"Syria is a relatively small oil producer, accounting for just 0.5 percent of the global production in 2010"
Economy of Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep its all in the name of the children....

We don't get the majority of our oil from the ME anyway. It's the damn speculators that are going to use Syria as a reason to run up the cost of oil.

Yeah but its way bigger than Syria. The Saudis have a lot of influence over our gov, and I wouldn't doubt for a minute that they'd threaten oil supplies to get us involved. They are backing the rebels.

The Saudis always pretend to be our friends, and then **** us in the *** every chance they get.

Ala Osama

I think, at this point, the only way out of that mess is total noninvolvement in any affairs over there. If people want to help out, give money to the Red Cross.

Ron Paul came to early.

It's curious that many believe we are actually getting involved to help civilians there. If we were, we'd have intervened a hundred thousand deaths ago. This is typical American involvement in global affairs. We want to shape the region in the way we see best fitting of our interests. Syria is just another piece on the board.

Also, Asma Assad is pretty good-looking.

:iagree:

Also, IBTL. Politics is bad joo joo and a good way to turn friends into enemies, or frenemies, or friends with benefits.

:rofl2:

I think we can all agree that lives are being lost needlessly. I think we can all agree that war is messy, bloody, barbaric, inhumane and innocent, defenseless lives are often the most in harms way. You can argue that guns have killed more people in history than all weapons of mass destruction combined. Whatever the case, we shouldn't just ignore this. It's not about a "red line" or death tolls. It's about putting all the BS aside and doing something about it. People say Chemical weapons have "only" killed this many vs....whatever. The thing is, where DO you draw the line? It's a slippery slope. Would you be okay if the US dropped a nuke to teach them a lesson? I don't know the answers. ...and to be honest, I barely know the history and facts of the region. All I know is, I see a pile of dead men, women and children. Even if they were all gunned down, there's nothing okay about that. We don't have to be the world police, but we can't just look away. That not right and doesn't solve anything....but then again, neither will firing missiles. This is a tough call with no right answer.

Does the US want to establish some control in the region? Of course it does. It's a volatile region where the consequences of the wrong people in power effects us. It's why Iran is a threat. It's why 9/11 took place. Walking away and making some popcorn while thousands of civilians die? ...that's just f'cked up no matter how you look at it.


Yeah, this thread should be locked.

I don't agree that this should be locked. We're having a calm, civil, rational discussion. I'd be the first to support locking it up if it turns to flaming and butthurt, but we're not there. Yet.

I agree with you on the hard part being where we draw the line. Chemical weapons are usually that line. I'm just as concerned with future unintended consequences, though. So we get Assad out and let the rebels set up shop. Al Qaeda has a horrific track record on human rights. Are we then trading one psycho government for another?

No lock yet, it's been a leisurely chat thus far! I'd even say it's far less hostile than most threads I've been in lately. Actually it hasn't been hostile at all, we all seem to view it pretty much the same.

I don't think we should be in the business of removing or replacing ANY foreign, sovereign nation's leadership. We may not like it, but it's not our job and should not be our intent. I guess a more accurate analogy would be more towards this whole US role should be a boxing referee instead of a cop..... with missiles. Let them punch all they want, but hitting someone in the nuts isn't cool.