View Poll Results: Should we go into Syria

Voters
228. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, the red line has been crossed

    27 11.84%
  • No way Jose, not our problem

    201 88.16%
Page 53 of 102 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 530 of 1019

Thread: Should we go into Syria

  1. #521
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: Should we go into Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by AngryOldGuy View Post
    Agrees with what? DDD has the excuse of not having english as his first language (hah after Russian it's prolly his third) what's your excuse?
    Hmmm, have you been at the Albanian Jokes site?

    Albanian jokes!? - Yahoo! Answers

    Check 49-50 in particular!
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  2. #522
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should we go into Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    1) The risk of spilling blood with airstrikes exists of course. It is not that it is a kill free solution. But it is a small probability.

    2) I thought about this too. You are already in dept why be pulled deeper in it right? It turns out that in the long run war ends up being more profiatble. It will actually gain you more money in the long run.

    3) This particular problem has been chosen from the media. Not all every wrong doing can be put into the media at once. One at the time. 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.

    4) If all were to be put at once then it may be too much of a burden. One at a time.



    People are being gassed but it is not really about your responsibility. You did not gas those people to death hence you should not be responsible. But things there may escalate if not intervened in time. Basically you should be looking for that long term gain for your own interests. Those may in fact have to do with intervening on Syria.



    Apart from UK and UN, this may end up a joint operation that may include the rest also.
    Okay, by these answers, I'm sure you don't know what you are talking about.

    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.

    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.

    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? Holy smokes is all I can say to that!!! The media is a GOVERNMENT TOOL, not the other way around my confused friend.

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

    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.

    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.

  3. #523
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should we go into Syria

    In case you missed my edit DDD, I want you to realize that the media is a government tool. The government uses the media to meet it's goals.

  4. #524
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should we go into Syria

    Another thing I'd like to add is does anyone actually believe Assad is sitting in his palace just waiting for someone to come and kill him? Ridiculous! He is moving around from place to place. The only thing airstrikes might accomplish is to take out some of his soldiers or some of his weapons and supplies. It is most certainly not a guarantee to put an end to anything.

  5. #525
    double secret probation AngryOldGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phx,Az
    Last Seen
    03-31-14 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,917

    Re: Should we go into Syria

    and the goal this time is:


  6. #526
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: Should we go into Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Okay, by these answers, I'm sure you don't know what you are talking about.
    Okay.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    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? 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?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    What long-term interests do we have in Syria? Please tell.
    Think natural resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  7. #527
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Should we go into Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    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.

  8. #528
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should we go into Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    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.

  9. #529
    Sage
    reinoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Out West
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    16,027
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should we go into Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    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.

  10. #530
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should we go into Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by reinoe View Post
    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.

Page 53 of 102 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563 ... 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
  •