Before I get tweets or comments stating that I am pro-Republican or pro-Democrat and therefore biased, I'd like to state on record that I do not like either party all of the time, I base my opinions off of individual ideas and actions.
It pains me to know that nearly 100,000 people have died in Syria according to UN statistics, and after watching countless videos of the carnage and a VICE documentary on the situation, I'm disgusted. Syria is in turmoil and if the World was not a place based in greed, the US could enter the country, remove Assad, and leave.
However, this is not the case. Between the ulterior motives of some Syrian rebels and the general power and monetary incentive for the US to enter Syria, it is not a good idea that the West involves itself.
If the US enters Syria, the potential for a legitimate World War 3 is there, in the sense that not only would Israel likely involve itself--it is a nuclear-capable country--but Assad does have allies in and out of the region.
President Obama loves to prance around and assure people that an operation in the country would be quick, but the likelihood of that happening is almost non-existent.
One of the facts not frequently mentioned, is the form of Islam practiced among the rebels compared to the military and the Assad regime. Bashar Assad is an Alawite. Alawite's believe that women should have more rights and that Christian's should be able to practice in Syria, however, most of the rebels are conservative Muslims.
By no means does this justify the actions that Assad has taken against his own people in Syria but the religions present among the various groups provide a clear picture as to what Syria will be like without Assad.
Chemical Weapons Are Not A Moral "Red Line"The notion that Assad must be punished for using chemical weapons is unstable at best. Since when are chemical weapons the "red line" morally? Even without being in the Middle East right now, I've seen children with their organs outside of their body and adults dead after their head was literally blown off. All of these things happened within the "international norms" that Obama has referenced. Does this mean that killing people with bombs and guns is a "green line."
Truly good people in Syria--of which there are millions--are receiving mixed signals from the West. In their eyes--and mine--them being shot at or struck with bombs is OK, which is should not be.
World War 3 A Stretch, But Not By MuchIn talks regarding how Syria will respond if the US strikes, Syrian officials have repeatedly stated that World War 3 would ensue. These may be seen as empty threats by some, but Assad is not isolated in his cause and there are many other countries that could become involved if the US enters Syria.
Russia, Iran, and China are all telling the US to stay put and not enter Syria. If either China or Russia involve themselves to go against a US military attack, World War 3 suddenly makes a whole lot of sense considering the power that both countries have.
It is not often that I quote Glenn Beck--of all the media personalities, I come close to hating him most of the time--but as he put it, "We don't survive" a World War 3 with those military powers involved.
He may very well be correct. Syria is a relatively small country and seems like no big deal, but when two of the World's strongest armies partner up with Syria and fight the US, anything can happen.
What do you think? Should the US intervene in Syria, and if they do, would a major conflict such as "World War 3" occur?