• 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

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I will submit my personal opinion later in the thread. Simple question, complicated issue.
 
NO. Not a good idea at all. I would leave it to the Arab Union to deal with this. If I were a United States Dictator, of course I would send troops. But It doesnt work that way, so No. The UN is dealing with the problem peacefully at the moment. We just have to wait and see.
 
Absolutely not....We have no business putting our military in Syria.
 
Related question: Are you willing to be drafted and go to Syria? Are you willing to pay a surtax to pay for it? Are you prepared for the war in Syria to go on as long as the ones in Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan?

If the answer to any of the above is no, then the answer to the OP is no as well.
 
No, the United States has not been attacked, is not in imminent danger, and Syria is not a nuclear threat.
 
No,no, no , no .

Well unless it get's terribly for everybody (can't imagine how), sometimes some options should stay open.

But the best course of action in the universe is to let internal conflicts fix internally, unless that conflict directly affects you as a external part.
 
No, the only thing we have to go on with Syria is suspicion of facilitating terrorist groups which is not enough at this time to truly justify troop deployment. While it is an absolute travesty from a human rights standpoint we cannot solve all of the world's problems.
 
I am so tired of the "facilitating terrorism" reason that is used as justification to invade these countries. If this was the case, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and numerous other countries should be invaded first. When is our government going to stop squeezing the water balloon and just leave these people alone? The more we meddle in the middle east, the worse it gets for us. I'm not saying a POTUS should apologize for anything we have done in the past. But one thing our next POTUS should do is admit our policies of meddling in every skirmish we can, providing money to rulers we "like", buying weapons for rebel groups, were wrong and will not be carried out anymore. There isn't one example of us funding a rebel group that has been a lasting success. It provides short term gains at the expense of long term integrity.
 
I am so tired of the "facilitating terrorism" reason that is used as justification to invade these countries. If this was the case, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and numerous other countries should be invaded first. When is our government going to stop squeezing the water balloon and just leave these people alone? The more we meddle in the middle east, the worse it gets for us. I'm not saying a POTUS should apologize for anything we have done in the past. But one thing our next POTUS should do is admit our policies of meddling in every skirmish we can, providing money to rulers we "like", buying weapons for rebel groups, were wrong and will not be carried out anymore. There isn't one example of us funding a rebel group that has been a lasting success. It provides short term gains at the expense of long term integrity.
Totally agree. I wish though that the area would start to police itself, it's tiring to see innocents killed by the terrorist sects which is my only issue, I wish we didn't meddle in the area and just let it sort itself out, however as long as we are a target we have to do something.
 
We shouldn't deploy troops anywhere. We are not the world's policeman. If people want our troops, they can pay for them.
 
Both sides are too distasteful to support over the other. Hezbollah v Al Qaeda, Assad v the Muslim Brotherhood. Doing what we can covertly to enable both to destroy the other might be the best course of action, there.


As I said from the beginning. We should be taking advantage of the chaos on the ground to "support the rebels" by destroying select strategic Syrian sites and removing their ability provide Early Warning to Iran as well as their ability to deploy any WMD's. I wouldn't be adverse to targeting Hezbollah infrastructure, either. In addition, we should be closely monitoring said strategic sites, and Tier One individuals should be on stand by to launch heavily supported raids into Syria should such sites seem to be at risk of being overrun or abandoned.


As a theoretical example. Let us say that we have secret intelligence that the reported nuclear facility supposedly destroyed by Israel a couple of years ago managed to get out some uranium, which has been turned into a dirty bomb, and loaded onto a ballistic missile at Site X. We observe through various collection means that Site X is being attacked by Al-Qaeda affiliated rebel forces, who intend to take control of that weapon system. That facility should mysteriously explode and / or that asset should be seized shortly before they get there.




In the meantime, I would also support combat air patrols designed to provide cover to large groups of civilians trying to flee the bloodshed, as well as providing US Support to refugee camps.
 
Last edited:
We shouldn't deploy troops anywhere. We are not the world's policeman. If people want our troops, they can pay for them.

And pay handsomely. If another country wants the help of the US military then let their citizens pay for it. I'm tired of ours always having to foot the bill.
 
No we are on track for debt and financial collapse, any more wars will cost trillions of more dollars. Let some of these other countries do something, it's about time they stepped up to the plate.
 
Not just no but hell no.............
 
Both sides are too distasteful to support over the other. Hezbollah v Al Qaeda, Assad v the Muslim Brotherhood. Doing what we can covertly to enable both to destroy the other might be the best course of action, there.


As I said from the beginning. We should be taking advantage of the chaos on the ground to "support the rebels" by destroying select strategic Syrian sites and removing their ability provide Early Warning to Iran as well as their ability to deploy any WMD's. I wouldn't be adverse to targeting Hezbollah infrastructure, either. In addition, we should be closely monitoring said strategic sites, and Tier One individuals should be on stand by to launch heavily supported raids into Syria should such sites seem to be at risk of being overrun or abandoned.


As a theoretical example. Let us say that we have secret intelligence that the reported nuclear facility supposedly destroyed by Israel a couple of years ago managed to get out some uranium, which has been turned into a dirty bomb, and loaded onto a ballistic missile at Site X. We observe through various collection means that Site X is being attacked by Al-Qaeda affiliated rebel forces, who intend to take control of that weapon system. That facility should mysteriously explode and / or that asset should be seized shortly before they get there.




In the meantime, I would also support combat air patrols designed to provide cover to large groups of civilians trying to flee the bloodshed, as well as providing US Support to refugee camps.

I've not seen any evidence connecting the Free Syrian Army to Al Qaeda thus far, what is it about them you find so objectionable that you want them killed off?

As far as the OP is concerned I'm willing to be convinced as regards surgical airstrikes are concerned but putting kids who don't speak a word of Arabic into a complicated and bitter sectarian conflict never works well, as we discovered in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Where is the "Oh, Hell No!" option?
 
no.
im sick of helping people
who turn around and hate us for it.
i imagine syria would one of those situations.
 
I've not seen any evidence connecting the Free Syrian Army to Al Qaeda thus far, what is it about them you find so objectionable that you want them killed off?

As far as the OP is concerned I'm willing to be convinced as regards surgical airstrikes are concerned but putting kids who don't speak a word of Arabic into a complicated and bitter sectarian conflict never works well, as we discovered in Iraq.

Two things. One, surgical airstrikes require observers on the ground, require aircraft carriers or friendly bases to be used AND guarded, and is just as much an act of war as boots on the ground. Two, Iraq is a success in that the defined mission (unlike Afghanistan) was accomplished and country is better off for it. Should we have been there to begin with? No. But we were and the job was done. Afghanistan is a whole different mismanaged ball game.
 
Both sides are too distasteful to support over the other. Hezbollah v Al Qaeda, Assad v the Muslim Brotherhood. Doing what we can covertly to enable both to destroy the other might be the best course of action, there.


As I said from the beginning. We should be taking advantage of the chaos on the ground to "support the rebels" by destroying select strategic Syrian sites and removing their ability provide Early Warning to Iran as well as their ability to deploy any WMD's. I wouldn't be adverse to targeting Hezbollah infrastructure, either. In addition, we should be closely monitoring said strategic sites, and Tier One individuals should be on stand by to launch heavily supported raids into Syria should such sites seem to be at risk of being overrun or abandoned
As a theoretical example. Let us say that we have secret intelligence that the reported nuclear facility supposedly destroyed by Israel a couple of years ago managed to get out some uranium, which has been turned into a dirty bomb, and loaded onto a ballistic missile at Site X. We observe through various collection means that Site X is being attacked by Al-Qaeda affiliated rebel forces, who intend to take control of that weapon system. That facility should mysteriously explode and / or that asset should be seized shortly before they get there.

In the meantime, I would also support combat air patrols designed to provide cover to large groups of civilians trying to flee the bloodshed, as well as providing US Support to refugee camps.

I hope you're not speaking of the same intel services that provided the intel about WMD's in Iraq. They were outstanding..... As far as the civilians, it sucks they get caught in the middle. Guess what else sucks. Deploying troops to support them. If they don't like the atmosphere, I suggest they support the rebels and convert from Muslim to something else. Syria and its citizens provided safe haven throughout the Iraq War to terrorists fleeing Anbar Province. Its time they reaped what they sowed. No support, whatsoever, should go to these people. Let them fight it out.
 
I hope you're not speaking of the same intel services that provided the intel about WMD's in Iraq. They were outstanding..... As far as the civilians, it sucks they get caught in the middle. Guess what else sucks. Deploying troops to support them. If they don't like the atmosphere, I suggest they support the rebels and convert from Muslim to something else. Syria and its citizens provided safe haven throughout the Iraq War to terrorists fleeing Anbar Province. Its time they reaped what they sowed. No support, whatsoever, should go to these people. Let them fight it out.
I've actually heard that the WMDs were shipped across the Syrian border during the buildup. The first source of that was one of Hussein's own commanders, 2nd in command of the Iraqi Air forces IIRC and the second source were some of our returning NSA and marine friends of mine that said a whole lot of suspicious "relief" trucks were crossing into Syria around the time we were going in. Of course this is speculation on my part but it makes sense to me.

EDIT - The first source wrote a book about it, obviously I didn't meet him personally, the second sources were personal.
 
No. We need to keep our noses out of other sovereign nations business.
 
I hope you're not speaking of the same intel services that provided the intel about WMD's in Iraq. They were outstanding.....

and we learned alot from it. however, it's not like this stuff is theoretical.

Syria is thought to have large caches of nerve and mustard gases, plus thousands of shoulder-fired missiles – weapons that some worry could fall into the hands of Al Qaeda

As far as the civilians, it sucks they get caught in the middle. Guess what else sucks. Deploying troops to support them. If they don't like the atmosphere, I suggest they support the rebels and convert from Muslim to something else

:lol: you do realize that sounding like an a-- is not quite the same thing as worldly cynicism?

Syria and its citizens provided safe haven throughout the Iraq War to terrorists fleeing Anbar Province

oh, I remember.

Its time they reaped what they sowed. No support, whatsoever, should go to these people. Let them fight it out.

I didn't say land conventional forces and stop the fighting. I encourage the fighting. I just agree we should be willing to kill whatever fighters are necessary to protect non-combatants.
 
Back
Top Bottom