Despite the Facts that the Syrian's themselves don't want intervention

[UndertheOcean]

and for all practical reasons they are on their own in their struggle.

Still , I strongly believe that it is an ETHICAL duty of free people to help fellow humans yearning for freedom and dignity.

I thought the exact same thing about Rawanda , about the events in the Balkans. And definitely the world should have reacted more quickly to protect the Jewish People during the Holocaust .

As humans , it is an ethical duty , and leaving them alone to face their fate is horrid.

I am not a pie in the sky pacifist , atleast not as much as I was in my teenage years, and I think sometimes Military intervention for the sake of preventing a bigger evil (Crimes against Humanity) is NECESSARY.

UNDERTHEOCEAN out.

[Taverner]

1. If they don't want our help, we shouldn't give it to them

They've seen what happens to other countries, particularly in that region, who get our "help"

[EFerrari]

2. No. We have to stop thinking that US or NATO intervention

is not political or has no political or economic consequences. They are not cowboys in white hats. They are defenders of capital and that's all they defend.

[David__77]

3. "Human rights imperialism" gets over more full of itself.

"Help," it's called. First, if "they" ask for it. And, even if "they" do not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Calling on the U.S. or NATO to defend "freedom" is like calling on the Mafia to defend banks.

See Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, Congo, Angola, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, South Africa, Greece, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and many more examples of our "humanitarianism".

[UndertheOcean]

5. They are the guys with power . what is the alternative , just let people die and forget about them ?

Honestly , is not appealing for help an alternative really ??

I don't claim to have the answer.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. The "alternative" you suggest has a bad track record of making things worse.

What we have in Syria, like Tunisia, is a civil war between factions both claiming to be the "good" guys. Both sides claiming to be virtuous and on the side of the angels. When, in fact, neither side is without an agenda driven by a lust for power and neither side is above slaughtering the innocents for their agenda.

If you think that the U.S. or Nato would intervene without an agenda save to "protect" the innocents then you've missed decades of recent history.

[UndertheOcean]

8. It is definitely not a Civil war , and only one side has the weapons.

Alawites and Christians and Sunnis are all revolting.

There is only lust from freedom.

That lust develops in you when you get 5 years in prison for removing the poster of the dear leader from your car.

[customerserviceguy]

7. Fine, airdrop in some supplies

and hope that they don't wind up in the wrong hands. Other than that, I say we stay out of Syria's internal problems.

With so many places, regime change turns into "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Not worth either American lives, or Americans taking lives for it, especially since we don't really know how to win a war anymore.

[daleo]

9. Who can afford another war? n/t

[UndertheOcean]

10. But we can afford more crimes against humanity ? , that price is acceptable ? n/t

[daleo]

11. When it comes to (your) pension or war

Which price do you pay? That's seems to be the choice that is being presented to people these days.

Guns or butter.