Syria Is action needed?

You may of heard this on the new lately , but hears some brief info for those who haven't.​

" The trouble began in 2011 in the Syrian city of Deraa.
Locals took to the streets to protest after 15 schoolchildren had been arrested - and reportedly tortured - for writing anti-government graffiti on a wall.
The protests were peaceful to begin with, calling for the kids' release, democracy and greater freedom for people in the country.

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.
People were shocked and angry at what had happened and soon the unrest had spread to other parts of the country.

in August 2013, a suspected chemical attack just outside the Syrian capital, Damascus, caused a strong reaction from the likes of America, Britain and France.

Now, those countries are debating how best to react to the deepening crisis.

Key concerns​

- Possible use of chemical weapons
-  1 Million , Syrian children have been forced to flee the country
- Millions more have been displaced within Syria
- A  country with out law and order​

sources -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/16979186
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703856​

So when is a right time for a country to step in and take action, what are the requiremnts to take military action?
In the case of syria is it needed now or is diplomacy better.​

I personally think its a bad situation, the millions of displaced people, you dint get to those high numbers for no reason.​

 

Definitely an interesting topic but alike many although I think action is needed, I must admit I am not entirely sure what the best action is. For example we don't want a repeat of the more recent wars but at the same time we don't want to sit by when people are suffering. It comes down to a rather interesting complication of interests and morals.

Personally I would say action is definitely needed but perhaps not from the ones who are taking it, or at the very least, not in the way they are going about it. As I said before though it again is a rather difficult topic to choose a solution or "right answer" for due to the complexity of politics and the various state of different countries.

 

There is nothing you can do. There is a civil war going on and both sides are unfriendly. Let's not pretend that the rebels can be friends because they are not. It's up to the surrounding countries and the UN (completely useless right now) to help the refugees. The US has no obligation to do all the dirty work of other countries. The idea that the US is the sole policeman is ridiculous and I refuse to put American lives at risk to protect UN law and more importantly just to save face for an incompetent president who has failed in every way to get the support of the Russians.

 

Under international law nations can only unilaterally use militaristic force in the imminent or immediate self-defense of their people. All treaty obligations are subject to the United Nation's charter under a strict interpretation. However as the years have passed the United Nation's interpretation of it's own laws are rather loose and rarely followed up on.

Syria appears to be a proxy war between many involved parties, both nations and terrorist organizations, and any hope for sustainable peace has to be brokered through skilled diplomacy. The intelligence leaks on what has happened in Syria rises the more disturbing possibility that the Syrian government was not responsible for a chemical attack but rather they are losing control of their own military.

President Obama who is calling for 'limited tactical intervention' is following in the failed footsteps on long held American international policy of retaliating against offenses. This long held policy has yielded little to no positive results... argumentatively it has inspired the kind of disdain and terrorism that the United States has been encountering for decades. While the aspiration of eliminating Syria's ability to produce, store, or deliver banned weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons such as saran) is very tempting it seems like a metaphorical long shot in a dark room... one that could open a door to a war that America is both unprepared and unwilling to enter.

I strongly support the United States: Restoring diplomatic peace talks between all involved parties, seeking political solutions to the tensions in Syria, imposing international sanctions, humanitarian aid to affected populations (moreover refugees),  seeking prosecution before the International Court of Justice, and re-establishing a United Nations peacekeeping and stabilization mission in Syria.

 

I believe America should keep any involvement strictly diplomatic at the moment. The situation is a bit too dicey at the moment for us to get involved on a military level. in my personal opinion any military involvement at the moment would only serve to further the unrest among the people of Syria, or create new tension among other countries due to our involvement. I do however support aiding refuges looking to leave the country.

 

I find it unsettling how eagerly many US congressmen are expressing their desire to start a bombing run when we have yet to even decisively determine that Assad's regime is responsible for the chemical weapons use.

It's aggravating to see John Kerry wag his finger at the rest of the world about following the Geneva Conventions while remaining totally radio silent on our mistreatment of inmates at Guantanamo, which still has yet to be shut down. His outrage comes off as questionably selective.

 

Aid refuges, continue diplomatic involvement, and at the very most provide logistic support for the rebels. Going on a bombing run will only fuel more anger in the Middle East towards America and possibly have larger repercussions. Getting too involved in the Middle East is comparable to slamming your head into a brick wall.

 

I find it unsettling how eagerly many US congressmen are expressing their desire to start a bombing run when we have yet to even decisively determine that Assad’s regime is responsible for the chemical weapons use.

It’s aggravating to see John Kerry wag his finger at the rest of the world about following the Geneva Conventions while remaining totally radio silent on our mistreatment of inmates at Guantanamo, which still has yet to be shut down. His outrage comes off as questionably selective.



Well the Senate and die hard Obama guys are for it but thankfully it seems the house wants nothing to do with it. I'm disappointed again with the democrats for being very quiet about the whole ideal. I hear Rand Paul might filibuster the whole thing, that might actually be pretty damn entertaining if he goes through with it. Also it seems that Assad is willing to "give up" his chemical weapons under pressure from the Russians.

Assad must be under Russian president Putin's thumb since he agreed to give up his chemical weapons. Once again the Russians one upped the president. Even if Assad does nothing he now could simply claim that the weapons are lost now or whatever garbage he needs to buy more time for the UN to finally decide to follow bureaucracy and dismantle Assad one gas can at a time.

No matter what happens now, once again the US made a fool of themselves. At least I think this time we won't do any irreversible actions since it should be painfully aware that Obama does not have a spine and more importantly does not have authorization if the strike is hopefully rejected. Does anyone find it amusingly ironic that most Republicans are flat out against this? Of coarse the big name ones are obviously playing both sides like a bunch of floppers but at least some of the others seem genuine.
At least I hope they're genuine, there needs to be some serious leadership from them.