Political Crossfire Forums

I don't mind US military intervention in certain areas, but by no means a ground invasion or setting up a new government etc. If we have the ability to prevent the Syrian regime, or other regimes from mass slaughtering its own people with chemical weapons I'd be ok with it.

The International Community is split though. China and Russia see too many of the rebels as dangerous extremists (which is a fair point) and Europe and America see the Syrian government as bunch of murdering psychopaths (which is also a fair point). The Arab world has not managed to do anything. Realistically the only country who may do something tangible about this is Turkey, and I should imagine that the release of chemical weapons will mean that their intervention would be rather violent.

Basically the only safe route was to prop-up Assad at the start. Now our political masters have created a massively dangerous situation.

Eric there are two problems

First, military intervention is logistically almost impossible.

Second (hinted by others) the rebels are just as crazy as the guys in charge there now

UN Security Council should take a vote on it. Then, the US will supply the average number of resources from all Security Council members to whatever actions are taken.

For instance, I've listed the current Security Council members, with a hypothetical number of warplanes:

China - 0
France - 100
Russia - 0
England - 150
Azerbaijan - 0
Colombia - 0
Germany - 20
Guatemala - 0
India - 10
Morocco - 0
Pakistan - 0
Portugal - 0
South Africa - 0
Togo - 0

So, the US will supply 20 planes, in that scenario.

I'm against military action that will aid in the creation of an Islamist state in Syria...that is to say, any military action.

i don't think anyone in the world has a solution for Syria right now. Libya was very different, albeit still a big gamble. Syria is a whole nother ballgame.

I really hope this doesn't lead to Sarin gas being used on innocents.