• 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 the USA send troops in Syria?

Should the USA send troops in Syria?

  • No

    Votes: 30 78.9%

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Yes but only as a part of the UN

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • Other (pelase, explain)

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Total voters
    38
Depends on just how bad it is, and how much likelihood there is of trouble spreading to other countries and causing us security or oil supply problems.

Offhand I'd say no. I think our dance card is kinda full at the moment.
 
The rebel uprising in Libya made intervention a practical possibility. It headed off criticism that the intervention was western imperialism, and provided a way to avoid a power vacuum if Qadaffi was toppled. In addition, Libyan oil provided a powerful incentive to get European involvement. Geographic location was also important for launching airstrikes from friendly soil.

Syria doesn't have those factors. People are uprising, but haven't organized into even a vaguely cohesive force. International opinion isn't nearly at the same level because the media has become saturated and lost interest. None of the nearby nations are likely to want to give their airbases for use in an attack.

Libya was a decent opportunity, but even then it wasn't capitalized upon in an effective manner. I have little confidence that the U.S. would get better results in a much tougher situation. Unless something changes and major U.S. interests are at stake, it isn't worth getting involved at this time.
 
Where's the "Oh HELL No!" option?
 
Goshin said:
Offhand I'd say no. I think our dance card is kinda full at the moment.
Click to expand...

Why, the US quited Libya, Iraq is fine, Bin Laden is now dead, so the war in Afghanistan may soon be over too? :)
 
Canell said:
Why, the US quited Libya, Iraq is fine, Bin Laden is now dead, so the war in Afghanistan may soon be over too? :)
Click to expand...
OK. we have a candidate for funniest post of the week right here. :rofl

.
 
Sending of troops to Syria is not necessary, because instead of a non-religious Dictator the West will get a new Islamic Republic.
 
No, we should not send troops ANYWHERE. Enough playing the world's policeman, bring everyone home and stop running around the planet wiggling our dicks.
 
Cephus said:
No, we should not send troops ANYWHERE. Enough playing the world's policeman, bring everyone home and stop running around the planet wiggling our dicks.
Click to expand...

I don't have one to wiggle. :(
 
No. No. No.
The US is not the policemen of the world. Let this be left to the UN and or the Syrian people..
 
First the last thing you ever want to do is telegraph to an enemy or potential enemy anything you may or may not do in any situation.

Obama, like the Amateur he is has shot his mouth off ans told our enemies what he won't do which tells them how far they can push us with no consequences.

Since I have no power to influence what anyone in the Government may do I will say that, we now have the ability to devastate any Country in the world with our combined Air Power, with Stealth Bombers, Cruise Missiles, Predator Drones, F-22s, and al while putting very few of our people at risk.

That is where I would start with any engagement, Syia is not yet at a point where we need to intercede.

There was nothing the enemy could do to stop it or even slow it down, and it was Shock and Awe
171-0316053631-shock_and_awe_2.jpg
 
Canell said:
Syrian tanks and troops 'enter flashpoint Baniyas city'

So, the situation in Syria is getting hot. Should the White House intervene?
Click to expand...

the white house should definitely intervene. we should take this opportunity to come out against a major opponent in the region and weaken Iran's growing attempts at hegemony. This is an excellent opportunity to take out alot of Syria's higher-level-bad-stuff and say we are only doing it to help the rebels. The rebels winning is an important point, but less important than destroying the current regime.
 
Councilman said:
First the last thing you ever want to do is telegraph to an enemy or potential enemy anything you may or may not do in any situation.

Obama, like the Amateur he is has shot his mouth off ans told our enemies what he won't do which tells them how far they can push us with no consequences.

Since I have no power to influence what anyone in the Government may do I will say that, we now have the ability to devastate any Country in the world with our combined Air Power, with Stealth Bombers, Cruise Missiles, Predator Drones, F-22s, and al while putting very few of our people at risk.

That is where I would start with any engagement, Syia is not yet at a point where we need to intercede.

There was nothing the enemy could do to stop it or even slow it down, and it was Shock and Awe
171-0316053631-shock_and_awe_2.jpg
Click to expand...

the great thing about that campaign was, it was actually pretty amateurish. It was us putting all of our "what if" theories that we'd spent decades building to work - and we learned quite a lot.
 
TOJ said:
OK. we have a candidate for funniest post of the week right here. :rofl

.
Click to expand...

Glad to have you rofling. ;)
As to the dicks business, I kind of agree that Americans need to keep them in their pants more often. :lol:
 
Syria has enabled terrorist groups to seek out and murder Americans internationally; and increasingly they are operating off of our border in Mexico. Even the "only defend America" argument justifies punching that regime in the nose.
 
cpwill said:
Syria has enabled terrorist groups to seek out and murder Americans internationally; and increasingly they are operating off of our border in Mexico. Even the "only defend America" argument justifies punching that regime in the nose.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure but where are the proofs? There are lots of countries around the world that would love lo punch America in the nose. Is that a reason to invade them?

cpwill, tell me something - are you a troll or what? :roll:
 
I never said invade. I said bomb. Take this opportunity to destroy what we can of the Syrian regimes' ability to make real trouble in that region. Ground troops necessary would be minimal at most - and limited to the kind of SOF / Black community that specializes in going in and out of such places very quietly. There is no reason that it would be necessary that we even use them.
 
cpwill said:
the white house should definitely intervene. we should take this opportunity to come out against a major opponent in the region and weaken Iran's growing attempts at hegemony. This is an excellent opportunity to take out alot of Syria's higher-level-bad-stuff and say we are only doing it to help the rebels. The rebels winning is an important point, but less important than destroying the current regime.
Click to expand...

Intervening in Syria is a poor move. 1) The Syria Rebels outright stated they didn't want the U.S. to intervene 2) Compared to Libya, the rebels are far weaker and the government forces are far stronger 3) International opinion isn't behind an intervention 4) Neighboring countries probably won't give us airbases.

Don't make the same mistakes as Iraq. Even people who hate the government will unify to fight foreign invaders. Getting rid of the current regime only makes sense if you can replacement it with something better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom