Jump to content
flareback

Military Action in Syria

Military Action in Syria  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the U.S. take military action in Syria

    • Yes - and I live in the USA
      7
    • Yes - and I live outside the USA
      0
    • No - and I live in the USA
      25
    • No - and I live outside the USA
      11
    • I don't know
      7


Recommended Posts

Anyone else feel like this thread would be more interesting if we were actually posting information about the situation?

 

Personally I don't know anything about the whole thing and because of that, my default opinion is "no, don't get involved."

 

I've tried doing some research about it though and from some of the stuff I've read, Syria has been seen as a supporter to terrorism by the US in the past. Syria has taken in refugees from Iraq, being both regular civilians but also Al-Qaeda supposedly. Really though, I just don't know if any of that's true even, I just can't help but wonder if there's any point in discussing this topic or making a poll without some kind of trade of information going on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else feel like this thread would be more interesting if we were actually posting information about the situation?

 

Personally I don't know anything about the whole thing and because of that, my default opinion is "no, don't get involved."

 

I've tried doing some research about it though and from some of the stuff I've read, Syria has been seen as a supporter to terrorism by the US in the past. Syria has taken in refugees from Iraq, being both regular civilians but also Al-Qaeda supposedly. Really though, I just don't know if any of that's true even, I just can't help but wonder if there's any point in discussing this topic or making a poll without some kind of trade of information going on with it.

 

Dat +1. I'd follow it, but its always the same shit going on in the middle east, so I stopped following so closely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big issue - and the one that pushed it over the edge - is reports that chemical warfare was used (specifically Sarin), by the Syrian president against rebels.

 

As such, it's naive to simply say "No, the US shouldn't get involved"...do you support genocide? If the evidence is true, I don't see how anyone can say just sit back and let it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thing is, is that we just don't know who caused the attack. There are reports that the Saudi's gave the rebels the chemical weapons and the rebels screwed up. Even if it was the Syrian government, the US taking them out would probably only lead to their weapons falling into the hands of some terrorist group. And that's not even considering all the innocent civilians the US military would kill in the process. (Sorry I think I'm supposed to use the term "Collateral Damage" when it's the military doing the killing.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah. Can't get quotes to work still.

 

@Clay: I don't support genocide, but consider; Assad may kill some people with his chemicals, if it his him throwing them around, but how many more would we kill if we went in and started 'fixing' the situation? Basically i agree with flareback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, the USA has enough debt.

Curiously, If money weren't an issue would you support it?

 

 

 

 

I would still say no. I am pro peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No here.  It never goes the way they say it will, unintended consequences are always worse than the alternative IMO.

 

Sorry i can't get quotes to work...

 

Me either, not for a long time.  What's up with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. 

Not enough evidence to determine WHO used the weapons.

 

Secondly, boots on the ground has been ruled out. So what happens after a "surgical" strike of the chemical weapons? 

With no clear aim or end game, I cant see intervention doing any good.

 

Lastly, Syria is not "billy no mates", both China and Russia are not going to just stand by. Even if they do not intervene directly in support of syria, they can provide weapons which makes this whole thing a hell of a lot more messy than it already it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If chemical weapons and methods of genocide were being used on you and your family, you would be wondering why no nation was coming to help you.

 

Not doing anything sends the wrong message to other organizations that the UN are pushovers that won't enforce their own rules...plus the whole stand back and do nothing thing didn't work too well in the past. I'm sure victims and family's of Holocaust Death Camps and Rwandan Genocide wish a Nation would have done something sooner (or at all).

 

Turning a blind eye to civilian massacre is the worse way to advertise being "Pro Peace".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah. Can't get quotes to work still.

 

@Clay: I don't support genocide, but consider; Assad may kill some people with his chemicals, if it his him throwing them around, but how many more would we kill if we went in and started 'fixing' the situation? Basically i agree with flareback.

Reading some of the responses here, now I remember why I typically stay out of political threads on OCC.

 

We're not going "in"...no troops will be sent. The decision right now is to launch guided missiles against specific locations housing chemical weapons. Those missiles will be launched from a naval fleet that is already stationed in the Mediterranean, so no additional troops will be deployed.

 

Of course the issue now is that because Obama hesitated, reports are that Assad has been moving his chemical weapons to schools so that the US/UN will not strike. This is the problem that most Americans don't understand - we're not talking about some sane individual here, we're talking about a lunatic who is not only more than willing to gas his own people (women and children too, not just rebels), but also willing to use children as human shields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If chemical weapons and methods of genocide were being used on you and your family, you would be wondering why no nation was coming to help you.

 

Not doing anything sends the wrong message to other organizations that the UN are pushovers that won't enforce their own rules...plus the whole stand back and do nothing thing didn't work too well in the past. I'm sure victims and family's of Holocaust Death Camps and Rwandan Genocide wish a Nation would have done something sooner (or at all).

 

Turning a blind eye to civilian massacre is the worse way to advertise being "Pro Peace".

Finally someone gets it! :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...