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 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 231

Thread: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

  1. #31
    Libertarian socialist

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Staffs, England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,730

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    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.
    *bangs head on table*

  2. #32
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    there are only two scenarios under which we get involved militarily.

    1. if there is clear evidence of mass genocide going on.
    2. as part of a much wider coalition force.
    1) Nope, as much as genocide is horrid it isn't a national defense issue, which is the ONLY time we should get involved. Actually that and if we are under treaty or an ally is endangered which is still iffy. 2.) LOL! As if that helps, half of the problem with Afghanistan is we let NATO take a commanding role under the Bush administration and they lost effective control over the ground situation. Why the hell would we let a joint coalition **** another one up?
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #33
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    I will submit my personal opinion later in the thread. Simple question, complicated issue.
    No.If we were not trillions of dollars in debt then maybe.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #34
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York, New York
    Last Seen
    03-11-16 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    551

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Wow. It's pretty rare to see an issue that virtually everyone on this forum agrees with

    I'm glad that America is finally fed up with invading foreign countries that pose no threat to national defense.

  5. #35
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire X View Post
    Wow. It's pretty rare to see an issue that virtually everyone on this forum agrees with

    I'm glad that America is finally fed up with invading foreign countries that pose no threat to national defense.
    Eh, I have always been against war without some kind of defensive argument. I don't disagree that ending genocide or helping people are noble, but realistically that is not what our military was intended for.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    May be it will be interesting for someone to compare this thread with a similar one of last year:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...ops-syria.html


  7. #37
    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?

    If you notice, there's a lot of words and phrases in both of these articles that say "thought to have" "probably" and "most likely". Thats the issue. Our gov't uses these phrases to give themselves a disclaimer for going to war. I'm tired of fighting for other peoples freedom. I will fight all day for my freedom and my fellow American's freedom. That's why I enlisted. But I could care less if Achmed and Mohammed get their's. If they want it, they gotta fight for it. Just like my ancestors did.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I didn't say land conventional forces and stop the fighting. I encourage the fighting. I just agree we should be willing to kill whatever fighters are necessary to protect non-combatants.
    Like we did in Libya? Look how that worked out. Now we have an extreme Islamic gov't working its way into power instead of a single nut that we at least knew and could predict. No, we leave these people to their fate. They want us out of the region, we give it to them. Because it would be the same old story. One bomb is dropped on the wrong people and it makes the news. One bomb hits a house instead of the intended convoy and we are the "occupying infidels" again. Screw 'em.
    “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. #38
    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 Red_Dave View Post
    My point wasnt so much that surgical strikes where less of an act of war more that they are more likely to work, the same applies to sending troops to perform what is basically a policing role, which on a purely humanitarian level didnt work so well even if actually removing Saddam was quite straightforward.
    I know what you meant about Iraq. I just disagree. I went during the 2003 invasion. Chaos insued, martial law was unofficially instituted, women were being raped, it was awful. We did suck at the "policing" in the beginning. I went back in 2007 for a year on an advisor team to an Iraqi Army battalion. I couldn't believe the differences made. The point is, your assumption that the humanitarian efforts didn't work is wrong. It did work and that's why OIF was a success. Like I said, we shouldn't have been there. But we were. And we were allowed to do our job unlike what we're doing in Afghanistan. Not to derail this thread. If we went into Syria, it would OEF part 2. NATO in charge, weak tactical decisions by PC Generals, and more floundering about for years on end. No thanks.
    “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

  9. #39
    Sage
    RDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Last Seen
    10-10-17 @ 05:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,398

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Yeah, send troops there to install democracy but no pissing remember.

  10. #40
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    If you notice, there's a lot of words and phrases in both of these articles that say "thought to have" "probably" and "most likely". Thats the issue. Our gov't uses these phrases to give themselves a disclaimer for going to war.
    yeah. Because when I picture Obama, I see someone who wants to find any excuse he can to invade Syria.

