• 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!

Only 75,000 U.S. troops needed in Syria

Mike.Redd

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
57
Reaction score
24
Location
Atlanta, Ga
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is not that many troops... :(

The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.

Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many. We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN. We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.

This is crossing the "Red Line"

Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria
 

penn1954

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
844
Location
Ft.Wayne In
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is not that many troops... :(

The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.

Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many. We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN. We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.

This is crossing the "Red Line"

Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria

AMEN !!
If only the idiots in charge would realize this !!!
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
15,835
Reaction score
7,375
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If they were this keen to commit troops to Afghanistan you might have made actual progress.
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
AMEN !!
If only the idiots in charge would realize this !!!

I don't disagree with your position, I disagree with you calling them idiots. If you voted for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney YOU are part of the problem. If you voted for a democrat or a republican in the senate or house election YOU are the problem. Don't blame this on the "idiots" in Washington when you might be contributing to the problem.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,880
Reaction score
24,980
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That is not that many troops... :(

The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.

Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many. We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN. We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.

This is crossing the "Red Line"

Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria

Interesting how an original promise of "no boots in Syria" and action limited to only "targeted air and missile strikes" has now turned into discussions of troop estimates to secure the chemical weapons in Syria.

Our government leadership is un-effin-believable!!

This is the kind of insanity that drives me up the wall. This is exactly why I oppose armchair generals pushing for military intervention. It always ends with American's fighting in places we don't belong, and making more enemies whenever we do.
 
Last edited:

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't disagree with your position, I disagree with you calling them idiots. If you voted for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney YOU are part of the problem. If you voted for a democrat or a republican in the senate or house election YOU are the problem. Don't blame this on the "idiots" in Washington when you might be contributing to the problem.

I don't disagree with you position however, ones recourse seems limited when you throw out the election process.

Got any other suggestions on ways to manage this country?
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,732
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That is not that many troops... :(

The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.

Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many. We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN. We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.









This is crossing the "Red Line"

Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria




Whatever.

Here's some more of what Rare thinks everyone needs to see:http://rare.us/story/politico-slams-rare-for-click-bait-then-posts-about-underwear-models/

Like I said above - whatever.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Last edited:

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Interesting how an original promise of "no boots in Syria" and action limited to only "targeted air and missile strikes" has now turned into discussions of troop estimates to secure the chemical weapons in Syria.

Our government leadership is un-effin-believable!!

This is the kind of insanity that drives me up the wall. This is exactly why I oppose armchair generals pushing for military intervention. It always ends with American's fighting in places we don't belong, and making more enemies whenever we do.

We put 'boots on the ground' there and all sorts of cans of worms are opened. So many 1000s of Iranian Republican guard, Russian marines, Syrians troops, Hamas, Hezbollah, factions of AQ and other snakes in the grass. Not to mention what we don't know about.

I'm all for needed *kicking of ass* but, I feel very uneasy about this one. This smells of evil intent.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,732
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That is not that many troops... :(

The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.

Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many.
We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN.
We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.

This is crossing the "Red Line"

Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria




Because the UN has such a great record of getting things done,eh?
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
this is just great. I'm a freakin MP and a supply officer. who the hell do you think are going to be the guys they send to secure these chemical weapons? you freakin got it... MPs to guard them and supply guys to count them. I am doubly screwed.
 

radioman

feckless bon vivant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
5,430
Reaction score
4,346
Location
lotusland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I like the one second from the left and the one at the end of the right.


Getting picky in your old age, eh?
They all look like keepers to me.
I'm amazed that Politico is against underwear models.
Go figure.
 

radioman

feckless bon vivant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
5,430
Reaction score
4,346
Location
lotusland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Because the UN has such a great record of getting things done,eh?

The UN only gets things done if America pays for it with blood and treasure.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Getting picky in your old age, eh?
They all look like keepers to me.
I'm amazed that Politico is against underwear models.
Go figure.

Actually as I got older I have lowered my high standards when it comes to a womans body and appearance. But I still pay attention to a womans brain housing group.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is not that many troops... :(

The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.

Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many. We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN. We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.

This is crossing the "Red Line"

Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria

As I've said previously, no President should contemplate an act of war unless he/she is prepared to go all the way. Make no mistake, bombing targets within the sovereign territory of Syria is a declaration of war on the part of the US against Syria and any and all actions Syria may take in response must be expected and plans must be in place to activate those plans. And those plans MUST include an invasion of the sovereign territory you are bombing if circumstances dictate.

Anyone who is cheering on the President, encouraging congress to approve his proposals, on the assumption that this will begin and end with a couple of nights of off-shore bombing and then we'll all go home and rejoin our normal lives are fools. You have to either accept that the Syrian people are in the midsts of a civil war and you have no control over how it will end or you must accept that you are in the early stages of an invasion of Syria. You may think that won't happen, but Syria and the proxies all over the region supporting the Syrian regime will see to it that America is dragged into ground force deployment. No American facility or ally in the region will be safe until you end the Assad regime once you take action and even then they will not be safe.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
As I've said previously, no President should contemplate an act of war unless he/she is prepared to go all the way. Make no mistake, bombing targets within the sovereign territory of Syria is a declaration of war on the part of the US against Syria and any and all actions Syria may take in response must be expected and plans must be in place to activate those plans. And those plans MUST include an invasion of the sovereign territory you are bombing if circumstances dictate.

I have to concur.

I and the general public haven't seen any evidence presented that Assad ordered and used sarin gas. All that is certain is that someone used sarin gas. But who ? What evidence I see and who would have a motive, the scale seems to tip towards the rebels.

If Obama is the judge and jury, he's no better than Assad and the rebels.

If Assad did use sarin gas, there's something known as "The Hague" to prosecute those who committed international crimes.

If "The Hague" finds Assad guilty and want to deputies Obama to carry out the punishment, so be it.
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't disagree with you position however, ones recourse seems limited when you throw out the election process.

Got any other suggestions on ways to manage this country?

Yes. Vote third party. A third party candidate is assured not to have these "scandals" under their name because if they do, their party would be totally wiped out of the political landscape. They would have to make good decisions for the country or they would be wiped out. Obama has made very few positive moves as President, we can all agree on that. But the Democrats have a solid shot at getting the White House again in 2016.....how does that make sense? While we don't hold the major parties accountable, we would hold third parties accountable, forcing them to do a better job. If Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, or Virgil Goode (among others) would have been elected to the White House, we would be better off than with the Obamanation we have. And same goes if Romney had been elected. No scandals, no standoffs, no international outcries.
 

Lukas105

Active member
Joined
Oct 12, 2012
Messages
368
Reaction score
134
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I doubt the Democrats will retain the White house in 2016, They made a lot of people mad in these past five years. Conservatives more than likely taking the White House, with Third parties taking Senate and House of Rep spots.


Yes. Vote third party. A third party candidate is assured not to have these "scandals" under their name because if they do, their party would be totally wiped out of the political landscape. They would have to make good decisions for the country or they would be wiped out. Obama has made very few positive moves as President, we can all agree on that. But the Democrats have a solid shot at getting the White House again in 2016.....how does that make sense? While we don't hold the major parties accountable, we would hold third parties accountable, forcing them to do a better job. If Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, or Virgil Goode (among others) would have been elected to the White House, we would be better off than with the Obamanation we have. And same goes if Romney had been elected. No scandals, no standoffs, no international outcries.
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I doubt the Democrats will retain the White house in 2016, They made a lot of people mad in these past five years. Conservatives more than likely taking the White House, with Third parties taking Senate and House of Rep spots.

Even so, does it matter that the Republicans will get it? They have done some bad things too, and the American people refuse to hold them accountable. Candidly speaking, within the next 12 to 16 years the Democrats are nearly guaranteed at least on run in the WH, even with recent scandals. A third party gets one legit shot in every 10 or so election cycles to make an impact (if that). I would love to see some Libertarians or Green Partyers (among others) in Congress after the next election.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I doubt the Democrats will retain the White house in 2016, They made a lot of people mad in these past five years. Conservatives more than likely taking the White House, with Third parties taking Senate and House of Rep spots.

