• 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 voted no, although I don't quite agree with the phrasing of "it's not our problem".
 
ChrisL said:
Have you looked to Iraq? A place where we actually had boots on the ground and was very costly for us, and they seem to be falling back into their old ways again. You can't fix these problems with wars. Why can't you understand this? These wars bring more hatred and terrorism directed towards America. That is the only thing they really accomplish.

That is an incredibly naive and simplistic response to a very real and complicated issue. How would you suggest we do that? What you seem to want is for America to go over and take over the entire country. Nope, sorry that is NEVER going to happen again, especially under THIS president.

No, you don't get your message across very well. It seemed to me as if you were blaming the media for where our government chooses to take action or not. So then you didn't answer my question then. Why is our government interested in this atrocity and why is this one so much more important to YOU personally than any other atrocity? Why do you seem so adamant that WE take military actions, being that you admit this is far from the worst.

As I've stated NUMEROUS times now throughout this thread, we only get 20% at most of our oil from the Saudis. We don't purchase oil from Syria. We get most of OUR oil from Venezuela and Canada and here at home.

Again you miss the point completely. I give up on you now. I have tried to explain this relatively simple concept to you over and over, and you just aren't getting it. Whether it is ignorance or willful behavior on your part, I cannot say.

You aren't getting much from it because you either don't understand or you are being willfully ignorant about the points I've made, and you choose to ignore them.

If you want to remove me from your friends list, feel free. I really don't even know you, so I don't really care one way or another.

We are STILL in Afghanistan as we speak right now. Are you crazy or something? Why would we want ANOTHER war???? So we can send our children off to die for oil? You must be joking.
Click to expand...

Well, I tried. Guess it did not worked out. Peace.
 
DDD said:
Well, I tried. Guess it did not worked out. Peace.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation. An important thing to remember is that our military is made up of people who put their lives on the line. We are not a war machine. We lost over 5000 people during the Iraq war.

It just seems to me as if you are putting little value on the lives of our service men and women, as if their lives are expendable for causes that really don't concern us.
 
ChrisL said:
We are not a war machine.
Click to expand...
Well, given the vast amount of money, resources and personnel you dedicate to your military, if there is a war machine in existence, it's the US military, no?

It just seems to me as if you are putting little value on the lives of our service men and women, as if their lives are expendable for causes that really don't concern us.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, but if you're going to have such a vast force assembled and deployed beyond your borders, what do you think they're for? Why do you believe you need a military as large as the one you have? There's no imminent, clear or present danger to the safety, security and integrity of the USA, is there? If you are thinking of the threat of terrorism on US interests, it's your intelligence and black ops capacity that will deal most effectively with that; not your marines, land army or nuclear strike force.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, given the vast amount of money, resources and personnel you dedicate to your military, if there is a war machine in existence, it's the US military, no?

I tend to agree, but if you're going to have such a vast force assembled and deployed beyond your borders, what do you think they're for? Why do you believe you need a military as large as the one you have? There's no imminent, clear or present danger to the safety, security and integrity of the USA, is there? If you are thinking of the threat of terrorism on US interests, it's your intelligence and black ops capacity that will deal most effectively with that; not your marines, land army or nuclear strike force.
Click to expand...

Just because we have a big military doesn't mean we are responsible for anything beyond ourselves. I think your POV is ignorant as far as being attacked etc. You certainly cannot predict the future. Obama has made us look like weaklings. We are hurting financially. A lot of people would think the opposite because of these facts. We don't really care what you think about our military, and it's not really your business what we spend our money on. Perhaps you don't understand OUR Constitution, but THAT is one of the jobs of our federal government, unlike forcing citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. :roll:
 
ChrisL said:
Just because we have a big military doesn't mean we are responsible for anything beyond ourselves. I think your POV is ignorant as far as being attacked etc. You certainly cannot predict the future. Obama has made us look like weaklings. We are hurting financially. A lot of people would think the opposite because of these facts. We don't really care what you think about our military, and it's not really your business what we spend our money on. Perhaps you don't understand OUR Constitution, but THAT is one of the jobs of our federal government, unlike forcing citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. :roll:
Click to expand...

There's no need to be so defensive! (See what I did there?) You can spend your hard cash on what you like, but then you can't start getting hissy fits if observers start using terms like 'war machine' when you spend more than the rest of the western world combined on armaments. World opinion tends not to see the accumulation of more and more and more deadly military capacities as the behaviour of a peace-loving nation. But then, since when has American opinion cared much for world opinion? I don't understand why you take offence. These two statements:
We are not a war machine. We lost over 5000 people during the Iraq war.
Click to expand...
make no sense juxtaposed. War machines do tend to sacrifice quite a lot of their own troops on their adventures. Losing 5000 people during the Iraq war makes the use of the expression more, not less apt.

The fact is, I believe that most Americans are peace-loving, but your military, political class and corporations very definitely are not. I just wish the inclinations and opinions of most Americans carried more weight than they clearly do.
 
Andalublue said:
There's no need to be so defensive! (See what I did there?) You can spend your hard cash on what you like, but then you can't start getting hissy fits if observers start using terms like 'war machine' when you spend more than the rest of the western world combined on armaments. World opinion tends not to see the accumulation of more and more and more deadly military capacities as the behaviour of a peace-loving nation. But then, since when has American opinion cared much for world opinion? I don't understand why you take offence. These two statements:

make no sense juxtaposed. War machines do tend to sacrifice quite a lot of their own troops on their adventures. Losing 5000 people during the Iraq war makes the use of the expression more, not less apt.
Click to expand...

Your opinions don't change the facts. Sorry. Our military is made of people. Losing 5000 people is certainly relevant regardless of whether idiots think we are a "war machine" or not.

The fact is, I believe that most Americans are peace-loving, but your military, political class and corporations very definitely are not. I just wish the inclinations and opinions of most Americans carried more weight than they clearly do.
Click to expand...

I think you mean to say that in this case our federal government and President Obama are not and constantly overstep their boundaries regardless of the opinions of the people. :)
 
ChrisL said:
Your opinions don't change the facts. Sorry. Our military is made of people.
Click to expand...
So are 'war machines'. Genghis Khan's war machine was made of nothing but people and horses. Yours is made up of people and matériel; quite a lot of matériel, as a matter of fact.

Losing 5000 people is certainly relevant regardless of whether idiots think we are a "war machine" or not.
Click to expand...
It is very relevant to a lot of things, just not to whether or not your military constitutes a war machine. I don't understand why you are so sensitive about the use of the term.

I think you mean to say that in this case our federal government and President Obama are not and constantly overstep their boundaries regardless of the opinions of the people. :)
Click to expand...
I know exactly what I mean to say, and I'm pretty certain that the military-industrial component of your body politic are not the ones trying to dissuade him from taking aggressive action, just as the producers of diabetes medications are not trying to shut down Macdonalds.
 
Andalublue said:
So are 'war machines'. Genghis Khan's war machine was made of nothing but people and horses. Yours is made up of people and matériel; quite a lot of matériel, as a matter of fact.
Click to expand...

Yes, all societies are made up of people. Machines are replaceable, but people are not. There is no such thing as a "war machine."

It is very relevant to a lot of things, just not to whether or not your military constitutes a war machine. I don't understand why you are so sensitive about the use of the term.
Click to expand...

It is a dehumanizing term and a term that desensitizes people to the FACT that Americans die when they go to war.

I know exactly what I mean to say, and I'm pretty certain that the military-industrial component of your body politic are not the ones trying to dissuade him from taking aggressive action, just as the producers of diabetes medications are not trying to shut down Macdonalds.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the hierarchy? The military does NOT tell the CIC what to do. Quite the opposite. The president is also the one responsible for appointing his advisers when it comes to military actions. Ultimately, the buck stops with him as much as you would like to blame anyone else.

Unless Bush was the president of course, then it would be all his fault. ;)
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, all societies are made up of people. Machines are replaceable, but people are not. There is no such thing as a "war machine."



It is a dehumanizing term and a term that desensitizes people to the FACT that Americans die when they go to war.



Do you understand the hierarchy? The military does NOT tell the CIC what to do. Quite the opposite. The president is also the one responsible for appointing his advisers when it comes to military actions. Ultimately, the buck stops with him as much as you would like to blame anyone else.

Unless Bush was the president of course, then it would be all his fault. ;)
Click to expand...

You mistake me for someone attempting to give Obama a pass should he decide on war. What I'm suggesting is that he, as much as Bush and predecessors, are in the thrall of the military-industrial establishment. You think he could decide to cut military spending by 50%, withdraw military support to Israel, end arms sales to Saudi Arabia and withdraw from NATO at the stroke of a pen? He could not, even if he could get those things through Congress, he could not. He will bear a great deal of responsibility for the decisions he takes on Syria, but he will not be the only player in that decision-making. Your system of government is not a dictatorship and what the president says does not always go.
 
ChrisL said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's been exactly my point. Theres 300 countries in the world. Why is it our job to intervene in Syria? This is the UNs job. If they make a decision then we can support it.
 
jonny5 said:
That's been exactly my point. Theres 300 countries in the world. Why is it our job to intervene in Syria? This is the UNs job. If they make a decision then we can support it.
Click to expand...

It's not our job. People seem to want to MAKE it our job for some reason though. It's funny how they just LOVE us when they want our help, then afterward they'll go back to being a bunch of whining bitches. :roll:
 
It's all the Russians fault. The Rooskies fought the mujahideen in Afghanistan they fought the chechen rebels
they as are we are in a fight with Islam, they claim to be on the side of Assad, we should be on Assad's side too
we are all facing the same foe.
I say let the Russians deal with it ;)
 
Coin said:
Even if there was going to be a dirty war, Bush knew how to make it worth and how to handle it.
Ofc it is easier now to judge him after the many events happen and you received the feedback.

But consider yourself on that time, before Iraq war started and how your opinion has changed.
Obama is worst decision making leader.
He doesn't know to make the right decision at the right moment.

Syria is not the right decision, nor the right moment.

Iraq wasn't the right decision, but it was in the right moment.
Click to expand...

... what? If analysts are to be believed, neither Bush or anyone supervising the invasion of Iraq had mildly plausible plans of how to implement their nation building strategy. Trying to engineer a democracy in Iraq and pursuing WMD also had nothing to do with 9/11 or the War on Terror.
 
Trying to engineer a democracy anywhere in middle east is pure folly.
 
ChrisL said:
We should only use our military strength when WE want to. Not when YOU or others want us to. Syria is NOT our problem. All these other countries that want "action" from the US should piss off! Handle it your damn selves.
Click to expand...

Haha, when's the last time all these people that want US action stretched out their hands to help pay the bill? Ask them if they would pay extra taxes to sent to the US military.
 
Morality Games said:
... what? If analysts are to be believed, neither Bush or anyone supervising the invasion of Iraq had mildly plausible plans of how to implement their nation building strategy. Trying to engineer a democracy in Iraq and pursuing WMD also had nothing to do with 9/11 or the War on Terror.
Click to expand...

Oh look, it's Bush's fault again. It never gets old with you does it?
 
16k4dbb.jpg
 
American said:
Haha, when's the last time all these people that want US action stretched out their hands to help pay the bill? Ask them if they would pay extra taxes to sent to the US military.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to people in other countries, of course no one wants to help pay for it. They want us to make all the sacrifices and then they will hate us afterwards.
 
AngryOldGuy said:
How 'bout we skip the help part and just let them hate U.S. upfront?
Click to expand...

I'm sure most of them already do hate us so it really doesn't make much difference what we do.
 
Can anyone explain to me what good attacking Syria will accomplish?

We went into Afghanistan, and in part to Iraq, to make the statement that we will not allow terrorist acts against the USA go unpunished. Iraq had more reasons yet that tied to the fear that Saddam may aid terrorists, and that he violated the cease fire agreements. That said...

What does anyone hope to accomplish by helping to destabilize Egypt, Libya, Syria, and other countries that have done nothing to us?
 
Lord of Planar said:
helping to destabilize
Click to expand...
hah I can't imagine them being anymore destabilized than they are now. I agree we should stay as far away as possible. Better get drilling like mad though cuz when the black gold gets shut off world prices will go through the roof?

2q182v9.jpg
 
AngryOldGuy said:
hah I can't imagine them being anymore destabilized than they are now. I agree we should stay as far away as possible. Better get drilling like mad though cuz when the black gold gets shut off world prices will go through the roof?

2q182v9.jpg
Click to expand...
They will continue to get worse as we have aided the Arab Spring.

The countries before Obomba have pretty well kept their people under control. Granted, not completely, but once this Arab Spring started, and Oboma supported it, and liberals are known to aid under the guise of human rights...

Think about it. These shaky governments have become so much worse. Once the rebels started to claim Gaddafi was attacking innocent people, we helped them... Funny how many of the videos I saw leading up to this had the innocent civilians carrying assault rifles... The rebels. A civil war that would have been ended quickly, went on to be devastating to Libya.

I wasn't keeping track of what happened before that, but I recall Obomba giving the thumbs up to the rebels. It was all for that feel-good-touchy-feely liberal reasons.

As much as (probably) all of us hate countries like Syria, that was a stable country until recently.

I can say with confidence, Obomba is to blame. We should have never aided the Arab Spring. This will haunt us in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom