The right answer is noninterventionism, in my opinion. And sanctions aren't diplomatic solutions. They are acts of war on a sovereign country, which usually results in starving its people, which creates resentment.

Here's some reasons why noninterventionism is so important. First, bombing campaigns usually create collateral damage, and the funny thing about people, they tend to hate you when you kill their moms or sons or wives or friends. For reference, please refer to 9/11 in the U.S.

Secondly, Syria is having a civil war. How'd the U.S. like it if Britain supported the Confederacy during its civil war?

Thirdly, supporting the rebels is essentially being al-Qaeda's air force. Yeah, remember those guys? The guys who flew planes into our buildings? I don't think we should support them.

Fourth, our sudden pious indignation is misplaced, and worse, selective. I didn't hear one person in the U.S. calling to bomb Israel when they used white phosphorous on Palestinian women and children.

Fifth, you know exactly what is really fueling the march into Syria. It's not a humanitarian intervention, it's about oil. Syria doesn't want to trade their oil in U.S. dollars. Neither does Iran. If we allow the U.S. to bomb Syria, we will soon be marching into Tehran.

Sixth, who made us world police?

Lastly, it's not like we couldn't be spending that money at home fixing our infrastructure and taking care of our people. I think feeding the homeless here is way more important than making people homeless in other countries from bomb campaigns.

what @blankfist said

I actually do support a limited engagement in Syria, supporting neither side but removing (explosively) the chemical weapon stores as well as their delivery systems.

Tactically, the only way to "safely" destroy chem weapon stockpiles is to bunker bust the facilities and follow it up with a massive incendiary strike.

The reason for doing this is complicated but not without purpose. A decisive strike will keep other authoritarian regimes with chem weapons from getting a green light on using them. In my opinion, if we do nothing, or not enough, the next gas attack on citizens will involve 10's of thousands of people and the horror will be palpable.

Ditto!

I'm with @blankfist on this one, just like I explained in this discussion.

Edit:

By the way, in this particular case I'm quite surprised by the clear line that the German government seems to be following. No military action without a clear UN mandate, and preferrably no military action at all. Instead, they urge the Russians and the Chinese to help them drag Assad in front of the ICC in Den Haag.

Follow the proper channels, otherwise you'll just breed contempt for the law. Or I should say more contempt for the law than you already breed by selectively enforcing it in the first place (WP in Gaza, WP in Fallujah, mustard/nerve gas vs Iran, DU rounds all over the world).

So I'm voting diplomatic solutions, even though embargos are NOT an option for me.

Edit #2: Well, seems like Germany has folded already. Didn't take long...

What Germany first said, via @radx.

If Syria has "crossed the red line" that the world had set, then the world needs to respond.

If the world can't agree, then we have no business messing with a sovereign nation.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the world came together and pushed him back into his own country. At the time, I was distressed over any military action but in hindsight, I think that was the correct thing to do.

We as Americans cannot unilaterally step into sovereign nations any more. That way lies madness for the whole world.

Addressed what seems the heart of the confusion to me as to how to respond, in that same thread that radx referenced; Basically and firstly, we can't know everything so how to expect reasonable conclusions drawn? WE ARE NEED TO KNOW as regular peeps, and we don't know shit about the real who-whats-whys-wheres-and-hows, considering how completely skewed the social-engineering-and-indoctrination media machine functions.

Otherwise a sane response seems to be to round-up all the human RoundUp™, kill whomever gave the launch-go for the shit, then find out who manufactured and sold the shit to them that have, and eliminate those people. Evryone complicit should pay with the rest or with all of their life(s) and never be allowed to sit at the big people table again...or eat without a tube.

I dunno. I would normally say non interventionism, as other nations shouldn't interfere with the internal development of any given nation, but when people are being suppressed by their own government and they cannot break their chains, I would say that it's a sorry excuse to not help them take over their own country.

It's hard.

I do think that of course, the UN should be the ones to mandate it - a sovereign nation shouldn't just do whatever it wants all willy nilly.

I like how the red line that was drawn by "the world" was the use of chemical weapons. Has the US forgotten about its use of Agent Orange in Vietnam?

If your country's record of war atrocities isn't squeaky clean, then I say noninterventionism.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting No matter what, don't get involved in Syria..

No matter what we're already 'involved' in Syria, eh?