• 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!

Is there any potential war on the horizon that you would support?

Is there any potential war on the horizon that you would support?

  • Total voters
    37
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is there any potential war on the horizon that you would support?

1) Iran
2) Syria
3) China
4) Maybe, but unlikely.
5) No, not that I can think of.

Afghanistan and Iraq purposely omitted as we are already involved in those. Also, I'm presuming something in the interest of literal self-defense would be a given, though I know some would oppose even that.

Me? Barring literal self-defense, right now, I cannot envision any war I'd support.
 
no. global police actions should be a role of the UN with all member nations participating. ideally, Syria would have been helped in this way, but veto powers prevented it. that's something we should address.

right now, we need to be nation building at home. our presence on the world stage should be in a humanitarian role.
 
Helix said:
no. global police actions should be a role of the UN with all member nations participating. ideally, Syria would have been helped in this way, but veto powers prevented it. that's something we should address..
Click to expand...

How? an inevitable flaw of multilateralism is that most countries are run by sociopaths.
 
The name of country isn't what matters, its the specific circumstances behind the war. Attacking Libya would have been moronic if there hadn't already been a mass uprising. Generally speaking, it makes much more sense to join in a war someone else starts than initiating the conflict. Most wars waste considerable amounts of blood and money and have no tangible gains even for the winning side.
 
Red_Dave said:
How? an inevitable flaw of multilateralism is that most countries are run by sociopaths.
Click to expand...

i meant that we should address veto powers, especially in situations in which dictators are killing large segments of the populations of their countries.
 
Helix said:
i meant that we should address veto powers, especially in situations in which dictators are killing large segments of the populations of their countries.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, how is that *OUR* problem what crazy dictators do in other countries?
 
Cephus said:
I'm sorry, how is that *OUR* problem what crazy dictators do in other countries?
Click to expand...

humanitarian crises are a UN problem. i don't support mostly unilateral US interventionist police actions, however. if it needs addressed, it needs to be addressed by a global body, not one nation.
 
Helix said:
humanitarian crises are a UN problem. i don't support mostly unilateral US interventionist police actions, however. if it needs addressed, it needs to be addressed by a global body, not one nation.
Click to expand...

Then the UN can send out their own troops on their own dime. The U.S. needs to stop playing the world's policeman.
 
Helix said:
i meant that we should address veto powers, especially in situations in which dictators are killing large segments of the populations of their countries.
Click to expand...

So who gets to decide when/if to act?
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
The UN has troops of its own now?
Click to expand...

I mean specifically UN peacekeepers, operating under a UN mandate, not U.S. soldiers running around the planet willy-nilly.
 
I vote we go to war with Congress and kick them ALL out!!!
 
Question's too open-ended. Does "any potential war" include a "potential" alien invasion?
 
Cephus said:
Then the UN can send out their own troops on their own dime. The U.S. needs to stop playing the world's policeman.
Click to expand...

as a UN member nation, we would have to play some limited role. however, i agree that we should not be the world police force.
 
Cephus said:
I mean specifically UN peacekeepers, operating under a UN mandate, not U.S. soldiers running around the planet willy-nilly.
Click to expand...

UN peacekeepers that come from where?
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
So who gets to decide when/if to act?
Click to expand...

ideally, UN member nations. however, with the current setup, it is not working. perhaps if we refuse to do anything else unilaterally, the UN will be forced to change that setup out of necessity.
 
Helix said:
ideally, UN member nations. however, with the current setup, it is not working. perhaps if we refuse to do anything else unilaterally, the UN will be forced to change that setup out of necessity.
Click to expand...

right, that's basically because the US is the only country that has the balls to do what's right in the world. Other countries are too selfish and could care less if people are being oppressed and killed by dictators or are suffering from natural disasters..
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
ideally, UN member nations. however, with the current setup, it is not working. perhaps if we refuse to do anything else unilaterally, the UN will be forced to change that setup out of necessity.
Click to expand...

So you advocate leaving decisions to the General Assembly rather then the Security Council? there may well be more voting power in Assad's favor in the former than there is in the latter
 
no i cant think of a single one...
 
Red_Dave said:
So you advocate leaving decisions to the General Assembly rather then the Security Council? there may well be more voting power in Assad's favor in the former than there is in the latter
Click to expand...

i'm advocating that in humanitarian crises such as mass murder of civilians, one or two nations should not be able to stop UN efforts simply because they have a strategic interest in the region.
 
Helix said:
i'm advocating that in humanitarian crises such as mass murder of civilians, one or two nations should not be able to stop UN efforts simply because they have a strategic interest in the region.
Click to expand...

And at the same time you are advocating multilateralism, which is exactly what allows these nations to prevent intervention. The only difference in letting the general assembly make the decisions (which i assume was what you meant) is that it would be multiple states preventing intervention not just one or two.
 
Last edited:
As I'm not a statist, I don't support any of the "normal" wars (i.e. wars waged by governments). I would, however, support and (if effective) participate in armed action to secure basic needs (water, land, access to education and healthcare, etc.) if and when a government or private business made a move to block access to them. Blocking off needs is slow murder.
 
I would support an intervention in Syria with little to no boots on the ground. I think we should only go to war if attacked or to combat humanitarian crises.
 
Red_Dave said:
And at the same time you are advocating multilateralism, which is exactly what prevents this from happening.
Click to expand...

i prefer multilateralism to unilateralist interventionism. either way, the US can no longer afford to be the main combatant in every global police action, so if global police actions are still desired, someone is going to have design a body to fill that role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom