The U.S.A. has absolutely no reason to get involved in the Syrian civil war. I am strongly in favor of letting the Syrians work out their own destiny without any outside interference.

---------------------
Steve Stites

...

It was working earlier , same article, different news source http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.1440186

Ah, yes I read that a little while ago on yet a different source still, nasty little man that one.

The way to do that, is for the west and it's Arab allies to stop sending arms and equipment into the hands of jihadists - in what is a clear attempt to destabilise the country and force regime change - at whatever human cost.

So far, there is no proof whatsoever, in fact not a shred of evidence that the Ba'ath regime used chemical weapons in the conflict.

The UN seems to think that the rebels did however...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-assads-regi/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97R18F20130828

That's very inconvenient - as is this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97S18K20130829

But as we've learnt from 10 years ago in Iraq, where there's a will, there's a way...

There's no real proof Syria used chemical weapons. There's no proof Saddam ever used chemical weapons either. More nonsense from crazy al-Qaeda conspiracy theorists. 9-11 was obviously an inside job. http://www.ae911truth.org/documents/...ial_at_wtc.pdf

^^^^^ I was waiting for this!

"Rebels" my ***. They seem to be on a mission, are very well paid, prepared, and organized, and seem to be moving from country to country under someone's direction.

sed 's/Rebels/Mercs/g'

If you watch the news, they also seem to enjoy eating man flesh, especially livers. Dare I say it's name starts with a 'B' and ends with an 'R'.

A mockery (I hope that was) of the point of view you disagree with is so much easier than presenting a constructive position.

Whatever those folks deserve, the USA does not have the resources, the ability, nor the authority to provide. Any attempt we make will do more harm than good and the world will hate us for having the arrogance to do it.

Here are some examples of what the insurgents in Syria are like:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...jihadists.html
http://wildhunt.org/2013/03/the-fall...ian-pagan.html
http://www.sydneycatholic.org/news/l...268_1751.shtml

Just the people for Obama to support? I suspect the victims of such crimes would be happy to use anything on the islamists, including poison gas.

Very depressing articles. People take their religions waaaay toooo serious when taking human life in the name of their gods.

When did anyone elses opinion ever make the slightest difference to the US? It will do what it it wants to do in its own self interest and will take zero notice of anyone or anything else. Why change the habit of a lifetime?

"Saddam Hussein was actually backed by the US government,"

Not true. Almost every bit of Sadaam's weapons were Soviet or Chinese or mostly cheap copies from Egypt. Look at any news footage and you'll see all Soviet block weapons. You may be thinking of the Shah of Iran who was indeed kept in power by the US. I'd like to get my hands on the brand new 16 US jets left when the Shah was removed.


DavidMcCann thanks for the links.

I am sure there were kooks that forever thought the US wanted Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor just like the kooks that think 9/11 was some phoney deal just like the idiots that think that the Holocaust didn't exist. You can't fix stupid.

If the kooks think that 9/11 wasn't real, then that was the most realistic CGI work in history.

You all might want to take a look at this. Though the Washington Post is only a shadow of the paper it used to be, it's a fairly sane article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rassed-to-ask/

The pressure for the US to get involved in Syria is coming from the Neocons, who never saw a war they didn't like, and OMG bad stuff is happening someone must do something! lobby.

OMG bad stuff is happening someone must do something! is not a sound basis for policy formulation.