Syria

[Emberstorm]

Okay well I have had this debate lately, especially among my friends. If the United States of America supports any side it is most likely to be the rebels, seeing that the government is cruel and has already used unfair weapons such as gas, and help them win. However, there are many factors involved. Recent events include the Russians supplying missiles to I believe the Syrian regime so it could get nastier than it already is. To make things worse, Turkey is just plain annoyed because the both have killed its civilians in he fighting and may steps in. Turkey has I think the 14th largest military in the world according to the CIA factbook. Plus, Israel has well ummm bombed within Syria, thus raising tensions. The conflict has already spilled into the nations bordering Syria so it needs to end soon. As a military power, what should we as a nation do?

[Afterpaw]

Well, as the United States are amongst the largest of the world's superpowers, most would say it's their duty to take a stand for their inferiors. However, the question should not be answered on a moral standpoint. It should always remain within a political and professional standpoint.

Personally, I think that interference won't help one bit. Sure, I have no doubt that the US would crush the oppressive side, but do we really want to get involved in a war with a far more dangerous one lurking on our doorsteps? Rather than focus on the singular issue, you have to think about how it would affect the grand design. Yes, America would most likely win, and the Syrian people would be free. But while we're sending troops out their to assist, who's to say that Kim Jong Un won't decide to make his strike to the US. We all know about that situation. And most mock it, not taking into consideration the magnitude of the problems this could potentially cause. I honestly think that, while the US should morally play the hero, it's not fair to its people and safety to let their guard in the West and South down for a simple matter of international warfare. Were it my choice, I'd say to let the fighting continue. One side wins, one side loses, period. That's how it works.

Aside from that, what would be the use in expending resources and money that the US doesn't have to save a country that has even less? To gain another ally? Who the hell cares? Yes, this would be considered harsh judgement, but it's the truth; interfering in geopolitical warfare has caused extreme issues for the US in the past. I pray you don't forget what happened when we dropped the Little Boy on Hiroshima? Or the Fat Man on Nagasaki? Both of those were within three days of each other. And I guarantee that deployment of any forces outside of the US's jurisdiction will almost definitely result in similar consequence. Let the fights continue, because it all ends either in death or diplomacy, and looking at it now, death's more likely. Why bother trying to prevent it?

[DON'T USE THIS ACCOUNT'S NAME]

On one hand, Assad is an enemy of freedom and ideologically anathema to Democratic ideals. On the other hand, so are some of the rebels. Best to indirectly support the rebel factions we ideologically agree with, the Free Syrian Army, and leave the Islamist Liberation Front and other ideologies opposed to a democratic government to die. Luckily it seems that a majority of the rebels are either democratic or at least would prefer a democracy over an Islamic state. Some regions though do have a majority of Islamists and may be an issue.

[Emberstorm]

Well now that we are sending weapons, I guess it doesn't matter still what else will we do other than give them to the possible terrorists- excuse me I meant Islamic Extremist cells within the rebels.