• 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
Coin said:
Bombing Syria without sending troops is pointless and they know it well.
Click to expand...

Really? I can think of quite a few things we can achieve by bombing portions of Syria.

By bombing Syria key points won't make the regime fall.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether or not that is true - who said that has to be the intent?

Bombing is very very expensive. If they intend to bomb Syria just to support rebels, they have to make sure to throw many missiles ($$) because those rebels are so amateurs when it come to war.
Click to expand...

Who says we should allow the rebels to do our targeting for us? We didn't do so in Libya.
 
My thoughts.

Heartbreaking to know that there are tens of thousands killed so far and terrible knowing that many of them are children. These kids didn't stand a chance. I find that incredibly upsetting.

In relation to the Poll question. You're either in or you're out. You need to make your mind up. None of this half assed crap. If you're out then stay out completely because like it or not you are already involved if you're funding and arming the rebels.
 
cpwill said:
Who did you have in mind?
Click to expand...

Anyone else besides the United States. I also read on another website that the attacks were staged or actually performed by another rebel group in order to escalate things to get the US involved. Don't know how true that is, but we still really don't know what's going on over there. Honestly, I don't trust a single one of them. I don't trust any of those rebel groups.

It seems as if you are ignoring this aspect. Helping these insurgents could actually make things even worse in terms of our best interests. You are putting too much faith in these rebels. You think helping them will help us, and I disagree. I think it will probably be even worse after all is said and done.

Jihadist Robin Hood? Al Qaeda-linked fighters in Syria seek to change image with social outreach | Fox News


TEL RIFAT, Syria – Battle-hardened Al Qaeda-linked fighters helping insurgents in Syria are winning over their fellow warriors with a newfound discipline that could make them even more formidable in the war for the hearts and minds of civilians caught in the crossfire of a bloody civil war.

Syrian fighters seeking to topple strongman Bashar Assad told FoxNews.com the jihadists from the Al Qaeda-affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra are ferocious in battle, but then share their spoils with suffering villagers while other insurgents line their own pockets with loot. The new approach by the terror group, infamous for killing civilians with suicide bombings and videotaping grisly beheadings, threatens to broaden its appeal to beleaguered citizens of the war-torn nation.

“They aren’t corrupt like the others. What they capture from government bases they distribute." “They don’t push their ideology at us,” Hassan, a driver and 37-year-old father of three, said as he ate mutton stew by candlelight with four other fighters and a reporter in the northern Syria village of Tel Rifat. “They aren’t corrupt like the others. What they capture from government bases they distribute. They are proper, very correct.”
Click to expand...
 
Ad_Captandum said:
France and Britain took the lead in Libya, and France has taken the lead in Mali. They could sort Syria out and have the US provide logistics or something so the US can say it helped.
Click to expand...

I've got no problem with that whatsoever. In fact, I would prefer it if we could say that we were NOT involved when all is said and done.
 
cpwill said:
Partly. I maintain my original position - that Syria is a place where we have huge national interests, and that we should utilize a targeted campaign to dismantle their integrated air defense system capability, secure or destroy their WMD stocks, and provide cover to fleeing civilians. We don't need to invade, or even seek to ensure one sides' victory over the other, but we do need to ensure that WMD's do not get loose, doing so will require serving some of our national interests (the dismantlement of some of Syria's C2 functions), and we should also utilize what force we have to mitigate or minimize the mass human suffering taking place on the ground.
Click to expand...

It is strange how much the liberals of today sound like the isolationist conservatives of 80-90 years ago.
 
Diogenes said:
It is strange how much the liberals of today sound like the isolationist conservatives of 80-90 years ago.
Click to expand...

Does anyone really want to be involved in that cluster****?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
"His was one of many accounts of a massive assault on the eastern suburbs of Damascus that activists say killed more than 500 people on Wednesday morning. They say some of the bombs were loaded with chemical agent, which would make it the worst chemical attack since the conflict began"
Syrians retrieve 'sleeping' dead after alleged chemical attack - Israel News, Ynetnews
Click to expand...
"Activists" said so huh. So of course it's true. We all know how honest and trustworthy the "activists" in the region are. Anonymous activists are always an impeccable source.

And that is besides the point. Unlike most UN member states Syria is not a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Therefore, even if Syria is using chemical weapons against the insurgents & foreign fighters those actions do not constitute a violation of any treaty with the US or UN.
 
ChrisL said:
Does anyone really want to be involved in that cluster****?
Click to expand...

Certainly not with the cluster**** leadership we have for now.
 
Coin said:
Bombing Syria without sending troops is pointless and they know it well.
By bombing Syria key points won't make the regime fall.
Bombing is very very expensive. If they intend to bomb Syria just to support rebels, they have to make sure to throw many missiles ($$) because those rebels are so amateurs when it come to war.
Click to expand...

Bombing Syria absolutely can force the collapse of the regime. Moreover those 'amateur' rebels have been able to keep the regime military locked in combat for almost two years.
 
Coin said:
Bombing Syria without sending troops is pointless and they know it well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
By bombing Syria key points won't make the regime fall.
Bombing is very very expensive. If they intend to bomb Syria just to support rebels, they have to make sure to throw many missiles ($$) because those rebels are so amateurs when it come to war.
Click to expand...




Wrong.

Check out Kosovo. It worked there, with little loss of U.S or other NATO lives.

Bombs are expensive.

Taking care of a disabled veteran for his/her entire live is also expensive.
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
Bombing Syria absolutely can force the collapse of the regime. Moreover those 'amateur' rebels have been able to keep the regime military locked in combat for almost two years.
Click to expand...

If by forcing the collapse of the régime the result will be the emergence of one also disposed to commit atrocities, which we have already seen the rebels commit, then what benefit results?
 
Sherman123 said:
Bombing Syria absolutely can force the collapse of the regime. Moreover those 'amateur' rebels have been able to keep the regime military locked in combat for almost two years.
Click to expand...


Those "amateur" rebels have been funded and armed by US Intelligence agencies. They are not some spontaneous freedom fighters. As a matter of fact, they seem to be Al Queda scumbags and assorted free lance breeders of violence and murder. You should know better than to even suggest we support these pusillanimous dirtbags.
 
shrubnose said:
Wrong.

Check out Kosovo. It worked there, with little loss of U.S or other NATO lives.
Click to expand...

Kosovo was so different case.

And Syria is way too much different than Serbia.
 
Sherman123 said:
Bombing Syria absolutely can force the collapse of the regime. Moreover those 'amateur' rebels have been able to keep the regime military locked in combat for almost two years.
Click to expand...
yes, and in 2 years with the support of CIA they couldn't bring the regime down because it was clearly enough by now that Syrian people does not want so.
And since they can't beat this regime the way they've been trying 2 years now, let's go bomb them?!

Syria is not Libya.
Libya become so independent that made them feel like the GOD of the region. Even Russia started to dislike them.
Syria is well supported by Russia and Iran.

And an intervention without UN's mandate is way too stupid, because you break up the war rules and make everyone free will of shooting.
France and Britain treat eastern countries like they are still their colonies.
And USA should stop supporting their plans, because simple as hell, France and Britain are too stupid in foreign politics.
They see the war as an entertainment. They bomb countries and than they let US alone to fix the mess.
 
Andalublue said:
If by forcing the collapse of the régime the result will be the emergence of one also disposed to commit atrocities, which we have already seen the rebels commit, then what benefit results?
Click to expand...

A good question. I think Yugoslavia provides a good model for what needs to be done in Syria. The process of pacifying and settling the Yugoslav Wars took years with relatively continuous involvement from the West. An essential component of this was the long process of organizing, training, vetting, and equipping conventional Croatian and Bosnian militaries capable of not only confronting the Serbs but of policing their territories once the war was over in coordination with their political bodies. I think over time the same thing can be accomplished in Syria.

There absolutely are non-Islamist elements of the Syrian opposition, arguably still a majority of the FSA. My ideal process?

1. Extend recognition to the SNC and endow it with the power (with oversight) to begin organizing FSA contingents into a democratic Syrian military on rebel territory. The funds and equipment that flow through it and to it's allies in the FSA will give it unique legitimacy and strength. Or do all the aforementioned things but with a newly organized political body that has more credibility than the SNC.

2. Engage in a limited strategic bombardment campaign to ground the Syrian air force, remove chemical munitions facilities, and when possible Syrian artillery and road movements.

3. Send advisers like we did in Croatia in conjunction with allies to equip, train, and prepare this new political and military entity in Northern Syria.