Just like how the voters had enough with G.W. Bush, they voted for someone who's past was hidden and unknown, someone who actually said " I never looked upon myself as an American but as an internationalist" and who's wife said she has "never been proud of America."

After eight years of lies, cover ups, government spying on Americans, IRS targeting individual and even the veterans organization the American Legion, and just plain incompetency, in 2016 the GOP could run a jockstrap for President and win the White House.
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"ONLY" 75,000?!?! How can "only" be the correct word choice? I don't think there is such a thing as "only" 75,000 troops. That is a massive number and certainly is not "only" to secure chemical weapons sites. My guess is this is put out to make "JUST" airstrikes seem less wrong.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,732
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
As I've said previously, no President should contemplate an act of war unless he/she is prepared to go all the way. Make no mistake, bombing targets within the sovereign territory of Syria is a declaration of war on the part of the US against Syria and any and all actions Syria may take in response must be expected and plans must be in place to activate those plans. And those plans MUST include an invasion of the sovereign territory you are bombing if circumstances dictate.

Anyone who is cheering on the President, encouraging congress to approve his proposals, on the assumption that this will begin and end with a couple of nights of off-shore bombing and then we'll all go home and rejoin our normal lives are fools. You have to either accept that the Syrian people are in the midsts of a civil war and you have no control over how it will end or you must accept that you are in the early stages of an invasion of Syria. You may think that won't happen, but Syria and the proxies all over the region supporting the Syrian regime will see to it that America is dragged into ground force deployment.
No American facility or ally in the region will be safe until you end the Assad regime once you take action and even then they will not be safe.




I have had the opinion for quite a while that no matter which side ends up on top in Syria it won't be good for the USA or the world.

That place looks like a no-win situation to me.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,732
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
As I've said previously, no President should contemplate an act of war unless he/she is prepared to go all the way. Make no mistake, bombing targets within the sovereign territory of Syria is a declaration of war on the part of the US against Syria and any and all actions Syria may take in response must be expected and plans must be in place to activate those plans. And those plans MUST include an invasion of the sovereign territory you are bombing if circumstances dictate.

Anyone who is cheering on the President, encouraging congress to approve his proposals, on the assumption that this will begin and end with a couple of nights of off-shore bombing and then we'll all go home and rejoin our normal lives are fools. You have to either accept that the Syrian people are in the midsts of a civil war and you have no control over how it will end or you must accept that you are in the early stages of an invasion of Syria. You may think that won't happen, but Syria and the proxies all over the region supporting the Syrian regime will see to it that America is dragged into ground force deployment. No American facility or ally in the region will be safe until you end the Assad regime once you take action and even then they will not be safe.

That is not that many troops... :(

The Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.

Even just 1 U.S. service member in Syria is too many.
We need to learn to leave global actions to the UN.
We should put more of our time and energy into working to help others that would not put our service members in harms way.

This is crossing the "Red Line"

Source: Rare.us | Why 75,000 U.S. troops could be needed in Syria




If you will go to the link and listen to Samantha power for a few minutes you will learn why leaving things to the UN just doesn't work: BBC News - Russia holding Security Council hostage, says UN special envoy

If you have an idea about how we can make the UN work and do the job that it should be doing, I'd like to hear it.

Personally I believe that the UN is ****ed up beyond redemption in its current form.
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes. Vote third party. A third party candidate is assured not to have these "scandals" under their name because if they do, their party would be totally wiped out of the political landscape. They would have to make good decisions for the country or they would be wiped out. Obama has made very few positive moves as President, we can all agree on that. But the Democrats have a solid shot at getting the White House again in 2016.....how does that make sense? While we don't hold the major parties accountable, we would hold third parties accountable, forcing them to do a better job. If Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, or Virgil Goode (among others) would have been elected to the White House, we would be better off than with the Obamanation we have. And same goes if Romney had been elected. No scandals, no standoffs, no international outcries.

Cool. So when you can people to quit believing the rhetoric and get the media on you side, everything will be kosher.

Good luck with that.
 
Top Bottom