Comments on: On Syria, it’s time for Obama to decide Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:27:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: breezinthru Tue, 14 May 2013 12:43:12 +0000 Perhaps inaction is not the worst choice.

We should continue to monitor the stores of chemical weapons or destroy them. However, Syria is a much bigger problem for Syria’s neighbors than it is for America.

We should stand back to allow Turkey, Israel, Iran, Lebanon, etc. to take whatever action they deem necessary. If there is no consensus, then their will be disagreement. Armed conflict might even spread through the region. Eventually there will be a resolution. It is their neighborhood and their problem, a problem that they have a vested interest in resolving.

It is not the responsibility of America to join in armed combat against evil wherever it can be found in the world.

That would be a fool’s mission. There is an endless supply of evil.

By: otiscsi Mon, 13 May 2013 17:31:08 +0000 Zero alignment for people who cite WW2 and this situation. This is a local/regional dust-up of tribal and religious gangs. Even a spillover is not a threat to US strategic interests. Keep the US out.

By: Samrch Mon, 13 May 2013 12:23:49 +0000 In the Islamic world the best action for the US when they kill each other and not go out side is sell the losing side short range weapons for gold. Better they kill each other than use or allies.

By: meleze Sun, 12 May 2013 08:16:35 +0000 It should have been interesting to go further in your comparison of the neutrality of the USA between this century facing the Middle East and the past century in Europe between Germany and UK before WWII till the Pearl Harbour attack. Assad already overtook Hitler. He is able to take the lead of a world military alliance.

By: usagadfly Sun, 12 May 2013 02:02:45 +0000 How can anyone with even the slightest of pretensions to believing in representative government advocate war in Syria? It is beyond absurd.

Now come the consequences of mollycoddling war criminals from Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee to the present. They still chant war, war, war in spite of the opposition of 90% of the American people. There is no counter-argument to that. All politicians promoting war should be arrested. Then they should be impeached and removed from office. The public will be respected!

The only option is to keep hands off. Completely! We cannot trust government to not start wars. And we cannot trust “civilian” control of the military any longer either. The record is beyond dismal.

By: agsocrates Sat, 11 May 2013 23:59:24 +0000 It seems Obama has already chosen to remain uninvolved, he just doesn’t want to say that he is unwilling to take serious action to stop the slaughter of civilians.

By: ptiffany Sat, 11 May 2013 18:43:26 +0000 After careful reading, this article makes a very strong case for maintaining the status quo of United States involvement. All of the reasons for non-escalation have now become abundantly clear to everyone except the knee-jerk warmongers, most of whom profit from conflicts.

By: pavoter1946 Sat, 11 May 2013 17:39:51 +0000 Bombing Assad’s defenses for humanitarian purposes? Is that taken right out of a military book of phrases, like destroying a village to save it during the Vietnam war?

If is always interesting that those who think a no-fly zone is a peace of cake also say no boots on the ground, and then when boots on the ground are needed, fade into the background until the next time.

And is Libya now a paradise of security and peace? Not that I am aware of.

Yes, Assad could be destroyed, and then Syria will deteriorate into a worse factional civil war, along the lines of what happened in Iraq when Saddam was eliminated.

The Alawites, if offered a place in a future Syria, could be a partner in a new Syria, and involve Russia, which must have a say for anything to work.

It is so sickening to listen to the beat of the drums for more US involvement, this time in a civil war. I realize for some Senators, it has been a long time since the US started involvement in a new war but Syria is not the excuse.

If numbers of deaths mattered, there is the Congo. Some 5.4 million people died between August 1998 and April 2007 from violence and war-related hunger and illness, according to studies by U.S.-based aid agency International Rescue Committee (IRC) And the killing still goes on. The number of internally displaced people increased from 1.7 million in December 2011 to more than 2.6 million in January 2013.

But then, the Congo is not in Israel’s neighborhood.

By: KyleDexter Fri, 10 May 2013 14:51:31 +0000 One thing Mr. Bremmer is not mentioning, and no Western Journalist is mentioning, is what Syria would do to retaliate. If the Syrian Government felt it is going down, they will just shoot at Isreal, maybe even with Chemical Weapons. If they feel they are losing and will die, they will take their enemies down with them.

Remember, Isreal is next door. You do not need very sofisticated weapons to achieve such a goal.

By: COindependent Fri, 10 May 2013 14:36:53 +0000 So, Mr Bremmer, is your son or daughter to be deployed in the first phase? Journalists and politicians are always the first to send “other peoples kids” into the harms way while their children are playing “world at war” and “urban combat” videos at some high rent college.

The best thing for the U.S. to do is observe. Let the Russians, Turks, Saudi’s etal manage their problem. There is no strategic interest that would cause the U.S. to get actively involved.

Humanitarian reasons? Not a chance. We ignored the Assad’s (father and son) for 50 years while they butchered and oppressed their population, but you think we should now get involved? We did literally NOTHING while the Syrians provided arms and technology to the Muslim insurgents during the Iraq war killing our military, but now we have some (moral?) obligation to get involved in a civil war? Politics ruled the day, handcuffing our soldiers and Marines on the ground. But now we are concerned about the “humanitarian issues”? So a Syrian citizen demands protection, while we would not do everything necessary to protect our military on the ground. I will call B.S. on that!

This is a tribal country, influenced by the various forms of Islam who are now back to killing one another like they have done for the past 1,00 years. Leave them to their own designs. Allow them to cast their lot with Iranians if that is what they want to do. They will preach their hate against the “great satan” regardless. That’s much easier than looking in the mirror.

So, tell me again, what’s in it for us?