    The threat posed by Syria's weapons of mass destruction has emerged as among the most pressing issues the Obama administration faces as it works with its European and Mideast allies to fashion a response to the worsening conflict inside the Arab country... Over the past four decades, Syria amassed vast supplies of mustard gas, sarin nerve agent and cyanide, according to declassified reports by the Central Intelligence Agency. Significant quantities of these chemical agents are believed to have been weaponized by the Syrian government in artillery shells, bombs and possibly Scud and SS-21 missiles...
    besides which, what is the worst that happens if I am wrong? we bomb the wrong building that the rebellion is targeting, and hit a standard ballistic missile facility as opposed to one operating with chemical warheads? boo hoo?

    I'm tired of fighting for other peoples freedom.
    no one on this thread is saying we should. I'm saying we should be willing to strike to ensure America's strategic interests in the region (a de-fanged Syria, an exhausted and distracted Hezbollah, an Iran being dragged into supporting an increasingly less viable ally, an Al-Qaeda without access to WMD's), and that especially given that we have the ability to do so with minimum risk or cost to ourselves, while we are conducting that campaign should we run across a military force assaulting a large group of civilians seeking to escape the country, we should take advantage of the opportunity to collect more JMEMs data on our cluster munitions .

    Like we did in Libya?
    yes and no. In Libya we picked "a side". Sort of. I'm an equal opportunity bomber, here.

    Look how that worked out. Now we have an extreme Islamic gov't working its way into power instead of a single nut that we at least knew and could predict
    No, an islamist nutjob government is a superior long-term alternative to khaddaffi. To die, Islamism must be allowed to fail. Dittos in Syria. Nothing says if necessary we can't go back and bomb the new Libyan government.

    No, we leave these people to their fate. They want us out of the region, we give it to them.


    1. the Middle East remains a strategic center of gravity in the world for two major reasons: the oil and the canal, and huge chunks of the world economy are dependent on both of those. instability in the region threatens those two facets, thus threatening the world (and our) economy.

    2. the Middle East is inherently unstable, as demonstrated by nothing better than recent events. Tyrannical governments keep their populace in line with the stick of the mukhaberat and the carrot of the welfare state based on revenues generated from nationalized resources (read: oil and the Suez). But that rentier state carrot is intensely vulnerable to falling revenues and - as the Iranian Shah and Mubarak learned to their chagrin - can rapidly inspire revolution followed by replacement by radical (and themselves inherently destabilizing) elements. Internally, the Middle East is a bubbling cauldron, and the resources upon which much of the worlds' economy is based right there in the middle.

    Internationally, among the Sunnis, Egypt and Saudi Arabia both consider themselves the natural leaders, and have already proven willing in Yemen to shoot at each other over that disagreement. The Iraqi's also consider themselves the natural leader of the Arab world, but lately they haven't been a serious contender. The Saudis are currently attempting to take control over the region through the exportation of Wahabism, which is itself inherently destabilizing, as it preaches the overthrow of the National-Socialist model governments left over from the 60's and 70's in Egypt (check) and Pakistan, (as well, obviously, as the democracy - as much as it exists - in Lebanon and in Israel) followed by the violent unification of the region under a single banner, followed by an invasion of the rest of the world. They aren't kidding about that part, and we are idiots if we fail to take them at their word, especially as they seem to have just succeeded in part A of step 1, the removal of the Mubarak regime, and appear to be gathering to achieve part B of step 1, the removal of the Assad regime.

    The Iranians are the largest terror-exporting nation in the world, and they are very, very good at it. The IRGC, and in particular the Quds forces, have fostered the growth of Hezbollah (the real deadliest terrorist network in the world), Hamas, and even (mostly through proxies) Al Quada. They are currently waging a campaign to destroy the Lebanese government, are probably backing an increasingly violent protest movement in Bahrain, and are helping the regime in Syria in an attempt to build a base with which to challenge the US and Saudi Arabia for dominance of the region, part of that struggle (they assume) including the destruction of Israel. The leadership of that nation Really Believes that the 13th Imam is coming soon, and that they must kick off international Jihad in order for him to arrive and bring about the End Times - and again, we are fools if we fail to take them at their word on that.

    3. the region, thus, needs an overpowering, hegemon if it is to remain stable enough to ensure the non-collapse of the world economy. Someone has to impose order and keep these nutjobs from destroying the ability of the world to access the oil and the suez. There is only one nation currently on the planet with the capacity to perform this task: the US. The US Fifth Fleet, currently headuquartered in Bahrain, is the major (and perhaps only realistic) force for stability in that region, contending with numerous, powerful forces for instability.

    4. Withdrawal or severe down-draw of US Forces would create a power vacuum and kick off fights within the sunni community and between Iran and Saudi Arabia for regional dominance. Shiite Iran is seeking to get nukes. Syria has had a nuclear facility already destroyed by the Israelis. Sunni Pakistan (see: Wahhabi plans for governments, the overthrow and replacement of) already has them. In the face of a US Withdrawal, Saudi Arabia certainly would start developing her own.

    Imagine a Mexican standoff, except that 3 of the 4 players are A) paranoid schizophrenics facing opponents they violently hate, B) convinced that death will be a net benefit for them, C) convinced that their souls are in peril if they don't shoot, and D) potentially armed with nukes (the 4th Player is the unfortunately-located Israel). I think everyone here can agree that that is not a "stable" situation, particularly when you add in E) these countries are not internally stable, but may feel forced into an external war in order to solidify internal support and F) at least two of the players (Iran and Saudi Arabia) are held hostage by their own extremists, who feel free to act without permission, are nearly impossible to stop, and are most desirous of the conflict. And I feel that A) deserves rementioning.

    FUN FACTS WORTH NOTING: China (also nuclear) is rapidly becoming a good, good friend of Iran, and is semi-distancing itself from Pakistan (whom it largely views as a foil against India). China is also heavily invested in East Africa. It is possible that China would seek to intervene in the region to tilt the balance in Iran's favor as the US did in Saudi Arabia's. If that happens, then the newly Taliban (and nuclear!) Pakistan - which is deeply paranoid, xenophobic, and a wierd mixture of Wahhabist and neo-Deobandi - becomes an ally of Saudi Arabia, and our players are all now holding two pistols even as their inner demons scream at them to shoot first. BEST CASE SCENARIO here is that China is able to stabilize (kinda) the region, and merely takes all the oil for itself - only partially collapsing the world economy. but that's the "best" case, not the "most likely" one. it's not even really a "sorta likely" or a "semi likely" one.

    5. The West is dying. Literally - our creation of an entitlement culture and our devotion to materialism have left us with birthrates below replacement level. In both Europe and America the solution has been mass immigration - but both have had issues with assimilation. America here is comparatively lucky, her immigrants share many of her cultural assumptions. But Europe is not - the West in Europe is being replaced by a high-birthrate Islamic culture which does not accept the Enlightenment. As the immigrant populations threaten to break the local safety nets and culture, the backlash they provoke isn't what we would recognize as classic liberalism, but rather classic fascism. Nationalist groups are springing up all over Europe, though they are doomed by their own inability to breed to dying out after sparking conflict. All those aspects of the West that we consider dear ; the rights of the individaul, limited, secular government, free markets, they are doomed to wither and die as the culture that upholds them does.



    The situation at current cannot sustain indefinitely - eventually the destabilizing elements that are currently inherent in the Middle East will win, and the price of loss is not just a world wide economic collapse, but the slide, decline, and perhaps fall of the West. The long-term solution is therefore to change the rules of the game. The destabilizing elements in the Middle East must be replaced with stabilizing ones. Tyrannies must (carefully) be replaced with representative governments that give public pressure an outlet other than violent overthrow. Rentier societies that encourage stagnation, revolution, and hostility abroad must be replaced with market economies that encourage trade, growth, and a politically active middle class with a vested interest in stability. Radical Islam must be replaced with a new ideology that allows Muslims to recoup their pride and independence without striking at others. In short, we need to allow the Enlightenment to do to Islam what it has done to Christianity.

    Even with our presence, US pursual of that strategy (again, as we see today) is not guaranteed, and even with US pursual of that strategy, sucess is not any kind of certain.... but if the US withdraws before these things are accomplished (or, at least, accomplished enough to become self-feeding cycles), then the game is up. the match is struck. Europe falls, China moves to become hegemon, nukes possibly fly, and back to the Dark Ages we go, but this time with much, much better weapons with which to massacre each other in the name of God.

    THAT's why i would suggest that "oh well let's just leave and let em fight it out amongst themselves" is a bad idea.

Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •