Comments:Wikinews interviews Dr Thomas Scotto and Dr Steve Hewitt about potential US military intervention in Syria

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Potential US military intervention in Syria 122:39, 4 September 2013

Potential US military intervention in Syria

In as much as it is very wrong for the government of Syria to use chemical weapons against its own people (if it is actually true), I think the US is the last country that should be talking of military intervention. The world has not forgotten the pain such a military intervention inflicted on innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq when George Bush launched his so-called search for weapons of mass destruction only for the world to finally find out he was just interested in ousting Saddam Hussein. Innocent people were the ultimate sufferers in all of that. I do not think the best solution to this problem is another so-called military intervention. Obama and his government are just trying to use this event as an excuse for their desire to oust Bashar al-Assad from power. Of course, so many innocent civilians are going to be the ultimate losers if such a step is taken. The US should stop creating enemies for itself (thereby putting the lives of its citizens in danger) by meddling unnecessarily in other countries affairs. I am very sure there are diplomatic ways of dealing with such a situation without military intervention (ostensibly, the only conflict resolution strategy the US seems to know). Iraq and Afghanistan are yet to recover from the damage caused to them when the US decided military intervention would be the best solution to the so-called problem in those countries. The world does not need any of these wars. And where is the UN by the way?

Prosperseenam (talk)20:54, 4 September 2013

If the Syrian government is using chemical weapons against its own people, that doesn't seem remotely something one could deal with effectively by diplomatic means. Too light a response would harm the future (as would too heavy, or a mistargeted, response, obviously).

Pi zero (talk)22:39, 4 September 2013