From there you can facilitate a final victory over Assad while simultaneously reducing the popularity of Islamists by making the opposition less desperate and by giving other groups like the FSA far more power than the militias.

The alternative in my opinion is to watch Syria continue an internecine communal and national conflict for years to come and accept the consequences of that. Syria is going to look rather poorly for a long time no matter what but things can still be done to improve the situation and its future prospects.
 
Coin said:
yes, and in 2 years with the support of CIA they couldn't bring the regime down because it was clearly enough by now that Syrian people does not want so.
And since they can't beat this regime the way they've been trying 2 years now, let's go bomb them?!

Syria is not Libya.
Libya become so independent that made them feel like the GOD of the region. Even Russia started to dislike them.
Syria is well supported by Russia and Iran.

And an intervention without UN's mandate is way too stupid, because you break up the war rules and make everyone free will of shooting.
France and Britain treat eastern countries like they are still their colonies.
And USA should stop supporting their plans, because simple as hell, France and Britain are too stupid in foreign politics.
They see the war as an entertainment. They bomb countries and than they let US alone to fix the mess.
Click to expand...

Western support has been extraordinarily limited. Your characterization is also very odd for someone who lists their location as Albania...
 
Coin said:
yes, and in 2 years with the support of CIA they couldn't bring the regime down
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
because it was clearly enough by now that Syrian people does not want so.
And since they can't beat this regime the way they've been trying 2 years now, let's go bomb them?!

Syria is not Libya.
Libya become so independent that made them feel like the GOD of the region. Even Russia started to dislike them.
Syria is well supported by Russia and Iran.

And an intervention without UN's mandate is way too stupid, because you break up the war rules and make everyone free will of shooting.
France and Britain treat eastern countries like they are still their colonies.
And USA should stop supporting their plans, because simple as hell, France and Britain are too stupid in foreign politics.
They see the war as an entertainment. They bomb countries and than they let US alone to fix the mess.
Click to expand...




The main reason for bombing the hell out of Assad's military is not regime change.

The USA is going to do this to show the world that the USA means what it says when it makes a threat.

President Obama warned Syria that if it used chemical weapons against its people that there would be consequences. What is about to happen in Syria will be a taste of those consequences.

If the first attacks don't get the job done there will likely be more until Assad gets the message.

The USA will not be taking this on unilaterally, it will be supported by it's allies who agree that in the 21st century chemical wepons can't be used with impunity and that any country that uses them as Syria has done in this case must pay a heavy price.
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
Western support has been extraordinarily limited.
Click to expand...
Yes but they are always the ones who always love to go in bombing huntings. France wanted to bomb Syria since 2 years ago.
Sherman123 said:
Your characterization is also very odd for someone who lists their location as Albania...
Click to expand...
What's that supposed to mean?? Uhh ?!
 
Coin said:
Yes but they are always the ones who always love to go in bombing huntings. France wanted to bomb Syria since 2 years ago.

What's that supposed to mean?? Uhh ?!
Click to expand...

It means that Kosovar Albanians were hardly making great progress against the Serbian military until a US led NATO bombardment forced the Serbs to withdraw. Clearly they didn't really want to overthrow Serb authority it was foisted upon them by the US.
 
DaveFagan said:
Those "amateur" rebels have been funded and armed by US Intelligence agencies. They are not some spontaneous freedom fighters. As a matter of fact, they seem to be Al Queda scumbags and assorted free lance breeders of violence and murder. You should know better than to even suggest we support these pusillanimous dirtbags.
Click to expand...

Are you actually claiming that the US Intelligence Agencies are knowingly supporting AQ?? :shock: :roll:
 
Sherman123 said:
It means that Kosovar Albanians were hardly making great progress against the Serbian military until a US led NATO bombardment forced the Serbs to withdraw. Clearly they didn't really want to overthrow Serb authority it was foisted upon them by the US.
Click to expand...
Like i said: Kosovo and Serbia were so different with Syria. Their difference is like black and white.
Kosovo people were not rebels/terrorists who wanted to take power or change regime. They were citizens in their own lands. And Serbia wanted to put them out of their own lands. The cases are so different.
shrubnose said:
The main reason for bombing the hell out of Assad's military is not regime change.
The USA is going to do this to show the world that the USA means what it says when it makes a threat.
Click to expand...
No one knows yet who used the chemical weapons. And notice that rebels used twice during 2012 - 2013. No move was made on that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom