over a hundred people were murdered in the past few hours in the Syrian city of Hama

I agree with you, it's terrible.

Can you explain what him being a member of a minority religious group has to do with it? (I don't know, it just stood out to me that you mentioned it.)

 

My perspective is.... what does the US actually gain or what changes from saying "Assad needs to leave right now?" Especially if we won't actually make a move to do it? That's just an all bark, no bite scenario, and doesn't help anyone or anything aside from possibly making us feel good about ourselves.

 

That sucks, and I hope that Syria ends up settled in an agreeable state as soon as possible. But, with that being said, the United States has serious problems of its own to worry about and we shouldn't be directly involved anywhere. It's like seeing someone drowning in the pool, and jumping in to save them even though you were just in a car accident and you have two broken legs.

 

I'd rather not make more enemies.
US is not doing itself any favors when the mass majority of the population in the Middle East sees the US as huge imperialists and elitists, which we confirm by yet again becoming directly involved in another LOCAL (as in not affecting or concerning us in any way or form whatsoever) conflict.

Elaborating on what Thadeus said, throw them a rope and let them reel themselves in.

 

Yeah, a clear and unambiguous statement by Obama would be fantastic.

 

Would a strongly worded letter make you feel better?

You don't like that invading and USA fighting stuff, unless it's a regime you don't like?

Perhaps you are part of the group in syria that is being targeted?

 

If you really think that a Very Angry Letter is going to make a real difference in future Syrian and Middle Eastern foreign policy ( and this is of course assuming that Assad loses,) then you have a very different view of international relations than I do. Not to mention I think it's sort of demeaning that the view of the Syrian people towards the United States can be changed with nothing more than a letter or speech. Can't help but think about Reagan's delusions that he could get Gorbachev to end the Cold War if he could just get a real tour of the American people.

 

He has made some statements, as has Ms. Clinton, but yes, not of the "clear and unambiguous" variety. Anything that can rachet the pressure up on the Syrian regime would be a plus. It's maddening to see the majority repressed by a minority, which is simliar to what we saw in Iraq with Saddam. This country can't (or shouldn't have, in Iraq) take military action against every murderous regime, however. What we can do (and should have done in Iraq, IMO) is use every means short of force to change the Regime's behavior, and do what we can short of military action to support those within the country in their effort to gain freedom.

 

That's how every government works.

 

Other then the threat of military force, the US unfortunately has very little leverage over Syria. You should look to Syria's biggest European trading partners, like Germany, France and Italy to exert some sort of economic pressure.

 

Based on what happened in Washington today, you could have a point.

 

I agree completey that the situation currently taking place in Syria should not be allowed.

What I'm wondering is what you expect Obama to do that's more than publicly and internationally denouncing their government's actions, but short of warfare.

You talked of "bark".

What gray area are you expecting him to occupy that's more than bark, but less than bite?

Not criticizing, just curious.

Someone else mentioned economic sanctions by Syria's allies.

Do you feel that a viable course of action?

I'm not so sure.

Some rulers have proven to be proud enough to allow their subjects to starve because they know economic downturn won't effect them.

What are you asking to happen?

 

I believe Germany has brought this situation before the UN security council yesterday.

 

Do people genuinely feel that the only way to deal with this kind of problem is millitary intervention/invasion, and anything else is worthless?

That seems to be the common theme from most of the people who have responded here.

 

Well, we've put sanctions on Syria already. So that's out ( and they've increased since Assad started shooting people, though Point Forward seems to show that that is not something that is being acknowledged). And I don't think a Very Angry Letter is really going to change the mind of Assad or somehow change the perspective of the Syrian people towards the US, so yes, it's really not that useful. I wish the Syrian people were that gullible.

So, uh, then what?

 

Agreed, but at the same time I do believe the US and its European allies are complicit in elciting that type of reaction from the world.

When militarily intervening in Libya, the Obama administration justified its participation in the war by stating that, absent the military option, Ghaddafi would let loose on his own people and that the potential for a "bloodbath" was significant. As we all know, the Libyan uprising had been taking place for some time and no such "bloodbath" had materialized up till that point. Also, intervention would set a precedent that the US and like-minded nations were genuine brokers of goodwill, standing on the side of the people even if it required military support.

The above dynamic is a product of the unchecked US militarism thats been taking place for the past decade. The military option seems to be one that we dont hesitate to use on weaker nations and nations less favorable to our own interests. Now that we suddenly have a bonified "bloodbath" taking place on the world stage, what will be our response? Would it not be hypocritical for us to seek diplomatic solutions with Syria when we were so quick to launch attacks in Libya?

I've always thought it foolhardy to play parent when foreign nations were experiencing unrest, and that it would set an unhealthy precedent of being called upon to solve problems for other countries.

For once, I think it would be wise to explore alternative forms of pressure that could be imposed on Syria in conjunction with the rest of the world. Sanctions are a start, but trade embargos, shutting down embassies, etc. are all possible so long as the world community contributes equally. The military option need not be our only option in cases such as these, and it will definitely take some level of creativity to devise an intelligent strategy that supports the people and undermines/weakens Assad's regime.

That said, I cant blame people for calling on the US to intervene once again. We created this bed, and now we've got to lay in it.