Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?

Yes, Assad crossed the line. 10% 38 votes
No, intervening in civil wars never works. 62% 238 votes
No, keep Assad. He's our best option. 3% 15 votes
Yes, pick a rebel faction and help them. 2% 10 votes
No, we're gonna aerial-bomb chemical depots? 7% 29 votes
Yes, with allies and UN. 12% 48 votes
378 total votes


Independent Discussion Guidelines

My husband and I were in the Middle East in 2010 and that included Syria and Egypt. Bashar al Assad is a monster and folks told us quietly that he was not this nice opthomalogist with a do gooder wife that the completely government controlled press portrayed him as. In Egypt, folks told us Mubarak had to go.

So, here we are over three years later and 100,000 Syrians are dead and I don't know how many Egyptians so how is all this working out? Morsi was dreadful and in Iraq, the killings go on and ditto Afghanistan and Iran, well, you get the point.

Even if al Assad were to go tomorrow, things are not going to get better. The Sunnis outnumber the Alawites, who are in charge. The Sunnis do not like the Alawites nor the Shiites and the Shiites do not like anyone as near as I can tell.

I have cried for the wonderful people I met in Syria and many of them may be dead or have fled the country. They were Sunnis and many lived in Aleppo and Homs. We cannot fix it.

I hope Lois Capps and other members of Congress look at history. The Shiites and Sunnis have not gotten along since 600 A.D. This is not fixable.

LHThom (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why aren't Arabs in the middle east able to form beneficial governments and civilized societies with decent standards of living for their masses?

Why do 96% of Arabs in the middle east, when polled recently, say they would trust an Israeli court to settle a dispute more than their own native country justice system?

Why is Israel the only democracy in the middle east?
Why have so many Arab countries failed to educate their kids in more than the Koran?

willy88 (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

there always seems to be enough money to drop bombs, but when it comes to our own 'we are broke'. Disgusting.

spacey (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, even the Independent has pro-war propaganda these days, so sad.

It has already been proven through multiple sources and on multiple levels that the rebels which are comprised of Al Qaeda got the chemical weapons from Saudi Prince Bandar and there may or may not have been some type of fumble up because the rebels were not trained in the use of these weapons and they accidentally set them off hitting civilian targets. Though even that may have been rigged or planned, the weapons were set off with the intention of framing Assad, and U.S. and Israeli intelligence are complicit in this scheme and have used the false flag as a pretense to attacks Syria and remove Assad.

If you are wondering why Democrats like John Kerry are arguing to go to war it is because they have secret blood oaths with Skull and Bones where they performed such ancient satanic egyptian based rituals such as having homosexual intercourse inside of coffins and because of this they are no longer given total free will. True story.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The conspiracy kooks are loose at the Indy today. Ohhh noes teh skull and bones are at it again.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

willy88, the answer to all of your questions is because OUR oil sits underneath THEIR sand and the easiest way to keep them weak is to covertly give them incentives to fight against each other.

Why don't you wonder why Israel started Hamas which was intended to be a radicalized faction that would fight Hezbollah?

Why don't you wonder why in the twighlight of the Cold War, the CIA spent millions of dollars on textbooks for small children which were created and printed at the University of Nebraska and sent to Afghanistan and spoke of Jihad, grenades and AK-47s in order to spark religious extremism in the area so that the newly created Mujaheddin could defeat the Russian military advances?

Why don't you wonder why we supported Sadam Hussein when we knew he had chemical weapons that we helped him obtain and then gave him coordinates to strategic targets in Iran which were then hit with chemical weapons, causing massive civilian casualties?

Why don't you wonder why the CIA is all over the Middle East supporting despots and dictators all the time for the economic interests of the global banks and oil cartels? And then you ask why the Middle-east is dysfunctional? I'll give you a hint, it has NOTHING to do with the color of their skin very little to do with their religion! Pay attention!

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Re: Herschel_Greenspan

The establishment hacks are loose again on the Indy today. Oh no keep calling me names and provide ZERO evidence that Assad had anything to do with these attacks, people will keep believing you I promise!!

Your time has come to an end you parrot, people are finding out the truth.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can ANYBODY here provide ANY shred of proof that Assad carried out these chemical weapons attacks? I can provide photos of the rebels in possession of the chemical weapons, I can provide statements from the rebels themselves admitting where they got them and weren't 100% sure of their nature.

Then think about this. Does it make ANY sense that Assad would carry out a chemical weapons attack on his own people while UN inspectors were in the country? Impeccable timing, wasn't it? However our first hint at what happened was when the UN inspectors themselves said there was no evidence of Assad carrying out the attack. You gotta pay attention.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it very interesting that the Obama Regime knows exactly what happened in Syria within days and has yet to figure out what happened in Benghazi a year ago or what the IRS offices in Cincinnati did months ago.

Another thing the Obama Regime told the American people and the world that it was a YouTube video that caused the Benghazi massacre for months. The question is did they knowingly tell us lies or were they just completely inept? Either way the accusations and going to war is very questionable.

jukin (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem in the ME resulted from the "superior, civilized" (please note the quotes) colonialists, dividing up the ME without any thought to the people who lived in there. Iraq was a minority Sunni ruling over a majority Shia, and reaping all the benefits for themselves. Syria is the opposite, majority Sunni, with minority Shia/Alawite keeping all the goodies and money mostly for themselves. And many modern countries propped up these dictators - note the US propped up both Saddam Hussein and eventually Gadaffi. The west also removed a democratically elected head in Iran, installed the Shah, and everything went to hell after that.

Then there is the population explosion with a younger generation that would prefer to be more western; certainly many are as good or better technologically. Many blogs written by people in that area have better English grammar, say, than those in the south and those dreadful/humorous signs.

Europeans went through their warlike period somewhat earlier. I am amused by those who talk only about the unrest in the Muslim countries, but forget the devastating wars in Europe - WWI and WWII and the previous wars between the English, German, French, Spanish, etc. Then of course, there were the colonial wars, that devastated the original inhabitants, but somehow do not factor into the Muslim-bashing holier-than-thou critics.

As for the evidence of the sarin gas attack - satellite analysis is pretty sophisticated these days, especially in Germany, and rockets were tracked from regime areas (no rebels could get in) and the rockets landed in rebel areas that Assad was finding difficult to overpower. Why would rebels kill their own people - Assad is doing a good enough job at that.

And as for the video that Chivers had up on the NYT today - they made a correction that the video was made a year ago. Chivers is very good with war hardware, but has got a few non-GUN stories wrong.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tabatha I don't think there has been any solid evidence released, this person who agrees with your conclusion regarding Assad carrying out the attack lays out why they believe there needs to be stronger evidence:

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would have preferred to vote "undecided."

Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The woman whose opinion lawmakers are relying on to go to war in Syria is also a paid advocate for the war-torn country’s rebels.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry encouraged members of the House of Representatives to read a Wall Street Journal op-ed by 26-year-old Elizabeth O’Bagy — an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War — who asserted that concerns about extremists dominating among the Syrian rebels are unfounded.

“Contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al-Qaida die-hards,” O’Bagy wrote for the Journal on Aug. 30. “Moderate opposition groups make up the majority of actual fighting forces,” she wrote.

But in addition to her work for the Institute for the Study of War, O’Bagy is also the political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), a group that advocates within the United States for Syria’s rebels — a fact that the Journal did not disclose in O’Bagy’s piece."

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm thinking like the 25% in this poll who'd strike militarily "with the UN and allies", but I'd rather do it with NATO, we use the same ammo and fly the same planes etc.
loon, I'm very anti-missile strikes by USA alone, so we agree, but we don't agree on almost any of the reasons.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok DrDan does it not strike you at all odd that Biden, Kerry and Pelosi are saying things like 'Our enemies are cheering' that Obama consulted Congress on attacking Syria??

I mean, really? Doesn't that sound like something Dick Cheney would say to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats back about 6 or 8 years ago? Doesn't that bother anybody or does everybody else really have that much of a short term memory?

I mean, as far as I'm concerned politics is about as real as the WWE, I'm not sure why you would take it seriously at all and even utter the letters NATO or UN or ally or anything like that and think that some how something good is going to come of it when it's all a giant tool of the wealthy banking and oil cartels.

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it - Those who study history are doomed to watch everybody else repeat it.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan: Try 14%, not 25%.

Tabatha: Why would Syrian rebels kill their own people? The same reason Bush/Cheney?Obama use false flag attacks like the WTC and Boston marathon, although at least there was no one killed in the Boston marathon bombing.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In 1905 G. Santayana wrote ""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -- one of the most quoted and useless phrases of all time, nice loon, got any more moldy comments? Yes, obviously NATO could and shout "do it" if the decision for force was made -- a stupid decision and a pox on Biden, Pelosi, and any other fools who believe violence will solve the problem of violence.
thanks, noscams, it was 14%, not that has any bearing on my point.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So I guess we're just resigned to the idea that the U.S. is permenantly going to be involved in wars in the Middle East; great!

I wonder if I'm the only one who sees through the B.S. the government is feeding us about "fighting for our freedoms" even while they take away our freedoms at home.

How many hawkish "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" conservatives see the irony of soldiers going overseas, then after laying their lives on the line, only to come back to a country where there are LESS freedoms?

I wonde:How many tree-hugging True Believers see that their Democratic Party is complicit in this as well?

So here we are again, involved in yet another way, while 95% of the public tacitly supports more killing by continuing to vote for the same people/ideas.

We sure seem to have a lot of our products with "made in China" stamped on them, but the bombs that are killing civilians abroad probably have something different on their label.

Let the Middle East either work out its problems, or self-destruct, (hopefully the former) but let's finally get it right and get out of there. We have enough problems to deal with at home.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The option "with Allies and UN" would have been better put as "with Allies" simply because any move on the UN's part would be blocked by Russia in the Security Council - it's a non-starter for the reasons stated below:

Good perspective, Tabatha.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2013 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where was our moral indignation in the 80's when we were colluding with Sadaam Hussein in the production of chemical weapons for use in his war with Iran?

geeber (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2013 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fix Detroit first, then Syria.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
September 8, 2013 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AZ2SB: Not likely to happen; the reason being that with Detroit we could quickly get down to specifics which would require a solution but with Syria (or any other faraway place) the profiteers can dazzle the sheeple with smoke and mirrors.

Once again, they can laugh at us for voting Libertarian, (and they can also laugh at those who vote for the Green Party and perhaps some other parties) but at least if we are ever confronted by someone whose family was killed in an American air strike we can look them square in the face and say we didn't support those who ordered the killings.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 8, 2013 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt, Why is the Savior of the American people (Obama) pushing to bomb Syria? billclausen, Your Right, Our Government want's "Boots on the Ground", in Syria, the reasons are murky if not blatantly underhanded but Obama is in full support, why is that?

dou4now (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: