• 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 America deploy troops to Syria?

Should America deploy troops to Syria?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 93 87.7%
  • Yes, but only Special Forces troops

    Votes: 5 4.7%
  • No. Maybe in the future.

    Votes: 8 7.5%

  • Total voters
    106
Versus -

"It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate — it’s more than unfortunate, I think it’s tragic." — Mitt Romney

Squashed, It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our...

Well, I think I can say confidently that you and I agree that Romney is an idiot.
 
Versus -

"It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate — it’s more than unfortunate, I think it’s tragic." — Mitt Romney

Squashed, It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our...

He wasn't alone. Aside from Palin, McCain's continued argument about not placing a time table and carrying on the Republican stubborness hurt his chances for President. Bush had already given the order for troop withdrawal and a time table. Obama merely agreed to it and ran his campaign accordingly. So why in hell did McCain act the fool? Just to oppose. It's the Washington way. Romney been flipping around for years, apparently, and it has always been to be on the other side of Democrats.

But let's be real. Obama also ran on the "a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush" tag. Yet, as we have seen, a vote for Obama also meant a vote for Bush.
 
Last edited:
He wasn't alone.

That's right, that's one of the reasons we elected Obama instead. And Romney's support for wanting to continue the Iraq war and increased military spending are two of the reasons we re-elect Obama.
 
I ignored this topic for a while - but after a conversation today with someone on campus I swear I'm sick of hearing how many issues we need to involve ourselves in.

We're involved in numerous spats - that's not good enough? Oh - because someone else is bad over there we need to go over there . . . and then back over here . . . and way over there.

****: let the kids burn down the playground if they want - damn!
 
I ignored this topic for a while - but after a conversation today with someone on campus I swear I'm sick of hearing how many issues we need to involve ourselves in.

We're involved in numerous spats - that's not good enough? Oh - because someone else is bad over there we need to go over there . . . and then back over here . . . and way over there.

****: let the kids burn down the playground if they want - damn!

good idea. if there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that Al-Qaeda getting its' hands on Syrian chemical warfare resources will in no way ever negatively impact us.
 
Why waste american lives and money, especially when most Americans including yourself don't exactly have a softbspot in their hearts for the Arabs who are living thousands of miles away half way across the worldbwithout oil. Gung ho cowboys who like to come in with guns blazing against a weak opponent make me sick, how about attacking Korea who are actually a nuke threat. Once again another useless thread keep up the good work cowboy:confused:
 
good idea. if there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that Al-Qaeda getting its' hands on Syrian chemical warfare resources will in no way ever negatively impact us.

Like our involvement is going to STOP it anyway? Like they won't just go and take it from someone else? And so we're the ONLY ones in the world who have a possible interest? We're the ONLY ones who can do anything?
 
How ab out doing a quick, surgical strike: Go in and destroy Syria's chemical weapons, then leave.
A lot like we should have gone into Afganistan, taken out Bin Laden and his cohorts, and then left.

Just what is our goal in Afganistan, anyway? What would be our goal in Syria?
 
How ab out doing a quick, surgical strike: Go in and destroy Syria's chemical weapons, then leave.
A lot like we should have gone into Afganistan, taken out Bin Laden and his cohorts, and then left.

Just what is our goal in Afganistan, anyway? What would be our goal in Syria?
Now that we've got bin Laden (barely a year ago) the only goal is leave and take our equipment with us. But we've been there a long time. There's a lot of equipment there and the supply routes out aren't the best in the world. At best we could only be out by late this year or early next year. We've been pulling stuff out since last summer.

For Syria I'm fine with surgical strikes or maybe air strikes as part of the UN ala Libya - but no more than that.
 
Last edited:
Like our involvement is going to STOP it anyway? Like they won't just go and take it from someone else?

well hell. if all men die, why should we even use medical care? that child is just going to kick the bucket in another 80 or so years anywho....

