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 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 231

Thread: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

  1. #51
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:29 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    64,047

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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?
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  2. #52
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,142

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    A. The cost is in sending over and maintaining a military force. Fuel. Soldiers. Billion dollar planes. Food. Etc.
    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
    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...
    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.
    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.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:29 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    64,047

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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)
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  4. #54
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    04-24-12 @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    9

    Angry Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    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.

  5. #55
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,574

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.
    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.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  6. #56
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:29 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    64,047

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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.
    That is a good point. We win the wars that the nation is behind and lose the ones where it is a police action.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  7. #57
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,142

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Incorrect. Keeping the 5th in the Gulf fulltime costs us millions upon millions of dollars.
    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...
    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.
    meh, yes and no. You are worried about cost - those things are expensive.

    It's not quite that simple.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Defense isn't what's draining us - Defense is approaching historical lows. What's draining us are the entitlements.

  8. #58
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,142

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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.
    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?

  9. #59
    Advisor Crossroads's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    07-06-15 @ 05:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    408
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    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.

  10. #60
    Advisor Crossroads's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    07-06-15 @ 05:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    408
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Should America deploy troops 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?

Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •