View Poll Results: intervention in syria ?

Voters
29. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    2 6.90%
  • no

    25 86.21%
  • not sure

    1 3.45%
  • others

    1 3.45%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: intervention in syria

  1. #21
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:39 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,786

    Re: intervention in syria

    Not no, but hell no. As Lizzie said, we need to do less intervening, not more (as a general concept).

    I'd be ok with supplying weapons and humanitarian aid (food medical supplies, etc.), but that's it. And even then only if we didn't have a single person actually set foot in the country.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    01-15-18 @ 01:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: intervention in syria

    Yes. We should be providing arms and assistance to the FSA as the best mechanism available for reducing the popularity and influence of Islamist militias and as a means for increasing our hand in the post-war environment. Doing nothing is a decision we have already come to regret, and we will suffer the consequences if we continue with our inaction. Just because we sit on the sidelines doesn't mean Islamists will disappear, on the contrary our inaction directly contributed to their rise to power and influence in the first place. Continued inaction will lead to a situation where demographics, Gulf money and arms, and time conspire to give the Islamist coalition a victory in Syria that leaves the FSA/SNC isolated and the Kurds exposed. The only plausible means for avoiding this is to begin cultivating palatable allies in Syria--something they have been begging us to do for years.

    Saying 'we shouldn't get involved over there' is the easy decision and it feels gratifying. But it doesn't mean it is the right one.

  3. #23
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: intervention in syria

    No. We don't have the capability of controlling such complex and fluid situations. One kind of intervention I would support is accepting large numbers of refugees from Syria. And humanitarian aid, of course.

  4. #24
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    01-17-18 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,230

    Re: intervention in syria

    I think I'll go with Edmund Burke's opinion:

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  5. #25
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,931
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: intervention in syria

    Can I change my poll answer? I said 'not sure' but after reading the thread I'm saying no. Someone mentioned 'the lesser of the evils' but it looks impossible to call. Dictators are tossed and replaced by oppressive theocracies- about the surest thing you can say is that democracy can't work in that region.
    They'll sort it out eventually. Or not, whatever. Not like there's oil or nukes involved.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •