own people and no one is helping them then we should intervene if no one else will. I don’t like that our country has been in so much war but we must help those innocent people. How would you feel if people were trying to kill you and no one was helping?

  • Preston K.

    “Bombing” Syria would probably be the worst way to take care of the problem, it would just kill more people and then everyone is raging at the U.S. is that what we really want.

  • Kaleecia

    No, i don’t think the US should intervene with Syria because for one we have enough issues on our hands and intervening with another countries problem will either bring about war or debt.

  • Lance Cossey

    Stay out. It is another countries Civil War have we not learned anything