Feedback: Should U.S. Launch Military Strike Against Syria?
The U.S. secretary of defense says there's undeniable evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad used toxic gas on his own people.
This makes it likely the U.S. will take military action in the form of cruise missiles fired at key Syrian military targets.
North country Congressman Bill Owens says U.S. intervention should be limited.
"I do not see boots on the ground there. I can almost tell you with assurance I would not vote for boots on the ground," said Owens (D. - 21st District).
So what role should the U.S. military have in Syria?
After the wars in Iraq and now Afghanistan, how much is too much?
"We've spent an awful lot of blood and money in the Middle East. And I think we really need to be very, very careful," said Owens.
Local resident Nina Hershey agrees.
"We do have to make decisions, but we should go along with NATO and other countries, not try and do it all ourselves," she said.
But some say we should avoid another war at all costs.
"It's not going to make any progress by getting involved other than just getting our boys killed and getting involved in the conflict," said local resident Josh Foster.
Others say it's our nation's responsibility to act.
"America is America. It's the greatest country in the world and if we don't take a stand, we soon won't be," said Vera King, who's visiting the north country from Colorado.
President Obama has ruled out putting any U.S. troops on the ground in Syria.
Several allies, including the United Kingdom, have signaled they would back a U.S.-led strike.