• 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
sad thing is since they won't let it open take one guess where most of the waste is currently stored
 
Yes,

If the government used chemical weapons on the population that is a big problem.

If the rebels were able to obtain chemical weapons and use them, that is an even bigger problem.

However, the only solution is a full invasion with boots on the ground. Any other option only opens up a vacume for insurgents or other states in the area to fill the void. If we just lob missiles in and destroy the ability of the government to deflect invation from influences from AQ, the Taliban or other islamic extremist groups, we may stoke an even worse situation in Syria then the one that currently exists.
Do you think USA can afford a full invasion with boots on ground at this stage?!
 
Do you think USA can afford a full invasion with boots on ground at this stage?!

Is it a question of ''afford?''

Is it not a question of ''war weary?''..

Fighting in a war that the West cannot possibly win??
 
Obama's policy in Syria is Shuck n Jive
 
Do you think USA can afford a full invasion with boots on ground at this stage?!
Coin we spend trillions on stuff that goes bang we can smash anyone on the planet, we merely lack the will?
 
RUSH? Is that you? RUSHbot?
 
Yes,

If the government used chemical weapons on the population that is a big problem.

If the rebels were able to obtain chemical weapons and use them, that is an even bigger problem.

However, the only solution is a full invasion with boots on the ground. Any other option only opens up a vacume for insurgents or other states in the area to fill the void. If we just lob missiles in and destroy the ability of the government to deflect invation from influences from AQ, the Taliban or other islamic extremist groups, we may stoke an even worse situation in Syria then the one that currently exists.

Ummm.... No thanks bud.

Do it yourself.
 
Do you think USA can afford a full invasion with boots on ground at this stage?!

I wonder if there has ever been a US president who could guarantee outcome of his decisions.
 
I wonder if there has ever been a US president who could guarantee outcome of his decisions.

No, but the others all had fallback plans for when things didn't work out. Obama has only one fallback plan and that is to find someone else to blame, and he seems to use it more than any other leader we have ever had.
 
No, but the others all had fallback plans for when things didn't work out. Obama has only one fallback plan and that is to find someone else to blame, and he seems to use it more than any other leader we have ever had.

LOLOL.. Obama has already expressed his fallback plan.
 
If you want to know more about the history of Syria and what's happening there, you really need to listen to Buck Sexton. His radio show is on right now - free. Podcasts are free as well.

Buck Sexton | TheBlaze.com

(No, I'm not getting paid for this. Just loving the mountains of intelligence this man has.)
 
no one really cares about Syria, it's time at the top of the news cycle has just about run its course
time for them to find something else to distract the low information voter


2nqwkux.jpg
 
Do you think USA can afford a full invasion with boots on ground at this stage?!

Not the way we tend to do it. If we went in, full force, no holds bar war.. It would be over in less then a week and cost us virtually nothing in comparission to what the poor planning in Iraq costed us. The reason why these wars have been so expensive for us is because we limit our own capability by putting up a half assed fight. If we had gone into iraq and afghanistan the way we should have, with a half million boots on the ground and massive amounts of air power at the onset, those conflicts would have been over quickly. Instead, we sent in no where near enough troops which dragged the fight out and eventually ended up be ineffective and expensive.
 
Putin's taken on the responsibility for Syria now.
It was just to much for our man-child President.
What new thing will they come up next to distract
the average American idiot from focusing on what is important?
 
No. Though it's worth noting that the reason he is there is because we put him there, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

But what is at stake here is not whether or not Obama get's to feel like he demonstrated testicular fortitude (though that might be important in his mind) - it is the worth of the U.S. security guarantee. Like a reputation, that value is relatively low-cost to maintain, but very high-cost to win back.

In the New York Times Today:

...TOKYO — When President Bill Clinton signed a 1994 agreement promising to “respect” the territorial integrity of Ukraine if it gave up its nuclear weapons, there was little thought then of how that obscure diplomatic pact — called the Budapest Memorandum — might affect the long-running defense partnership between the United States and Japan.

But now, as American officials have distanced themselves from the Budapest Memorandum in light of Russia’s takeover of Crimea, calling promises made in Budapest “nonbinding,” the United States is being forced at the same time to make reassurances in Asia. Japanese officials, a senior American military official said, “keep asking, ‘Are you going to do the same thing to us when something happens?’ ”...

“The Crimea is a game-changer,” said Kunihiko Miyake, a former adviser to Mr. Abe who is now research director at the Canon Institute for Global Studies in Tokyo. “This is not fire on a distant shore for us. What is happening is another attempt by a rising power to change the status quo.” ...
 
If the USA goes into Syria I will move out of the country...
 
Back
Top Bottom