View Poll Results: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

Voters
130. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    1 0.77%
  • No

    110 84.62%
  • Yes, but only Special Forces troops

    6 4.62%
  • No. Maybe in the future.

    13 10.00%
Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 231

Thread: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

  1. #171
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,513

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Again...all through the lens of the West.

    The world is divided in half. International laws absolutely caters to the West. They do so because they originated from Europe and were originally invented by empires that sought a higher idea of protection from neighbors. Borders and trade agreements have created the international order. But these international laws make no sense to the Middle East because they did not draw their borders. They struggle today to sort out their populations to the criticism of the West who did the same thing centuries ago. The difference is that we can't bring ourselves to recognize that our idea of international order has and is wrong.

    Hobbes was very bright. He obviously understood human nature. It should be obvious to all that like minded people attract each other. The basis for all human organization has always gone back to "tribe." We Americans may be from the world's tribes, but we have come together under a certain tribe mentality (call it nationalism, liberal democracy, whatever). For most of the world, "tribe" absolutely goes back ethnic root and/or religious root. The only nation in Europe not to have its borders re-drawn after World War II was Yugoslavia. And what happened to that as soon as the Cold War ended? It dissolved into ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Middle East is full of nations where the same is happening. There's a reason Iraq should probably be three seperate territories. "Tribe" was allowed to sort itself out in Europe and elsewhere. Hell, continental Europe hosted two World Wars over it to cap off centuries of ethnic cleansing from Spain to Russia. But in the Middle East, tribes that historically did not get along were forced together and tribes that historically did get along were separated on either side of a European made border. And the Cold War merely maintained that order while we called it "stability" and "peace." Peace for who? Were it not for the flow of oil, the "Yugoslavias" of the Middle East would have torn itself apart a long time ago. But our international order hinges on half of the world not being privileged enough to appreciate Hobbes.

    Kissinger saw through the lens of the nuclear Cold War. Finding ways to accomodate everythiing we don't believe in was understood. But we don't live in the Cold War anymore. People conveniently forget that when addressing the world they live in today.
    If we were to just allow the people of the Middle East to sort out their own political boundaries and governments the way Europe did over hundreds of years, would it ever become peaceful? Would it take hundreds of years there, too? Would there have to be the equivalent of WWI and WWII to sort things out?

    I wonder.

    The difference is that Europeans were fighting with swords and muskets, not with nuclear missiles and automatic weapons. The other difference is that they were left alone to sort it out on their own.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #172
    User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Simi Valley
    Last Seen
    06-19-14 @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    22

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Republicans and Neo Cons... YOU are destroying this country with YOUR wars! The Dollar is almost a garbage currency because of YOUR war debts. Thats right... war debt. Enough already! How many people and cultures do you have to destroy before you are satisfied?!

  3. #173
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    But we are at war constantly. We place sanctions on countries, withold goods and resources, deny accesses, encourage good behavior in accordance to our values, etc. We just have this idea in our heads that "peace" exists if somebody's not firing a weapon. In the mean time we kill through sanctions. With or without the gun we motivate to protect our economic securities and progress. What did Clausewitz express? "War is the continuation of Politik by other means?" I think he had it wrong. "Armed conflict is merely a continuation of war."

    We were at war with "Germans" and "Japs" until the current fad of political correctness allowed us to pretend that Nazis weren't Germans. The further we get away from the event where we have no intimate relationship we believe ourselves to be more civilized than those that faced it. Today, we have the luxury of observing war through a television and pretend that "others" sent our men off to war. That "others" wanted revenge. That "others" are just barabaric. In other words, we fool ourselves in believing that we sit on a high pedestal above the gutters of the world. This is all due to convenience. Nothing more.

    The Rule of Law is important. You are right. Absolutely. The problem is that the international Rule of Law caters to Western perspectives. What Arab or African nation was invited to Geneva to make laws after World War II? What Arab or African nation drew in its own border that Western nations observe with earnest today and demand compliance? Our "Rule of Laws" cater to organizing the world into our idea of functional organization and manners. The problem is that much of the world has not evolved their civilizations beyond the basic order which is family, tribe and religion. We insist that man's law trumps God's law to an entire region that knows only God. And when they do not cater to our idea of global manners we seek to label them uncivilized, incapable of democracizing, and backwards.

    You know what I see when I see Sunni slaughtering Shia or the many other non-Arab tribes across the region? I see Europe's history of cleansing their populaitons and eventually forming natural borders. I think of America's Civil War where national organization and civil conformity had to come to an agreement. I see a region full of people sorting itself out after centuries of colonization and installed dictators forced an illusion of stability. But our "rules" keep them pinned behind these unnaural borders don't they? Our rules insist that since Europeans have already gone through their cleansing that no one else is allowed to. The truth is that our rules are meant to keep production around the world flowing. It doesn't matter who is oppressed or what the result is (terrorists and mass international terrorist organizations). And the most pathetic of our Western Rules is the Rule of soveriegnty. This is perhaps the grandest insult to civilization in history. Kings, Kaisers, and Tsars of the past must be laughing at us.
    We are excessively involved, yes. As to whether that is all war? Well, I don't want to devolve too much into defintions.

    I also see no political correctness involved in calling people what they were. We were not always just in our actions, even in WWII. We kidnaped Japanese peoples from other countries, not soldiers, but civilians, for example, and kept them prisoner, using them as barganing chips. Held them in Iowa.

    But I digress. The point was they were not, factually, the people we were fighting.

    You are correct that some nations were not invited, and that they don't exactly see our law as theirs. That's a little problem. Us not following the laws we agreed to? That's a larger problem. That is us not following the rules we created and agreed to, and hold other nations to (remember Iraq invading Kuwait as an example?). This speaks poorly on on us. First, we should remove the plank fromour eye, and then we can address the rest of the world. They might move further ahead without our interfernece than they have with it. As DHN points out, Europe largely did sort it out.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #174
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by differentDEM View Post
    Republicans and Neo Cons... YOU are destroying this country with YOUR wars! The Dollar is almost a garbage currency because of YOUR war debts. Thats right... war debt. Enough already! How many people and cultures do you have to destroy before you are satisfied?!
    Don't forget the Democrats. You know, you guys controlled the House for all of the Iraq War, most of the Afghan war. You controlled the Senate through all of it. Finally, your "hope and change" candidate not only doubled down in Afghanistan but sent air assets and advisors into Libya.
    BTW, you got proof of these so called "war debts"? Pretty sure the big gov't practices of TARP, bailouts, etc are the reason we're in so much debt. Not to mention years of piling on the debt prior to the past 11 years. Get a clue bro.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  5. #175
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    If we were to just allow the people of the Middle East to sort out their own political boundaries and governments the way Europe did over hundreds of years, would it ever become peaceful? Would it take hundreds of years there, too? Would there have to be the equivalent of WWI and WWII to sort things out?

    I wonder.

    The difference is that Europeans were fighting with swords and muskets, not with nuclear missiles and automatic weapons. The other difference is that they were left alone to sort it out on their own.
    Let em kill each other. Nukes can't reach us.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  6. #176
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Let em kill each other. Nukes can't reach us.
    As long as we need their oil to burn in our cars we'll be stuck with them.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  7. #177
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Let em kill each other. Nukes can't reach us.
    No. They can just wipe out millions of lives and destroy the global economy, along with our own.

    Oh, and the theory that there will be no spill-over? That no one will attempt to show to everyone else in the Region that they are the Big Dog by walking up to the biggest kid on the global block (us) and punching us square in the jaw?

    Yeah. That theory is going to be disappointed.

  8. #178
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    As DHN points out, Europe largely did sort it out.
    After centuries of attempts to wipe each other out. Not "beat" each other - but cause the other populace to cease to exist. You may want to research the history of the religious wars in Europe before you consign another people to that fate.

    amazing how many people are "anti war" when the US does it because of the "suffering" it will produce, yet are so willing to condemn entire populaces of millions of innocent people to whirling chaos, horror, and genocide so long as they think they can save a buck or two.

    what kind of moral idiot thinks that the US efforts in Iraq were cruel, but the Syrian government's actions at current are "just them working it out" and therefore internationally acceptable?

  9. #179
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    As long as we need their oil to burn in our cars we'll be stuck with them.
    Oil is below ground. Won't be affected by the nuclear fallout. We can tap into our oil reserves until the area is decon'd and then go in and take the oil. I mean, seriously, who is going to want that land after it gets nuked? And who would have the money and technology besides us and China to go in and take it in a post-nuclear blast environment? Or, to be diplomatic, we can offer humanitarian aid in exchange for premium oil rates.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  10. #180
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    If we were to just allow the people of the Middle East to sort out their own political boundaries and governments the way Europe did over hundreds of years, would it ever become peaceful? Would it take hundreds of years there, too? Would there have to be the equivalent of WWI and WWII to sort things out?

    I wonder.
    I believe it is inevitable. "Stabilty," as we knew it during the Cold War, was an illusion. People who criticized taking out Saddam Hussein pointed out the instability it would cause, which is why we prescribed starvation and maintained his throne since the Gulf War. But as this Arab Spring has proven, the people are going to eventually erupt against their oppressions no matter what. Ancient frictions between tribes are very much alive today as they were since the Shia split from the Sunni. The only thing that kept this friction hidden was the dictator who favored either side. But this also created a region that bred religious terror as an option to express political thought and change.

    I believe that the longer the Middle East took to jump on the right path (the same path we all took), the worse it was going to be. I say this because we can look at the events and turmoil that began after the fall of the Berlin Wall and led up to 9/11. It is very argueable that our retaliation upon Afghanistan and later execution of the Iraq experiment shoved this region in the right direction until Arabs everywhere finally did for themselves. Perhaps we caught this mess in time and Arabs have been able to alter the course their civilization was on. But one thing is sure, if we were to re-draw these borders in accordance to tribe (like it is everywhere in Europe and Asia - given that Korea is still cut in half), nobody would recognize the Middle East.

    There's also the idea that nationalism (introduced by Nasser) may help to persuade most Arabs against changing borders. The strongest nations when it comes to identity are Egypt, Iran, and Turkey. This is because they are the only countries with a real history prior to Islam. There's plenty of pride within the populations that built pyramids and belonged to the Ottoman and Persian Empire. It's the rest of the region that doesn't have an identity other than a colonized version of the Sunni Tribe from the Arabian desert.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    The difference is that Europeans were fighting with swords and muskets, not with nuclear missiles and automatic weapons. The other difference is that they were left alone to sort it out on their own.
    Yes. Big difference. Modernization and globalism has attached all regions and nations together. We are tethered. A crisis in Sudan that forces refugees into neighboring Chad will cause a burden on a trading partner who is now spendng more energy on borders than the business. A flu in China will cause vaccinations to be dispensed in Europe and America. And if there actually was huge break out that crossed borders, this would affect economies and trades. Nuclear weapons will not just harm a single territory in a single nation. The fall out will affect others. For all these knds of threats, we are engaged all over the world whether we talk of diplomacy, corporation, or conflict.

    The Middle East is sorting itself out whether we want them to or not. The entire Cold War in the Middle East was about maintaining our idea of stability. This will no longer due. We simply can't get away with the simple temporary fixes anymore. How much stability did Napoleon or Hitler bring to Europe? Perhaps what the Middle East has going for it is a very powerful U.S. that can guide it down this path as painlessly as possible. And given the current era and the example of Saddam Hussein in 1991, no winner of any Muslim election is going to seek to cross borders and cause global reaction. Most of this change is going to be internal and since the people's leaders are going to have to provide for their people, they will have to play by our rules. We, after all, are the economic power and the string pullers. If they want UN legitimacy and global trades with the West and safe passage through internatinal waterways, they will shake our hands. The whole "Great Satan" excuse for their civilization's failures will begin to go away as soon as the people are taking responsibility for their own desitines through ballots. Even the Muslim Brotherhood has learned that real power comes from being loved and wanted by the people.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •