• 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 the USA send troops in Syria?

Should the USA send troops in Syria?

  • No

    Votes: 30 78.9%

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Yes but only as a part of the UN

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • Other (pelase, explain)

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Total voters
    38
Councilman said:
There was nothing the enemy could do to stop it or even slow it down, and it was Shock and Awe
171-0316053631-shock_and_awe_2.jpg
Click to expand...

It would have a lot more awesome if we had actually picked a country that was a threat to us to blow up! :sun
 
Canell said:
Oh, excuse me, that is so much different.
Click to expand...

well, you are excused, given that you apparently don't know very much about this kind of thing. :)
 
rathi said:
Intervening in Syria is a poor move. 1) The Syria Rebels outright stated they didn't want the U.S. to intervene
Click to expand...

interesting - which ones and where? why should we care?

2) Compared to Libya, the rebels are far weaker and the government forces are far stronger
Click to expand...

oh absolutely. I don't pretend that we will even tilt the scales in their favor - Captain Jesus McAwesome appears unwilling to even try to go that far in Libya, where he has UN permission.

Which in no way means that we shouldn't take advantage of the current chaos.

3) International opinion isn't behind an intervention
Click to expand...

no, international opinion isn't publicly currently pushing such an intervention. they would, of course, be hard-pressed to protest it for anything other than soveriegnty concerns; and if you are defending Assad's sovereign right to mow his people down, then frankly, i couldn't care less if yo are 'behind' me or not.

4) Neighboring countries probably won't give us airbases.
Click to expand...

with the exception of Iran, 'neighborhing' countries are not fans of the Syrian regime. In a world where the Saudi's quietly urge the Israelis to take out the Iranians, I am not all that worried that Bahrain will kick out the 5th Fleet.
 
You have no plan at all. It is highly unlikely that you will be able to collapse the entire Syrian regime from the air alone. Even if you do that, you have no guarantee that the successors will be any better, especially if are pissed about being attacked. Even if you succeed at that, the backlash from the rest of the Arab world would probably negate any benefits in overall security. Syria is a minimal threat to the U.S. in the first place as they primarily focus on Israel. There simply is too little gain and too much to lose by such an action.
 
rathi said:
You have no plan at all.
Click to expand...

welll, it's not my plan. but yes, you will no doubt be happy to know that it's there and it's fairly solid.

It is highly unlikely that you will be able to collapse the entire Syrian regime from the air alone
Click to expand...

eh, total collapse would be a happy event, but not a necessity. I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding my goal. I would love to see Lebanon freed, Syria's regime collapse, and the Muslim Brotherhood convert to Jeffersonianism. In the absence of achieving these goals, I have a number of second-tier considerations that we should consider, mostly to do with destroying that regimes' collected strength and protected facilities.

Even if you do that, you have no guarantee that the successors will be any better, especially if are pissed about being attacked. Even if you succeed at that, the backlash from the rest of the Arab world would probably negate any benefits in overall security. Syria is a minimal threat to the U.S. in the first place as they primarily focus on Israel. There simply is too little gain and too much to lose by such an action.
Click to expand...

Syria is a minimal threat? :lamo: yeah, totally minimal. It's not like they are a major international supporter, enabler, trainer, and funder of terrorism that targets US personnel. no, no way at all. and It's not like the Israelis blew up a nuclear facility there recently; why do you ask? and it's not like they're not directly responsible for the deaths of our troops in Iraq, no no no, they're very peace-loving people, the Asssad regime is.


"minimal" threat :roll: JORDAN is a "minimal" threat. SYRIA is Bad Guy #2 in the region, right next to their Big Brother Iran.
 
You cannot remove Syria's ability to support our enemies with airstrikes. Essentially, you want to piss off Syria by attacking them, while leaving there means of retaliation intact. That doesn't protect American and in fact puts us in greater harm.

Right now, everyone is Syria is too focused on domestic issues to care about anyone internationally. In a few months, we will leave Iraq and thus no longer be a target. We are in the advantageous position and the moment and it would be foolish to throw it away.
 
rathi said:
You cannot remove Syria's ability to support our enemies with airstrikes.
Click to expand...

:shrug: you can't stop terrorism; but you can sure as hell make it harder for those stationary actors who support it to do so.

Essentially, you want to piss off Syria by attacking them, while leaving there means of retaliation intact.
Click to expand...

wrong. if Syria is weakened internally they are busy fighting off a rebellion with reduced resources. How do you take tanks against the rebels when every tank column you have is smoking hulks?

we need to destroy their fixed positions, their hardened positions, their critical facilities, and tear their order of battle to shreds. We can reduce their EW and IADS capability to jack-all, which would enable any future US or Israeli strike that becomes necessary. Once we have accomplished our SEAD we can split our focus between conventional and asymetric network targets. Let a weakened and leaderless Hezbollah shift from being an offensive force to being one of Syria's few remaining internal supports - that will degrade the Regimes' legitimacy at home and reduce their ability to strike abroad.

Right now, everyone is Syria is too focused on domestic issues to care about anyone internationally
Click to expand...

which is why it is the perfect time for us to come and handle this before we have to do so in a more difficult environment.

because make no mistake - they are our enemy. and eventually we will.

In a few months, we will leave Iraq and thus no longer be a target. We are in the advantageous position and the moment and it would be foolish to throw it away.
Click to expand...

advantageous position to do what? watch Iran continue to expand it's influence and power over the Middle East? No Thanks. This is a chance to bloody their nose and we should take it.
 
Last edited:
I put no, because you guys suck at peacekeeping ^_^ You specialise at blowing everything up. I'd support Canada going in, only if it was UN sanctioned.
 
Juiposa said:
I put no, because you guys suck at peacekeeping ^_^ You specialise at blowing everything up. I'd support Canada going in, only if it was UN sanctioned.
Click to expand...

who said anything about peacekeeping? we do specialize at blowing things up, and I see no reason here not to play to our strengths.
 
cpwill said:
who said anything about peacekeeping? we do specialize at blowing things up, and I see no reason here not to play to our strengths.
Click to expand...

Lol, I guess so, but I' support any action in Syria if it was UN sanctioned. So if Ban-ki Moon said go ahead blow the country apart, I'd be okay with it ^_^
 
Yeah, we should just have a standing army in every single country in the world. We can start drafting kids for mandatory service at the age of 12.
 
tessaesque said:
Yeah, we should just have a standing army in every single country in the world. We can start drafting kids for mandatory service at the age of 12.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm I hope?
 
Juiposa said:
Now that was undoubtedly sarcastic.
Click to expand...

no, no, no. I meant my first post definitely was sarcastic. I think we should get the hell out of every place we can safely leave. I think we should revise treaties and agreements that have our troups in Japan and Germany and anywhere else that we're really just wasting time and money on and bring 'em home. I think the next time some a-hole with a power trip wants to take over Europe we should wait until every single country being occupied is begging us to come into it, and we should make them sign an agreement to shut the hell up about American arrogance once we take care of the bad guy for them.

I also think they should solve their own damned problems instead of asking us to step in.
 
tessaesque said:
no, no, no. I meant my first post definitely was sarcastic. I think we should get the hell out of every place we can safely leave. I think we should revise treaties and agreements that have our troups in Japan and Germany and anywhere else that we're really just wasting time and money on and bring 'em home. I think the next time some a-hole with a power trip wants to take over Europe we should wait until every single country being occupied is begging us to come into it, and we should make them sign an agreement to shut the hell up about American arrogance once we take care of the bad guy for them.

I also think they should solve their own damned problems instead of asking us to step in.
Click to expand...


Okay, sorry, your one post there was written how it would have been said if said sarcastically. And as for the description, I agree with it all. ^_^
 
Juiposa said:
Lol, I guess so, but I' support any action in Syria if it was UN sanctioned. So if Ban-ki Moon said go ahead blow the country apart, I'd be okay with it ^_^
Click to expand...

really. you need the UN's moral authority to decide that the Assad regime is dangerous to the world at large and deadly to his people at home? that bunch of crooks and thugs has to give Canada moral authority?
 
cpwill said:
really. you need the UN's moral authority to decide that the Assad regime is dangerous to the world at large and deadly to his people at home? that bunch of crooks and thugs has to give Canada moral authority?
Click to expand...

To an extent, but I 95% of the time agree with UN resolutions. Again that's to an extent, I will know when I don't like it.

And yes, I believe UN consent is very important, it can be debated in the assembly, giving the views of everybody. Not just the acting party and how they think it will be good.
 
Cephus said:
No, we should not send troops ANYWHERE. Enough playing the world's policeman, bring everyone home and stop running around the planet wiggling our dicks.
Click to expand...

And what would happen, do you think?

I think we're over-committed - but pulling out won't solve anything. We *are* (unfortunately) the world's policeman - we created this odd status and now we must maintain it for the security of the world - joined with other countries, not just us alone.

Imagine how different WWII would have been if we didn't have a foothold on islands in the Pacific.

Our presence acts as a lilly pad - a nuisance but a benefit at the same time.


DiAnna said:
I don't have one to wiggle. :(
Click to expand...

:rofl
I do - but it's with my husband at work right now.
 
you can't stop terrorism; but you can sure as hell make it harder for those stationary actors who support it to do so.
Click to expand...

It is possible, but not with the plan you are proposing.

wrong. if Syria is weakened internally they are busy fighting off a rebellion with reduced resources. How do you take tanks against the rebels when every tank column you have is smoking hulks?
Click to expand...

Libya has better terrain, a weaker government, much stronger rebels, other nations in support and we still haven't gone anywhere. The conditions in Syria are far less favorable and you have to factor in the possibility of the rebels turning against us.


we need to destroy their fixed positions, their hardened positions, their critical facilities, and tear their order of battle to shreds. We can reduce their EW and IADS capability to jack-all, which would enable any future US or Israeli strike that becomes necessary. Once we have accomplished our SEAD we can split our focus between conventional and asymetric network targets. Let a weakened and leaderless Hezbollah shift from being an offensive force to being one of Syria's few remaining internal supports - that will degrade the Regimes' legitimacy at home and reduce their ability to strike abroad.
Click to expand...

None of those factors matter in sponsoring terrorism. Syria isn't smuggling an air defense network across the border into Iraq. Small arms and explosives are what kill our troops, and you can't stop those from the air.

which is why it is the perfect time for us to come and handle this before we have to do so in a more difficult environment.

because make no mistake - they are our enemy. and eventually we will.
Click to expand...

Why, because your crystal ball says it is inevitable?

advantageous position to do what? watch Iran continue to expand it's influence and power over the Middle East? No Thanks. This is a chance to bloody their nose and we should take it.
Click to expand...

Once, again your plan actually makes the situation worse. A weakened and angry Syria will move even further into the Iranian camp.

Foreign policy is the national interest, not inventing paper-thin justifications to satisfy fantasies of blowing stuff up.
 
Juiposa said:
I put no, because you guys suck at peacekeeping ^_^ You specialise at blowing everything up. I'd support Canada going in, only if it was UN sanctioned.
Click to expand...
So, if the UN approved, you would support Canada sending their plane (Piper Cub I think I read somewhere)? Would you also support Canada sending all 10 of their ground troops, again assuming the UN gave permission?

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