• 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
I have no doubt Israel will attack when they feel it is necessary, since they are showing concern. No USA pol goes against Israel at war.

I take Putin calling Cameron as a sign of weakness. I am serious about taking out ALL offensive capabilities. An off-shoot will be to help our military complex, seriously.
The last sentence leads me to believe you are being sarcastic...
 
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 we should have done more two years ago, but it is never too late. We have to do something-- destroy the chemical weapons sites with cruise missiles, create no fly zones--but as part of a NATO and Arab League coilition.. We are a compassionate people who can and should help...
 
I wouldn't say we should stay far from it - I maintain that we can help provide security at the borders of our allies, protect fleeing refugees, and (if possible) deter WMD use. But yeah, I'd be pretty skeptical about arming the rebels at this point. I'd rather just bomb the regime.



I could go along with bombing the regime "if" we could get away with it and I doubt that we could...
 
I could go along with bombing the regime "if" we could get away with it and I doubt that we could...

"get away with it"? Who precisely do you believe is going to step in and stop us?
 
I have no doubt Israel will attack when they feel it is necessary, since they are showing concern. No USA pol goes against Israel at war.

I take Putin calling Cameron as a sign of weakness. I am serious about taking out ALL offensive capabilities.
An off-shoot will be to help our military complex, seriously.




Whatever ordnance is expended in Syria will have to be replaced, that will give the military/industrial complex some business.
 
"get away with it"? Who precisely do you believe is going to step in and stop us?



Nobody could stop us, but wouldn't that force Russia into some sort of retaliation?
 
This is going to happen whether you like it or not.

Deal with it

You said this so many times.
Many things happen inside USA, and people deal with it even when they do not like it. No one here is trying to stop Obama, jeez.





Do you really think people here care a lot if this is going to happen or not. NO. They don't have to. Because w/e happen, nothing will change for their life. They will eat same food, drive same car.

Most of people here discuss what's the good and bad part in the "macro" picture.


It's not going to be a surprise if a country is attacked, it's been happening every 4 years. Lol.
 
No, they didn't. They were willing to be a more public face of the effort, but required U.S. enablement for their operations, and U.S. stand-in when they were unable to fulfill their agreed upon portions of the mission. So in terms of PAO support, yes. In terms of actually bombing bad guys... not so much.

France has taken the lead in Mali - which has pretty effectively tied up its' force projection capabilities.



They lack the ability to do this.

Do you have any support for this whatsoever, other than blatant nationalism and American triumphalism?

It was the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle floating off Libya. It was French and British jets in Libya, firing French, British and American missiles.

It was French, British and American money that financed Libya.

In fact, it seems a lot like the US was scared to get into another war, and so as usual just threw money at the problem, while letting other nations do the actual work.

Furthermore, the French military is usually rated as the third most powerful in the world, after the US and Russia. I'm not sure if you've ever taken a look at Wikipedia, but in case this post convinces you to do so, check out the Mali intervention. France could absolutely sort out Mali and Syria at the same time -- the forces they've committed to Mali are negligible compared to their entire military capability.

Oh, and they're still winning there.
 
You said this so many times.
Many things happen inside USA, and people deal with it even when they do not like it. No one here is trying to stop Obama, jeez.





Do you really think people here care a lot if this is going to happen or not. NO. They don't have to. Because w/e happen, nothing will change for their life. They will eat same food, drive same car.

Most of people here discuss what's the good and bad part in the "macro" picture.


It's not going to be a surprise if a country is attacked, it's been happening every 4 years. Lol.




Anyone who isn't happy with what's going on in the USA should invest a little time in trying to make things a little 'better'. according to that person.

Or they can keep sniping from the sidelines.

It's all up to them.



Changing the future isn't easy.

Putting up with it when it get's here isn't so great either.
 
Last edited:
BBC News - Syria crisis: UK draws up contingency military plans
BBC News - Syria crisis: Foreign minister denies chemical attacks
BBC News - Syria crisis: Russia and China step up warning over strike
Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

____________________________________
I wonder one thing, how you people find or what you think will happen if there will be an attack without international mandate.
 
They make any alternative seem pretty bleak....

I think all the alternatives are bleak. That's why I think we should stay the hell away from that ****hole, but apparently, after watching the news this morning, we are more than likely going to end up going over there and sticking our noses into this situation. :roll:

Goodness! We haven't even finished paying for the other wars yet!!! I think my government is trying to destroy my country.
 
Do you have any support for this whatsoever, other than blatant nationalism and American triumphalism?

I was very minorly involved, but in a military intelligence role that allowed me quite an interesting viewpoint.
 
I think that we should have done more two years ago, but it is never too late. We have to do something-- destroy the chemical weapons sites with cruise missiles, create no fly zones--but as part of a NATO and Arab League coilition.. We are a compassionate people who can and should help...
Destroying chemical weapons with missiles is a non-starter. There would be chemical release. There's really only one way to secure them safely.
 
I think that we should have done more two years ago, but it is never too late. We have to do something-- destroy the chemical weapons sites with cruise missiles, create no fly zones--but as part of a NATO and Arab League coilition.. We are a compassionate people who can and should help...

More proof has recently surfaced that Reagan fully knew that Iraq had, intended to use, and did use chemical weapons vs Iran.
Not only did we do nothing, but it suited our political interests at the time.

Then once Bush's lies were all blown away, he fell back on using Iraq's use of chemical weapons decades in the past, as a reason to invade, killing a minimum of 130,000 men, women, and children. Chemical weapons that we condoned at the time.

We might be compassionate as individuals, but as a Nation we are a people of moronic sheep that care more about how Miley Cyrus is shaking her ass than we do innocent lives.
 
Let them, Syrians, deal with it.
An intervention could fire up WW3.
This is so serious. :(
End is nigh, eh? lulz I always get a chuckle when someone inevitably chimes in with the silly Armageddon scenarios.

What? We're all dead? Again?! Damn, I'm getting sick of being wiped out.
 
WW3!!!

935560
935560
935560
935560
 
Yes! Who do you think gave AQ the funding and arms to get where they are. We are sending both arms and money to the rebels in Syria. Who do you think the rebels are? Who has been caught using chemical weapons? The US openly states that it is funding the rebels. Adjust your blinders.

If so, then someone in the US government needs to be tried and executed for treason. Who do you suggest we start with?
 
End is nigh, eh? lulz I always get a chuckle when someone inevitably chimes in with the silly Armageddon scenarios.

Do you even know where mount Megiddo is?
 
Assad is a murdering bastard but its somebody else's turn. I nominate France. Or maybe one or two of those Socialist, peace loving nations so quick to condemn the U.S. for everything it does. Time to get your fingers out, boys.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any support for this whatsoever, other than blatant nationalism and American triumphalism?

It was the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle floating off Libya. It was French and British jets in Libya, firing French, British and American missiles.

It was French, British and American money that financed Libya.

In fact, it seems a lot like the US was scared to get into another war, and so as usual just threw money at the problem, while letting other nations do the actual work.

Furthermore, the French military is usually rated as the third most powerful in the world, after the US and Russia. I'm not sure if you've ever taken a look at Wikipedia, but in case this post convinces you to do so, check out the Mali intervention. France could absolutely sort out Mali and Syria at the same time -- the forces they've committed to Mali are negligible compared to their entire military capability.

Oh, and they're still winning there.

No, we refused to get involved directly in Libya because every time we get involved anywhere, left wing bastards and far right bastards spend their time criticizing us. Why don't you socialists give it a shot?
 
Back
Top Bottom