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 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 231

Thread: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

  1. #181
    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 cpwill View Post
    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.
    Unlike RINO lemmings, I have an idea of why we never tap the oil we have in Alaska and off of our coasts. One day, the Middle East is going to implode. No matter what we do. We can intervene all we want, we can try to patch it up, we can place sanctions on nations, it won't matter. Eventually, we aren't going to be able to control the level of fanaticism and zealotry that is organic to that region. When that happens, we will have enough oil on our soil in in strategic reserves to fuel our country. Yes, it will suck for us. It will require all of us to cut back on usage, car pool, and maybe even ration gas. Also, the entire region will not go into a tailspin if Iran, for instance, decides to nuke someone. They are just as dependant on us and we are on them.
    I don't believe anyone over there is going to be punching us in the jaw. Name a nation that is even capable of it? None of them can reach us with a nuke, none of them has anywhere close to the military power required to leave their borders and execute any kind of assault against us, so who's it going to be? We're talking Middle East here. Not China.
    “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

  2. #182
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,013

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post

    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.
    Of course it's political correctness. We don't want Germans to feel bad so we separate them from what must have simply been non-German Nazis. We talk about Nazis as if they weren't Germans nor supported by the mass German population. We can't even state that our enemies are Muslims because people seem to want them to be separated from the Muslim civilization. Everything seems to have to come with a disclaimer so as not to offend. Perhaps this is part of the reason we haven't had an enemy unconditionally surrender since the end of World War II. Our quest to civilize war by "winning hearts and minds" and separating the nails from the hammers allows much of the guilty to escape. Hence the carved in half Korea, lost Vietnam, fractured Iraqi population, Croation/Bosnian/Serbian pause, etc.



    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    It's only a big problem if we decide to point it out. Nobody really seemed to care when Clinton became the first President to defy the UN and send troops to sort out Bosnia. In regards to Kosovo, the UN called it an illegal act conducted by the French and the U.S. It was't until we focused on the belligerent thorn in the Middle East that people seemed to really care. It's true that most of the world complained largely because the U.S. has proven to be able to do whatever it wants without permission. Considering history, it is understandable because the rest of the world has proven to not be ablt o handle its power. But we are the first of any empire to actually prove that can be responsible with our power. After all, we didn't seek to colonize the world, start World Wars or Cold Wars. Being the only nation to drop atomic bombs, we have proven to even be responsible with this power by refusing to use them again and to monitor the rest of the world. But another truth is that while people were chanting "No War For Oil," they should have also been chanting "Continued Starvation For Oil." Under their chants, they still wanted their gasoline. They just didn't want to have to hear about it.

    The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the laws we agreed to right after World War II does not reflect the modern globalized world today. The end of World War I saw us create the League of Nations for peace. They failed. The end of world War II saw us create the United Nations. This time we stuck around to enforce the idea of peace through stability. But after the Cold War we saw no reason to recognize the emerged democratic world? Since World War I, the world had seen over 130 democracies created and by the end of the century Democracy won. The Age of Ideaology and all the "isms" that wrecked the world lost. We saw no cause to create an organization that not only catered to stability, but rewarded Democracies? What we did, instead, was fal to recognize the world we created and we continued to adhere to international laws that reward the dictator for his ability to maintain stability. America did lead this. You have got to at least acknowledge that. And today, almost the entire Middle East is seeking exactly what the West and even Israel has been doing for itself. They seek what has proven to work. The world's stubborn reliance on these ancient laws is like the 21st century surgeon demanding to operate with 17th century tools. Whether all Americans agree with Bush or not, they all have to be able to see the very real changing of eras and the very real historical turn we are in right now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    But it sucked the world into it. Perhaps our goal should be to help the Middle East sort itself out without needing the European recipe.
    Last edited by MSgt; 05-13-12 at 03:30 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #183
    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
    Of course it's political correctness. We don't want Germans to feel bad so we separate them from what must have simply been non-German Nazis. We talk about Nazis as if they weren't Germans nor supported by the mass German population. We can't even state that our enemies are Muslims because people seem to want them to be separated from the Muslim civilization. Everything seems to have to come with a disclaimer so as not to offend. Perhaps this is part of the reason we haven't had an enemy unconditionally surrender since the end of World War II. Our quest to civilize war by "winning hearts and minds" and separating the nails from the hammers allows much of the guilty to escape. Hence the carved in half Korea, lost Vietnam, fractured Iraqi population, Croation/Bosnian/Serbian pause, etc.
    I've never heard anyone present it this way. I think some overuse the temr political correctness. Perhpas it is more an effort to be accurate. Everyday people are both responsible (party to what went wrong) and detacted as they had more worries than what the government was doing. It is not that our enimies are muslims that is what is often disputed. It is that all muslims are our enemy. There is a proper distinction there. MY enemy may use a child, but all children are not my enemy. The trouble with grouping is that they are nto all inclusive.

    The disclaimer is to be accurate. Those shouting poitical correctness seem to me to be the ones havig the political correctness issue.

    Still, I would look at history from a different vantage point if I were you. You have the facts right, as most do, but misinterpret, as many do. Germany had an army. Was a declared war. Made things simplier and more direct. Since then we've done police actions, had no rationale that would carry us to a conclusion, and fought enemies less defined, and more the entire populas. Hell, today, there isn't even a body that can surrender. The msitake is in us, but not in political correctness. It is in fighting ill defined conflicts against vague enemies. USing the hammer instead of the scalpel. A poor way to do surgery.



    It's only a big problem if we decide to point it out. Nobody really seemed to care when Clinton became the first President to defy the UN and send troops to sort out Bosnia. In regards to Kosovo, the UN called it an illegal act conducted by the French and the U.S. It was't until we focused on the belligerent thorn in the Middle East that people seemed to really care. It's true that most of the world complained largely because the U.S. has proven to be able to do whatever it wants without permission. Considering history, it is understandable because the rest of the world has proven to not be ablt o handle its power. But we are the first of any empire to actually prove that can be responsible with our power. After all, we didn't seek to colonize the world, start World Wars or Cold Wars. Being the only nation to drop atomic bombs, we have proven to even be responsible with this power by refusing to use them again and to monitor the rest of the world. But another truth is that while people were chanting "No War For Oil," they should have also been chanting "Continued Starvation For Oil." Under their chants, they still wanted their gasoline. They just didn't want to have to hear about it.

    The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the laws we agreed to right after World War II does not reflect the modern globalized world today. The end of World War I saw us create the League of Nations for peace. They failed. The end of world War II saw us create the United Nations. This time we stuck around to enforce the idea of peace through stability. But after the Cold War we saw no reason to recognize the emerged democratic world? Since World War I, the world had seen over 130 democracies created and by the end of the century Democracy won. The Age of Ideaology and all the "isms" that wrecked the world lost. We saw no cause to create an organization that not only catered to stability, but rewarded Democracies? What we did, instead, was fal to recognize the world we created and we continued to adhere to international laws that reward the dictator for his ability to maintain stability. America did lead this. You have got to at least acknowledge that. And today, almost the entire Middle East is seeking exactly what the West and even Israel has been doing for itself. They seek what has proven to work. The world's stubborn reliance on these ancient laws is like the 21st century surgeon demanding to operate with 17th century tools. Whether all Americans agree with Bush or not, they all have to be able to see the very real changing of eras and the very real historical turn we are in right now.
    You make another mistake here. Many of us opposed Bosnia, though the rationale for it was more tolerable. We still opposed it. The ones being consistent are those of us who opposed it and still oppsed this action. Many in the military opposed Bosnia as well, but somehow managed to find justification for Iraq, a far less reasonable course of action.

    And if the laws don't apply (convienent), than do what all law abiding people do, work to change the law. Don't break it. Don't ignore it. Make things that are right are sometimes hard to tolerate. Every listen to the reverand Phelps for example? He makes supporting free speech dificult to say the least. But I would not abandon the concept because he absues the right. That road leads us to palces we really don't want to go. And so does ignoring rule of law when it suits us.



    But it sucked the world into it. Perhaps our goal should be to help the Middle East sort itself out without needing the European recipe.
    Sucked us? We were there all along. Us being their, interfering, supporting bad actors, that is what cost us.

    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. #184
    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
    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.
    We're not talking about a leak in a containment vessel like in Japan. Considering dust particles from Saharan sand storms regularly make it to the US it wouldn't surprise me if fallout from a Mideast nuclear war made it here, too. If nukes start going off it's not going to be a localized effect and it's not going to be easily "decon'd", either.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 05-14-12 at 07:48 AM.
    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

  5. #185
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    We're not talking about a leak in a containment vessel like in Japan. Considering dust particles from Saharan sand storms regularly make it to the US it wouldn't surprise me if fallout from a Mideast nuclear war made it here, too. If nukes start going off it's not going to be a localized effect and it's not going to be easily "decon'd", either.
    Not to mention the ease with which a nuclear device could be brought to the US by boat or plane and set off in one of our big cities, say, Los Angeles harbor, for example, or up the Hudson in a small boat.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  6. #186
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Not to mention the ease with which a nuclear device could be brought to the US by boat or plane and set off in one of our big cities, say, Los Angeles harbor, for example, or up the Hudson in a small boat.
    Nagasaki and Hiroshima were rebuilt.....some of this contamination hype is overdone...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  7. #187
    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
    We're not talking about a leak in a containment vessel like in Japan. Considering dust particles from Saharan sand storms regularly make it to the US it wouldn't surprise me if fallout from a Mideast nuclear war made it here, too. If nukes start going off it's not going to be a localized effect and it's not going to be easily "decon'd", either.
    The Sahara is a lot closer to us than the Middle East. I've been to both. The difference in flight time is huge.
    I believe nukes would be localized for a few reasons. The most likely nations to use them right now would be North Korea and Iran (when they get it). Pakistan would not use their nukes because it's the only thing they can hold over India's head right now. As a matter of fact, all nations realize that possessing nukes brings them power that using them never could. No nation (besides the two mentioned IMO) is going to use a nuke unless it's in response to another nuke.
    “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

  8. #188
    Advisor Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    07-14-13 @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    342

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    ...As a matter of fact, all nations realize that possessing nukes brings them power that using them never could. No nation (besides the two mentioned IMO) is going to use a nuke unless it's in response to another nuke.
    M.A.D theory at it's best.

  9. #189
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Nagasaki and Hiroshima were rebuilt.....some of this contamination hype is overdone...
    Un... sure. and I'm sure we could rebuild New York and Los Angeles as well, eventually.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  10. #190
    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 Dittohead not! View Post
    Un... sure. and I'm sure we could rebuild New York and Los Angeles as well, eventually.
    How's New Orleans doing after 7 years? And that was just a massive flood that left a lot of things more or less intact.
    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

Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... 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
  •