• 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
sawyerloggingon said:
Well Obama's red line has been crossed and we went into Libya for far less so what do you think? "Residents of Damascus suburbs recount massive assault by Assad army; videos show small children convulsing on the floor, foaming at the nose and mouth. Doctor: Injuries correspond with sarin gas "
"The men, women and children lying undisturbed in their beds had looked so peaceful they might have been just sleeping, Abu Nidal thought, as he and other rescuers dragged their bodies into the street."

"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...

No, absolutely not. I'm tired of the New Crusade, it's time to end it.
 
Objective Voice said:
To answer the question, "Should we (USA) go into Syria?" Only if it can be proven that chemical weapons were used AND sanctioned by the Syrian government AND ONLY as part of an international military force with the U.N. leading the charge. America is NOT the police force for the world!
Click to expand...

So you require the approval of others to do the right thing?

What do you think the likelihood of a government currently engaged in eliminating large portions of its' populace sanctioning others coming in to stop it is?
 
USA should stop spending moneys for nothing.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya gave no benefits in return. Just loses. In moneys, credibility, lives.

They should go back and start developing their Navy,Army further more because like this way in 2020 the difference with Russian's Navy will change sides.
 
We have our own issues to deal with....I sympathize with the victims, but we can't be world savers. They have to fight this battle and win on their own.
 
No we should not go into Syria. Any civil war that reduces the number of our enemies is a good thing. Send the Sunnis nerve gas to use against the Assad regime. Wouldn't it be great if the Saudis and Iranians wiped each other out with chemical weapons too. Let them exterminate each other so we don't have to get involved.
 
SgtRock said:
No we should not go into Syria. Any civil war that reduces the number of our enemies is a good thing. Send the Sunnis nerve gas to use against the Assad regime. Wouldn't it be great if the Saudis and Iranians wiped each other out with chemical weapons too. Let them exterminate each other so we don't have to get involved.
Click to expand...

A civil war does not always reduce the number of your enemies. It may also increase.
 
Woodman909 said:
As I said before .... I don't want one set of our boots on the ground either. I want us to rain down the horror of all living hell on the users of poison gas, and let the Red Cross or the French clean up the mess. Not one from either side of this conflict is worth one US life. No Americans need die.
Click to expand...

No American Ordinance need be dropped period.

Its not our problem.
 
cpwill said:
So you require the approval of others to do the right thing?

What do you think the likelihood of a government currently engaged in eliminating large portions of its' populace sanctioning others coming in to stop it is?
Click to expand...

Im having a hard time understanding this....... Are you saying we SHOULD go into Syria?
 
91% against. Good to see that theres something we all can agree on. I think we should let the UN handle this one.
 
cpwill said:
:) Work insists I leave this place and go there instead, I apologize but you'll have to suffer a delay before I can reply as it deserves :)
Click to expand...

I am waiting with patient anticipation. :lol:
 
Coin said:
USA should stop spending moneys for nothing.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya gave no benefits in return. Just loses. In moneys, credibility, lives.

They should go back and start developing their Navy,Army further more because like this way in 2020 the difference with Russian's Navy will change sides.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the second part means, but I like the first part. :)
 
jonny5 said:
91% against. Good to see that theres something we all can agree on. I think we should let the UN handle this one.
Click to expand...

Anyone else besides the United States would be fine by me.
 
ChrisL said:
I'm not sure what the second part means, but I like the first part. :)
Click to expand...

Russia is spending lot of money in army, especially in Navy.
If no one see them at close they will become a big machine from nowhere, like Nazi did.
I don't believe they are weak, and I doubt a lot their silence for so long.
 
Coin said:
Russia is spending lot of money in army, especially in Navy.
If no one see them at close they will become a big machine from nowhere, like Nazi did.
I don't believe they are weak, and I doubt a lot their silence for so long.
Click to expand...

They are certainly no where near the threat they once were. You make a valid point though. In another decade or two, who knows?

I agree that we should not make any deep cuts into our military budget, except for maybe to cut out some wasteful spending.

Since 2000 Russia's Defense Spending Has Almost Tripled (But It Still Isn't A Threat To The West) - Forbes

As I hope the graph makes clear, it’s just not possible to say that the Kremlin’s conventional forces are “declining.” Even in a system like Russia’s, where corruption eats deeply into the budget, a tripling of real spending will have some impact on the actual readiness and capability of the armed forces. And so it would seem obvious the 2013 version of the Russian military is better than the 2000 version.

Does that mean that Russia’s conventional forces are formidable or that they’ve regained their Soviet-era peak? No. In comparison to the United States,’ and to those of other leading NATO members, Russia’s armed forces are still unwieldy, poorly trained, and obsolete. But they’re more maneuverable, better trained, and marginally more technologically advanced than they were 13 years ago. That’s not an exacting standard, back in 2000 Russia’s armed forces were as dangerous to their own personnel as they were to any enemy, but it’s yet another example of the weird trajectory/level confusion that afflicts a lot of Western scholarship on Russia. Russia’s armed forces are still weak but they’re quite a bit stronger than they used to be, just like Russia is not particularly wealthy but is wealthier than it was in the recent past.
Click to expand...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Well Obama's red line has been crossed and we went into Libya for far less so what do you think? "Residents of Damascus suburbs recount massive assault by Assad army; videos show small children convulsing on the floor, foaming at the nose and mouth. Doctor: Injuries correspond with sarin gas "
"The men, women and children lying undisturbed in their beds had looked so peaceful they might have been just sleeping, Abu Nidal thought, as he and other rescuers dragged their bodies into the street."

"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...

The phrasing of the poll is indicative of the biggest problem when discussing Syria. The public and far too many people on this board are under the impression that intervention in Syria means sending troops. This could not be further from possible contemplation nor is it anywhere close to whats necessary.

Should we invade Syria? No. Should we bomb Assad and support those rebels whom we choose to patronize? Yes.
 
Sherman123 said:
The phrasing of the poll is indicative of the biggest problem when discussing Syria. The public and far too many people on this board are under the impression that intervention in Syria means sending troops. This could not be further from possible contemplation nor is it anywhere close to whats necessary.

Should we invade Syria? No. Should we bomb Assad and support those rebels whom we choose to patronize? Yes.
Click to expand...

Maybe you would find this article interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/o...-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?_r=1&
 


:3oops:
 
Painter said:
I guess Obama is not reading our poll... sigh
Click to expand...

Or the Reuters poll which says 60% of Americans DON'T want Syria intervention. :roll:
 
Sherman123 said:
Should we invade Syria? No. Should we bomb Assad and support those rebels whom we choose to patronize? Yes.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Caine said:
Im having a hard time understanding this....... Are you saying we SHOULD go into Syria?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom