Previous Next
Should the U.S. take military action against Syria?
Asked at Massachusetts Street on August 28, 2013
“I think it’s not out responsibility to step in on every situation and we have so much going on here we need to step back and not take action.”
“I would say yes not only because President Obama said we would if a country used chemicals on its citizens but we do serve as a leader in the world and it’s a global human rights issue.”
“I think it’s more the UN’s responsibility because it’s more of a global issue of if the U.S. should be the regulators of chemical weaponry rather than the world as a whole.”
“I don’t think this is something we should take action in ourselves. This is more of a global issue.”
Related story
loading...
- Police investigating shooting death of 1-year-old girl in northern Lawrence as 'accidental' September 22, 2017 · 56 comments
- Kansans who install solar panels may soon pay higher electric bills September 22, 2017 · 35 comments
- Discriminatory text messages spur student sit-in over LGBT rights at Lawrence High September 18, 2017 · 92 comments
- Kansans pressuring Moran, again, on upcoming Obamacare repeal vote September 24, 2017 · 8 comments
- LHS transgender students face backlash after protest, say 'this isn't the end' for their advocacy September 19, 2017 · 50 comments
- Trump dumps Obama-era campus assault guidance; universities can now require higher standard of proof September 22, 2017 · 14 comments
- Kobach criticizes New Hampshire election law, but Kansas officials say our law is much the same September 24, 2017 · 7 comments
- Donor David Booth explains his $50M gift for KU football stadium September 23, 2017 · 6 comments
- Senior Focus: Happy hour gains steam in local retirement communities September 24, 2017 · 3 comments
- Court records: Kansas Commerce secretary forced to resign September 22, 2017 · 7 comments
Comments
50YearResident 4 years ago
We are not the World's Peace Keepers. Stay out of it and let Syria fight their own war.
jafs 4 years ago
Are there any conditions under which you'd intervene?
Children getting killed with chemical weapons seems pretty bad to me, and you can't blame the kids for the war.
50YearResident 4 years ago
Jafs, send your sons over there to fight if you think the US has to go to war every time a child in a foreign country gets killed. We can not defend 50 billion people from other countries. The only condition for intervention is if they invade the United States on our soil and it's our kids being killed.
jafs 4 years ago
I don't have any children, so that's not an option.
Yours is a consistent and to some degree attractive position, but I find it a little bit unsatisfying. It's analogous to a martial arts expert standing by and doing nothing while a gang beats up some guy.
Were you then opposed to the Iraq wars, both of them, and many other wars we've fought in, that have happened without direct attacks on our country? Vietnam, Korea, etc.
I generally don't like many of the reasons we get involved militarily, and would greatly decrease them, perhaps to self defense and defense of innocents.
Maddy Griffin 4 years ago
Agreed! We should concentrate on getting OUR country back on track.
50YearResident 4 years ago
We had no business drawing a red line in the first place. We need to quit threatening other countries. Let them fight their own battles. What would the United States be like today if Russia had interfered with our fight with the British, or war between the North and the South to end slavery? You might be speaking a different language now.
oldbaldguy 4 years ago
Between my dear departed father, me and my youngest son we have served in six wars from 1944 to the present. That represents 51 years of combined service. We signed up and stayed because that is what we did, we were and are Regulars on active service. Having said all that, it is time to stop intervening in every dark hole in the world. The scenario in Syria is a complete disaster. Let us not forget that Russia is an ally of Syria and so is Iran. We intervene, we will be at war in the Middle East long enough for my grandsons to serve and fight. I do not want that.
CHEEZIT 4 years ago
"That way when we turn around and run we'll be in front!" (Bill Cosby)
gl0ck0wn3r 4 years ago
Absolutely not. We have boxed ourselves - both parties - into this notion of red lines. We have become addicted to low-cost surgical strikes that solve nothing and only move us further toward sloppy, expensive missions. The civil war is just that: a civil war. We shouldn't be in the business of involving ourselves in civil wars. If the conflict spreads outside the borders and into strategically important areas then we should evaluate policy but until then, no.
pizzapete 4 years ago
No, no, and more no. It's a shame Obama has painted himself into a corner with his talk of a red line. I imagine he feels obligated to act now that he's made that threat. It's a real mess, but we shouldn't be making it our mess, especially with Russia backing the other side.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.