buzz wrote: 
a couple of things

a non-aggression policy would prohibit the initiation of violence, but not the response

boots on the ground as a means of defense (likely a last resort) could be acceptable if there was an agreement between two people/parties

if you and i have an agreement to help defend our property in a case where someone is initiating violence aggression that's morally acceptable

in the case of another country the first thing(s) our representatives should do is bring it up in a major way (like 24/7 non-stop coverage and our president addressing this directly) to the rest of the world what's happening and present the best evidence that we have and demand an immediate cease fire

point out who is killing/arming who and demand immediate accountability

the big problem we have is that we're involved and are basically engaged in the same shameful behavior which means we have very little or no credibility when it come to this type of situation

arming one gang to replace another with their brand of force/violence will never get the results needed (exchanging one bad regime for another)

we really should stop killing innocent and peaceful people and violating their human rights, it would go a long way to help our credibility and would be a giant step in the right direction

obviously we've got the presence and the capability but the leadership is lacking (we should demand a change in foreign policy - it's difficult to negotiate with someone when you're actively trying to kill or threaten them)

non-aggression is a philosophy, it will take time to spread, but people have an affinity for it (voluntarism, peaceful negotiation, etc.)

currently the vast majority of individuals don't use force and violence to achieve moral and ethical goals on a personal level and we need to extend that into our public/social lives as well

regards

 buzz wrote: 
A country like the US that had arming the Taliban with Stinger missiles come back to bite us in the @$$ probably should keep out of the arms business.  Like it or not, but unmanned drones and Hellfire missiles is the least objectionable option.  Note that I'm including doing nothing on my list of options.  Standing by and watching a massacre is as unacceptable as boots on the ground IMHO.

 buzz wrote: 
Unfortunately we do sit back and watch what happens.  Revolution is messy. 

We lost thousands of lives in our own.  And it was only after we proved we could have a decent chance of beating the Brits we started to receive aid from other countries.

As horrific as it may be we cannot solve all the world's problems and this is one we should not get involved in at this time.

 buzz wrote: 

Depends on who you ask and whether the individual supports the party of the sitting President and that goes for always, anytime forever and ever amen.

 miamizsun wrote: 
How does a world power that practices non-aggression help the people of Syria that are being slaughtered by their own government? Sanctions don't seem to work. Do we arm them? Doesn't sound "non-aggression" to me. Boots on the ground are obviously out of the question? Do we just sit back and watch and hope for the best?

these are worth watching (and "The Real News" in general, and imho, should resonate with the vast majority of people here, check it out) YouTube channel & the website

 aflanigan wrote: 
This has been going on for more than a "couple of years" all over the world.  It happens here in the US!

The good intentions as well as realpolitik, are writ large in the latest Administration statement on Syria. 

Many of the problems  in the Mideast (and other parts of the world), are the result of the west drawing and imposing boundaries creating "states" out of incompatible "nations".  Iraq & Syria are poster children for this short sighted approach. Somalia too (really at least two nations).  To deny a "state" to a very large "nation", and successful, segment of humanity—The Kurds—is to ignore the longer range, and perhaps unintended consequences that such political expediencies produce.  The civil war in Syria, as that is what it is now,, will claim the lives of many combatants.  But as usual in war, it is the civilians, just going about their lives and trying to live, who suffer most.

 romeotuma wrote: 

Huh.

I work in aerospace and I've been prohibited from doing anything business-wise with Syria, Iran, Iraq & No. Korea for over 20 years. How many more sanctions would've made a difference?