Panelists answered the following question: Do you support military action against Syria following the chemical weapons attack near Damascus last week?
Richard Place: “Why do we pay dues to the UN if we have to go do the fighting? This is just another distraction so we don’t pay attention to the current issues we have at home.”
Ruth Erickson: “Assuming it was a chemical attack, it still needs to be determined which side was guilty before we could decide who to assail.”
Richard Herrera: “I strongly support U.S. military action. How many more innocent people have to die? While the rest of the world hesitates, the U.S. needs to take immediate action. I hope President Obama accepts the challenge and provides leadership.”
Marty Richman: “No, neither side in this conflict is worthy of our support; send in some humanitarian aid to relieve the suffering – that’s all. The Assad regime with the help of Iran and the rebels who are propped up by Al-Qaeda and other radical elements are two sides of the same coin and neither bodes well for the future.”
Nants Foley: “I do not support military action by the United States. Syria may be in serious breach of international treaties and humanitarian ethics. The investigators will decide that. But violence is never the answer unless it is in self-defense.”
Mary Zanger: “No! I understand that the military is tasked to uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.S. of A. Interfering within another country posing no threat to the U.S. seems an unfit military mission. Urgently we do need to enforce a cease-fire on both sides. Next we need to encourage both sides to the table and negotiate, negotiate, and negotiate some more. Diplomatic negotiations stop the killing, stop any chemical weapons, and start the healing.
