• 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 we go into Syria

Should we go into Syria

  • Yes, the red line has been crossed

    Votes: 23 13.9%
  • No way Jose, not our problem

    Votes: 143 86.1%

  • Total voters
    166
Okay, by these answers, I'm sure you don't know what you are talking about.

Okay.

For one thing, here is our national debt.
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 01 Sep 2013 at 08:28:52 PM GMT is:
$ 16, 744, 329, 085, 221.40

For another thing, no war is not profitable. It is expensive in terms of both money and lives.

When I mentioned "long term" I meant after the war. War itself, yes, it is costly on the two.

Airstrikes are not going to accomplish anything except killing more people. IF we happened to get lucky and get Assad, that does nothing to rule out a civil war or a worse regime taking over.

Make sure the right regime takes over.

Good God, the problem is NOT the media. Do you actually think the United States gets it's intelligence from the media and they don't know what's happening around the world without the media? :lamo Holy smokes is all I can say to that!!! The media is a GOVERNMENT TOOL, not the other way around my confused friend.

See it is in times like these that you make the conversation very difficult for me. Which part of "Why this particular area was put in the media compared to say atrocities committed from Budhists in Burma may be due to your political leadership and their international policies and agendas" did you not understand? Do not I get the message across to you that the government is selecting this type of media for you to see in purpose so as to have you go with their decisions?

What long-term interests do we have in Syria? Please tell.

Think natural resources.

You are just completely missing the point about other atrocities. There have been FAR WORSE atrocities in the past, and NOBODY intervened. Maybe it is a language barrier problem or something. :shrug:

Yeah, something is definitely being lost in communication here. I do not know. I keep on telling you that intervention cannot be applied to all atrocities at once, and that it takes time to build up to that, and yet all you do is respond back the same old "But there were worse atrocities and no one intervened back then!" comments.

Either way I am not getting much from this exchange. Further, to be honest, if I had a smallest clue that you are not just ignorant and are just doing this on purpose just to piss me off you would have been long ignored and friendships eliminated.

You are right on your second to last comment. It is NOT our problem, nor is it our business. If something happens over there that WOULD directly effect us, such as threats of attacks or actual attacks on us or OUR interests, we can handle that as it happens.

That would be defensive passive activity. This is politics made to gain and liberate, and would be more pro-active instead.
 
France needs to just STFU. When's the last time they actually did anything?
They inspired our establishment Republicans. The French Republicans just cannot wait to surrender to Barracvk Hussein Obama and Harry Reid.
 
When I mentioned "long term" I meant after the war. War itself, yes, it is costly on the two.

Have you looked to Iraq? A place where we actually had boots on the ground and was very costly for us, and they seem to be falling back into their old ways again. You can't fix these problems with wars. Why can't you understand this? These wars bring more hatred and terrorism directed towards America. That is the only thing they really accomplish.

Make sure the right regime takes over.

That is an incredibly naive and simplistic response to a very real and complicated issue. How would you suggest we do that? What you seem to want is for America to go over and take over the entire country. Nope, sorry that is NEVER going to happen again, especially under THIS president.

See it is in times like these that you make the conversation very difficult for me. Which part of "Why this particular area was put in the media compared to say atrocities committed from Budhists in Burma may be due to your political leadership and their international policies and agendas" did you not understand? Do not I get the message across to you that the government is selecting this type of media for you to see in purpose so as to have you go with their decisions?

No, you don't get your message across very well. It seemed to me as if you were blaming the media for where our government chooses to take action or not. So then you didn't answer my question then. Why is our government interested in this atrocity and why is this one so much more important to YOU personally than any other atrocity? Why do you seem so adamant that WE take military actions, being that you admit this is far from the worst.

Think natural resources.

As I've stated NUMEROUS times now throughout this thread, we only get 20% at most of our oil from the Saudis. We don't purchase oil from Syria. We get most of OUR oil from Venezuela and Canada and here at home.

Yeah, something is definitely being lost in communication here. I do not know. I keep on telling you that intervention cannot be applied to all atrocities at once, and that it takes time to build up to that, and yet all you do is respond back the same old "But there were worse atrocities and no one intervened back then!" comments.

Again you miss the point completely. I give up on you now. I have tried to explain this relatively simple concept to you over and over, and you just aren't getting it. Whether it is ignorance or willful behavior on your part, I cannot say.

Either way I am not getting much from this exchange. Further, to be honest, if I had a smallest clue that you are not just ignorant and are just doing this on purpose just to piss me off you would have been long ignored and friendships eliminated.

You aren't getting much from it because you either don't understand or you are being willfully ignorant about the points I've made, and you choose to ignore them.

If you want to remove me from your friends list, feel free. I really don't even know you, so I don't really care one way or another.

That would be defensive passive activity. This is politics made to gain and liberate, and would be more pro-active instead.


We are STILL in Afghanistan as we speak right now. Are you crazy or something? Why would we want ANOTHER war???? So we can send our children off to die for oil? You must be joking.
 
As I've stated NUMEROUS times now throughout this thread, we only get 20% at most of our oil from the Saudis. We don't purchase oil from Syria. We get most of OUR oil from Venezuela and Canada and here at home.

I'd also like to know what natural resources we'd be getting from Syria. At least with Iraq if we had conquered them we'd get access to oil. Syria doesn't have much, and we didn't conquer them either.
 
I'd also like to know what natural resources we'd be getting from Syria. At least with Iraq if we had conquered them we'd get access to oil. Syria doesn't have much, and we didn't conquer them either.

This is only because Obama made a statement and now he has to back it up with some kind of action, so now we have to wait and see what congress has to say.
 
This is only because Obama made a statement and now he has to back it up with some kind of action, so now we have to wait and see what congress has to say.

Hopefully they'll say "No way, sorry Mr. President. Now suck it up." LOL
 
Hopefully they'll say "No way, sorry Mr. President. Now suck it up." LOL

We can hope. I've also heard rumors that he might ignore them if they say no and take some kind of action anyway. I don't know how true that is though. I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.
 
Hopefully they'll say "No way, sorry Mr. President. Now suck it up." LOL

what will more likely happen is that the congress will do nothing because its members are afraid to make a stand or take a position on this issue. why give these people legs if they won't make a attempt to stand up for somthing.
 
We can hope. I've also heard rumors that he might ignore them if they say no and take some kind of action anyway. I don't know how true that is though. I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.

I keep hearing some of our war-mongering fellow members claim the majority of Americans support intervention. I notice that in this poll 87% of the 155 votes do NOT want intervention in Syria. Do we make up a "representative sample???" LOL
 
what will more likely happen is that the congress will do nothing because its members are afraid to make a stand or take a position on this issue. why give these people legs if they won't make a attempt to stand up for somthing.
Be careful what you ask for. They will likely sign off on a short-term set of bombings. They don't have much choice with elections coming up.
 
I keep hearing some of our war-mongering fellow members claim the majority of Americans support intervention. I notice that in this poll 87% of the 155 votes do NOT want intervention in Syria. Do we make up a "representative sample???" LOL
This is a "self selected" group. People who fight each other on the Internet are not an accurate representation of the US population in general.
 
This is a "self selected" group. People who fight each other on the Internet are not an accurate representation of the US population in general.
Agreed. It probably has a rather large error rage. Still, not high enough to believe the majority supports intervening with force.
 
This is a "self selected" group. People who fight each other on the Internet are not an accurate representation of the US population in general.

Welp, it seems like most Americans agree with most of US...no intervention in Syria.

Most in U.S. still oppose Syria strike as Obama seeks action | Reuters

As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

Here's an NBC poll saying it's split though.

NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria - First Read
 

personally i would like to see assad get the cruise missile with his name on it launched at him.

but we do not live in a perfect world, and the Syrian people will continue to die.
 
Does this come as a surprise to you? Why do you think we are a Republic not a Democracy? The Powers That Be don't care what the American people think in the end, but they will try for a time to get people on board. It's easier that way.
 
Agreed. It probably has a rather large error rage. Still, not high enough to believe the majority supports intervening with force.

I'm sure they don't. I'm also sure it doesn't matter a damn.
 
personally i would like to see assad get the cruise missile with his name on it launched at him.

but we do not live in a perfect world, and the Syrian people will continue to die.

How many innocent people around him would the cruise missile kill?
 
One idea that I have no problem with...arena battle between the leaders of countries or groups who push for war.

Like if Assad wants war he has to get in the ring and battle it out mano a mano with the opposition leader...whoever lives wins. :)

That should work for everyone...hmmm I wonder how Bush Jr. woulda done with a face-off against Saddam; or Obama v. Assad?

Any bets?? LOL :)
 
How many innocent people around him would the cruise missile kill?

what is the point of a drone?

find him in his car and then send a missile into him.

better yet, develop a drone that can carry a high powered rifle and take him out with one shot.

again we do not live in a perfect world.
 
what is the point of a drone?

find him in his car and then send a missile into him.

better yet, develop a drone that can carry a high powered rifle and take him out with one shot.

again we do not live in a perfect world.

The mobile rifle idea I like. War is hell, and somethings collateral damage occurs. unless we make our best attempts to minimize it, I am not for drones or cruise missiles. Both Clintoon and Obomba have improperly used these weapons in my opinion. You cannot use these urban settings unless they are cleared out areas already. We have lots of good snipers. Snipers should be used, or sniper drones. Drones and cruise missiles should be limited to military complexes, or groups in wide open areas only. Unless a war is actually in progress. Then we can be a little more loose with targets, and the innocent are aware to stay away f4om potential targets.
 
bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran
 
I keep hearing some of our war-mongering fellow members claim the majority of Americans support intervention. I notice that in this poll 87% of the 155 votes do NOT want intervention in Syria. Do we make up a "representative sample???" LOL

I've read real polls that say 50% disapprove of military action and that 80% want Obama to seek congressional approval. Of course that 80% doesn't mean they support military action either, just that they want him to seek approval. I tend to think it's probably a little more than 50% who oppose it too.

As far as DP members being an adequate representation of the American public . . . :lol: Probably not really, but jeez, I don't think we could be THAT far off, could we?
 
I've read real polls that say 50% disapprove of military action and that 80% want Obama to seek congressional approval. Of course that 80% doesn't mean they support military action either, just that they want him to seek approval. I tend to think it's probably a little more than 50% who oppose it too.

As far as DP members being an adequate representation of the American public . . . :lol: Probably not really, but jeez, I don't think we could be THAT far off, could we?

IF DP represented the american public, romney would have been president, and the senate would be comprised of 80 republicans, 19 democrats, and Bernie sanders.
 
IF DP represented the american public, romney would have been president, and the senate would be comprised of 80 republicans, 19 democrats, and Bernie sanders.

Don't know how true that is. We have a pretty varied group I think.
 
Rightwing nutballs mixed in with the hard core commies and every shade inbetween?
 
Back
Top Bottom