Should the USA intervene in Syria?

[timothy141]

I don't we can afford another 10 years of such expenditures, but we are headed for it, should we or shouldn't we think not all my life we have been at war somewhere, 55 years none stop.http://news.yahoo.com/syria-warns-us-not-intervene-militarily-203541382.html  

[Vance2335]

France surrenders before a conflict breaks out.

[Proactive]

I don't believe Obama has the public's support for a military strike.(as appears to be the case in the UK as well)..So since Obama is a professional campaigner, I don't see a strike in the cards for now.

Let France go it alone imo..about time they were handed "the big stick".

[Vance2335]

Recognizing is the same as backing, they are a terrorist organization. That is like recoganzing Hamas.
Hell he even sent them aid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/world/middleeast/white-house-move-to-give-egypt-450-million-in-aid-meets-resistance.html?_r=0

[adgal]

I have to disagree there - he didn't back them, but he did recognize them when they were elected through the democratic process.  Not much choice there, not he nor anyone can dictate who a country elects.  That would make him the biggest dictator of all.  Traditionally, the US always recognized the Egyptian President as a friend to the US and that whole debacle is a good lesson in why other countries should stay out of civil situations. As bad as the former Egyptian President was, you never know who is waiting in the wings.  That part of the world is pretty scary right now politically.

[Vance2335]

Well Obama back The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and see how far backing a radical group gets you...

[adgal]

I was watching the President's interview last night on this issue.  I really do get the distinct impression he will authorize an attack of some sort, but not a full scale invasion.  Some interesting points were brought up as well that I hadn't thought of.  There is more then one group of resistance fighters (or whatever you want to call them).  Some of these groups have direct links to Al Quada and are being funded by them.  There are of course other groups that have little to no resources as they are your average everyday citizen just fighting for freedom.  It sounds like whatever the President decides, he needs to move very carefully - having an Al Quada backed group take control would be worse then the current dictator.  If the US backs one of the "average citizen" groups, and they take power, will that group be able to maintain power?  To me that speaks of a whole lot of US funding in the future to keep them in place and Al Quada out.  Obviously the powers that be in the US are a whole lot smarter then me, and no doubt they have a plan, but this information certainly adds a new element I hadn't thought of.  Look at the dollars the US currently sends Pakistan in order to keep the current leadership in and the extremists out.  Can the US sustain that with other countries?  Rather frightening.  The rest of the free world must be a part of this, both as a coallition and future financial backing.  I suspect lack of full commitment from other countries (although Britain signed off yesterday) is a big part of why the President hasn't ordered action yet.  He is in a pretty tough spot here.