• 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 we go into Syria

Should we go into Syria

  • Yes, the red line has been crossed

    Votes: 23 13.9%
  • No way Jose, not our problem

    Votes: 143 86.1%

  • Total voters
    166
Well Obama's red line has been crossed and we went into Libya for far less so what do you think?
"Residents of Damascus suburbs recount massive assault by Assad army; videos show small children convulsing on the floor, foaming at the nose and mouth. Doctor: Injuries correspond with sarin gas "
"The men, women and children lying undisturbed in their beds had looked so peaceful they might have been just sleeping, Abu Nidal thought, as he and other rescuers dragged their bodies into the street."

"His was one of many accounts of a massive assault on the eastern suburbs of Damascus that activists say killed more than 500 people on Wednesday morning. They say some of the bombs were loaded with chemical agent, which would make it the worst chemical attack since the conflict began"
Syrians retrieve 'sleeping' dead after alleged chemical attack - Israel News, Ynetnews




I think that when you said that Syria has turned into a hornets nest that the USA should stay away from you may have hit the nail on the head.

Whatever the USA does in the near future I do not see a happy conclusion for what is going on in Syria.

Many more innocent people will die there.
 
I think energy development should be left to the private sector. Infrastructure should be up to the individual states. Yes, paying off the deficit is also a concern of the federal government.
Regarding energy development;
I agree except the government makes "regulations" that purposely make exploration and development exceedingly difficult. Whenever they can't get what they want legally, they "regulate" it so as to make it impossible to accomplish.

This nation could be 100% energy independent if the government really wanted us to.

Look at it this way. In WWII when germany got cut off from the oil in ploesti they were forced to fight the war on synthetic fuels...now that was 70 years ago...since then we've been to the moon 6 times...and THAT was 45 years ago.

You can't tell me that the nation that put 12 men on the moon and brought them back can't come up with a way to manufacture/develop ANY other way to fuel our (19th century technology) internal combustion engines?
Even though oil IS the ONLY method right now, we have enough in this nation to last for many decades....but we aren't "allowed" to exploit them
 
...and you think we'll be more welcomed than the French?

I really wish we could mind our own business for once. But whom am I kidding? Call the World Police. AMERICA - **** yeah!:)

Depends on the mode of engagement, there was hardly overwhelming opposition in Libya or in Iraqi Kurdistan as there was no attempt at nation building in either case, in a worst case scenario logistical support could be offered to Turkey. Erdogan gets to look like a hard main and an major regional crisis is averted, everyone wins.
 
let's see....we've got two sets of bad guys killing each other. should we send young (and in many cases not so young) american men and women into harm's way to stop it? hell no. I say let 'em fight it out and then go in and sweep up the pieces. Set up a couple of wal-marts and costcos

My only complaint is with Obama. If you are going to draw a line in the sand...have the ****ing balls and be prepared to back it up if/when the line is crossed. If you don't.....keep your ****ing mouth shut.




He just can't help himself.

He was born with an empty promise in his mouth.
 
France needs to just STFU. When's the last time they actually did anything?



Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without an accordion.
 
They were worse under Bush than Obama.

Nothing quite like invading/controlling two countries and then failing to assist them, not only once, but twice.



The Arabs in the Middle East seem to disagree with you.


Bush trumps Barack in the Arab world: President Obama is proving an embarrassing flop in the Middle East – Telegraph Blogs
<snip>
Today’s eye-opening IBOPE Zogby International poll for the Arab American Institute Foundation should be a wake-up call to the White House on its failing foreign policy. After two and a half years of bashing Israel, appeasing rogue regimes such as Iran and Syria, and promising a new era of relations with the Muslim world, Washington is now less popular in major Arab countries than it was when George W. Bush was in the White House.
The poll surveys Arab opinion in six countries: Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and reveals that “Arabs see the Obama Administration’s handling of most Middle East policy issues as having made no contribution to improving US-Arab relations. Only on the issue of the “no-fly zone over Libya” do a majority of Saudis and plurality of Lebanese see a positive contribution.”
 
Your first sentence is nonsense, of course - just ask most residents of the middle east today. When Bush said something related to the middle east, the people there sat up and listened because they knew he meant it and was prepared to back up his words. When Obama speaks, just like here in the west, people just change the channel or go back to sleep - they know it's just more hot air from the clown prince of pomposity.

Secondly, I wasn't aware that the purpose of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were to colonize two new American states. The Iraqis by and large are quite pleased to be rid of Sadaam, except for those hangers on who are still trying to be relevant by bombing innocents, but in general they are progressing and have no need for further American assistance. Afghanistan is a little more troublesome, but even someone like you isn't suggesting that America should have just let the attacks on 9/11 go unanswered, are you?


In both cases, extensive and unrelenting air strikes would have been preferred. The Middle East is not worth one more drop of American blood.

The clown prince of pomposity. Love it!
 
Bush was a joke to the Middle East and everyone knew it. He was doing what he was told and at least Obama hasn't been the push around that Bush was with the military. That alone makes him more worthwhile than the previous. Also I hate to break it to you but the Middle East likes Obama a lot more than Bush.

I'll back that up with actual polls on top of having many friends from Egypt, Saudi, and Iraq.

Global opinion of Obama
Global Opinion of Bush

Egypt Obama 42% approval Bush 30%

So let's not base your opinion on nonfactual information.

Naturally they are glad to be rid of the dictator we put in charge in Iraq, it was our mess to begin with yet again. We had to go in 30+ yrs later and try to clean it up. Which is exactly what we did with Afghanistan as well. Only this time we are actually trying to rebuild the country as opposed to just giving the local populace weapons and pretend to be surprised at the rise of a terrorist cell when we refused to help them after the Soviet invasion was thwarted.

9/11 had to be answered, but the answer wasn't even in Afghanistan which is funny to me the man responsible was found in the neighboring country of Pakistan. I remember saying that Osama was going to flee to Taliban controlled Pakistan right after our invasion of Afghanistan. I wasn't around here then but there were some local forums that I took a lot of flak on for saying that.



In your poll, it showed confidence in obama in Egypt at 28% and dropping like a stone in a pond.

Zogby has him at 5% in Egypt.

I wonder which survey talked to the survivors and what day.
 
Depends on the mode of engagement, there was hardly overwhelming opposition in Libya or in Iraqi Kurdistan as there was no attempt at nation building in either case, in a worst case scenario logistical support could be offered to Turkey. Erdogan gets to look like a hard main and an major regional crisis is averted, everyone wins.

I think thats what we're (sort of) doing now. Maybe. It's a no-win situation (for America) either way.
 
No idea. Where's is their aircraft carrier at the moment?

Still practicing.

Do you know what an aircraft carrier is without an aircraft carrier group?

Er, you think they'd just bluster and do nothing should US troops launch an incursion into Syria? I don't believe they would sit on their hands.

No, they would bluster, yell, accuse us of all kinds of mean things, strategically message our partner nations in the Gulf Region, and if they could they would probably (as quietly as possible) aid the Syrian's. Because the U.S. military is still light-years away from anyone else, kinetic force-on-force; and China and Russia paid pretty good attention to what happened to a military a generation to a generation and a half back when they tried to go toe-to-toe 3GW setting. But their ability to do so through Med ports would be severely constrained if not nil, choking their ability to do so. Furthermore, they lack the ability to project that much force that far within the time window allotted - a raid to secure a WMD cache isn't exactly a 6 year occupation.


But hey. It looks like we may be able to put your theory to the test. If the U.S. does what I said we should have done years ago, and begins conducting limited strikes against specific objectives in Syria, you'll be able to tell us when and if Russia and China respond by "putting boots on the ground" :)

They won't. Because Syria is not worth risking getting into even a limited shooting war with the United States to either of them (especially China. Russia has solid reasons for wishing to maintain the Syrian regime. China mostly just doesn't want to set precedents). But hey I guess we might find out, eh?
 
Well said.

Does anyone, other than myself, find it somewhat ironic that some folks, from one side of their mouth say that America reflects a weakened image by not acting as the world's policemen and with the other side of their mouth warn us how dangerous China is, who have avoided international interventions for as long as I can remember, as they are now such a 'super power."

If China can grow and prosper by keeping their noses out of other nation's pissing matches, why can't the US?

I wouldn't say they are anywhere close to becoming a superpower - though their aim is regional hegemony and we are fools if we think they don't intend to get it. But the reason they are able to maintain a reduced international profile (and they have been altering that posture as well, lately) is because - like Europe - they are able to grow through free-riding on the U.S. security guarantee, which we provide in order to maintain our own economy.
 
...but we aren't and we won't. We're going to help other nations secure theirs, though...ineptocracy.

:shrug: well, the biggest problem we have at ours is illegal immigration. Violence spills up too - but not in proportion. That's a bit different from an actual threat force.
 
These deaths are in NO WAY on Obama's hands.

Syria is ultimately NOT our responsibility.

Oh no? The 'Line" he drew was crossed months ago. He's all talk and no stones. He should be the president of France.
 
Oh no? The 'Line" he drew was crossed months ago. He's all talk and no stones. He should be the president of France.

I don't want us to really do much about Syria, except for maybe similar to what we did in Libya, then it's up to the Syrians.

I have to agree though that the president's "line drawing" and failure to back that up with any action makes us look weak.
 
But hey I guess we might find out, eh?

You'd better not. A war in the ME could spiral into a full scale world war with horrific consequences. :doh
There have been multiple warnings by astrologists, seers and analysts.
 
You'd better not. A war in the ME could spiral into a full scale world war with horrific consequences. :doh
There have been multiple warnings by astrologists, seers and analysts.

Good point. Imagine how awful it would be if there were American troops in the Middle East, or if we ever used (for example) drones to strike targets there.
 
Good point. Imagine how awful it would be if there were American troops in the Middle East, or if we ever used (for example) drones to strike targets there.

We don't have to imagine how awful it would be, we can see the evidence of how awful it would be by looking at the mayhem that is the broken, failed state of Iraq; a legacy of collapse, criminality and sectarianism. It was a terrible place to live under Saddam. It's quite an achievement of Western influence that it is even worse after his removal.
 
We don't have to imagine how awful it would be, we can see the evidence of how awful it would be by looking at the mayhem that is the broken, failed state of Iraq

Yeah, Iraq. Because Iraq is so much worse right now than Syria. Or Libya (where our actions matched roughly what is under discussion), which has seen millions and millions of casualties :roll:

a legacy of collapse, criminality and sectarianism. It was a terrible place to live under Saddam. It's quite an achievement of Western influence that it is even worse after his removal.

:lamo Dude, I've been there, and you're going to have to sell that line of bull to someone else. :) Even in Fallujah (which did pretty well under Saddam), the people were telling us it was better after than before. Iraq absolutely has its' problems and its' conflicts, but the civilian casualties there over eight years match Syria's over two years. Iraq at least has a (poorly, agreeably) functioning government; Syria is a chaotic whirlwind of blood.
 
I'm very wary of intervening. A lot of times countries will beg for our help and then
[QUOTE]when all is said and done
they adopt the attitude of "we hate you America, look what you've done to our country!" And then we're the bad guys.[/QUOTE]




I noticed a good while ago that when all is said and done a lot more gets said than is ever done.

The big problem for the USA in Syria is that no matter which side wins the result will not be good for the USA.

So the best thing for the USA in Syria is that the current conflict carry on forever.

On the plus side that would be good for arms merchants.




I noted that the overwhelming majority of those who voted in the poll agree that going into Syria is not a good idea for the USA.
 
Last edited:
[/I][/B]they adopt the attitude of "we hate you America, look what you've done to our country!" And then we're the bad guys.

I noticed a good while ago that when all is said and done a lot more gets said than is ever done.

The big problem for the USA in Syria is that no matter which side wins the result will not be good for the USA.

So the best thing for the USA in Syria is that the current conflict carry on forever.

On the plus side that would be good for arms merchants.

I noted that the overwhelming majority of those who voted in the poll agree that going into Syria is not a good idea for the USA.


If the US joins the fray it will own the war and all its dead. No one will remember the alternative. It is the same in Iraq or Afghanistan.
 
Yeah, Iraq. Because Iraq is so much worse right now than Syria. Or Libya (where our actions matched roughly what is under discussion), which has seen millions and millions of casualties :roll:



:lamo Dude, I've been there, and you're going to have to sell that line of bull to someone else. :) Even in Fallujah (which did pretty well under Saddam), the people were telling us it was better after than before. Iraq absolutely has its' problems and its' conflicts, but the civilian casualties there over eight years match Syria's over two years. Iraq at least has a (poorly, agreeably) functioning government; Syria is a chaotic whirlwind of blood.

Yeah, it's all great in Libya and Iraq these days, isn't it? :roll:

A very close friend of mine has been working in Iraq for an international humanitarian organisation for 4 years now. I hear first-hand accounts of how it is. Forgive me if I accord those greater weight than the bluster of neo-con propaganda.

Jailbreaks and suicide bombers push Iraq back towards anarchy
 
I think Putin is calling Obama's bluff and it's working.

They see the US as weak and vulnerable.

One of the great mistakes Obama has made was his Red Line. If he does nothing he will not look like the man who spoke softly and carried a big stick.
That will cost us hugely in future conflicts. This is very serious stuff.
 
Yeah, it's all great in Libya and Iraq these days, isn't it? :roll:

A very close friend of mine has been working in Iraq for an international humanitarian organisation for 4 years now. I hear first-hand accounts of how it is. Forgive me if I accord those greater weight than the bluster of neo-con propaganda.

Jailbreaks and suicide bombers push Iraq back towards anarchy

We all believe what we want. And to tell you the truth I think your friend is right. I would not like to have to live in Iraq. But I would not habe liked it before that either. As a matter of fact, I have looked at the numbers and the present condition is not really very much different than before. The number of deaths might even be lower than under the dictatorship and it is different people who are dieing.

But what do you expect? It takes decades to establish good societies. Anyone that criticizes the present situation is not being real or is looking for justification to keep our treasure at home. That is totally legitimate. But it has nothing to do with the present state of Iraq.
 
We all believe what we want. And to tell you the truth I think your friend is right. I would not like to have to live in Iraq. But I would not habe liked it before that either. As a matter of fact, I have looked at the numbers and the present condition is not really very much different than before. The number of deaths might even be lower than under the dictatorship and it is different people who are dieing.

But what do you expect? It takes decades to establish good societies. Anyone that criticizes the present situation is not being real or is looking for justification to keep our treasure at home. That is totally legitimate. But it has nothing to do with the present state of Iraq.

So, all those trillions of dollars, all those lives and for what? A post-invasion Iraq that is substantially the same as it was under Saddam. The difference being the civilian body count is far higher than it was under Saddam.
 
Back
Top Bottom