• 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 think that when you said that Syria has turned into a hornets nest that the USA should stay away from you may have hit the nail on the head.

Whatever the USA does in the near future I do not see a happy conclusion for what is going on in Syria.

Many more innocent people will die there.
 
I think energy development should be left to the private sector. Infrastructure should be up to the individual states. Yes, paying off the deficit is also a concern of the federal government.
Regarding energy development;
I agree except the government makes "regulations" that purposely make exploration and development exceedingly difficult. Whenever they can't get what they want legally, they "regulate" it so as to make it impossible to accomplish.

This nation could be 100% energy independent if the government really wanted us to.

Look at it this way. In WWII when germany got cut off from the oil in ploesti they were forced to fight the war on synthetic fuels...now that was 70 years ago...since then we've been to the moon 6 times...and THAT was 45 years ago.

You can't tell me that the nation that put 12 men on the moon and brought them back can't come up with a way to manufacture/develop ANY other way to fuel our (19th century technology) internal combustion engines?
Even though oil IS the ONLY method right now, we have enough in this nation to last for many decades....but we aren't "allowed" to exploit them
 
...and you think we'll be more welcomed than the French?

I really wish we could mind our own business for once. But whom am I kidding? Call the World Police. AMERICA - **** yeah!

Depends on the mode of engagement, there was hardly overwhelming opposition in Libya or in Iraqi Kurdistan as there was no attempt at nation building in either case, in a worst case scenario logistical support could be offered to Turkey. Erdogan gets to look like a hard main and an major regional crisis is averted, everyone wins.
 




He just can't help himself.

He was born with an empty promise in his mouth.
 
France needs to just STFU. When's the last time they actually did anything?



Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without an accordion.
 
They were worse under Bush than Obama.

Nothing quite like invading/controlling two countries and then failing to assist them, not only once, but twice.



The Arabs in the Middle East seem to disagree with you.


Bush trumps Barack in the Arab world: President Obama is proving an embarrassing flop in the Middle East – Telegraph Blogs
<snip>
Today’s eye-opening IBOPE Zogby International poll for the Arab American Institute Foundation should be a wake-up call to the White House on its failing foreign policy. After two and a half years of bashing Israel, appeasing rogue regimes such as Iran and Syria, and promising a new era of relations with the Muslim world, Washington is now less popular in major Arab countries than it was when George W. Bush was in the White House.
The poll surveys Arab opinion in six countries: Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and reveals that “Arabs see the Obama Administration’s handling of most Middle East policy issues as having made no contribution to improving US-Arab relations. Only on the issue of the “no-fly zone over Libya” do a majority of Saudis and plurality of Lebanese see a positive contribution.”
 


In both cases, extensive and unrelenting air strikes would have been preferred. The Middle East is not worth one more drop of American blood.

The clown prince of pomposity. Love it!
 



In your poll, it showed confidence in obama in Egypt at 28% and dropping like a stone in a pond.

Zogby has him at 5% in Egypt.

I wonder which survey talked to the survivors and what day.
 

I think thats what we're (sort of) doing now. Maybe. It's a no-win situation (for America) either way.
 
No idea. Where's is their aircraft carrier at the moment?

Still practicing.

Do you know what an aircraft carrier is without an aircraft carrier group?

Er, you think they'd just bluster and do nothing should US troops launch an incursion into Syria? I don't believe they would sit on their hands.

No, they would bluster, yell, accuse us of all kinds of mean things, strategically message our partner nations in the Gulf Region, and if they could they would probably (as quietly as possible) aid the Syrian's. Because the U.S. military is still light-years away from anyone else, kinetic force-on-force; and China and Russia paid pretty good attention to what happened to a military a generation to a generation and a half back when they tried to go toe-to-toe 3GW setting. But their ability to do so through Med ports would be severely constrained if not nil, choking their ability to do so. Furthermore, they lack the ability to project that much force that far within the time window allotted - a raid to secure a WMD cache isn't exactly a 6 year occupation.


But hey. It looks like we may be able to put your theory to the test. If the U.S. does what I said we should have done years ago, and begins conducting limited strikes against specific objectives in Syria, you'll be able to tell us when and if Russia and China respond by "putting boots on the ground"

They won't. Because Syria is not worth risking getting into even a limited shooting war with the United States to either of them (especially China. Russia has solid reasons for wishing to maintain the Syrian regime. China mostly just doesn't want to set precedents). But hey I guess we might find out, eh?
 

I wouldn't say they are anywhere close to becoming a superpower - though their aim is regional hegemony and we are fools if we think they don't intend to get it. But the reason they are able to maintain a reduced international profile (and they have been altering that posture as well, lately) is because - like Europe - they are able to grow through free-riding on the U.S. security guarantee, which we provide in order to maintain our own economy.
 
...but we aren't and we won't. We're going to help other nations secure theirs, though...ineptocracy.

:shrug: well, the biggest problem we have at ours is illegal immigration. Violence spills up too - but not in proportion. That's a bit different from an actual threat force.
 
These deaths are in NO WAY on Obama's hands.

Syria is ultimately NOT our responsibility.

Oh no? The 'Line" he drew was crossed months ago. He's all talk and no stones. He should be the president of France.
 
Oh no? The 'Line" he drew was crossed months ago. He's all talk and no stones. He should be the president of France.

I don't want us to really do much about Syria, except for maybe similar to what we did in Libya, then it's up to the Syrians.

I have to agree though that the president's "line drawing" and failure to back that up with any action makes us look weak.
 
But hey I guess we might find out, eh?

You'd better not. A war in the ME could spiral into a full scale world war with horrific consequences. :doh
There have been multiple warnings by astrologists, seers and analysts.
 
You'd better not. A war in the ME could spiral into a full scale world war with horrific consequences. :doh
There have been multiple warnings by astrologists, seers and analysts.

Good point. Imagine how awful it would be if there were American troops in the Middle East, or if we ever used (for example) drones to strike targets there.
 
Good point. Imagine how awful it would be if there were American troops in the Middle East, or if we ever used (for example) drones to strike targets there.

We don't have to imagine how awful it would be, we can see the evidence of how awful it would be by looking at the mayhem that is the broken, failed state of Iraq; a legacy of collapse, criminality and sectarianism. It was a terrible place to live under Saddam. It's quite an achievement of Western influence that it is even worse after his removal.
 
We don't have to imagine how awful it would be, we can see the evidence of how awful it would be by looking at the mayhem that is the broken, failed state of Iraq

Yeah, Iraq. Because Iraq is so much worse right now than Syria. Or Libya (where our actions matched roughly what is under discussion), which has seen millions and millions of casualties :roll:

a legacy of collapse, criminality and sectarianism. It was a terrible place to live under Saddam. It's quite an achievement of Western influence that it is even worse after his removal.

:lamo Dude, I've been there, and you're going to have to sell that line of bull to someone else. Even in Fallujah (which did pretty well under Saddam), the people were telling us it was better after than before. Iraq absolutely has its' problems and its' conflicts, but the civilian casualties there over eight years match Syria's over two years. Iraq at least has a (poorly, agreeably) functioning government; Syria is a chaotic whirlwind of blood.
 
I'm very wary of intervening. A lot of times countries will beg for our help and then
[QUOTE]when all is said and done
they adopt the attitude of "we hate you America, look what you've done to our country!" And then we're the bad guys.[/QUOTE]




I noticed a good while ago that when all is said and done a lot more gets said than is ever done.

The big problem for the USA in Syria is that no matter which side wins the result will not be good for the USA.

So the best thing for the USA in Syria is that the current conflict carry on forever.

On the plus side that would be good for arms merchants.




I noted that the overwhelming majority of those who voted in the poll agree that going into Syria is not a good idea for the USA.
 
Last edited:


If the US joins the fray it will own the war and all its dead. No one will remember the alternative. It is the same in Iraq or Afghanistan.
 

Yeah, it's all great in Libya and Iraq these days, isn't it? :roll:

A very close friend of mine has been working in Iraq for an international humanitarian organisation for 4 years now. I hear first-hand accounts of how it is. Forgive me if I accord those greater weight than the bluster of neo-con propaganda.

Jailbreaks and suicide bombers push Iraq back towards anarchy
 
I think Putin is calling Obama's bluff and it's working.

They see the US as weak and vulnerable.

One of the great mistakes Obama has made was his Red Line. If he does nothing he will not look like the man who spoke softly and carried a big stick.
That will cost us hugely in future conflicts. This is very serious stuff.
 

We all believe what we want. And to tell you the truth I think your friend is right. I would not like to have to live in Iraq. But I would not habe liked it before that either. As a matter of fact, I have looked at the numbers and the present condition is not really very much different than before. The number of deaths might even be lower than under the dictatorship and it is different people who are dieing.

But what do you expect? It takes decades to establish good societies. Anyone that criticizes the present situation is not being real or is looking for justification to keep our treasure at home. That is totally legitimate. But it has nothing to do with the present state of Iraq.
 

So, all those trillions of dollars, all those lives and for what? A post-invasion Iraq that is substantially the same as it was under Saddam. The difference being the civilian body count is far higher than it was under Saddam.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…