actually occupy groups in NY and DC rushed to the front of syrian embassies in US for solidarity .

I guess I'm in the minority. My heart breaks for the Syrians. It may be prudent to have strict policies for foreign intervention, and I understand that Syria doesn't affect the lives of every day Americans. And there is little cultural connection/interest like Americans had with Egypt. But c'mon! These killings should rile up the American populous. We need more press coverage here, but I suppose people just don't care.

Military acts simply do not resolve internal problems. Wish it were otherwise, but it just is not. Libya is a failure. Iraq is also a failure. Economic measures can be taken, but not one soldier to get involved. The Russians were absolutely correct about Libya. We Americans are lucky we were very, very minor players.There is nothing that would be accomplished by US military force or NATO force in Syria. Remember, the Congo has lost millions of persons to internal disputes; if you do not favor intervention into the Congo (& Che Guevara recommended against it), you should not favor it anywhere else to resolve internal problems.

Overthrowing Bashar al-Assad is not the same as "promoting democracy". There is no democratic opposition

Intervening in Syria militarily is not the same as "a Libya-like military intervention". Different neighbors. Different topography. Different social system.

This is not rocket science. One size does not fit all.

Personally I am deeply concerned with the events that have been occuring in Syria for roughly a year now. However, I am disheartened by this anti-American propoganda because I strongly believe in non-intervention. If the Syrian people are to appreciate and build their own democracy then they must fight for it with as little foreign help as possible.

If we, America, interviened and tried to implement our democracy then it would belong to us, not them. Therefore, it would eventually be rejected or revised. And this action would upset our politicians. However, we can wait and support them without military intervention and continue to let the Syrian people that we, Americans, support them in their cause and will always be here for them if they ever need us. There is a future friendship between America and Syria that can be established after a victory of the Syrian people.
I know quite a few born and raised Syrians, they are wonderful and strong people.

Also, while I wish for a quick and peaceful solution that benefits all people, I do vehemently oppose Western intervention. Syrians are very proud and strong people, and while most of the world is very upset they wish to handle this alone or with minimal support. I know it is difficult to quietly stand by and watch, but sometimes doing nothing is the best solution. Lack of action does not equal apathy. Stop spreading anti-American propaganda, or at the very least stop holding the U.S.A. to an unfairly high standard. We protest the events in Tibet, Taiwan, Chechnya, Darfur, Congo, and many other atrocities throughout the world, but we do not devote our individual lives to them. There are a lot of troubles in the world, please start appreciating the effort we put towards them when we make sacrifices in our lives to try to make a positive change in these areas.

With great respect to the writer and the newspaper.
--Mathew Miletich

Syria is way too hot. If we get involved militarily, we will get burned. Sanctions, espionage, and support for the opposition is the most anyone should hope for.

Why is there the constant setting up and knocking down of the military invasion of Syria straw man? The more relevant question is if Obama ought to be arming the Syrian opposition and likely achieving three same outcome without the downside of direct military intervention.

The fact that he presumably is refusing to even the battlefield says much more about his policy. It really means that he is unwilling to even help those being oppressed to adequately defend themselves even if it means that dictators will kill and the innocent will die. That's how far he will go to counter the US being top dog.

It is time for the President to consider what is best for AMERICAN citizens. I know, that is very selfish. However, the American government was put in place to do what is best for American citizens, not Syrians. Our country has enormous domestic problems currently. Chief among them is our budget deficit, entitlement spending, and the moral degradation and lack of personal responsibility shown through out our country. I, like others, have a heart for hurting people (like the Syrians). But, the U.S. government needs to put U.S. citizens and the welfare of our country above others. That is just the way it is. If not, then why should be even call it the U.S. government? What's the point of having elected representatives if they aren't acting in YOUR best interest?

We are constantly asked to care about Tibet, the oppressed peoples of Nothern Africa (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, etc), the politically disenfranchised of Myanmar, the refugees from dozens of countries in the middle east, women without rights in Afghanistan, etc. We are told we should press our leaders to help out the opposition forces in Syria and even Iran. It seems that everyplace in the world where there are people suffering under oppressive governments or dictatorial regimes, Uncle Sam has to be involved in some way and we are to feel ashamed if we are not as caring as we might be. After a while it is just too exhausting.

President Obama got very little credit for the limited involvement in Libya, even though the outcome was encouraging. The people of Tunisia and Egypt got rid of their dictators without any "help" from the West, although in all three cases ther is still a lot of doubt about the long-term benefits for the individual citizens of those nations. We could still see democratically elected Islamist governments in each of them.

We are going to wait a long time for any thank-you for our role on ridding Iraq of its evil dictator, Saddam Hussein, if ever our intervention there brings even that pitiful reward. Likewise, I expect that we will be cheered on the way out when we finally quit the debacle in Afghanistan. We have propped up governments here and there for decades when it suited us, sometimes being blamed for our efforts when the government ran afoul of popular sentiment from its own citizens. There are many people in the world suffering from a lack of individual rights and the chance to elect their own leaders - too many to care about at one time.

A little caution in deciding whom to care about is a good thing.

The national president died saying to some young thug who was poking him in the face with an automatic pistol that killing him was against the rules of Islam. His last words. If things were as the public in America were being told at the time, Gaddafi would have followed Hussein of Syria into his nation's civilian justice system. What happened instead showed that NATO in Libya last year was assisting a mob. How different are things in Syria?

Military intervention is the only way to remove Assad, at this stage, so it is unlikely to happen. At the same time, he is beyond the stage when he might go voluntarily or through a negotiated settlement.

What makes this problematic is that Russia and China support Syria because they know the type of revolt he faces are the same ones they will face.

The situation in Homs shows us that politics is a deadly serious business, literally of life and death, but that if we want to sustain decent politics, we need to intervene.

I elaborate on these points here: http://t.co/dSXO50tb