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

I think we should build a Battlestar Galactica  :)

 

Humanity will stop our infighting once the Cylons invade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an American and someone who grew up with parents in the military, we should not go into Syria. Listen, the Middle East has been unstable since the beginning of time and it's not going to settle down any time soon. There's no need to be sticking our noses in something that not our business. There's plenty of things to do in the borders. We have national spending at an all-time high and the national debt has never been higher. We have a borderline tyranical government that is trying to impede on our rights. Illegal immigration is at an all-time high. In my opinion, America shouldn't be involved in anything that is our business. We need to stop trying to make sure the world is OK and start worrying about our own people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an American and someone who grew up with parents in the military, we should not go into Syria. Listen, the Middle East has been unstable since the beginning of time and it's not going to settle down any time soon. There's no need to be sticking our noses in something that not our business. There's plenty of things to do in the borders. We have national spending at an all-time high and the national debt has never been higher. We have a borderline tyranical government that is trying to impede on our rights. Illegal immigration is at an all-time high. In my opinion, America shouldn't be involved in anything that is our business. We need to stop trying to make sure the world is OK and start worrying about our own people.

Your smiley avatar fits this whole situation perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted no.

 

I watched Obama's speech last night.  While he tried appealing to our morals and values, his speech was relatively weak and not very persuasive.

 

That said, I do believe that we all recognize the futility of the proposal in the grand scheme of things.  Obama probably recognizes that as well, but supports the proposal because he wins politically regardless of the outcome:

 

Syria gives up chemical weapons.  Obama becomes creditted for being a diplomatic peace keeper.

Syria doesn't give up chemical weapons.  Vote in congress more likely to go through since diplomatic approach didn't work.  Obama becomes creditted for upholding international values.

 

Just my opinion.  I don't believe that this is in the US's best interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. I'm also kinda unaware about the conflict.

 

What I've seen on news (short): Goverment from Syria is attacking rebels with chemical weapons, innocent people dying. US goes and put military action, Increased conflict causing MORE innocent people dying.

 

For what I can see talking with people is like nobody like the US. I've been there (Las Vegas) and citizens are very friendly and educated. However nobody likes the goverment because IN GENERAL people see like US want to rule over the world so they gain power and get oil and resources. Again that is a general vision of what I can see talking with people. I'm not saying that's true or not.

 

My goverment is corrupt and I hate it but at another level. We don't go war because we aren't as rich as US, so I'm not saying US goverment is bad but military actions are very critiz-able (does that word exist? :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US goes and put military action, Increased conflict causing MORE innocent people dying.

 

As someone from the US, I have not heard nor read any information about the US already having a military presence in Syria.  All I've read so far is that the US's delay on attacking Syria has hurt the rebellion's chances of success, while the Syrian government continues to retaliate and attack civilians.

 

I recognize that the media does skew the truth depending on the viewpoint that would garner the most support or interest in a region (ie propaganda).  So, my question is this: What is the media saying in other countries about the US's involvement in Syria?

 

In my opinion, the issue with the US government is that many people are selfish.  We want to be taken care of without having to pay or work for it, especially today when we desire instant gratification despite knowing most things take time, effort, and/or sacrifice.  Then again, reward without effort is meaningless.

 

Right now, the United States debt is something around $17 trillion.  We're beyond broke.  Why, then, should the US spend more resources on something that has no monetary return on investment?

 

Let's say you have $500 in your pocket, which you need to pay rent, and you owe the bank $10000.  Your neighbor knocks on your door and asks if they could borrow $500 to pay off rent or they'll end up homeless.  Do you:

1) Take out another loan and give them money?

2) Ignore them?

 

Option 1 would be the morally right thing to do.  I mean, we should help out our neighbors, and $500 is a small amount compared to the $10000 you currently owe.  However, you know that you'll probably never see that $500 ever again, you're $500 further in debt, and you still can't afford to pay your own rent.  Option 2 would benefit you more, granted you still would owe a lot of money.

 

Now, instead of a neighbor, a representative from your town council knocks on your door and asks if you would like to donate $500 to help pay for necessary repairs to the local school or it would be shut down.  You have no children attending the school, so you have nothing to gain from making a donation.  Again, not giving away money would benefit you more.  However, donating the money might help the community as a whole.

 

Just trying to lay out a couple viewpoints.  Both sides have merit imo, but in this particular case, I don't believe providing military support in Syria would help anybody.  Innocent people are dying in Syria either way, whether it be by gas or by gun.  Like many countries have done in the past, I believe that Syria has to fight its own civil war, or things will take longer to resolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of curious about the "fight their own battle" aspect we keep seeing in this thread. Can someone give some examples of countries that had no outside influences during their civil war? I mean even the US had assistance from other countries, it's not something that's taught in schools but if you look it up, countries like France and Britain were involved in our civil war a little bit. Though, in fairness, our civil war could actually affect them since we border Canada.

 

On another note, still topic related, has anyone here seen the New York Times article where Putin talks about how Obama handled this whole thing? (I think that link works, if not, just google "putin new york times")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know anything about it, so I looked up foreign military intervention in the American Civil War.

 

Officially speaking, Britain took a neutral stance on the war.  There was no military intervention sanctioned by Britain.  However, many British volunteers and mercenaries (50k+) came anyway to fight.  I believe Canada was not a nation at the time, but were made up of British colonies.

 

France also officially took a neutral stance and, to my knowledge, did not offer any military intervention.  Their interests were in Mexico.

 

Russia did send two fleets to America, but from what I understand, they didn't do anything except provide a presence.  According to historians, this was actually just an excuse for Russia to house their ships in waters that wouldn't freeze during the winter in case war broke out between Russia and Britain/France.  They had no intention of actually participating in the war.

 

So yes, although there was active military intervention by foreign entities in the American Civil War, there were none officially backed by a foreign government.

 

I'm not discounting other forms of foreign involvement.  This discussion is focused on active military intervention and bringing in outside topics are outside of this discussion's scope imo.

 

I could be wrong though.  Like I said, I didn't know anything about foreign intervention in the Civil War until you mentioned it.

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Unknown-Contributions-of-Brits-in-the-American-Civil-War.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330735/Thousands-British-volunteers-gave-lives-Americas-civil-war.html

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

 

------

 

Read your link.  I have to hand it to him: Putin is an impressive writer.  While I still am hesitant on the proposal's effectiveness, I do agree with his assessment of the situation more than Obama's speech I referenced earlier.

 

Also: http://news.yahoo.com/un-convincing-evidence-syria-chemical-attack-131653691.html

Edited by Kiro

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...