• 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
....If that argument is the best one that can be mustered in its case.... then implicitly it makes a fairly strong argument that the cases are not that terribly different.



We do, actually. The Syrian government employed a portion of it's CW stockpile. Confirmed by the Intelligence Community here at home, and its' incidence confirmed independently by Doctors without Borders abroad.

Oh bull cpwill! Doctors without Borders confirmed that there were deaths and casualties. They don't know who is responsible. From what I've read there are a lot who seem to think Al Qaeda insurgents are behind this attack. I do believe the Syrian government is the most likely culprit.

HOWEVER, as others have said, why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons after we warned them not to, and when they are winning the conflict? It just doesn't make sense. Some think that Al Qaeda is behind this in order to draw the United States into this cluster ****. They bring up some good points.
 
Oh bull cpwill! Doctors without Borders confirmed that there were deaths and casualties. They don't know who is responsible. From what I've read there are a lot who seem to think Al Qaeda insurgents are behind this attack. I do believe the Syrian government is the most likely culprit.

HOWEVER, as others have said, why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons after we warned them not to, and when they are winning the conflict? It just doesn't make sense. Some think that Al Qaeda is behind this in order to draw the United States into this cluster ****. They bring up some good points.
Yeah that's what i always believed these days.
All this, was made up just to push Obama to give the go.
 
Yeah that's what i always believed these days.
All this, was made up just to push Obama to give the go.

Well, I think the bigger point to make is that we really have no clue what is going on over there, who is good and who is bad. It would be stupid to go over there all arrogant as if we know what's best. I say we leave it alone. I'm pretty sure a lot of these insurgents are not the "good guys" that some would like us to think they are. I'm willing to bet a lot of them are just as bad if not even worse than the current regime. Many are probably Islamic extremists who would like Sharia to be the ruling law of the land.
 
Partly. I maintain my original position - that Syria is a place where we have huge national interests, and that we should utilize a targeted campaign to dismantle their integrated air defense system capability, secure or destroy their WMD stocks, and provide cover to fleeing civilians. We don't need to invade, or even seek to ensure one sides' victory over the other, but we do need to ensure that WMD's do not get loose, doing so will require serving some of our national interests (the dismantlement of some of Syria's C2 functions), and we should also utilize what force we have to mitigate or minimize the mass human suffering taking place on the ground.

I fail to see what national interests we have in Syria.
 
It is strange how much the liberals of today sound like the isolationist conservatives of 80-90 years ago.

I don't deny I am an isolationist.

When we are broke and playing world police in nearly every local conflict..... yes..... Im for isolationism before that.
 
Wrong.

Check out Kosovo. It worked there, with little loss of U.S or other NATO lives.

Bombs are expensive.

Taking care of a disabled veteran for his/her entire live is also expensive.

And having to do neither to assist either side in Syria........ what is the cost of that compared to the other options?
 
And having to do neither to assist either side in Syria........ what is the cost of that compared to the other options?




This is not about assisting either side.

This is about punishing the Syrian government for its use of chemical weapons on it's own people.
 
This is not about assisting either side.

This is about punishing the Syrian government for its use of chemical weapons on it's own people.

Heya SN.....Then shouldn't we punish the Rebels for using Chems on the people too? Then for going out and Massacring Christians all due to not getting their way?

Let not forget they are responsible for over 40k in deaths. Plus Just drove 30k Kurds up out of Syria.
 
I fail to see what national interests we have in Syria.

On the contrary, we have a huge national interest in Syria. Not only is it Iran's chief ally in the region, but it is responsible for enabling the deaths of thousands of American servicemembers. It's provides aid to Hezbollah and (until recently) al-Qaeda, has WMD production and stockpiles, and has the ability to destabilize a high-impact portion of the globe. Geography and politics both require that we maintain our interests in the middle east, and Syria is a big piece of that.

I don't deny I am an isolationist.

Interesting. Are you also a farmer?
 
Oh bull cpwill! Doctors without Borders confirmed that there were deaths and casualties.

Did you miss the words "its' incidence"? ;) As stated - the use of chemical weapons was confirmed by DWB, and the fact that those weapons had come from the regime was confirmed by the U.S. and British Intelligence Communities.

They don't know who is responsible.

Hmm, now that's an argument that requires an interesting implication. Given that the U.S. and British governments say that they do know who was responsible, what is your background expertise in U.S. / FIVE EYES collections capabilities that you are able to state with certainty that this is a false claim?

HOWEVER, as others have said, why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons after we warned them not to, and when they are winning the conflict?

:lol: because we are toothless saps, Chris. Our "warnings" and "let me be clears" and "we will take this very seriously's" are worth approximately a bucket of warm spit in the Middle East right now. Hopefully we will actually (finally) start to back up our words with action, and this will change in the future. But as of a month ago, if I were advising Assad, I would have told him he could pretty much ignore U.S. blustering as a vast majority of their populace didn't want to get involved, and their president was unlikely to break his pattern of behavior in order to cross them.

In the meantime, limited use achieves two objectives: 1. it lends credibility to his detterence. North Korea has nukes for this (and Iran wants nukes for this), but Assad has chemical shells, so that's what he uses to ensure regime survival - but you have to demonstrate willingness and capability. and 2. it establishes a baseline for future use. You don't go all-out immediately after the President of the U.S. issues a redline statement, that puts him in a situation where his hand is forced. You boil the frog slowly, and after you have imported enough SA-20's from Russia that you feel that you have a strong enough deterrent from an air campaign - the trick is to introduce the system in such a way that U.S. reaction is limited and mitigated.

It just doesn't make sense. Some think that Al Qaeda is behind this in order to draw the United States into this cluster ****. They bring up some good points.

Yup. And while it's not impossible, so do the people who claim that 9/11 was an inside job to legitimize an American invasion of Iraq. But claims of conspiracy which lack evidence have a forum.



Regardless, the argument for a series of strikes and a limited campagin in Syria does not depend on Chemical Weapons usage by any player - though that does increase rather the urgency for it.
 
This is not about assisting either side.

This is about punishing the Syrian government for its use of chemical weapons on it's own people.

Dead is dead. Why punish them for that and not just the mass slaughter of its own people? We have no business being in Syria. Why is China or Russia or France or Germany not doing it. Why us? We are broke. We have a large number of unemployed. We have a fiasco of a health system. Our education system is in need of work. Our National Infrastructure rating is a D-. 70% of California's dams, bridges, waterways and highways are failing. We have a failing southern border.

A... screw it... let's spend billions on another war!

Anybody in favour of this war, in my opinion, doesn't understand our problems and/or care about America itself.
 
....If that argument is the best one that can be mustered in its case.... then implicitly it makes a fairly strong argument that the cases are not that terribly different.



We do, actually. The Syrian government employed a portion of it's CW stockpile. Confirmed by the Intelligence Community here at home, and its' incidence confirmed independently by Doctors without Borders abroad.

"We do, actually. The Syrian government employed a portion of it's CW stockpile. Confirmed by the Intelligence Community here at home, and its' incidence confirmed independently by Doctors without Borders abroad.[/"

Bullcrap. Carla delPonte of the UN says rebels used chemicals. No one has presented any evidence that it was not the rebels in the most recent use. Saying they have incontivertible evidence and actually producing that evidence are two different matters. The only thing that Doctors
Without Borders confirmed was that chemical weapons were used.
 
On the contrary, we have a huge national interest in Syria. Not only is it Iran's chief ally in the region, but it is responsible for enabling the deaths of thousands of American servicemembers. It's provides aid to Hezbollah and (until recently) al-Qaeda, has WMD production and stockpiles, and has the ability to destabilize a high-impact portion of the globe. Geography and politics both require that we maintain our interests in the middle east, and Syria is a big piece of that.



Interesting. Are you also a farmer?

Invading Iran is also a national interest... should we then? North Korea too?
 
Did you miss the words "its' incidence"? ;) As stated - the use of chemical weapons was confirmed by DWB, and the fact that those weapons had come from the regime was confirmed by the U.S. and British Intelligence Communities.

Oh and our intelligence is just great right?

Hmm, now that's an argument that requires an interesting implication. Given that the U.S. and British governments say that they do know who was responsible, what is your background expertise in U.S. / FIVE EYES collections capabilities that you are able to state with certainty that this is a false claim?

I can speculate.



:lol: because we are toothless saps, Chris. Our "warnings" and "let me be clears" and "we will take this very seriously's" are worth approximately a bucket of warm spit in the Middle East right now. Hopefully we will actually (finally) start to back up our words with action, and this will change in the future. But as of a month ago, if I were advising Assad, I would have told him he could pretty much ignore U.S. blustering as a vast majority of their populace didn't want to get involved, and their president was unlikely to break his pattern of behavior in order to cross them.

Well, I don't know but neither do you. Also nobody is sure, they have said "little doubt." Not "we KNOW who did this."

In the meantime, limited use achieves two objectives: 1. it lends credibility to his detterence. North Korea has nukes for this (and Iran wants nukes for this), but Assad has chemical shells, so that's what he uses to ensure regime survival - but you have to demonstrate willingness and capability. and 2. it establishes a baseline for future use. You don't go all-out immediately after the President of the U.S. issues a redline statement, that puts him in a situation where his hand is forced. You boil the frog slowly, and after you have imported enough SA-20's from Russia that you feel that you have a strong enough deterrent from an air campaign - the trick is to introduce the system in such a way that U.S. reaction is limited and mitigated.

That's a good theory. I don't necessarily disagree, but I still don't believe we should be involved. These people are probably no better than the current regime.


Yup. And while it's not impossible, so do the people who claim that 9/11 was an inside job to legitimize an American invasion of Iraq. But claims of conspiracy which lack evidence have a forum.


Nope, it's perfectly topical to the discussion. And why were rebel snipers shooting at the UN officers? They were being let in to do some inspection of some sort I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Regardless, the argument for a series of strikes and a limited campagin in Syria does not depend on Chemical Weapons usage by any player - though that does increase rather the urgency for it.

I think its a horrible idea.
 
Dead is dead. Why punish them for that and not just the mass slaughter of its own people? We have no business being in Syria. Why is China or Russia or France or Germany not doing it. Why us? We are broke. We have a large number of unemployed. We have a fiasco of a health system. Our education system is in need of work. Our National Infrastructure rating is a D-. 70% of California's dams, bridges, waterways and highways are failing. We have a failing southern border.

A... screw it... let's spend billions on another war!

Anybody in favour of this war, in my opinion, doesn't understand our problems and/or care about America itself.




This is going to happen whether you like it or not.

Deal with it
 
This is not about assisting either side.

This is about punishing the Syrian government for its use of chemical weapons on it's own people.

Meh, let someone else handle that.
Besides, we have no proof it was the government who made that decision. Those rebels are deceptive little ****s.
 
On the contrary, we have a huge national interest in Syria. Not only is it Iran's chief ally in the region, but it is responsible for enabling the deaths of thousands of American servicemembers. It's provides aid to Hezbollah and (until recently) al-Qaeda, has WMD production and stockpiles, and has the ability to destabilize a high-impact portion of the globe. Geography and politics both require that we maintain our interests in the middle east, and Syria is a big piece of that.

Okay... and Iran is what? A pathetic little nation wanting to play billy bad ass. I am not scared of Iran.
Enabling the deaths of thousands of servicemembers is enough reason to send thousands more to their deaths? Then we will discover a new threat in another nation that was responsible for enabling the thousands of deaths in Syria... and so on..... and so on... and so on....

It has the ability to destabilize a high impact area of the globe you say? Why has all the fighting been localized so far? If it was stable before the rebellion..... why are we helping the rebels?

As far as politics......... Politics require we only support the military actions we can afford.


Interesting. Are you also a farmer?
Not exactly sure what that has to do with anything.... Syria fights its own civil war and Korea and China will keep shipping out my imported cheaply made goods.
 
Once Israel strikes, then everyone in the USA will have the cover they need to support action in Syria. Then they will criticize Obama for not doing what what they were against.

For me, take out the offensive capabilities of all bad guys and minimize civilian losses as much as possible. Then we can further feed our military complex.
Invading Iran is also a national interest... should we then? North Korea too?
 
This is going to happen whether you like it or not.

Deal with it

When did I say otherwise...? I am dealing just fine, thank you. I am so far removed from America's problems that it is really refreshing.
 
When did I say otherwise...? I am dealing just fine, thank you. I am so far removed from America's problems that it is really refreshing.

I feel like I'm smack dab in the middle of all these problems. I am honestly very concerned about what's happening in the world, and about our participation in this newest Syria problem. I just wish we could mind our own business for once and stay out of it. I have a bad feeling about us getting involved with this mess.
 
anonymous polls SUCK

going into Syria sucks more
 
Once Israel strikes, then everyone in the USA will have the cover they need to support action in Syria. Then they will criticize Obama for not doing what what they were against.

For me, take out the offensive capabilities of all bad guys and minimize civilian losses as much as possible. Then we can further feed our military complex.

The last sentence leads me to believe you are being sarcastic...
 
I feel like I'm smack dab in the middle of all these problems. I am honestly very concerned about what's happening in the world, and about our participation in this newest Syria problem. I just wish we could mind our own business for once and stay out of it. I have a bad feeling about us getting involved with this mess.

Me too with regards to what a mess it will be. I am removed though and love it.
 
Back
Top Bottom