---- — PLATTSBURGH — The United States should avoid involvement in the Syrian war, most Press-Republican Facebook readers say.
We asked our Facebook followers to share their opinions about whether America should respond to chemical-weapon use on civilians in that war-torn country.
Here are some of the responses on whether to get involved:
Rebecca Martin: “I think we should keep our noses out of it.”
Rebecca Lawrence: “I believe we should (get involved)! If they are heartless enough to use chemical warfare on their own people, what are they willing to do to the rest of the world?”
Tracy Murphy: “No. Obama cut thousands in govt aid because he wanted our country to save money. If he brings us back to war....re-enlist all those who would and best give them back all their pay rate and stop taking money from those who fought for our freedom.”
Matthew Brassard: “We drew a line in the sand and that line was crossed. ... We can’t look like we have no backbone. We have to stay true to our word, or you will have more and more of this worldwide and they will know the U.S will just be blowing smoke.”
Dwayne Cross Jr.: “I still don’t see anything in the news about other countries getting involved with it. Why is that? I think the U.S. should tend to its own problems!”
Ann Jason Whalen: “Stay away, far, far away!
James Adam: “We should not bear the burden of the cost of war on our own. We should join together with our allies on a global scale to take care of this. Just because we have the best armed services doesn’t mean we should go in alone.”
Lauren Lloyd: “I don’t believe any living thing should suffer in any way at the hands of others. I also believe there is strength in numbers and feel it only fair to ask other countries for their support as they are probably in a position to benefit more so than the U.S.”
Brad Modelle: “... I don’t think we should take action against Syria. I think we should take action against ourselves. All of the rats in office, all of the greedy banks and corporations that are slowly choking the life and the money out of our nation. We need to fix ourselves before we can even begin to care about the rest of the world. We are broken.”
Sandy Bourdeau-Barber: “I’m against it. Not because of no-more-war sentiment but of distrust of our decision makers not to try another Iraq type lying to American people.”
Samantha Blake Puchrik: “If they want to kill each other - Let Them!!! Why should we go bomb them and kill Syrian civilians/children to prove that it was wrong for them to kill civilians and children?”
Shirley Vann: “Stay home and take care of our own country.”
Richard Armand Patrie: “We completely screwed up every Middle East country we’ve touched. Things were much better and less people would died if we left the stabilizing dictators alone instead of us killing hundreds of thousands and having tens of thousands of Americans killed or maimed. Iraq, Libya and Egypt are far worse off than before. In Syria, do we support a guy that kills his own people or the guys that pour acid on girls for attending school? We launch drone strikes into Pakistan and Yemen killing civilians and can’t understand why they want to fly planes into buildings. This is complete lunacy.”
Dale Juneau: “Get out of there fast; no more interference over there; let them work it out themselves.”
Adam James Deuyour: “I’m still very on the fence about this whole issue. On one hand, I hate to see any regime force their people to suffer or be poisoned. On the other hand, I shudder to think what the future ramifications of us getting involved in this mess would be.”
Kim Monst: “I don’t want to see any more people die...The Syrians or any more Americans.”
Katherine Wernier: “It’s not about rescuing one side in a civil war...it is the use of chemical weapons..that is the horror line crossed..ever wonder why when they and other nations have had them for decades and they didn’t use? Because we, the U.S., would not tolerate it....the only thing they understand is power and force..no one wants this. I have to believe we will bomb their airstrips and chemical-launch sites..our objective will be to limit their capability to use the air and then leave. The other part of this to be clear with all the other nations in that region. My problem is with the many nations paying for it and urging us but afraid to join us.”
Ann N Arnold: “I think that we have invested much more than enough in lives and dollars to these countries. I am definitely not in favor of the US sending strikes on people who are already under attack. No, no, no!”
Lester Seguin: “I would go in a second to protect those children!”
Jay Bleeker: “By attacking, we can tip the military balance in the other direction, but we have no ability to change the centuries of ethnic and religious differences that cause these people to hate each other. Probably the only thing they hate as much as each other is the USA. There’s no win for us, so let’s take the route that costs us less money and American lives. No attack.”
Jackie Pangborn: “We need to stay out of Syria. It is their civil war not ours. We need to take care of the US. Assad has killed thousands with bombs and guns etc...now he uses chemical weapons and kills 1,500 and we are going to step in. Does it really matter how he kills his people. Why are chemical weapons any more deadly than anything else? That is, if he is the one that used the poison gas; could have been the rebels. Either way, we need to stop policing the world and take care of this Country. The only reason Obama is pushing this so hard is to save face; maybe he should think before he speaks.”
Linda Steinhauer: “US should mind their own business and worry about the people here and our military!!”
Tyler Glanda: “If we become the world police, then they should pay our debt. It’s sad what happens there but not our problem to solve.”
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Interact with thousands of people who have "Liked" the Press-Republican Facebook page. Check it out at facebook.com/pressrepublican.