Best
245 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    No attack on Syria is going to stop them from gassing their civilians. The US doesn't have the money to be the world's policeman. The federal government is going broke.
  • #61
    !
    "THIER" not gassing their own citizens .... our CIA and Al-Qaeda are!

    Genocide would be them killing each other and that's clearly not the case!

    If this doesn't work out for Corproate States of America, we always have Eygpt right? Maybe will help the Muslim Brotherhood launch a chemical attack so we can blame it on the Egyptian military so we have an excuse to attack them instead ... and while were at it forcefully reinstate our puppet Mosi =)
  • #74
    !
    If mark levine feels so strongly about this let him go to syria and join the rebels. I'm sick of these chicken hawks, both democrats and republicans who cheer lead and push rhe country into war without any risk to themselves.
  • #90
    !
    Hmmm. You folks may have a point. No one intervened in our Civil War to stop it. They fought and fought with brothers killing brothers just because one favored black slavery and the other didn't until one side's losses were so great they gave up.

    Perhaps we should have stayed out of the fight with Hitler's Germany and let him finish off the Jews and anyone who opposed him.

    Maybe Syrians should just kill each other off until they get so sick of fighting they come to their senses and give up. I hate to think that way. I just don't know anymore.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    !
    While I understand the sentiment and grieve for the children. We are not the world police nor should we be. It's always the same America gets suckered in we spend our blood and treasure and it ends up blowing up in our faces. To the world we are the bad guys so let us for once let the world see what happens when their on their own.
  • #24
    !
    I agree. Lets sit this one out and let the rest of the world see how useless they all are without our money and military. Put up or shut up time for the UN
  • #3
    !
    The moral justification is enough for us to get involved, but our national interest is affected as well. At the moment, we are anti-war because we have bungled several wars in a row, but we do not have to keep bungling them.

    How about if we stop trying to remake foreign cultures in our image? It did not work very well in Iraq, and did not work at all in Afghanistan; the countries where Americanization worked, as in, say, the Philippines, the initiative came from its people, not us. We should limit ourselves to what we do best, blowing stuff up. Let's blow up the Assad regime, and if the country ends up in Al Qaeda's hands, blow them up too.
  • #93
    !
    The problem with bleeding hearts is that it leads to dead American soldiers.

    If I thought for one minute that our involvement would actually make a difference, then I would consider supporting US action in Syria.

    Unfortunately, these barbarians have been killing each other for centuries and our involvement will only place more at risk and kill American brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers.

    Only France wants to get involved with this action. The rest of the UN is a no-go, our allies are showing better, rational thought than our President.

    Sometimes it is best not to get involved.
  • #103
    !
    @AntiPorcheria
    Firing cruise missiles into chemical plants won't cause the death of any American soldier. And punishing chemical weapons offenders does not imply taking sides in the civil war. And hey, in addition to France, Turkey seems to be interested in taking part as well. It's just enforcing the ban on chemical weapons use.
  • #104
    !
    @AntiPorcheria "Unfortunately, these barbarians have been killing each other for centuries..."

    Unfortunately, they are trying to kill us too, and unstable places like Syria are breeding grounds for transnational bad guys.

    Ooh, I got a metaphor! I'm having mosquito issues this summer, and the problem is much the same with these figurative mosquitoes. The typical American solution to mosquito terrorists is to pave over their standing water with parking lots, one of the great achievements of American civilization. It does not work especially well, and is really expensive. It is much more cost-effective to drive by every year and spray the standing water, which is what I think we should do in Syria. Most likely, Al Qaeda will start taking over Syria if we get rid of Assad, so we should come back in a year and spray them too. If we do it right, not many Americans will die, and maybe we can even get the neighboring countries to do the job.
  • #141
    !
    @MarkLevine - Certainly our involvement in WWII made a difference. We supported our allies and we were physically attacked.

    Korea? Many dead men and an on-going occupation by American forces. Worth it? The families of the dead would be the judges.

    Interesting that you bring up Kosovo.

    James Phillips and James H. Anderson wrote a brilliant piece about the "Lessons from the War in Kosovo" that was published by Heritage.org -

    The primary lessons expounded upon:

    Lesson #1. The United States never should underestimate the resolve of determined adversaries to resist military threats and pressure.

    Lesson #2. Low-risk, incremental air campaigns are insufficient to win wars.

    Lesson #3. Low-risk, high-altitude air campaigns are ill-suited to achieve humanitarian objectives.

    Lesson #4. If the United States takes sides in a civil war, then it should consider harnessing the military potential of the indigenous forces willing to fight and die for their territory.

    Lesson #5. THE UNITED STATES SHOULD USE MILITARY FORCE ONLY WHEN ITS VITAL INTERESTS ARE THREATENED.(My emphasis)

    Lesson #6. Military intervention should strive to achieve goals that are clearly defined, decisive, attainable, and sustainable.

    Lesson #7. Political leaders should create conditions that would permit the overwhelming application of military force.

    Lesson #8. Displaying an aversion to casualties reduces military effectiveness and unnecessarily protracts military intervention.

    Lesson #9. Military intervention in the Balkans should not jeopardize the ability of the United States to meet more important security commitments elsewhere in the world.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999...

    We still have nearly 30,000 troops in Korea.

    These things never end well for us.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    No! No! No! I don't care how noble or honorable cause, we need to stay out of it. I don't care the degree of human suffering, we need to stay out of it. I'm in my late 50s, and for every one of those years the United States has been involved with wars, conflict, or other intrigue in foreign lands. Literally, I have not lived a day where this country has been at peace. Enough already! It's time that the other countries of this world spend their treasure to help others. It's time that the other countries of the world spill their children's blood to help others. Let the other countries of the world be blamed for the misery and be called imperialist dictators. It's time to put an end to the sacrifice our children and spending money we don't have for the sake of others.
  • #51
    Talk radio host
    !
    This need not cost blood or money. We lost ZERO lives in our air campaigns in Kosovo and Libya. And Saudi Arabia and Qatar would pay for it. I'm not advocating ground troops. We don't need them. The Syrians are fighting Assad themselves.
  • #77
    !
    @MarkLevine , "air campaigns"...what cute words. How many more innocent people have to die for what the rebels supposedly told a reporter for The Associated Press was an accident caused by the mishandling of chemical weapons given
    to them by Saudi Arabia? Do you believe that more innocent people won't die in an AIR STRIKE? This is Syrian rebels, not Syrian government.
  • #88
    !
    @MarkLevine Fair enough. Since a response need not cost blood or money, then that is all the more reason for the other countries of this world to carry this burden and dispose of Assad. Great nations fail because they turn their backs on the principles that made them great. Until the "Progressives" (T. Roosevelt, W. Wilson, et al.), the United States was pretty much an isolationist nation. After Woodrow Wilson dragged us into World War I, the American people wanted nothing to do with foreign entanglements and passed legislation accordingly. Despite its noble purpose, we even rejected our involvement in the League of Nations. Of course our isolationist tendencies went out the window with the attack on Pearl Harbor. We did what we needed to do. However, since then the United States has been involved in just about every problem that existed. It's time for us to stop involving ourselves around the world and focus internally on our own problems. The United States became a great nation because we focused on our own internal development without the burden of foreign adventuring. Atrocities have always existed and will continue to occur as long as humans inhabit this planet. Let the other countries of the world have a stab at making the world a better and safe place for a change.
  • #99
    !
    @MarkLevine both sides are corrupt. We have no interest in the middle east. The only ally we have/had was Israel, but Barack hussein Obama has ruined that relationship.
  • #108
    !
    @MarkLevine "This need not cost blood or money." Bullsh!t - If this was the case you would be writing to encourage the people of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to support action in Syria. You are advocating that the United States of America stick our noses into another country's business. Another country that is not a threat to us. At least be honest about it. And tell the truth - you certainly aren't in an hurry to go over there and fight with the rebels either. And since I know you'll have some reason to explain why YOU shouldn't be fighting, why not tell us how big of a check you have written to support the rebels. Since the cause is so important to you I'm sure it was a big one.
  • R Load more replies

  • #97
    !
    ...and I agree 100%... what makes these killings any different than the rest of the mass murders of innocents in the rest of the world?... makes no sense to me. We are NOT the world police, and I'm tired of American lives being
    lost for senseless reasons, that have nothing to do with our country.
  • #2
    !
    My whole problem with any military action in Syria is the depth and length of that action. Do we NEED any "boots on the ground" in Syria? NO. Do we NEED to find and destroy any WMD's that Syria has and has used or could use on it's populace or a neighbor? YES
    The problem we have here is the CIA has admitted they do NOT know where these WMD are. This then starts making this whole mess sound like Iraq. I can hear Bush II now "they have weapons of mass destruction"........
    We have the capability to bomb a flea off an elephants back while only leaving a small wound on the elephant. We need to find and confirm the WMD's first and foremost. We do not need to have our boys in uniform in this country searching from house to house dying as they do! I am not against military action in Syria. I am against having TOO MUCH, if any American blood spilled on Syria's soil.
    Find the WMD's and bomb them..........
  • #85
    !
    You forget that the CIA also admits that we don't know who used the WMD. Assad is winning this war and has no reason to anger the world into action by using WMD.
  • #17
    !
    Yes...the world may need a policeman, but I don't know why it comes down to us.
    The UN is big, but who else is policing, besides America? And why isn't anyone else willing to help?
    We are far in debt. Our country is tired.
  • #11
    !
    This is a Sunni/Shiite thing that's been going on since the Muslim sects split several hundred years ago. Neither sect is ever likely to be a U.S. ally. There is no up side to our involvement.

    While Levine's sentiments are noble, they are also wrong for the U. S. We need to think with our brains and not with our hearts.
  • #18
    !
    In terms of US interests you are right, but what about crimes against humanity ? The UN is never gonna agree on enforcing them, so if America will not either, crimes against humanity will be committed more often. France is the only nation prepared to act, but I'm not sure if they have the means. If Congress says no and Obama will follow, the world will become somewhat harsher.
  • #19
    !
    @C_Lassico

    Our actions aren't going to stop a several hundred year old conflict. We cannot change their culture with bombs. We can only destroy their means to kill each other. These people will stop when they want to, not because we say so.
  • #21
    !
    @Thunderchicken
    I agree with you up to a point. It's just that the use of nerve gas should perhaps be punished, if the ban of 1925 is to be maintained. An international rule without any sanctions may just as well be abolished.
  • #23
    !
    @C_Lassico

    And it is up to the U.S. to be judge, jury and executioner? I say it isn't our place. As you alluded to, it's a international thing. I'm saying it's not a U.S. thing.
  • #30
    !
    The events over there are indeed Tragic and Horrible (caps intended), And I agree with most posters. I'm sitting here and I'm thinking (a dangerous thing in itself):
    -- The neighboring countries should be most interested in stopping the bloodshed - are they, or are they helping the faction of their choice?
    -- Only those people in that area can really stop this horrific brutality.
    -- There is no respect to be had in intervention when people do not understand humanitarian reasoning and do not respect themselves.
    -- War,'civil' or otherwise, is Hell.(see above comments)
  • R Load more replies

  • #6
    !
    As I've posted before the UN needs to take the lead on this one. The US and Britain can sit this one out. It's time for other members of the UN to recieve some pressure from the Secretary General to get involved. This would give some credibility to the UN.
  • #8
    !
    The U.N. is a collection of dictators and despots whose only thing in common is how much they hate the U.S.. They have no credibility. I don't think we should get involved in it, but to think the U.N. is of any use is laughable. I bet you just recently graduated from the public indoctrination (education) system.
  • #10
    !
    I agree with you about the participants of the UN. Just waiting for them UN to do something/ anything that may actually help humanity instead of us getting involved again.
  • #44
    !
    @PauldenZangpo You don't think the N.E.A. is a socialist bully forcing kids to grow up believing things like Che was a hero, Ronald Reagan was the antichrist, that heather has two mommies and it's OK to be gay, tolerance and inclusiveness are the first two words that are indoctrinated (taught) to the kids, even though they are told theres always one exception to every rule, and there need not be any tolerance, or inclusiveness, or listening to opinions of conservatives. There's always ONE exception to every rule.
  • R Load more replies

  • #43
    !
    Mark Lavine, how can he be so smart and incredibly dumb all at the same time? Just because our "internal problems are self-inflicted" doesn't mean that we need to ignore them and do nothing about them. Iraq is no better off today than it was with Saddam Hussein in power, in fact it's more dangerous for it's people and the rest of the world. Iraq is a breading ground and a safe haven for al-Qaeda and provides easy access to Syria, and once al-Qaeda has taken over, Israel will have to defend itself with other than conventional weapons. I in no way condone the chemical attacks on innocent women and children, but the US taking down a standing army that has the means to defend itself and it's country from al-Qaeda and it's intentions are not the answer.

    One other thing Mark, Europe was grateful to the US and the allies at the end of WWII, once liberated they didn't tern their guns on their liberators like the Muslims do.

    There will never be peace in the Middle East as long as there is two Muslims still breathing.
  • #56
    Talk radio host
    !
    1. I agree we need to address our internal problems. I advocate daily on radio and TV. Check my website at MarkLevineTalk (dot) com. You'll see I certainly do not believe in ignoring them.
  • #58
    Talk radio host
    !
    3. Our failure to act IS the reason Al Qaeda is in Syria. They were not there before. Further inaction will not only increase the mass murder. It will increase Al Qaeda's power and influence in Syria.
  • #63
    Talk radio host
    !
    4. Kosovars and Libyans are some of the most pro-American Muslims in the world. They did appreciate our intervention. When America stops supporting dictators and helps out people in desperate need, it increases our power and influence in the world. Germans and Japanese did not like us at first either. They do now.
  • #87
    !
    @MarkLevine
    I agree, doing the right thing will promote American interests. But for Arabs and Muslims, any benefit provided by America will always be offset by our supporting Israel in everything.
  • R Load more replies

  • #29
    !
    I can't help but think if there was a republican in the Oval Office right now what would Levine be saying? I know what he would be saying and it wouldn't be asking to go to war!

    The bottom line is this; these people hate Christians and the west. They don't want us around, but each Islamic terrorist group is happy to have us kill their enemies for them who also happen to be Islamic terrorist groups. As soon as their enemies are dead they will turn their guns on us or any other western country there.

    The UN isn't going to do anything because the US is the major muscle militarily and the other big muscles are Russia and china and Russia has no desire to topple their puppet government in Syria or get the UN snooping around to what they are up to in Iran.

    I say we sit this one out. Let them have their little civil war and if we feel the winners are a threat we kill them.

    If the world wants the US to keep being the police officer then shut your damn mouths and respect our authority and just say "thank you" and go about your day. I'm sick of the double speak. "Please help us save so and so from so and so" and then the next day "I wish the US would keep their nose out of other countries' business!"
  • #40
    !
    "I say we sit this one out. Let them have their little civil war and if we feel the winners are a threat we kill them. "

    Well said!

    Must have clicked the wrong box. Oops.
  • #127
    !
    "I can't help but think if there was a republican in the Oval Office right now....." - This shouldn't be a democrat/republican thing. We should not let the politicians and pundits of either party (none of whom is volunteering to actually put their butts on the front lines) get us involved in another senseless war. As a liberal I am one of the loudest voices on Politix opposing this intervention. We don't agree on much but on this issue I stand with you (and even with Sarah Palin).
  • #16
    !
    It is hard to stand by as people are killed in a civil war. But, that is what this is, a civil war. Virtually none of the examples given are about civil wars. Ethnic Cleansing is worth stopping, as soon as it has started. And, almost every example given is about ethnic cleansing of ones sort or another. Our only option to stop what is going on is to invade Syria, put down Assad, and then rebuild their government. The war would probably be over in a couple of weeks. Rebuilding Syria could take 10 years if the people accepted us, or 100 if they did not. If this kind of undertaking is to be taken it has to be done with a broad coalition of the Islamic world to have a chance of quick success - 10 years. It might be done with broad coalition of the UN. Then it might end successfully in 25 to 50 years unless there was a significant number of Islamic countries participating. One other option that might work is to send in a black ops team and wipe out Assad, his family, and a majority of his top military leaders. There is not a chance that any of this will happen.

    Thus, stay away and let the civil war work its way to a solution.
  • #26
    !
    Mark just shows the typical hypocrisy. The only war action he was against was the one that a republican started (Iraq) and everything else was democrat started and perfectly acceptable.
  • #38
    Talk radio host
    !
    @DrNickels I'm not old enough but I would have opposed Vietnam. And I denounced Clinton for his failure to intervene in Rwanda. I publicly denounced Obama for not intervening in Libya or Syria until he did. Proof is on my website: MarkLevineTalk.com (Search the Archive for "Syria")
  • #46
    Talk radio host
    !
    @Thunderchicken Because they support the Syrian People revolting against the Government. With arms and cash. Qatar too. And they have plenty of money. We should ask them to contribute to the cost. I think they would. (Cash upfront.)
  • R Load more replies

  • #48
    !
    Kind of hard to go help someone when the threat of WWIII hangs over it all...we save a few and kill many, many more in the process. We attack Syria, Syria attacks Israel, Israel attack Syria and Iran, and so on...next thing you know every thing and everyone in the Middle East is burning and while we're all fighting one another they will still kill each other in the name of Allah!
  • #168
    !
    Why is Politix usurping the Jewish Defense League's motto? And what do you mean 'Never Again'? Saddam Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds, and Assad Bashar has been allowed to gas his own people several times! You know what's sort of funny? If you wrote Assad's name with a single 's' his name in Spanish would mean ROAST (as in a command) Bashar. "Roast Bashar", kind of catchy! Napalm, anyone? lol
  • #165
    !
    "Never Again," screams to the world that we have not yet learned from history as was so often drummed into us via George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemed to repeat it." Mark remembers... his ancestory is a testament to it, as is mine. He is a humanitarian through his soul; take a lesson here -Genocide is a crime against humanity - humanity!

    He has 'guts' to write this, as a journalist foremost, as many of his brethren have forgotten Journalism 101 - left or right, he calls it. Slam him? His "guts" is to be commended. Remember when 'journalism' was journalism? Mark brought back journalism with this article. Do we wait until Assad emulates Hitler - "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians."

    Sling personal arrows? You do not know this man, Mark Levine. He speaks from his heart with passion that is obviously lacking amongst journalists that are "owned".... he does not have a "green screen" behind him, nor does he interview Honey Boo Boo. He does not need a televised platform to boast paying it forward. One may not agree with Mark on several issues, but he has earned respect, which is well-deserved.

    "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” Martin Luther King

    Do we wait until Assad, or any other pond scum, emulates Hitler - "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians."

    Like I said, Mark has "guts." A refreshing attribute.
  • #76
    !
    Agreed. The opposition started peacefully and was violently crushed by the ruling minority. While I am against soldiers on the ground, Kosovo and Libya show that air-only intervention can be successful. Not to mention that it sends a message against the use of chemical weapons.
  • R Load more comments...
Post