Question of the week: “After the massacre of 108 people in Houla, Syria, the latest atrocity by the Assad regime in its effort to quash democratic uprisings, should the world intervene militarily in Syria?”
- Karen Anderson: “No. We cannot afford the ‘world’s’ next war. Too many dictators, not enough money or political will. Nor is it clear that we are better off with the Islamic states that follow.”
-
Dave Appling: “Yes. But the operative word is ‘world’ – desirably the UN, but at a minimum the Arab League, must stand up and be counted (as with Libya). It would be neither wise nor viable for the U.S. to go it alone.”
-
Bert Berson: “Yes. On the condition that the Arab nations do all of the ‘heavy lifting’ and that we and other nations provide only logistical and other electronic support.”
-
Chris Bryant: “No, but the UN should take swift action to pressure the Syrian president to stop the violence.”
-
Dennis Kennedy: No! It is important that the non-Arab, non-Islamic world not intervene since that intervention may create still another reason for extremist Islamic militants to attack non-Arab and non-Islamic countries and their people.”
-
Julian Mancias: “No. No more wars.”
-
Henry Miller: “In the name of humanity, yes. If this were Western Europe – think Bosnia/Herzegovina – intervention would have happened months, even years, ago. But this is Asia so it isn’t as important? Arrest the despot Assad – think Ratko Mladic – for crimes against humanity, give him a fair trial, then hang the b______!.”
-
Lisa Pampuch: “No; it’s an extremely risky proposition that could overwhelm the Middle East and beyond with war. World leaders should use every diplomatic and political tool at their disposal before resorting to military intervention.”
-
Jeff Smith: “Whenever the ‘world’ intervenes, it almost always means the U.S.A. alone. So, while the massacre was a barbarous, heinous, atrocity, we cannot afford to intervene in another Middle-Eastern/Muslim country. We don’t have the money nor the American lives to spare.”
