• 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!

Syria: Get Involved Or Not?

Should We get involved in Syria


  • Total voters
    29

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I was in the car listening to Anderson Cooper talk about the horrors of Syria going on right now. He asked the question: "why did it take the threat of chemical weapons for us to get involved?" Well Mr. Cooper I have a few things to say to that comment. To start off with: do you REALLY want us to get involved in yet another conflict in the Middle East? I guess it helps make you money off the news profits doesn't it?

So with that question I think I answered why nobody has done anything. I think that maybe Mr. Cooper would be happy with a Clintonesque respone from Obama. Launch a couple missles and call it a day. Here is the problem...that doesn't work. We end up killing civillians and the whole world hates us. People cry about how "America is always getting involved where it doesn't belong." So the only TRUE answer to stopping the violence is to get boots on the ground. Even then you still kill civllians, but it helps to have a Humvee with mounted LMGs/.50s parked on every corner. You also lose your own men in the process. You may not lose huge numbers, but your men still get attacked by IEDs. They get hit with rockets and mortars. Snipers shoot at them. People die. And then the question is do you SOLVE the issue? Or do you create MORE chaos? Do the people just reduce their attacks and wait for you to leave? Western civilization has proved that we have no patience or stomach for long drawn out conflict.

So NOW the another question: who is going to get involved in this conflict to stop the violence? Certainly not American troops in election season right? Besides we are already involved in Afghanistan and we JUST got out of Iraq. What kind of backlash does that present to our own people? Of course we always hear from our "friends" across the sea about how our involvement causes problems. How we create more violence than we solve. Of course when we DON'T get involved what happens? We get blamed for not helping.

So Do we expect the Europeans to get involved? Is there any foreign Western power that could help? That has the STANDING ARMY to put boots on the ground and assist? Maybe Sweeden? Finland? Norway? Denmark? France? Germany? Russia? Does anyone see these nations taking the forefront? Maybe Belgium or the Dutch? Canada? If they want to take the LEAD I support them. I will support them like they support us. But does anyone truly have the military ability to do what is needed to "solve" the problem? I think the only current nation with true occupational experience is...China? LOL!!! I could see them helping out.

Anyway now I post the question: Do you think we should get involved?
 
No, we should not get involved. This appears to be a revolution just like many others that have occurred in the past most of which we were not involved in. As to the chemical weapons, how sure are we that they exist? Is the intelligence as sound as it was on the WMD’s in Iraq? Are these the only chemical weapons ‘loose’ on the planet that we should fear?
 
Its simply a matter of priorities. We should invade Syria right after we balance the federal budget, seal our southern border, invade U.S. sanctuary cities and crack down places that ignore federal recreational drug laws. :)
 
No, we should not get involved... unless the Syrian civil war threatens our allies along the Syrian border.

This is a lose-lose situation for the west. If Assad remains in power, a genocidal dictator will remain in charge of Syria. If the rebels take power, an islamist arm of Al Qaeda will have its very own country.

There is no good outcome for Syria, none whatsoever.
 
Yep. I don't really think we should get involved either. I just want to point out Anderson Cooper's statement though. Does anyone really expect anything to happen if Syria DOES launch chemical weapons though? Do we expect more than an airstrike?
 
Syria is part of the middle eastern problem and hence, I believe it cannot be resolved from the outside. Only from within the middle east. So any interference will end up being bad in the long run.


I would like to express a theory i have.

In Europe, 1848. For those who don't know, 1848 was the year where a lot of things happened in Europe. Probably the second greatest movement for liberty and equality in Europe. If back then there would have been a superpower that would have wanted to "intervene" in Europe and end the bloodshed that happened because people wanted the rights and status that they should have had because they are people... and bloodshed is a part of it. It is a part of it because it is change. Real change, not some wimpy politician promising it. And real change can only come from down up.

Some change can be bad, like communism was. But that is because communist agitators were supported by people at the top where as in 1848 there was a real idealistic-made-manifest movement which produced its own leaders as opposed to them being there because they had the money to fund the agitators. Anyway, if a superpower would have intervened in Europe (its an academic exercise. there were no superpowers outside of Europe at that time) and ended the bloodshed, I doubt today these rights, and especially the right of voting and being represented and protesting and having taxes work for you and all those things... I doubt they would have been so heavily imprinted on us here in the western world as they are now. Because there wouldn't be that big a sacrifice that was made, initially, for them. Just like you put a down payment on a house. The bigger the down payment, the less you will have to pay in rates for the rest of the value of the house.

So lets no intervene in Syria. Lets let this "arab spring" evolve. Maybe it will turn for the worse... as it has... maybe it will turn for the better. We don't know. They're a different people with a different culture and they have their own desires and future to look towards. interference will damage that.
 
I thought the way Bush handled Afghanistan was good. We armed the rebels and gave them air cover. Then, we decided to stay - bad idea.

In Syria, all we should do is sell the one product Made In America. Weapons! Guns! Bombs! Why would anybody hate us for that?
 
We are not the world police and cant afford to be. Let the UN handle it and if they want help from us then we should honor our treaty obligations.
 
Only if they pose a direct threat to us proper. Otherwise, no, not our business.
 
No. This is a civil war. We should not get involved in other countries civil wars especially when the Syrian are very divided themselves on who they support. Its not our job to dictate how a civil war turns out, that is job of the Syrian people themselves. Syria for the Syrians!
 
No. This is a civil war. We should not get involved in other countries civil wars especially when the Syrian are very divided themselves on who they support. Its not our job to dictate how a civil war turns out, that is job of the Syrian people themselves. Syria for the Syrians!

And what of the supposed chemical weapons?
 
And what of the supposed chemical weapons?

I personally dont think they are going to use chemical weapons. We knew that they have chemical weapons from the get go so i dont think this is anything new or have to worry about. I think it's just a media game for the purpose of prolonging the revolution. The government of Syria will use this so the Syrian people become more divided and the regime has more time.

But even if they do use chemical weapons it still dont believe that we should get involved. Its a civil war there and its still not our job to get involved in other countries civil wars because the country is deeply divided among pro gov and anti gov forces and its not our job to support one side.
 
No, we should not get involved... unless the Syrian civil war threatens our allies along the Syrian border.

And if Al-Qaeda affiliates look to get their hands on Syria's WMD facilities? If we get indications that the Syrian regime is about to launch any kind of a CBRN attack on civilian populaces? I would tend to err on the side of yeah-we-should-probably-make-sure-that-doesn't-happen.

There is no good outcome for Syria, none whatsoever.

That is correct - Syria is screwed.
 
I personally dont think they are going to use chemical weapons. We knew that they have chemical weapons from the get go so i dont think this is anything new or have to worry about. I think it's just a media game for the purpose of prolonging the revolution. The government of Syria will use this so the Syrian people become more divided and the regime has more time.

But even if they do use chemical weapons it still dont believe that we should get involved. Its a civil war there and its still not our job to get involved in other countries civil wars because the country is deeply divided among pro gov and anti gov forces and its not our job to support one side.

Interesting. Was that your opinion of the proper Western response to the Rwandan Genocide?
 
Interesting. Was that your opinion of the proper Western response to the Rwandan Genocide?

Well since the US did not get involved with the UN's mission there its irrelevant.
 
Well, we already are involved, but not overtly. We have been giving the rebels heavy weapons and getting foreign fighters into Syria (How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria - Business Insider) (How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria - Business Insider). But, no I don't think we should get involved as there are a lot of Islamic militants among the Syrian rebels who want an Islamic state. While I do not like Assad, I don't like Islamic extremism even more.
 
Should the UN have been there? Should someone have tried to interfere?

UN should of been there yes.
But the Rwanda Genocide and the Syrian Civil War share very little similarities.
 
UN should of been there yes.
But the Rwanda Genocide and the Syrian Civil War share very little similarities.

You keep dodging the question. Does the US have a moral obligation or right to interfere in order to prevent or reduce the mass-slaughter of noncombatant civilian populations?
 
You keep dodging the question. Does the US have a moral obligation or right to interfere in order to prevent or reduce the mass-slaughter of noncombatant civilian populations?

No it does not. It does not have the right to intervene in countries civil wars. That is the job of the United Nations.
 
How can we not commit some ground troops at this point? Chemical warfare can't be tolerated.
 
Why is it OK with the Obama administration that the Assad regime has killed 30,000 people with conventional weapons but he's drawing the line if he resorts to using chemical weapons.

So he's saying it's OK to kill, just not with chemical weapons. Makes no sense to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom