• 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
Simpleχity;1062286980 said:
In the gang controlled areas. ~60 children (16 and under) have been shot to death so far this year.
Click to expand...



Are they black kids??
 
Lord of Planar said:
Food for thought:

Click to expand...


Serenity already demonstrated this to be false. The attack we're worried about occurred at around 2:00 in the morning; this is a bright sunny day, so we are not intervening over this attack.
 
joko104 said:
When has the USA ever done the "isolationist thing?"
Click to expand...

We tried to before WWII, and that didn't work. It's odd that people still seem to think that it will work now.
 
MadLib said:
We tried to before WWII, and that didn't work out too well
Click to expand...
It worked great right up until December Seventh, Nineteen Forty-One then we had reason to go and clean someone's clock, guess we'll have to wait for that suitcase nuke to detonate on the observation deck of the Empire State building before we can justify:

WWIII In theatres this summer, the end of the world nuclear armageddon style in 3D!
 
wolfie said:
Why does the US feel the need to be the strongest...??
Click to expand...

From 1815 (Battle of Waterloo) to 1914, the world was run by adults who understood the concept of "balance of power" and managed to keep things from getting out of hand (at least until the end of that period). After WWII, the US was the sole remaining superpower, and we had the Bomb; more importantly, we had the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and Eisenhower to get us out of Korea. After Ike we had a sex-crazed drug addict for a couple of years, but we had a reputation that kept him from getting the country into too much trouble. The next guy felt the need to play Texas Ranger to the world, and it took another adult (Nixon) to get us out of Vietnam. After a couple of years of caretaker government, we got another clown who really did a number on our reputation and became the benchmark for incompetency in the White House. Then Reagan came along to restore our standing, and that really upset the liberals who can't stand to be on the winning side because it contradicts their worship at the altar of perpetual victimhood. Bush41 did a good job on foreign affairs: he went into Somalia to provide humanitarian relief, and when that went so well that libs started hollering for "nation building" he resisted them; he also understood diplomacy, and when our allies in the first Gulf War declined to go all the way to Baghdad he stood with them against the war hawks in this country. Clinton managed to convince the world that the US was now a paper tiger, and the result was 9/11. Bush43 responded properly to the terrorism attacks, but he got bogged down in nation building when what he should have done was burn Afghanistan and Iraq to the ground and leave the survivors to go back to their traditional practice of molesting goats. The US doesn't feel the need to be the strongest, but it was nice to be respected. The clown we have in office now understands nothing of diplomacy or power, and seems determined to remake the country in the image of his native Kenya.
 
what he should have done was burn Afghanistan and Iraq to the ground
and leave the survivors to go back to their traditional practice of molesting goats
Click to expand...
Some posts just need a multi-like button!

2l9tvr5.jpg
 
Diogenes said:
From 1815 (Battle of Waterloo) to 1914, the world was run by adults who understood the concept of "balance of power" and managed to keep things from getting out of hand (at least until the end of that period). After WWII, the US was the sole remaining superpower, and we had the Bomb; more importantly, we had the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and Eisenhower to get us out of Korea. After Ike we had a sex-crazed drug addict for a couple of years, but we had a reputation that kept him from getting the country into too much trouble. The next guy felt the need to play Texas Ranger to the world, and it took another adult (Nixon) to get us out of Vietnam. After a couple of years of caretaker government, we got another clown who really did a number on our reputation and became the benchmark for incompetency in the White House. Then Reagan came along to restore our standing, and that really upset the liberals who can't stand to be on the winning side because it contradicts their worship at the altar of perpetual victimhood. Bush41 did a good job on foreign affairs: he went into Somalia to provide humanitarian relief, and when that went so well that libs started hollering for "nation building" he resisted them; he also understood diplomacy, and when our allies in the first Gulf War declined to go all the way to Baghdad he stood with them against the war hawks in this country. Clinton managed to convince the world that the US was now a paper tiger, and the result was 9/11. Bush43 responded properly to the terrorism attacks, but he got bogged down in nation building when what he should have done was burn Afghanistan and Iraq to the ground and leave the survivors to go back to their traditional practice of molesting goats. The US doesn't feel the need to be the strongest, but it was nice to be respected. The clown we have in office now understands nothing of diplomacy or power, and seems determined to remake the country in the image of his native Kenya.
Click to expand...

I get it. Democrat = bad, Republican = good
 
Beaudreaux said:
Let me shed just a little more light on me, for you.

I am pro-military. But not the way it's defined by those that are anti-military.

I am pro-strength. But with strength comes responsibility, and more importantly restraint.

I am pro-military action. But only in the defense of the United States from an attacker, either response to an attack as a prohibitive response to a KNOWN threat; or in defense of the defenseless from aggression and/or genocide; or as response to assist our allies in the very few treaties that we are actually signatories to.

I am pro-Constitution. In that the power to declare War rests solely and squarely with the Congress of the United States, and just like any other member of the United States Armed Services, the Commander-in-Chief has a superior officer they must report to and follow their orders. That superior officer is the American People through their Representatives in the United States Congress.

I am pro-American Government regarding military actions. In that the United States is a Sovereign Nation and does not and must not subordinate that Sovereignty to any other country, or group(s) of countries (the UN).

I have many other pro's regarding the military, but I think you get the strong position upon which I stand regarding the military, and my fellow members of the All Volunteer Armed Forces, that every day, write a check to the American people, payable up to and including their life.
Click to expand...

Great post. I agree with all of what you wrote. :)
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Sorry that I'm so busy, but I have kind of a question.
Didn't the US agree a long time ago to sign up to take action against any state that used 'chemical weapons' against anyone?
If so do we need to back out of that? Maybe we need to approve of chemical weapons used properly. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

A link posted earlier in the thread says that the U.S. has no business interfering unless we were the victims of a chemical attack by another country. :shrug:
 
ChrisL said:
A link posted earlier in the thread says that the U.S. has no business interfering unless we were the victims of a chemical attack by another country. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think what's happened here is that we are all war weary..

Wouldn't be so bad if it affected us personally..but it doesn't..it is always far, far away!
 
Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that anytime there's an IMPORTANT decision to made, Congress is on some kind of break or vacation? WTF!?
 
It looks like it will come down to this...................

anYb2Zb_700b.jpg
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Looking at your avatar... Are you saying you're going to cut off someone's leg then kick their stump? That's ****ing hardcore.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am going to do.....


DO WE HAVE A PROBLEM?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
 
Way to create a poll where a large number of people will disagree with both answers. Editorial comments don't help -- there are far more reasons than just one to pick either.
 
Harshaw said:
Way to create a poll where a large number of people will disagree with both answers. Editorial comments don't help -- there are far more reasons than just one to pick either.
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
ChrisL said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

Like, "yes, the humanitarian concerns demand it," or "no, it would be illegal and immoral," or "yes, our credibility is on the line," or "no, we'll just make things worse." Really, doesn't take much imagination to come up with many more.
 
Harshaw said:
Like, "yes, the humanitarian concerns demand it," or "no, it would be illegal and immoral," or "yes, our credibility is on the line," or "no, we'll just make things worse." Really, doesn't take much imagination to come up with many more.
Click to expand...

Well, not to start an argument AGAIN :lol:, but you just pick one and then explain why. That's what we've been doing. I picked no way Jose because we don't have the money. Those missiles cost millions of dollars each, we don't know who these rebels really are and there MO is questionable among other reasons. :)
 
ChrisL said:
Well, not to start an argument AGAIN :lol:, but you just pick one and then explain why.
Click to expand...

Which is why there shouldn't be reasons in the poll answers.
 
Harshaw said:
Which is why there shouldn't be reasons in the poll answers.
Click to expand...

You have a point, but I just ignore that and speak for myself in my posts. :mrgreen: But I do choose no way.

I would agree though that in an indirect way it is totally our problem as well as the world's problem, I just don't think it always has to be OUR place to get involved. We have a strong military for our own defense, as well as to send a message to the rest of the effed up governments of the world to not mess with us. It should not be expected of us to expend our resources, which includes our people more than anything, on every single problem that the rest of the world has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom