Going it alone against the Syrian government is not what President Barack Obama wants, U.S. Secretary of State Chuck Hagel said Friday. Â But that scenario is looking more and more likely.
A day earlier, the United States' closest ally, Great Britain, backed out of a possible coalition. A U.N. Security Council meeting on Syria ended in deadlock, and in the U.S. Congress, doubts about military intervention are making the rounds. Â
Skeptics are invoking Iraq, where the United States government under President George W. Bush marched to war based on a thin claim that former dictator Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction.
Watch Piers Morgan Live weeknights 9 p.m. ET. For the latest from Piers Morgan click here.
For a long time, USA residents have been reading propaganda for their advocating attacks of Syria. Now, faced with acting alone, USA leaders wisely balk.
Several of the best thinkers on this blog have always advised allowing Syria's internal power struggles to remain their own.
My "stay-out" comment was rejected. I deduce that we're supposed to urge our government to attack Syria.
Will history repeat itself?
They can wish for all the urging they want @ Joey, i don't think they will recieve much. IMO, Israel should tackle this, since they are the ones wanting it so badly.
The US should send humanitarian aid for the Syrian refugees in Turkey and other surrounding countries but thats all.
We could and should however, supply human it arian aid to the Syrian refugees that have fled to neighboring countries!
Blocked already? What word don't you like today? H u m a n i t a r i a n??
I'll try this again. The US could and should provide H u m a n i t a r i a n aid the the Syrian ppl that have had to flee their country and have seeked r e f u g e in their neighboring countries! They have lost everything through no fault of their own!
I can't believe it took more than 45 mins to get that post to go through!
@ chrissy. I agree. But it raises our debt. Our credit is at the brink.
@ Zandie, yea it would but not near as much as our debt would raise if we went to war.
And it wouldn't raise it at all if we took it from the military budget.
After reading many articles this AM about our allies rethinking the wisdom of joining a coalition to attack Syria, it is evident that the people of the "civilized ?" world want no more of the oil for blood wars that have been waged on our behalf. We are told by those that profit from this that this is the proper thing to do. How are these wars advantageous to us in any way ?
It doesn't benefit us at all. Syria has not attacked the US. We need to stay out of a situation that doesn't concern us. At all.
If one thinks that firing missiles on a country isn't an act of war, I would thank them to remember that if a country fired some missiles upon DC, that opinion would change, and quickly. We need to stay OUT of Syria.
Attack Syria? Help al Quedas overtake Syria at our expense? Preposturous. Plumb stupid.
Blocked once more Communist News Network