• 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
Hit Asaad hard from afar, just to let him know he is an asshole for what he ordered..
Boots on the ground? Never!

You are falling for the propaganda. I heard that each "missile" (or whatever you call them) cost 1 million dollars. Sure, let's just use them to send a message. :roll:
 
Explain to me just what you think this little mission is going to accomplish.

1) Well I cannot go ahead and explain to you my secret mission... Over nothing! Intel costs you know!

This has nothing to do with the media. Massacres happen all over the world, and the United States does nothing. Why do you think we want to get involved in this one?

2) Divert the question to your President, Obama.

What makes you think that lobbing a few bombs is going to change anything?

3) Refer to 2).

Anyone else other than the United States. I don't really care.

You bettya!
 
1) Well I cannot go ahead and explain to you my secret mission... Over nothing! Intel costs you know!



2) Divert the question to your President, Obama.



3) Refer to 2).



You bettya!

Thanks for not answering a single one of my questions. So, in other words, you don't know what's going on over there either. :lol: Then why are you so keen on the United States involving itself in this fiasco?

This is really stupid if you think about it. Basically we are telling this dictator that it's okay to kill the people, just not with certain types of weapons. :roll:
 
Thanks for not answering a single one of my questions. So, in other words, you don't know what's going on over there either. :lol: Then why are you so keen on the United States involving itself in this fiasco?

I grew tired answering questions that you do not seem to read or comprehend. Thought I should just not take you seriously and joke a little instead :) . You turn better that way as it is apparent.

This is really stupid if you think about it. Basically we are telling this dictator that it's okay to kill the people, just not with certain types of weapons. :roll:

What is there to think even. Gas infuriates everyone! Ever had someone release terrible gas while near you? Eating at a restaurant or so?
 
I grew tired answering questions that you do not seem to read or comprehend. Thought I should just not take you seriously and joke a little instead :) . You turn better that way as it is apparent
.

Look you need to stop with the insults right NOW. If you can't answer the questions, just say so. Don't put the blame on me. BTW, you have YET to answer any questions. I don't think you know what's going on here at all.

What is there to think even. Gas infuriates everyone! Ever had someone release terrible gas while near you? Eating at a restaurant or so?

What's the difference if you are killed by a gas or any other method. The end results are the same. Dead people.
 
So . . . does anyone know what the plan is for us over in Syria. Right now, seems as if we're just sitting there. What if we do decide to take action and launch a couple of bombs or whatever. How many civilians are WE going to kill?
 
.
Look you need to stop with the insults right NOW. If you can't answer the questions, just say so. Don't put the blame on me. BTW, you have YET to answer any questions. I don't think you know what's going on here at all.

How do you survive around here?

.
What's the difference if you are killed by a gas or any other method. The end results are the same. Dead people.

I do not think I can relate to you any longer. Perhaps someone else could give a try to tell you plain and simple what the difference between mass murder and combat murder may be, and why the earlier should be sanctioned compared to the later.
 
How do you survive around here?

I survive by sticking to the topic and not letting people like you divert attention from it. I will show exactly what I'm talking about with you not able or unwilling to answer specific questions, and this just proves that you don't really know anything about the situation, so I cannot understand why you would defend this decision. Here is a copy of the questions I asked and the answers you gave.

Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
Explain to me just what you think this little mission is going to accomplish.

DDD's answer:
1) Well I cannot go ahead and explain to you my secret mission... Over nothing! Intel costs you know!

Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
This has nothing to do with the media. Massacres happen all over the world, and the United States does nothing. Why do you think we want to get involved in this one?

DDD's answer:
2) Divert the question to your President, Obama.

Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
What makes you think that lobbing a few bombs is going to change anything?

DDD's answer:
3) Refer to 2).


I do not think I can relate to you any longer. Perhaps someone else could give a try to tell you plain and simple what the difference between mass murder and combat murder may be, and why the earlier should be sanctioned compared to the later.

And you are of the opinion that American troops should go in there and die and for the rest of us to be responsible for paying for it to assure this? Why?
 
cuz Obmabo's red line drawn with a crayon was crossed?
 
As several people have pointed out, Obama can use military force for 90 days without congressional approval. Asking for Congress permission is not to launch a few missiles. While Obama can say it's to launch a limited strike on Syria, Congressional approval will actually grant Obama sweeping wartime powers, which he'll abuse of course.

Neither the Constitution nor the war powers act states that he can use military force for 90 days without approval. It states

"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

BEFORE hostilities. He can not attack Syria without first consulting congress. Only after such consultation does it get 60 days (assuming no declaration of war).
 
I survive by sticking to the topic and not letting people like you divert attention from it. I will show exactly what I'm talking about with you not able or unwilling to answer specific questions, and this just proves that you don't really know anything about the situation, so I cannot understand why you would defend this decision. Here is a copy of the questions I asked and the answers you gave.

And you are of the opinion that American troops should go in there and die and for the rest of us to be responsible for paying for it to assure this? Why?

Go back to my earlier responses that made me give up on you. There you will find answers. Post those and I may try to link lose dots for you.
 
1z39d1j.jpg
 
Go back to my earlier responses that made me give up on you. There you will find answers. Post those and I may try to link lose dots for you.

Oh, okay. Are you talking about this one?

Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
Of course they aren't going to listen to you, but you're trying to make the case as to why we should. Look at the poll results. Americans do NOT want to go there.

DDD's response:
It is not my intent to change the position of all of them here.

Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
Are you aware of all the other atrocities that are MUCH worse than this that occur in this world, and we DO NOT intervene. Why do you think that is? Why is this particular atrocity OUR problem now?

DDD's response:
It is selective media.

Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
If I wanted to stay away, don't you think I would? I want to talk about this. This concerns me directly. My tax dollars will pay for all of this stuff that I am against. It doesn't make any sense for us to intervene. There are others than can do it.

DDD's response:
So you do want to talk. Well then leave the rose colored glasses on the door and expect talking about a hell hole. See that is what it was all about. It is a hell hole because it is oppressed. Being oppressed keeps it being a hell hole. The intervention if done completely would unhell the hole in the long term if the population between Al-Qaeda and Assad are set free. If one were to choose places to intervene based on how appealing the places are there might not be any intervention at all.

You keep mentioning "others." Whom do you have in mind?
 
Perhaps it was this one.

Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
And here you are, a person from another country, trying to push the United States into a war with Syria.

DDD's response:
I am afraid you give me too much power with that! LOL

Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
This stupid military action is NOT going to accomplish anything. The only purpose for this is for Obama to try to not look like a fool. Too late for that I think.

DDD's response:
What happened to the hell zone and the people suffering there? Are those issues not to be aligned with the purpose you mention?

Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
And another thing, don't you tell me to unsubscribe from this thread. I have more of a say of this than you do. I am a citizen of the United States.

DDD's response:
You are on a public forum lady. Your citizenship does not determines the amount of say you have on certain issues.

You see here? You have not come up with any valid responses as to why we should make a move on Syria. If you'd like, I'll go back even further though, just to be sure. :mrgreen:
 
we have to do it because our spoiled man-child President wants too
there should be no further need to justify the action
jaic6t.jpg
 
100,000 killed by conventional weapons....and its not a problem.

1,300 killed b Sarin gas and its a major issues.

something very, very wrong with this.



If we are going to go in to Syria, we should have a united government behind the action.

Obama did the right thing and the GOP Congressional leadership agrees.
 
Obama did the right thing and the GOP Congressional leadership agrees.
Agrees with what? DDD has the excuse of not having english as his first language (hah after Russian it's prolly his third) what's your excuse?

I can readily see why folks are 'confused' over this issue, it is designed to do just that.
First, the whole thing really doesn't matter.
If we lob a few cruise missiles or not it won't affect the situation on the ground much and at the end of the day
who runs Syria matters not.
But the main purpose is to distract the American population from what is important and we seem to fall for it every time?

How much longer can they drag this out? How much longer can he keep us watching this hand while the other does lawd knows what?
c'mon how much longer will we care if he does not shoot a few Tomahawks? My faith in the average in the average American evaporated
the day Clinton bombed Iraq to distract from the Impeachment Hearings This guy is up to something what's the other hand doing?
 
Perhaps it was this one.



You see here? You have not come up with any valid responses as to why we should make a move on Syria. If you'd like, I'll go back even further though, just to be sure. :mrgreen:

This much is fine thanks. So then, what is it that you do not understand? How do I not answer your questions?
 
This much is fine thanks. So then, what is it that you do not understand? How do I not answer your questions?

I'll ask you this. Why should Americans in particular spill blood and spend money on this particular problem when there are and have been far worse atrocities? And why do you think we should be responsible for what happens in Syria? Why not your country? Why not the UK? Why not France? Why not the UN?
 
I'll ask you this. 1) Why should Americans in particular spill blood 2) and spend money 3) on this particular problem 4) when there are and have been far worse atrocities?

1) The risk of spilling blood with airstrikes exists of course. It is not that it is a kill free solution. But it is a small probability.

2) I thought about this too. You are already in dept why be pulled deeper in it right? It turns out that in the long run war ends up being more profiatble. It will actually gain you more money in the long run.

3) This particular problem has been chosen from the media. Not all every wrong doing can be put into the media at once. One at the time. Why this particular area was put in the media compared to say atrocities committed from Budhists in Burma may be due to your political leadership and their international policies and agendas.

4) If all were to be put at once then it may be too much of a burden. One at a time.

And why do you think we should be responsible for what happens in Syria?

People are being gassed but it is not really about your responsibility. You did not gas those people to death hence you should not be responsible. But things there may escalate if not intervened in time. Basically you should be looking for that long term gain for your own interests. Those may in fact have to do with intervening on Syria.

Why not your country? Why not the UK? Why not France? Why not the UN?

Apart from UK and UN, this may end up a joint operation that may include the rest also.
 
1) The risk of spilling blood with airstrikes exists of course. It is not that it is a kill free solution. But it is a small probability.

2) I thought about this too. You are already in dept why be pulled deeper in it right? It turns out that in the long run war ends up being more profiatble. It will actually gain you more money in the long run.

3) This particular problem has been chosen from the media. Not all every wrong doing can be put into the media at once. One at the time. Why this particular area was put in the media compared to say atrocities committed from Budhists in Burma may be due to your political leadership and their international policies and agendas.

4) If all were to be put at once then it may be too much of a burden. One at a time.



People are being gassed but it is not really about your responsibility. You did not gas those people to death hence you should not be responsible. But things there may escalate if not intervened in time. Basically you should be looking for that long term gain for your own interests. Those may in fact have to do with intervening on Syria.



Apart from UK and UN, this may end up a joint operation that may include the rest also.

Okay, by these answers, I'm sure you don't know what you are talking about.

For one thing, here is our national debt.
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 01 Sep 2013 at 08:28:52 PM GMT is:
$ 16, 744, 329, 085, 221.40

For another thing, no war is not profitable. It is expensive in terms of both money and lives.

Airstrikes are not going to accomplish anything except killing more people. IF we happened to get lucky and get Assad, that does nothing to rule out a civil war or a worse regime taking over.

Good God, the problem is NOT the media. Do you actually think the United States gets it's intelligence from the media and they don't know what's happening around the world without the media? :lamo Holy smokes is all I can say to that!!! The media is a GOVERNMENT TOOL, not the other way around my confused friend.

What long-term interests do we have in Syria? Please tell.

You are just completely missing the point about other atrocities. There have been FAR WORSE atrocities in the past, and NOBODY intervened. Maybe it is a language barrier problem or something. :shrug:

You are right on your second to last comment. It is NOT our problem, nor is it our business. If something happens over there that WOULD directly effect us, such as threats of attacks or actual attacks on us or OUR interests, we can handle that as it happens.
 
In case you missed my edit DDD, I want you to realize that the media is a government tool. The government uses the media to meet it's goals.
 
Another thing I'd like to add is does anyone actually believe Assad is sitting in his palace just waiting for someone to come and kill him? :rofl Ridiculous! He is moving around from place to place. The only thing airstrikes might accomplish is to take out some of his soldiers or some of his weapons and supplies. It is most certainly not a guarantee to put an end to anything.
 
and the goal this time is:

2qk192h.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom