• 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!

Iran or Syria if we must use military action?

Syria or Iran if we must use military now

  • Syria

    Votes: 5 35.7%

  • Iran

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • other

    Votes: 7 50.0%
  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
listener

listener

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
52
Reaction score
4
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If we must use force in the M E would it be more helpful in Syria or Iran right now?
 
Huh? If we must use military action?
 
I do not see the 'neither' option.

Syria would be marginally preferable.
 
Neither. Period.

Neither country poses a threat to the safety of American lives, which is the only reason we should go to war.
 
My choice would be neither also. I did not include that as a choice because both Obama and Romney have said we will do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons. If they mean it I expect military action against Iran sometimes next year. It seems military action against Syria might be more immediately beneficial. I wanted just to choose between those two.
 
U.S. Special Forces have trained for operations on Iran for years. In fact they are already on the ground now. Power lines to two nuclear facilities were blown up last month.
 
Iran.

Besides the potential development of nuclear weapons, they are also a major sponsor of terrorism (not Al Queda but terrorism) in the world. While there would be some "insurgent" activities, we would not see them at the level we see elsewhere. Iran and Syria are the big supporters of them in Iraq and the people supporting the Taliban/AQ are Sunni and hate the Shia in Iran, so wouldn't support them. However, invasion probably shouldn't be considered, only military strikes to take out capabilities. I have seen no evidence that we have a trained occupation force ready to go or that we have actually learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Syria is just way too screwed up a situation and there are no "good" option of the available factions. We could support Assad, but he has been a funnel for Hamas and other terrorist for years and is a funnel for Iran to support them also, not to mention he is clearly a brutal dictator. The other factions are Sunni fundamentalist and other Sunni based factions, that even if they overthrow Assad, they are going to then turn on each other. Trying to get involved in Syria at all would be dumbing our troops into a meat grinder.
 
for what ???

i wish the world power really wanted a real democracy there.......
 
Einzige said:
I do not see the 'neither' option.

Syria would be marginally preferable.
Click to expand...

The Syrian Port Tartus is Russia's naval base in the Mediterranean.

Iran is not a threat to Israel, Europe or the US.
 
Medusa said:
for what ???

i wish the world power really wanted a real democracy there.......
Click to expand...

And yet you criticize these same people for not intervening in Bosnia soon enough?
 
Red_Dave said:
And yet you criticize these same people for not intervening in Bosnia soon enough?
Click to expand...


yes! because those poor bosnians had no oil!! they had to die and been raped!!!!!!!


and those were christians who killed them too ,civilized europe sucks!!


you know ,that europe which claims to be a christian club.
you are a lefty , but i dont understand u now...
 
Last edited:
We don't have the money for another war...especially with Iran. The only way we would be "forced" into war is if they attacked us directly.
 
Syria. And it's not even close.

Libya proved that we CAN get in, get the job done, and then get out with minimal loss of life to our troops. And oh yeah, we've done it before--See "Desert Storm."
 
well it's a mixed bag. There are three major reasons to want to intervene in Syria:

(in no particular order of precedence)
1. Strategic victory against Iran
2. Protect fleeing civilians
3. Secure or destroy WMD before third party actors (read: Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda affiliates) can get ahold of them or the Syrian regime can use them.


For military strikes against Iranian nuclear program (which I assume is what the OP is referencing), there are also several reasons:

(again, no particular order)
1. Avoid regional nuclear arms race
2. Avoid another regional war against Israel
3. Avoid Iranian attempts to seize regional hegemony
4. Strategic victory against Iran



I say both. :)


But if you have to pick one, I say strike Syria, and then give Israel the greenlight for Iran.
 
Phys251 said:
Syria. And it's not even close.

Libya proved that we CAN get in, get the job done, and then get out with minimal loss of life to our troops. And oh yeah, we've done it before--See "Desert Storm."
Click to expand...

Yeah. And it also proved that when you back AQ affiliates and members (Al Qaeda may already be among Libya's rebels - World Watch - CBS News) (Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph) that you end up with Sharia law. (Libyan leader's embrace of Sharia raises eyebrows - CNN.com)

There are Al Qaeda in the Syrian rebels (Al-Qaeda Joins the Syrian Rebellion) (U.S.: Al Qaeda, other extremists aiding Syrian rebels | WashingtonExaminer.com) and they are seeking an Islamic state (Jihadists join Aleppo fight, eye Islamic state, surgeon says | Reuters)
 
listener said:
If we must use force in the M E would it be more helpful in Syria or Iran right now?
Click to expand...
Hard to say.

Syria in the short term, but Iran in the long run.
It would be nice to pull back all of our forces just to show the world why they need us out there. Unfortunately if we pull back people will die, and evil men that have power will gain more power. Most of the world’s despots do not act on the things that they would like to do because they fear the U.S.A.

Military intervention in Syria would save lives in the short term by stopping the violence. This would not solve the problems that started the violence in the first place.
I think the only time we should step in is if one side or the other starts killing civilians (on purpose).

I have a feeling that the situation with Iran will unfold in one of two ways. Iran will continue to try to find ways to, as they have stated “wipe Israel off the map”. Either Israel will attack Iran with our backing and support, or we will persuade Israel to stand down and then Iran will attack Israel. The only choice is; do we hit military installations in Iran, or do we allow Iran to hit civilians in Israel?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Yeah. And it also proved that when you back AQ affiliates and members (Al Qaeda may already be among Libya's rebels - World Watch - CBS News) (Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph) that you end up with Sharia law. (Libyan leader's embrace of Sharia raises eyebrows - CNN.com)

There are Al Qaeda in the Syrian rebels (Al-Qaeda Joins the Syrian Rebellion) (U.S.: Al Qaeda, other extremists aiding Syrian rebels | WashingtonExaminer.com) and they are seeking an Islamic state (Jihadists join Aleppo fight, eye Islamic state, surgeon says | Reuters)
Click to expand...

So.... get the civilians out, get the WMD out, and then sell weapons to both sides?
 
comedy4all said:
Undoable, but would be fun to watch!
Click to expand...


If Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda want to go to war.... that's like the Iraq/Iran war. The only real inherent tragedy is that both of them can't lose.
 
cpwill said:
So.... get the civilians out, get the WMD out, and then sell weapons to both sides?
Click to expand...

Good idea, but the Russians already have the Assads sold. :( #joking
 
They can blow up nuke facilities or whack the scientists for all I care, but do we need yet another endless occupation? Under what criteria do you define "must"? To me, that means imminent direct provocation, which there's no evidence at all that either plans to attack the US. Israel has the ability to defend itself. As for civilians, if we really cared, would have done something long ago.
 
Syria for humanitarian reasons only, in & out, and with no collateral damage. That is my preference if given the ideal circumastances.
 
....how would you do an in and out for humanitarian reasons with no collateral damage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom