• 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!

intervention in syria

intervention in syria ?

  • Total voters
    21
Medusa

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,861
Reaction score
7,852
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
would you approve USA military intervention in the civil war in Syria if a referendum is held to determine whether us government should take action in syria ?
 
No. We need to STOP intervening in the ME, not increase it.
 
Medusa said:
would you approve USA military intervention in the civil war in Syria if a referendum is held to determine whether us government should take action in syria ?
Click to expand...

The incredible uncertainty surrounding the situation in Syria and the sheer viciousness of the the civil war would make it very irresponsible of the United States to intervene. Intervention could only make things worse and could help get the wrong people into power.

I say lets leave the Syrian Civil War to the Syrian people, or at least until we have a more clear cut good guy to support.
 
in fact l should have asked " should usa stop helping radicals overthrow Assad .but many people seem to have no knowledge about what is going on here
 
No. We need to STOP intervening in the ME, not increase our presence. Essentially all we gain with our presence there is to give the radicals someone to focus their hatred on. We need to let the ME handle middle eastern problems.
 
Juiposa said:
The incredible uncertainty surrounding the situation in Syria and the sheer viciousness of the the civil war would make it very irresponsible of the United States to intervene. Intervention could only make things worse and could help get the wrong people into power.

I say lets leave the Syrian Civil War to the Syrian people, or at least until we have a more clear cut good guy to support.
Click to expand...

if those wrong people (islamists ) were able to overthrow assad ,we wouldnt be mentioning any intervention now.

l mean thats what usa goverment wants to see .

US ambassador to libya was killed by these monsters but Usa wants to ignore this danger
 
Medusa said:
in fact l should have asked " should usa stop helping radicals overthrow Assad .but many people seem to have no knowledge about what is going on here
Click to expand...

No, I don't know why we went messing around with the other punk momar moahmar kadafi what ever his name was. That was the kicking of a hornets nest
 
No. We should not get involved in any foreign civil wars of any kind.
 
Medusa said:
if those wrong people (islamists ) were able to overthrow assad ,we wouldnt be mentioning any intervention now.
Click to expand...

And? I don't find going from an oppressive largely secular dictatorship to a sharia state much of an upgrade. As long as Islamist continue to form quite a significant force in the FSA, I cannot support them. I can't support the bastard dictator Assad either, so I am at an impasse. I can't support anyone.
 
Juiposa said:
And? I don't find going from an oppressive largely secular dictatorship to a sharia state much of an upgrade. As long as Islamist continue to form quite a significant force in the FSA, I cannot support them. I can't support the bastard dictator Assad either, so I am at an impasse. I can't support anyone.
Click to expand...

if we have to make a choice between two evil we need to choose the less evil one
 
At this point, the USA is not sending weapons or military assistance to either side. I believe we are sending medical and humanitarian aid to Turkey and Jordan, to help with the refuge problem.

Although we have sent some military troops to Jordan to help guard the border with Syria, I do not believe we would ever put troops into Syria unless as part of a NATO action, which Libya was. Even in Libya, we sent no weapons and our help was limited to knocking out anti-aircraft facilities to assist Spain, the UK, and France, who were leading the NATO action.
 
Medusa said:
in fact l should have asked " should usa stop helping radicals overthrow Assad .but many people seem to have no knowledge about what is going on here
Click to expand...

Well, that is a very different question than whether or not we should be involved.
 
DiAnna said:
At this point, the USA is not sending weapons or military assistance to either side. I believe we are sending medical and humanitarian aid to Turkey and Jordan, to aide with the refuge problem.

Although we have sent some military troops to Jordan to help guard the border with Syria, I do not believe we would ever put troops into Syria unless as part of a NATO action, which Libya was. Even in Libya, we sent no weapons and our help was limited to knocking out anti-aircraft facilities to assist Spain, the UK, and France, who were leading the NATO action.
Click to expand...

usa ordered turkish government to arm these monsters and tahts why turkish! government has been arming them


if it says " o stop it " ,the bird will stop it .)))
no bird can fly in this region without teh permission of usa

this is a fact......
 
lizzie said:
No. We need to STOP intervening in the ME, not increase our presence. Essentially all we gain with our presence there is to give the radicals someone to focus their hatred on. We need to let the ME handle middle eastern problems.
Click to expand...

Right. So. Your preferred mechanism for ensuring that the Al Qaeda elements fighting in Syria do not get their hands on that regimes chemical weapons stores is...... hope? We just sort of hope it doesn't happen? Maybe we could ask them pretty please? OH! Maybe we could call it a "red line". Everyone knows we mean those.
 
Medusa said:
usa ordered turkish government to arm these monsters and tahts why turkish! government has been arming them
Click to expand...

Link to a legitimate source, please.


if it says " o stop it " ,the bird will stop it .)))
no bird can fly in this region without teh permission of usa

this is a fact......
Click to expand...

It's a fact you'll have to prove with a link to a legitimate source.
 
Medusa said:
would you approve USA military intervention in the civil war in Syria if a referendum is held to determine whether us government should take action in syria ?
Click to expand...

No for four reasons. 1. Aasad is a tyrant and is backed by Iran, not good if he wins. 2. On the rebel side approximately 20%, perhaps more are AQ and this group is also backed by Iran, the AQ portion that is. 3. If the rebels win, since the largest minority group of rebels are AQ, you could very well have an Islamic Republic which is very anti-American. 4. The most important, it is congresses job to declare war, not a public referendum.
 
Medusa said:
if we have to make a choice between two evil we need to choose the less evil one
Click to expand...
The less evil choice is abstaining in this case.
 
No. No critical U.S. interests are involved.

Moreover, the Assad regime has not been friendly toward U.S. interests and at least some strategic U.S. allies. There is no credible evidence that its opponents would take a materially different course. They have had ample time to chart their strategic direction but have not done so. No matter who prevails in the civil war, it won't have a marked impact on U.S. interests. There is risk that the extremist elements associated with the anti-Assad uprising might actually make the situation less favorable for U.s. interests if they gain significant post-conflict governing authority. An unstable Syria that will follow the civil war almost certainly will exacerbate risks to stability, especially in already fragile states e.g., Lebanon.

Finally, this is a civil war in which a majority seeks to topple the governing minority. It is not a democratic or liberal revolution. In that civil war, both parties have very likely committed war crimes and other crimes against humanity. Both parties have shown a repeated disregard for the welfare of civilians. Hence, even on moral grounds, the argument for intervention is an ambiguous one.

Having said that, I do favor assistance to Jordan and Turkey in dealing with refugees and to mitigate any attacks that might occur on their territory. I also support Israel's acting to preclude the flow of arms from Syria into Lebanon.
 
No. Let them, Syrians, deal with it. It's an internal affair.
 
NO.

There are essentially 4 groups fighting against the government in a coalition. Of those, only 1 is not faction extremist. All the rest are no better than the current government. We are not willing to do what is really needed, have no real backing and no clear mission parameters, thus we shouldn't go.

I have absolutely no faith in our current Political or senior Military leadership to be able to accomplish anything.

Clear objectives, new leadership and willingness to do what is necessary, then I could support it, without that, NFW.
 
Not no, but hell no. As Lizzie said, we need to do less intervening, not more (as a general concept).

I'd be ok with supplying weapons and humanitarian aid (food medical supplies, etc.), but that's it. And even then only if we didn't have a single person actually set foot in the country.
 
Yes. We should be providing arms and assistance to the FSA as the best mechanism available for reducing the popularity and influence of Islamist militias and as a means for increasing our hand in the post-war environment. Doing nothing is a decision we have already come to regret, and we will suffer the consequences if we continue with our inaction. Just because we sit on the sidelines doesn't mean Islamists will disappear, on the contrary our inaction directly contributed to their rise to power and influence in the first place. Continued inaction will lead to a situation where demographics, Gulf money and arms, and time conspire to give the Islamist coalition a victory in Syria that leaves the FSA/SNC isolated and the Kurds exposed. The only plausible means for avoiding this is to begin cultivating palatable allies in Syria--something they have been begging us to do for years.

Saying 'we shouldn't get involved over there' is the easy decision and it feels gratifying. But it doesn't mean it is the right one.
 
No. We don't have the capability of controlling such complex and fluid situations. One kind of intervention I would support is accepting large numbers of refugees from Syria. And humanitarian aid, of course.
 
I think I'll go with Edmund Burke's opinion:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
 
Can I change my poll answer? I said 'not sure' but after reading the thread I'm saying no. Someone mentioned 'the lesser of the evils' but it looks impossible to call. Dictators are tossed and replaced by oppressive theocracies- about the surest thing you can say is that democracy can't work in that region.
They'll sort it out eventually. Or not, whatever. Not like there's oil or nukes involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom