Comments about ‘Syria's slaughter’

The Obama Administration is pressing for regime change and new sanctions have been imposed by the U.S. and the E.U. The question is what else should the U.S. do? Invade? Not wise, would you not say? You point out the problem with Russia and China. So what would you do? No one is happy with the situation, but we still have to be prudent because of the situation. As was pointed out previously, each nation in the Arab Spring is a different situation and has to be dealt with in unique ways. It does not mean direct U.S. military involvement as the neo-cons always prefer. That just leads to the loss of American lives for dubious national security reasons. Perhaps after their election, Russia will step up and be more responsible. In the meantime, expect this to be resolved in an excruciating way. No one like it, but there is only so much we can do under the circumstances.

Russia and China will never condone UN intervention in Syria. That would set the precedent for UN intervention as these countries' internal problems develop in Tibet, etc. The US has no positive options. As sympathetic as we are for the brutalized citizens of Syria, there is no rational side for the US to support. Just because there is no good option does not mean we should chose a bad option.

We're broke. We have enough problems at home.

Maybe France or Great Britain or Russia could take this one?

We just spent a decade building 2 new nations. We can't be everywhere and finance every lil rebellion in the world.

What I donÂt understand is Why is 8000 Syrians so important to the United States? 8000 is a miniscule number when compared to the number of people slaughtered in our own wars of economic advantage. The Iraq war costs the lives of 5000 or so Americans a several times that number is casualties of American families and wounded. And then there are the Iraqi killed, so many that they wonÂt tell us how many.

I think that if people were told the truth about why we are asked to fight and die in wars, there might not be so many wars.

Not long ago, Republicans wailed because Obama had not intervened in Libya.

When he did, they changed tune and condemned him.

Sounds like deja vu all over again in Syria.

On the one hand, intervening in Syria might help bolster the negative view that most Syrians have of the US. On the other hand, the Syrians might resent us even more if we did intervene. Unfortunately, as we've seen elsewhere in the Middle East and the world, a regime change doesn't guarantee improved relations. France and Britain aren't going to do anything, and as much as they would disapprove, the Russians are too busy dealing with political unrest of their own to effectively do anything. That leaves China...'nuff said.

There is not easy solution when it comes to Syria. Perhaps the best we can do in this situation is invade them with an outpouring of humanitarian aid. Seems like that's the one thing they may be reluctant to accept, but are in the most need of.

What's really going on in Syria? Those behind regime change are the Sunni powers of the Middle East as well as the (Sunni) Muslim Brotherhood, responsible for most of the armed Syrian opposition. NATO is in support of these forces and backs regime change.

The US is up in arms with China and Russia for vetoing the UN Security Council's resolution targeting Assad--as if the Security Council were the only diplomatic tool available. There is much speculation that what is going on in Syria is a "deliberate and calculated campaign" to depose the Assad government and replace it with a regime more amenable to US interests.

What about all the killings? It's likely they are hugely exaggerated. Regardless endlessly quoted in MSM, the ONLY sources for information about the violence in Syria are the few exiled Syrian opposition groups backed by Western powers and Saudi Arabia.

This all makes for a very muddy mix of a civil war. The US--already economically strained to the gills by over a decade of war--should drop its policy of "humanitarian" intervention and stay out of Syria.

The obvious question in my mind is... why did we intervene in Libya so quickly, and hold off for so long in Syria (when their leaders were doing basically the same thing to their people)?

Is the reason that Libya has more oil than Syria?
Is it that Obama owes Europe, and his friends in Europe get their oil from Libya and didn't want their supply inturupted by political problems so we had to intervene right away?

Why the stand-back approach in Syria when we reacted so quickly in Libya???

I hope somebody out there has an explanation. I'd hate to think that even after getting rid of the Evil Bush... we are still going to war over OIL!

The Diplomacy of the United States, Susan Rice, calling Russia and China "despicable" for spoiling her war plans in Syria (and beyond). They witnessed what "humanitarian aid" can do to a sovereign nation.

For someone in her position, to label Russia and China as "despicable" because they exercised their right to block NATO's desire to make another Libya out of Syria, is a clear sign of how low US diplomacy has sunk.

What the mainstream media says and what is really going on are two different realities.

to answer the headline caption, "should the US push for a regime change?. The answer is yes. obama and his regime need to go. that is much more important to US 's future than Syria.

The reason?

Oil

Syria has no oil.
Rwanda has no oil.
Egypt has no oil.
North Korea has no oil.
Cuba has no oil.

Kuwait
Libya
Iraq
...Oil

and as for Iran?
Oil, so is the GOP warmongering to invade there just another "coincidence"?

Is it about "Human rights", "Freedom", "Democracy"?
or
Is is about "Oil"?

Think for yourselves.

I have been praying for Syria and I believe prayer works.

Did you pray for the Libyans?

Shouldn't we be a little consistent here?

Not long ago all my Democrat friends were saying "The United States can't be the World's police". But that was when Bush was in office.

But now that Obama's in the White House they seem OK with America taking on the role of the world's policeman (because if we don't terrible things will happen).

Well what's the difference between now and then? Only who's in the White House from what I can tell.

A few months ago the host on Meet The Press asked the head of the CIA how many countries in which the United States is involved in "Shooting War" (meaning American soldiers are the shooting at people)... and he said 9. Now if THAT'S not being the world's police I don't know what is. And when asked about it the Democrat supporter on the show didn't care. When the host pointed out how hostile he had been when President Bush used our military as the world's police... he was kinda stumped and just said that things are more complicated in the world now. Why... Because HIS guy is in the White House so he has to DEFEND instead of ATTACK the President's use of force around the world???

Both PARTIES are the same my friends. There's not enough difference in how they approach governing to put your faith in either of them. President Obama promised to CHANGE everything in Washington DC. But from what I can tell from the first 4 years he has not been all that different in ANY areas from his predicesor, the Evil George Bush.

Perhaps we should look at the US track record on "intervention" before advocating just that.

In Afghanistan, we essentially created the Taliban, then fought them for ten years at the cost of a Trillion Dollars, Now we are going to leave and the Taliban will be back in power before the contrails of our jets evaporate from the skies. And the alternative? Staying indefinitely, not an option.

We overthrew the elected ruler of Iran, installed the Shah, who's reign of terror created the Mullahs and the current regime. Now we're 0-2

Bush couldn't wait to invade Iraq. We did. Didn't find any of the nasty things that we were promised would be there. Another Trillion Dollars and the place will be in civil war before Rubio gets elected President in 2017. 0-3

Libya. Over the wailing of Conservatives, Obama let Libyans fight for their freedom with a little NATO help from above. Tens of millions, bad guy gone and a country that might be able to create a stable government. 1-3

Anything more than subtle support for the Syrian rebels will probably lead to more pain and suffering. Let's let Syrians take care of Syrians.

As soon as obama does something in syria we'll be all over him for it.

There's slaughter along the southern borders which go unreported, and is ignored.

Leave Syrians alone to slaughter themselves at will until they've had enough. Remember, we killed almost half million Americans trying to decide if we wanted to be one nation under God with no slavery, or not. Syrians will eventually work just fine it out without our interference.

Same with Afghanistan. Get out and let them decide their fate.

@Dart Thrower:

"Bush couldn't wait to invade Iraq. We did. Didn't find any of the nasty things that we were promised would be there."

finding the 'nasty stuff' was a ruse. The purpose for the Iraq invasion was to keep Saddam from re-invading Kuwait, securing its oil, then on to the Saudi Arabian oil... then it's a gotcha for us! That you can still pump gas into your vehicle, you can thank Bush.

"Another Trillion Dollars and the place will be in civil war before Rubio gets elected President in 2017."

Rubio will never make it. As the DNews recently reported, Rubio was Baptized into the LDS Church as an eight-year old. Which puts the kibosh that.

Let Harry, Hillary, Bill, Nancy, and Barry join the Army and help Syrians. Having leaders in combat would bring peace to the world.