• 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!

Should America deploy troops to Syria?

Should America deploy troops to Syria?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 93 87.7%

  • Yes, but only Special Forces troops

    Votes: 5 4.7%

  • No. Maybe in the future.

    Votes: 8 7.5%
  • Total voters
    106
cpwill said:
A: cluster bomb munitions are pretty cheap, and we have lots because we don't generally use them.

B: what do you think the effect on the deficit would be if Islamist nutjobs get their hands on Syrian chemical weaponry?
Click to expand...

A. The cost is in sending over and maintaining a military force. Fuel. Soldiers. Billion dollar planes. Food. Etc.

B. And if that is the worry then we might as well invade or attack Iran, any Muslim nation from the old USSR that has ties, Pakistan... and really, any nation that has any weapon because as you say in A... cluster bombs and other conventional weapons are pretty cheap and we can see from Mumbai and all the terror bomboings around the world that they are fairly effective.
 
Bodhisattva said:
A. The cost is in sending over and maintaining a military force. Fuel. Soldiers. Billion dollar planes. Food. Etc.
Click to expand...

The 5th Fleet is already in the GSR, and we have a Marine Expeditionary Unit with an organic strike capability... at all times. EUCOM, AFRICOM, and CENTCOM are all already positioned to support. With the potential exception of some Tier One personnel, literally zero extra assets would need to be deployed in order to support this mission. Later on you might need to reload bombs, but you can pull plenty of those local from Germany and even Afghanistan (where airstrikes are not as common as CAP's)

B. And if that is the worry then we might as well invade or attack Iran
Click to expand...

We definitely should strike Iran's burgeoning nuclear capability. Someone already has, and I'm glad they did and hope they stand ready to do it again.

any Muslim nation from the old USSR that has ties, Pakistan...
Click to expand...

We may have to strike Pakistan, too, if she looks ready to collapse. The Pakistani Taliban in possession of a nuclear weapon is a true nightmare scenario.

and really, any nation that has any weapon because as you say in A... cluster bombs and other conventional weapons are pretty cheap and we can see from Mumbai and all the terror bomboings around the world that they are fairly effective.
Click to expand...

nope. this is pretty specific. Bomb Syrian echelons attacking fleeing civilians. Destroy WMD facilities before they fall into Al-Qaeda hands.


But I notice you didn't answer the question. If we follow the "well shucks none of our business" strategy here, and some of Syria's WMD capability falls into Al-Qaeda's hands, do you think that they will use that strategic capability to help us, in a way that will decrease our deficit? Or would they use that strategic capability to hurt us in a way that would increase the deficit? Just because we are tired of war doesn't mean we can clap our hands over our ears and la-la-la the bad guys away.
 
cpwill said:
The 5th Fleet is already in the GSR, and we have a Marine Expeditionary Unit with an organic strike capability... at all times. EUCOM, AFRICOM, and CENTCOM are all already positioned to support. With the potential exception of some Tier One personnel, literally zero extra assets would need to be deployed in order to support this mission. Later on you might need to reload bombs, but you can pull plenty of those local from Germany and even Afghanistan (where airstrikes are not as common as CAP's)
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Keeping the 5th in the Gulf fulltime costs us millions upon millions of dollars.

We definitely should strike Iran's burgeoning nuclear capability. Someone already has, and I'm glad they did and hope they stand ready to do it again.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with air strikes against Iran...

We may have to strike Pakistan, too, if she looks ready to collapse. The Pakistani Taliban in possession of a nuclear weapon is a true nightmare scenario.
Click to expand...

Again... no problems with air strikes as long as that is the extent of it. Cruise missiles are even better.

nope. this is pretty specific. Bomb Syrian echelons attacking fleeing civilians. Destroy WMD facilities before they fall into Al-Qaeda hands.
Click to expand...

It's not quite that simple.

But I notice you didn't answer the question. If we follow the "well shucks none of our business" strategy here, and some of Syria's WMD capability falls into Al-Qaeda's hands, do you think that they will use that strategic capability to help us, in a way that will decrease our deficit? Or would they use that strategic capability to hurt us in a way that would increase the deficit? Just because we are tired of war doesn't mean we can clap our hands over our ears and la-la-la the bad guys away
Click to expand...

Please don't mistake me for being naive. We have debated enough before.

We are probably on more of the same thought process than you think. I am simply stating, counter to some, that we should focus more on our problems at home. Stopping a nuclear threat is one thing... having soldiers fighting and dying at the cost of lives and money while occupying nations is not in our best interest. We have a near failing infrastructure. Something like 60% of California dams and waterways are failing. The power network is costing us billions of dollars. Our problems at home are nearly endless. That does not mean that we ignore threats it just means that we should cut back on the military, cut back on foreign interventions, protect ourselves at the same time and strengthen our nation from within. Copying Rome is not a good idea.
 
as a VN vet with combat exp. I have had enough of sacrificing Americas best and brightest, for people who hate us. with our power and tech I suggest we start building parking lots instead.
 
cpwill said:
The 5th Fleet is already in the GSR, and we have a Marine Expeditionary Unit with an organic strike capability... at all times. EUCOM, AFRICOM, and CENTCOM are all already positioned to support. With the potential exception of some Tier One personnel, literally zero extra assets would need to be deployed in order to support this mission. Later on you might need to reload bombs, but you can pull plenty of those local from Germany and even Afghanistan (where airstrikes are not as common as CAP's)



We definitely should strike Iran's burgeoning nuclear capability. Someone already has, and I'm glad they did and hope they stand ready to do it again.



We may have to strike Pakistan, too, if she looks ready to collapse. The Pakistani Taliban in possession of a nuclear weapon is a true nightmare scenario.



nope. this is pretty specific. Bomb Syrian echelons attacking fleeing civilians. Destroy WMD facilities before they fall into Al-Qaeda hands.


But I notice you didn't answer the question. If we follow the "well shucks none of our business" strategy here, and some of Syria's WMD capability falls into Al-Qaeda's hands, do you think that they will use that strategic capability to help us, in a way that will decrease our deficit? Or would they use that strategic capability to hurt us in a way that would increase the deficit? Just because we are tired of war doesn't mean we can clap our hands over our ears and la-la-la the bad guys away.
Click to expand...

OK, then.

Let's declare war on Syria, reinstate the draft, start selling war bonds, cut off any spending that isn't urgently needed just now, pass a surtax to pay for war, and go set things right. If we're going to war, let's do it right this time. Let's have the whole country at war, not just the military.
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, then.

Let's declare war on Syria, reinstate the draft, start selling war bonds, cut off any spending that isn't urgently needed just now, pass a surtax to pay for war, and go set things right. If we're going to war, let's do it right this time. Let's have the whole country at war, not just the military.
Click to expand...

That is a good point. We win the wars that the nation is behind and lose the ones where it is a police action.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Incorrect. Keeping the 5th in the Gulf fulltime costs us millions upon millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Keeping the 5th in the Gulf keeps our economy from collapsing. Let me know if you want the full story on that.

that being said: they are already there. Picking them up and bringing them home would cost much more than than having them bomb select targets in Syria.

I have no problem with air strikes against Iran...
Click to expand...

Despite the horrible cost of thousands of dollars worth of bombs?

Again... no problems with air strikes as long as that is the extent of it. Cruise missiles are even better.
Click to expand...

meh, yes and no. You are worried about cost - those things are expensive.

It's not quite that simple.
Click to expand...

:shrug: you conduct a Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses which wrecks the Syrian Integrated Air Defense System Centers of Gravity, and not only have you made the airspace permissive for ops, but you have effectively degraded Iran's strategic defenses against airstrikes that you already approved - those two are allies, and Syria would warn Iran about any attack it saw first through it's early warning radar.

Please don't mistake me for being naive. We have debated enough before.
Click to expand...

which is why your responses in this thread surprised me. You seemed to be allowing emotional distaste to trump rational analysis.

We are probably on more of the same thought process than you think. I am simply stating, counter to some, that we should focus more on our problems at home. Stopping a nuclear threat is one thing... having soldiers fighting and dying at the cost of lives and money while occupying nations is not in our best interest.
Click to expand...

Counter to whom? Who has argued in this thread for an Iraq-style invasion of Syria?

We have a near failing infrastructure. Something like 60% of California dams and waterways are failing. The power network is costing us billions of dollars. Our problems at home are nearly endless. That does not mean that we ignore threats it just means that we should cut back on the military, cut back on foreign interventions, protect ourselves at the same time and strengthen our nation from within. Copying Rome is not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Defense isn't what's draining us - Defense is approaching historical lows. What's draining us are the entitlements.
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, then.

Let's declare war on Syria, reinstate the draft, start selling war bonds, cut off any spending that isn't urgently needed just now, pass a surtax to pay for war, and go set things right. If we're going to war, let's do it right this time. Let's have the whole country at war, not just the military.
Click to expand...

no need. why does everyone insist on debating strawmen as opposed to what is actually presented? is it because you lack effective counterarguments, but are instead reacting emotionally?
 
I don't like just saying "NO". We should leave our options open. If things in Syria spill over and affect our interests in the middle east, we might need to intervene. America is not the world police, as I know is stated so often, that SHOULD be the UN's job. If NATO wanted to deal with it, I'd support that, and of course, that would mean America would probably support it as well. If we could avoid sending troops over, that'd be good. Stick to financial aid for the NATO mission to Syria.
 
North Korea has nuclear weapons, and we have yet to see them attack anybody with them, or give them to some rouge terrorist cell. The threat from Iran having nukes seems to be over exaggerated a bit. Plenty of baddy nations w/nukes. Whats one more?
 
Crossroads said:
North Korea has nuclear weapons, and we have yet to see them attack anybody with them, or give them to some rouge terrorist cell.
Click to expand...

North Korea Helped Syria Build It's Nuclear Facility

...The Bush administration went public Thursday with sensitive intelligence meant to show that North Korea spent years helping Syria build a covert facility for nuclear weapons before the plant was destroyed in an Israeli airstrike last year....
Click to expand...

The threat from Iran having nukes seems to be over exaggerated a bit. Plenty of baddy nations w/nukes. Whats one more?
Click to expand...

hey, what could possibly go wrong, amIright? So Iran is ruled by conflicting fundamentalists who believe that the destruction of Israel and the kickoff of WWIII will bring back the 13th Imam who will lead the Persian People into glorious global domination... I mean cmon! Who doesn't have an a crazy uncle that believes that stuff and plays with nuclear weapons all the time, amIright?!?
 
It seems like the criteria for invading a country is becoming twofold.

1. Has weapons vaguely comparable to ours, though still no possible chance of standing up to us in a fight.

2. Is predominantly a religion that isn't the predominant one here.

I wonder how we'd feel about North Korea if they were a primarily Christian country...
 
cpwill said:
no need. why does everyone insist on debating strawmen as opposed to what is actually presented? is it because you lack effective counterarguments, but are instead reacting emotionally?
Click to expand...

It is because every time we go to war sort of instead of really going to war, it turns out badly. If we're going to war, then let's go to war the way we did in WWII. If it's not worth the country going to war, then let's not go to war.

Declare war and go in to win, or don't go to war. We should have learned that lesson in Vietnam.
 
dittohead not! said:
it is because every time we go to war sort of instead of really going to war, it turns out badly. If we're going to war, then let's go to war the way we did in wwii. If it's not worth the country going to war, then let's not go to war.

Declare war and go in to win, or don't go to war. We should have learned that lesson in vietnam.
Click to expand...

amen brother!!!
 
uh, the latest quote from the nut in power of north Korea was he intends to turn south Koreas capital to ashes in a few weeks.
 
cpwill said:
North Korea Helped Syria Build It's Nuclear Facility





hey, what could possibly go wrong, amIright? So Iran is ruled by conflicting fundamentalists who believe that the destruction of Israel and the kickoff of WWIII will bring back the 13th Imam who will lead the Persian People into glorious global domination... I mean cmon! Who doesn't have an a crazy uncle that believes that stuff and plays with nuclear weapons all the time, amIright?!?
Click to expand...

Its fairly well established that Iran would not use nuclear weapons against anybody, because they know they would be utterly destroyed in the retaliation strike. Their want to survive will override any religious bull****. The only threat that is possible would be a Iran shifting off one of its nukes to a rouge unit that could use it, without it coming back to bite Iran in the ass. But, like I said, you have numerous anti Israeli and anti American countries, who are in possession of nuclear weapons, and we have yet to see a nuclear attack on either us or Israel. Once a technology is out there like that, it is virtually impossible to shut everybody else out from it, if they want it bad enough, by stopping Iran today form attaining nuclear weapons, you would only be slowing down the inevitable. Thats the reality of the situation. If we wanted to use economic sanctions, computer hacking, or even small special forces to slow this process down, I'm all for it, but if Iran wants to get nuclear weapons, the only way to really stop them, is to utterly destroy them. and if thats your plan, then you'd better get ready to go after every other nuclear holding country that is a heavy islamist state as well as anti Israeli. an option, which is not an option at all.
 
This is what the the UN is for...
What the UN is really for is to avoid WW3, tens of hundreds must die so that millions do not.
A very sad commentary on the state of humanity !
Why are Russia and China in the UN ?
Are N Korea and Iran members ?
Imagine a police department with Mafia members in the upper echelons .....
Not that this has not happened !
Extremists, instead of the Mafia, even worse, IMO.
 
olddude said:
uh, the latest quote from the nut in power of north Korea was he intends to turn south Koreas capital to ashes in a few weeks.
Click to expand...

Is he trying to be the bully ?
Pathetic !
Give N Korea time, they will shrivel up and die..
 
olddude said:
uh, the latest quote from the nut in power of north Korea was he intends to turn south Koreas capital to ashes in a few weeks.
Click to expand...

They've been saying that for decades.
 
No, we shouldn't. We have plenty of problems at home to deal with.
 
I think this is the most lopsided poll I've ever seen on this forum.
 
lizzie said:
No. Period. Never. We have been trying to police the freaking world and turn dictatorships into democracies for far too many years, with far too many of our own soldiers' lives, for people who aren't culturally adapted to western-style democracy.
Click to expand...

Red_Dave said:
*bangs head on table*
Click to expand...

Upon reflection I've decided that I could have reflected expressed myself more eloquently. I feel this presents a fundamentally inaccurate summation of the past century, which has more accurately been characterized by the West intervening to prevent democracy in the region, as per my example of Iran, French activity in Syria and the huge rise in military aid given to Arab governments after the war on terror. All we need to do to encourage democracy in the region is to get out of the way.
 
CNN’s Anderson Cooper activates ‘Operation Mockingbird’ in Egypt


CNN’s Anderson Cooper activates ‘Operation Mockingbird’ in Egypt « 21st Century Wire

"Smelled any proverbial rats lately? If not, you have not been paying attention. There are plenty about."

"Consider, for instance, this:

“Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now” and “must step aside …” Hilary Clinton (Asia Times, February 9, 2012)


“I strongly condemn the Syrian government’s unspeakable assault … and I offer my deepest sympathy to those who have lost loved ones. Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside …” said President Barack Hussein Obama.

Yet responsibility for US victims, in their hundreds of thousands, spanning Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, in Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, are wholly unaccountable — and uncounted.“

Syria: Rogue Elements Rampant | Dissident Voice

Amnesty International Propaganda Targets Russia & Syria - BlackListedNews.com

http://www.blacklistednews.com/US_A...Revolution_in_Pakistan/18938/0/38/38/Y/M.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom