• 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
I think we are still stronger in the military sense. That's why it's important IMO to not cut military spending. Our federal government is obligated to protect us and given all the turmoil that's going on in the world now, it would incredibly irresponsible to cut military spending IMO.

You spend more on your military than the next 13 countries combined. Given what we know about over-charging and inefficiency in military procurement, there's a huge amount of slack in the US military. As you can see from this WaPo article, taking out the specific costs of ongoing funding for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has been spending more and more, year-on-year at a time when other areas of government are cutting back to the bone.

I fail to see what greater threats the US is facing now than it was 10 years ago. What argument do you think exists for ring-fencing military spending against the austerity measures that every other sector is having to face?
 
It breaks my heart to see all those dead people lined up against the wall. Especially the children. I wish I could just wave my magic wand and make it stop.

But, that being said, I remind myself, that WAY to many Syrians, be they rebel or not, would revel in viewing our children shrouded against a wall.

I understand all the bravado I have read in this thread. I understand the view that America is losing it's big-stick "bad-ass" image of dominance by not puffing out it's chest and sending in the Marines.

I also understand that as long as Russia has the Syrian Government's back, it's a lot more to it than just going in and bitch slapping a bunch of despotic middle-easterner's.

I know it just KILLS some folks here to not take advantage of a perfectly good reason to go to war.

But I say that we stay out of Syria. And, looking at the poll at the time I voted, 9 out of 10 people agree with me. I hope the president is listening to us and keeps us out of Syria.
 
You spend more on your military than the next 13 countries combined. Given what we know about over-charging and inefficiency in military procurement, there's a huge amount of slack in the US military. As you can see from this WaPo article, taking out the specific costs of ongoing funding for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has been spending more and more, year-on-year at a time when other areas of government are cutting back to the bone.

I fail to see what greater threats the US is facing now than it was 10 years ago. What argument do you think exists for ring-fencing military spending against the austerity measures that every other sector is having to face?

None of that matters. Military spending is one of the few true responsibilities of the federal government, unlike a lot of other areas the feds like to involve themselves with.
 
None of that matters. Military spending is one of the few true responsibilities of the federal government, unlike a lot of other areas the feds like to involve themselves with.

I believe the federal government has many true responsibilities, and maintaining a bloated, inefficient military, and opposing any attempts to streamline it, doesn't seem to be a responsible use of tax dollars. But hey! They're not my tax dollars. If that's what the American people want, that's up to them.
 
I think Putin is calling Obama's bluff and it's working.

They see the US as weak and vulnerable.



They see us as a paper tiger because our leader has no balls, no intelligence and no experience.

An empty suit.
 
I believe the federal government has many true responsibilities, and maintaining a bloated, inefficient military, and opposing any attempts to streamline it, doesn't seem to be a responsible use of tax dollars. But hey! They're not my tax dollars. If that's what the American people want, that's up to them.

I think it's very wise given the current turmoil in the world. Why would I or anyone want a weakened military?
 
Do we have the disposable billions to join that fight?



It looks to me like the muslims are killing everyone, the Persians are Killing the Arabs and all around vice versa.

If all of our enemies are killing each other, who are we to try and stop them from succeeding in their holy work?

Allahu Akbar, Baby!
 
Right..we can't/won't secure our OWN borders but we need to go halfway around the world to secure a foreign country's borders...great idea...

and then, unbelievably, there's THIS;

Obama administration and Mexican government officials recently discussed creating a three-tier security system designed to protect Mexico’s southern border from drug and human traffickers, according to U.S. officials.

The border control plan calls for U.S. funding and technical support of three security lines extending more than 100 miles north of Mexico’s border with Guatemala and Belize. The border security system would use sensors and intelligence-gathering to counter human trafficking and drug running from the region, a major source of illegal immigration into the United States.


Obama Administration Considers Plan to Bolster Mexico

we truly are an idiocracy/ineptocracy

As far as I can tell, that isn't true. Should doublecheck your sources. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. Be especially wary of "news" you read on partisan sites, whether left or right.
 
Going in is easy. Getting out is the tricky part. If you go into a country uninvited by the ones controlling the govt, that's called war.
 
None of that matters. Military spending is one of the few true responsibilities of the federal government, unlike a lot of other areas the feds like to involve themselves with.

Are you kidding me? A lot of that matters. Having a power does not mean that pork, waste, fraud and abuse are OK under that power. Nearly everytime a defense program is discussed it is political, rather than national security, interests that are allowed to prevail.

Congress pushes for weapons Pentagon didn

Daily Kos: NOW the military-industrial complex thinks the system is broken?
 
Are you kidding me? A lot of that matters. Having a power does not mean that pork, waste, fraud and abuse are OK under that power. Nearly everytime a defense program is discussed it is political, rather than national security, interests that are allowed to prevail.

Congress pushes for weapons Pentagon didn

Daily Kos: NOW the military-industrial complex thinks the system is broken?

You can never understand my posts. :roll: Am I speaking in a foreign language to you? I'm talking about in comparison to entitlement programs which the other poster who I was addressing was referring to. IOW, military spending IS the feds responsibility while other types of entitlement program spending are NOT. :roll:
 
They see us as a paper tiger because our leader has no balls, no intelligence and no experience.

An empty suit.

Russia would like no more than to watch the US go into another country half way across the globe and further deplete our national treasures as well as the blood of our children.

If Russia was smart they would support people of the "John Wayne," American war dog-bravado mindset. I am sure your service is appreciated. And when America has spent itself in to an abyss, with our last bullets spent defending people who just as soon see us burn in hell, then Putin, et al., might find the opportunity to pounce.

What I hope Russia does see instead, is America returning to our shores to build up our military to heights never seen before, preparing for the day when we have to meet a REAL foe on the battlefield.

It please me to see the poll now reflects less than 7% the people here are in favor of the John Wayne, American "Bad-Ass," war mongering approach. That's very encouraging. Perhaps the neocon mentality is finally being sent to the trash heap.
 
Going in is easy. Getting out is the tricky part. If you go into a country uninvited by the ones controlling the govt, that's called war.

I'm very wary of intervening. A lot of times countries will beg for our help and then when all is said and done they adopt the attitude of "we hate you America, look what you've done to our country!" And then we're the bad guys.
 
Russia would like no more than to watch the US go into another country half way across the globe and further deplete our national treasures as well as the blood of our children.

If Russia was smart they would support people of the "John Wayne," American war dog-bravado mindset. I am sure your service is appreciated. And when America has spent itself in to an abyss, with our last bullets spent defending people who just as soon see us burn in hell, then Putin, et al., might find the opportunity to pounce.

What I hope Russia does see instead, is America returning to our shores to build up our military to heights never seen before, preparing for the day when we have to meet a REAL foe on the battlefield.

It please me to see the poll now reflects less than 7% the people here are in favor of the John Wayne, American "Bad-Ass," war mongering approach. That's very encouraging. Perhaps the neocon mentality is finally being sent to the trash heap.



The only reason to spend as much as we do on "defense" is to maintain empire.

Obama has determined that we no longer will do this. Europe should be a little concerned with a resurgent Russia and a depleted USA.

I wonder how much health care the European democracies will provide if they also need to provide their own defense...
 
As far as I can tell, that isn't true. Should doublecheck your sources.

Where there's smoke....

No it hasn't happened yet but it apparently has been discussed. I was merely pointing that out.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. Be especially wary of "news" you read on partisan sites, whether left or right.

Condescension noted.
 
I think it's very wise given the current turmoil in the world. Why would I or anyone want a weakened military?

Weakened? No. More efficient? More cost efficient? More transparently funded? Yes, yes and yes. No?
 
Weakened? No. More efficient? More cost efficient? More transparently funded? Yes, yes and yes. No?

I wouldn't have a problem with cutting out the waste part, but I certainly don't want any skimping in order to fund an entitlement program.
 
Somehow I don't think the French will be welcomed back

Great Syrian Revolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

As for the OP the devil is in the details

Pull an Iraq? No

Pull a Libya? Yes

Pull an Iraqi Kurdistan? Yes

...and you think we'll be more welcomed than the French?

I really wish we could mind our own business for once. But whom am I kidding? Call the World Police. AMERICA - **** yeah!:)
 
...and you think we'll be more welcomed than the French?

I really wish we could mind our own business for once. But whom am I kidding? Call the World Police. AMERICA - **** yeah!:)

Well said.

Does anyone, other than myself, find it somewhat ironic that some folks, from one side of their mouth say that America reflects a weakened image by not acting as the world's policemen and with the other side of their mouth warn us how dangerous China is, who have avoided international interventions for as long as I can remember, as they are now such a 'super power."

If China can grow and prosper by keeping their noses out of other nation's pissing matches, why can't the US?
 
I'd rather not.
 
Well said.

Does anyone, other than myself, find it somewhat ironic that some folks, from one side of their mouth say that America reflects a weakened image by not acting as the world's policemen and with the other side of their mouth warn us how dangerous China is, who have avoided international interventions for as long as I can remember, as they are now such a 'super power."

If China can grow and prosper by keeping their noses out of other nation's pissing matches, why can't the US?

As far as I can tell, the US is the only country that represents a danger to anyone else. Iran and NK talk a tough game and they do, in fact, worry me. China seems far wiser than us and is investing in their own country which is why they will overtake us in time.
 
I wouldn't have a problem with cutting out the waste part, but I certainly don't want any skimping in order to fund an entitlement program.

How about in investing in infrastructure? Energy development and efficiency? Economic development? Paying off your debts to China?
 
How about in investing in infrastructure? Energy development and efficiency? Economic development? Paying off your debts to China?

I think energy development should be left to the private sector. Infrastructure should be up to the individual states. Yes, paying off the deficit is also a concern of the federal government.
 
Back
Top Bottom