Of course the threat of WMD materials falling into the hands of terrorist organizations is not limited to Syria. That fact does not justify people who have taken oaths to protect the lives of American citizens ignoring it. You deal with the threats as best you can before they produce mass-casualty attacks on Americans as best you can. That includes keeping AQ and affiliates from getting their hands on Syria's stores now.

And so we're the ONLY ones in the world who have a possible interest? We're the ONLY ones who can do anything?

we are the ones best situated who have both the willingness and the ability. Israel could launch strikes, but would be more limited in her capacity, and would have to over-compensate; the backlash to that makes the entire region more chaotic and likely to tip further into the abyss. The only other potential solution I see is a limited invasion by Turkey, but I don't see that as exceedingly plausible given the large number of casualties that Turkey would have to absorb.
 
I can't buy into the excuse, I won't call it a reason, for invading any country is some terrorist group MIGHT get their hands on what???

You mean chemical weapons that are so easy to make in dozens of dispersal forms other than artillery shells?

Simply not an issue, if al-Queera wanted chemical weapons they can make them after a visit to any Home Depot here in the states.

We don't maintain a naval fleet larger than the next dozen nations, an air force that can fly around the world to drop a bomb on a target, a field army while never really a good fit for Empire maintaining can crush any conventional force that holds resources we demand...

we don't maintain all that to 'protect' Taiwan, or South Korea- we do it to maintain control over resources we demand.

We do it to keep a corporate empire with the rules rigged in it's favor. I'd favor a healthy tax on corporations for no other reason than taxpayer money pays for the military cops who ensure corporate interests.

Fantasy of course, but the bottomline is we don't act to protect others, we act to protect our interests.

We don't need to spend more than the next 14 other nations in 'defense', we do so to project power to maintain our hegemony.
 
Hysterics isn't going to get you much credibility here. No one has called for an invasion / occupation of Syria. But you are correct to point out that maintaining a forward-leaning defense posture that allows us to ensure a greater degree of global stability is indeed in the US best interests.
 
Hysterics isn't going to get you much credibility here. No one has called for an invasion / occupation of Syria. But you are correct to point out that maintaining a forward-leaning defense posture that allows us to ensure a greater degree of global stability is indeed in the US best interests.

We invaded and occupied Iraq with basically the same motivation. How is Syria different?
 
We invaded and occupied Iraq with basically the same motivation. How is Syria different?

lack of willingness and frankly ability to sustain at this point. Besides, it looks like Iraq is paying off.
 
lack of willingness and frankly ability to sustain at this point. Besides, it looks like Iraq is paying off.

Perhaps it is paying off by giving us a lack of willingness to invade yet another nation. Have we learned our lesson at last?
 
Why waste american lives and money, especially when most Americans including yourself don't exactly have a softbspot in their hearts for the Arabs who are living thousands of miles away half way across the worldbwithout oil.
I'm sorry, have we met?:confused: I didn't know that I disclosed my personal feelings about Arabic people on this website. Basically, your assuming I hate Arabic people because I'm a Marine. In your mind, I would have to right? I mean, I have fought against them, I have killed lots of them, I must hate them. Is that it? As a matter of fact, I fought beside, ate with, slept next to, and became life long friends with many of the Iraqi (yes, those dirty Arabs) soldiers that I trained and fought with. I have no hatred for Arabic people. Of course, that doesn't fit into your tiny little tunnel view does it?
Also, you assume that I would want to go into Syria judging by your comments. You did see that no one has voted to go to Syria. Sooooooo, that would mean I didn't vote to go to Syria. You gettin this?

Gung ho cowboys who like to come in with guns blazing against a weak opponent make me sick, how about attacking Korea who are actually a nuke threat.
You're right, all of us are "gung ho cowboys" huh? Like we make the decision of what countries to invade and fight against. I love the way you attempt to call myself and my fellow service members cowards who come in with "guns blazing" when you haven't even strapped on a gun much less gone anywhere with one "blazing".
Once again another useless thread keep up the good work cowboy:confused:

You are aware these threads are voluntary to read correct? Just checking.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it is paying off by giving us a lack of willingness to invade yet another nation.

nah. even Vietnam didn't ruin our willingness to enforce the American Hegemony.

it's paying off by upsetting the order in the middle east. now we go through a period of islamist revolution.
 
I guess those that support a war with Syria are not concerned about the national debt.

"The government’s accounting system is divided into two major funds: The Federal Fund and the Trust Funds. By far, the largest trust fund is the Social Security trust fund. Since its last major reform in 1980, this fund has always had a surplus. Its revenues exceeded disbursements each year — and is expected to do so for the next 20 years. The surpluses created each year have annually been invested in U.S. government securities. The surplus currently is $2.6 trillion. Social Security has not contributed a single dollar to the nation’s gross national debt, and should not be included in any discussions of how to reduce it.

The U.S. Federal Fund’s annual deficits are the sole cause of the increases in the national debt. The two largest disbursements are interest on the federal debt ($400 billion) and the defense budget ($800 billion), which combined is 44 percent of the total. Obviously, nothing can be done about the interest expense. The defense budget is another matter."

Letter: National debt is result of defense, tax breaks | Lubbock Online | Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
 
I guess those that support a war with Syria are not concerned about the national debt.

actually we already dispensed with the "cost" strawman.

"The government’s accounting system is divided into two major funds: The Federal Fund and the Trust Funds. By far, the largest trust fund is the Social Security trust fund. Since its last major reform in 1980, this fund has always had a surplus. Its revenues exceeded disbursements each year — and is expected to do so for the next 20 years. The surpluses created each year have annually been invested in U.S. government securities. The surplus currently is $2.6 trillion. Social Security has not contributed a single dollar to the nation’s gross national debt, and should not be included in any discussions of how to reduce it.

:roll:

CBO: Social Security Started Running Deficits in 2011 And Will Run Permanent Deficits From Here On Out
 
More of that accounting slight-of-hand again? No doubt they didn't add in interest or some other critical item so their numbers were skewed correctly.

they measured the money coming in, and the money going out. money that the government gives to itself to spend was not "revenue" when they counted it going one way in the past few decades, and it's not "revenue" now that it's going in the other direction, either.
 
actually we already dispensed with the "cost" strawman.

We no longer have a national debt problem????



:roll:



Lie#1: Social Security is Broke….

"This national myth is my all time favorite. Not only is Social Security NOT BROKE–IT IS THE ONLY FEDERAL PROGRAM WHICH IS FULLY FUNDED. I repeat–SOCIAL SECURITY IS FULLY FUNDED, ALWAYS HAS BEEN. (Source: Understanding Social Security in One Easy Lesson | Mother Jones) As for the claim that Social Security absorbs most of our GDP–that is patently false. Social Security presently costs approximately 4.5% of GDP and is estimated to increase to 6% of GDP by fiscal year 2030. (Source : Understanding Social Security in One Easy Lesson | Mother Jones) That is a far cry from the GOP and Wall Street claims that some 80% or more of GDP will be sucked dry by Social Security. In fact, the federal government OWES THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND more than $2.669 TRILLION DOLLARS, according to the report issued by the Financial Management Service of the US Department of Treasury. The Medicare Trust Fund (hospital and supplementary medical) is also owed some $347, 521 BILLION DOLLARS by the feds. (Source : Social Security Institute | Trust Fund Bait and Switch) This was revealed by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. Somehow, this ‘inconvenient truth’ has escaped both the President’s and Congress’ attention. The real problem lies in the fact that the government has continually raided the fund all of us have paid into–to subsidize corporate tax breaks, unbridled Pentagon spending and what has become routine Wall Street bankster raids on the public dime."

Lies Linking Social Security to the National Debt | MyFDL
 
they measured the money coming in, and the money going out. money that the government gives to itself to spend was not "revenue" when they counted it going one way in the past few decades, and it's not "revenue" now that it's going in the other direction, either.
So they don't count interest paid to the SS Fund as part of the SS Fund even though those are T-bills sitting in there? Typical accounting BS. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom