• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poison gas missile strike in Syria

Tell that to the thousands of people who got caught in the cross fire. The thousands of Iraqi police that instantly became jobless and broke the moment the US invaded, even though they begged commanders on the ground to let them help. Tell that to the hospitals, water treatment plants and ministries that were looted and destroyed because no one thought to secure them. Tell that to the tons of explosives that are still unaccounted for and the nuclear facility that was looted, because no one was guarding it.

The peace process was so bungled, because we executed the invasion so poorly. It was effective from a military standpoint, but the damage done as a result, still resinates in that country. It scares me when I see the history of that invasion, so wildly miss represented in a single sentences. The rest of your statement is legitimate, I just wanted to point that one thing out. Hope you don't mind.

In case you didn't follow, the words "walk in the park" were not mine, but another poster's from a previous comment that I was referring to. It in no way reflected my view about those involved in the action or who were affected as a consequence, your attempt at outrage, notwithstanding.
 
What if it was not us leading the charge? What if turkey gets involved first?

That would turn into a gigantic charlie foxtrot.

Going in to do anything other than kill fighters on both sides, will be nothing but a charlie foxtrot, so I agree that sending combat forces is a bad idea.

Personally, I think we should sit back and let them all kill each other.
 
I don't see Syria requiring ground troops. I'm a bigtime hawk, I want to nation build Iran. Boots on the ground in Syria does not strengthen our position regarding the Iranian regime. Further, solving Iran solves Syria so it would kinda be walking backwards. Assad could be eliminated from the air, we just gotta be careful not to hit too many Russians.

Syria is irans only ally in the Middle East that is not Hamas and Hezbollah, so knocking out the Assad regime further isolates Iran and limits its strategic options.
 
Personally, I think we should sit back and let them all kill each other.

We tried that for decades. The destabilization foreign policy didn't work.
 
In case you didn't follow, the words "walk in the park" were not mine, but another poster's from a previous comment that I was referring to. It in no way reflected my view about those involved in the action or who were affected as a consequence, your attempt at outrage, notwithstanding.

Even that was only comparing Iraq to Iran. It wasn't easy by any objective standard, but I think that trying to do the same in Iran would make it seem easy by comparison.
 
Syria is irans only ally in the Middle East that is not Hamas and Hezbollah, so knocking out the Assad regime further isolates Iran and limits its strategic options.

The Iranian regime feeds Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and terrorists throughout Africa. Head of the snake, dude.
 
Iran feeds Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and terrorists throughout Africa. Head of the snake, dude.
That does not sound at all isolationist nor lacking strategic options like some say is the position of the nation of Iran...
 
That does not sound at all isolationist nor lacking strategic options like some say is the position of the nation of Iran...

The Iranian regime ain't no joke. And they wanna nK their country.
 
We tried that for decades. The destabilization foreign policy didn't work.

We can't get involved and we can't sit back and do nothing. Quite the conundrum.

IMO, we can't get involved, because either way we're arming a future enemy. Destablization will only be temporary. It would be a good way to put some jihadists on ice. But, arming the islamic extremists, the way we did in Libya is a bad idea; especially when you consider the NBC stockpiles that Syria has.
 
That would turn into a gigantic charlie foxtrot.

Going in to do anything other than kill fighters on both sides, will be nothing but a charlie foxtrot, so I agree that sending combat forces is a bad idea.

Personally, I think we should sit back and let them all kill each other.
Oh I think the Delta Sierras will want to get involved.
 
Syria is irans only ally in the Middle East that is not Hamas and Hezbollah, so knocking out the Assad regime further isolates Iran and limits its strategic options.

Whatever group that replaces Assad's government will ally with Iran, so we wouldn't be isolating anything.
 
Only problem is that this snake is a hydra. Knock out Syria and it would make the the task of supplying Hamas more difficult for Iran.

It's becoming a matter of time. Could efforts be made on the ground in Syria without compromising our ability to prevent the Iranian regime from getting nukes? Syria is not a hydra-head, it's almost totally dependant on Iran.

Your plan is ok if the nuke clock wasn't tick tockin'.
 
Obama said this was his red line. It will be interesting to see what happens with this unnerving development.
"Both sides in the Syrian conflict have blamed the other for firing a chemical weapon at a village killing 16 people."

Poison gas missile strike in Syria - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk


I think it is all BS, but the warmongers will play it up big to generate escalation. Wars are good business and you have to capitalize on every opportunity to gin one up, or throw gasoline on the fire. These people are entrenched in the media.
 
Whatever group that replaces Assad's government will ally with Iran, so we wouldn't be isolating anything.

I don't see why they should have the option. With the rebels recognized by the western world and the UN involved in transition and stabilization, I think the UN can out bribe Iran, especially if the Iranian regime just got de-nuked.
 
Syria is irans only ally in the Middle East that is not Hamas and Hezbollah, so knocking out the Assad regime further isolates Iran and limits its strategic options.

I really wouldn't count on that seeing as how there are a lot of radical Islamists in the Syrian rebel camp. Thus, it would be in our interests to watch these people kill each other rather than what we are currently doing, which is arming the Syrian rebels.
 
I really wouldn't count on that seeing as how there are a lot of radical Islamists in the Syrian rebel camp. Thus, it would be in our interests to watch these people kill each other rather than what we are currently doing, which is arming the Syrian rebels.

Which is the reason why I say if we get involved at all it would be to defang the snake of its chemical & biological venom withdraw then let it lose to fight the other snake in the garden, meanwhile the American people would be able to enjoy their popcorn while watching the fight without worrying if the unconventional munitions are sneaking across one of our borders.
 
Whatever group that replaces Assad's government will ally with Iran, so we wouldn't be isolating anything.

Syria is suffering a civil war, so it might be a repeat of what happened in iraq: two sects or more of the same religion at war with eachother. I remember reading somewhere that assads regime mostly represents a minority sect of Islam, which neither the Shia or Sunni can tolerate. If the Sunnis are the primary forces rebeling, then we can assume that Iran's nemisis, Saudi Arabia, is supporting the rebels. If it is the Shia rebeling against the Assad regime or both sects of Islam rebeling againist Assad their common enemy... Well then that makes any attempt at making sense of the situation a wild goose chase.
 
In case you didn't follow, the words "walk in the park" were not mine, but another poster's from a previous comment that I was referring to. It in no way reflected my view about those involved in the action or who were affected as a consequence, your attempt at outrage, notwithstanding.

I get that it was someone elses words, but you seem to agree, which is why I commented on it. The way you phrased your comment, it sounded like you believed, which definitely scared me. It also wasn't an attempt at outrage, I am actually outraged at how we handled the invasion. Thank you for the further explanation of your comment though. I'm slightly less frightened, lol.
 
I don't see why they should have the option. With the rebels recognized by the western world and the UN involved in transition and stabilization, I think the UN can out bribe Iran, especially if the Iranian regime just got de-nuked.

No amount of money, nor all the tea in China will bribe the islamofacists out of their theological political agenda. Personally, I agree will attacking Iran. Now would be the perfect time; every ally that might have come to Iran's aid is tied down with their own problems. We have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; we can force Iran to fight on two fronts. Launch tactical airstrikes in Yemen to kill/suppress jihadist elements there, blockade the Persian Gulf. No one will complain, just like no one complained when we took Saddam.
 
How so?.............

Doing anything that directly confronts Iran would be a gift to the unpopular regime. The people would rally to the regime if they are convinced they are about to be invaded. Why give a regime already unpopular with the people a lifeline or somthing to distract the Iranian people from troubles at home?
 
Syria is suffering a civil war, so it might be a repeat of what happened in iraq: two sects or more of the same religion at war with eachother. I remember reading somewhere that assads regime mostly represents a minority sect of Islam, which neither the Shia or Sunni can tolerate. If the Sunnis are the primary forces rebeling, then we can assume that Iran's nemisis, Saudi Arabia, is supporting the rebels. If it is the Shia rebeling against the Assad regime or both sects of Islam rebeling againist Assad their common enemy... Well then that makes any attempt at making sense of the situation a wild goose chase.

In 1967, Egypt, Syria, Jordon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Tunisia, Sudan and the PLO went to war with Israel. So, the notion that they can't put their 700 year old fueds aside is very naive.
 
Back
Top Bottom