• 171 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Posted by Jeust (10823 posts) 1 year, 3 months ago

Poll: Are you in favour of military intervention in Syria? (463 votes)

Yes 17%
No 58%
Show the results 25%
#1 Posted by Jeust (10823 posts) -

Please discuss at will, but be respectful to others' opinions, even if you disagree wholeheartedly with them.

#2 Posted by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

Yes.

#3 Posted by Animasta (14718 posts) -

Only if it's headed by the UN and Russia stops being a dick about it

#5 Posted by jimmy_p (278 posts) -

Time for 'murica to liberate the shit out of this country

#6 Posted by Marcsman (3262 posts) -

Nope

#7 Edited by CaLe (4040 posts) -

Yes because Assad has a worse 'stache than Hitler and looks shady to me. That and government forces most likely killed a journalist I was quite fond of. These are my reasons for being OK with war-like actions against a sovereign nation.

#8 Posted by isomeri (1389 posts) -

Assad's government can not regain control of the country, so in my eyes the two options are to let the civil war continue for another two or more years or intervene and tip the scales in the favor of the militia. So I guess I am in favor of a military intervention.

My main concern however is where all those chemical weapons are headed. The weapons are likely to be sold to the highest bidder and people who make high bids on chemical weapons are not usually "the good guys". It's scary to think how easy it would be to bring those weapons to Israel, Europe or the ISAF bases in the Middle East.

#9 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

I live on the Moon. How could this possibly affect me?

#11 Posted by Brodehouse (10107 posts) -

Not to be isolationist or ignore the incredible humanitarian crises that the Arab Spring has resulted in, but ... foreign involvement in civil wars has generally ended in a net loss for the local forces engaged in it, and a net gain for their 'allies'. And if anything, foreign involvement only exacerbates and slows the process. Like Egypt, this is not something an outpost or an occupying force can decide the result of, these are nations who are in the grips of redefining what kind of nation they want to be. And that simply does not work when it all relies on foreign peacekeeping or occupancy. I wish the people could enjoy freedom and democracy as well as the West can, but that's simply not going to happen when a majority would prefer a theocracy.

#12 Posted by alwaysbebombing (1628 posts) -

No, but it is unavoidable. As the Middle East deteriorates, investors become scared fueling a drop in the global stock markets. Oil will begin to skyrocket, slowing down both the US economic recovery as well as the EU. Russia needs to get out of it's Cold War politics and meet the rest of the UN on, well, anything. China has done well to stay silent this entire time. They can't publicly support the EU and US without harming their relations with the USSR (oops, I mean the Russian Republic.) So staying quiet is the next best option. Speaking purely from a Political Science standpoint, it is the responsibility of the US to intervene in the Middle East as we are the only ones who will lead the charge.

#14 Posted by ryanwhom (290 posts) -

Yes if only for ideological consistency, and because America is the only 1st world nation who actually uses its military. People are going to hate us for intervening or not intervening, might as well just do the right thing and let the peanut gallery and their impotent national armies bitch and moan. Everyone knows America, or Canada, UK, France, other first world nations that occasionally show up, only actually intervene when there's a vested interest however the public reason for intervention is often something else, like humanitarian aid. So people look kind of silly helping Libya while espousing humanitarian virtues but ignore Syria because there's no strategic value in the aid. If the story you go with is humanitarian aid, and you drew a red line in the sand that you only drew because you never thought it would be crossed (chemical weapons), and then its crossed. Yeah you should probably do something so you don't look like a complete hypocrite.

#15 Edited by pureguava (70 posts) -

My interpretation of the constitution and the war powers:

You go to war if the safety of your citizens or your ability to protect yourself is at stake - and when you do, you go to congress with your clear and concise case in hand, and let them vote on it after consulting with their constituents.

I am all for sending humanitarian aid as long as it gets into the hands of the oppressed, but it is not the job of the United States nor is the power given to our government to "police" the world of wrongdoing, nor is it our job to help build other nations. These reasons do not justify sending our sons and daughters to die.

#16 Posted by alwaysbebombing (1628 posts) -

@cale said:

Yes because Assad has a worse 'stache than Hitler and looks shady to me. That and government forces most likely killed a journalist I was quite fond of. These are my reasons for being OK with war-like actions against a sovereign nation.

His face is too tiny for him to be anything but a bad guy.

#17 Posted by JasonR86 (9763 posts) -

Not by the US. We can't afford it. But we've talked ourselves into a corner so if we don't we'll look weak. It would have been great if we would have shut the fuck up but I guess that wasn't in the cards.

#18 Posted by ryanwhom (290 posts) -

@pureguava: The problem with that ideology is it prevented America from entering WW2 until we were attacked at the harbor. Had we entered sooner it might have been different. You cant quantify hypotheticals obviously but ignoring a tornado until it hits your back yard is kind of irresponsible. Not as a member of any specific nation, but as a member of the human race. I don't put 1 American soldier's life above 100 Syrian children, and people who do perplex me.

#19 Edited by Ekpyroticuniverse (144 posts) -

This is too complex for me to be able to make a clear decision. On one hand bombing a country in civil war sounds like a dumb-ass idea on the other the current government needs to be removed. But the rebels are not much better so do we allow them to take over and why is it our decision to make. Do we let the UN sort it when they have proven to be ineffective in the past, do we let the USA and UK who did a shit jobs in both Iraq and Iran and have a terrible track record when it comes to this sort of thing. Gahhh see too complex

#20 Edited by AngriGhandi (787 posts) -

If it were purely a humanitarian issue - which it originally was - my answer would still be yes, but I would be willing to understand why people would disagree.

But the fact of the matter today is that, as the war has worsened, the legitimate rebel factions have also been joined by competing fundamentalist factions aligned with terrorism, who see the Syrian power vacuum as an opportunity to take control, and establish a new regime willing to shelter and support their activities. Essentially, to create another country like Afghanistan was fifteen years ago.

They were not involved when the conflict began-- but over the past two years, while we waited to see what would happen, they have become involved, and now have a very good chance of being the ones who ultimately control the country. (So, good move on our part, clearly.)

Which faction will be the ones who finally take control is basically a dice roll-- which is unacceptable to us from a security perspective. This means, if we have any foresight whatsoever, we will probably need to get involved in some capacity-- even if it's just precision strikes-- to make sure the right rebels win. So we might as well do it now, before the extremist faction gets any stronger.

It's the prudent course of action.

#21 Edited by Fredchuckdave (6011 posts) -

This seems to be a case where both sides like to murder each other, even though one of them is more efficient at the murdering it doesn't justify intervention. Now if the UN wanted to go in with a coalition and do something (a tad laughable I suppose considering Rwanda) that could miraculously work; but US participation is only going to benefit a handful of people in the US and a few exploitative businessmen in the middle east; it isn't going to do shit for Syrians. Don't care if US soldiers die since they'll kill hundreds of thousands of civilians without a peep, US resources and international standing would further decline which would definitely be a good thing for the rest of the world. For the sake of stupidity and atrocious foreign policy I'm all for it. Assad is tall though, so that would be a blow to tall people epeen worldwide if he got removed and/or murdered.

Long story short: send in Joel and Ellie to Assad's stronghold and they'll murder anyone and everyone there but the murder will probably not spread outside of that area.

#22 Posted by LethalKi11ler (1420 posts) -

Yes as long as it's not the USA.

Online
#23 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2287 posts) -

No and thankfully my country will not be getting involved with this.

#24 Edited by Aetheldod (3682 posts) -

No .... Syria should fix its own problems and the least the west needs is another Yugoslavia.

#25 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -

Not to be isolationist or ignore the incredible humanitarian crises that the Arab Spring has resulted in, but ... foreign involvement in civil wars has generally ended in a net loss for the local forces engaged in it, and a net gain for their 'allies'. And if anything, foreign involvement only exacerbates and slows the process. Like Egypt, this is not something an outpost or an occupying force can decide the result of, these are nations who are in the grips of redefining what kind of nation they want to be. And that simply does not work when it all relies on foreign peacekeeping or occupancy. I wish the people could enjoy freedom and democracy as well as the West can, but that's simply not going to happen when a majority would prefer a theocracy.

This is well said. So far, the interventions in the region over the last few years has done little more than create power vacuums.

I'm absolutely in favor of humanitarian aid, but I don't want military intervention.

#26 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

I'm an imperialist at heart. I won't be happy until the whole world is under one banner. Fucking tribalism and nationalism has to be stamped out. The question remains, whose empire to join? The Imperium of Man - is that a thing in the real world?

btw. that's a resounding yes. It's the only responsible thing to do. The most responsible thing to do is, to conquer and unite the world of course.

#27 Posted by Demoskinos (15111 posts) -

Lets bomb it and turn it into a strip mall with a sweet ass parking lot.

#28 Edited by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

Please no

#29 Edited by Legion_ (1496 posts) -

I think it's naive to expect that situation to get solved on it's own accord. The free nations of the west can't stand idle and watch while Syria commit attrocious crimes on it's own people. Something has to be done, that's for sure, but I'm not sure if a military intervention has to be the right thing. Worst case scenario we're looking at a new Iraq-situation. Still, if nations around the world decide to intervine, I'll be shipping out next year.

#30 Edited by spraynardtatum (3523 posts) -

The US needs to mind our own beeswax until we start getting this national debt under control.

We don't need any more wars.

but what is happening over there is horrible.

#31 Posted by Random45 (1267 posts) -

It's not our damn problem, we need to stay out off it. Yes it's sad that people are dying, and it's appalling that they're using chemical warfare, but honestly, I have no desire to see the United States get involved in yet ANOTHER war.

#32 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3239 posts) -

No. Then America, after saving it, would make the country its bitch and desire payback for all eternity. We're imperialistic, and we should stop being so.

#33 Edited by Random45 (1267 posts) -

It's not our damn problem, we need to stay out off it. Yes it's sad that people are dying, and it's appalling that they're using chemical warfare, but honestly, I have no desire to see the United States get involved in yet ANOTHER war.

#35 Posted by bybeach (4978 posts) -

Yes but that is very reluctant. I have no faith in either sides going to their extremes no matter what we do. In fact it is virtually guarantied Having been duped into an earlier involvement demonstrated that. The US should not be playing World police, but there is something turning into horror there.

F...ing ugly World, partially why I take refuge here from the net. But not too far, I need to get Google spellcheck back.

#36 Posted by NegativeCero (3026 posts) -

Personally I say no. But that's only because I'm cynical about what happens if Assad is successfully driven from power. I just don't have faith that the rebels, who will presumably take power, aren't potentially as bad. If we do get involved I hope I'm wrong.

#37 Posted by maskedarcstrike (701 posts) -

The US needs to mind our own beeswax until we start getting this national debt under control.

We don't need any more wars.

but what is happening over there is horrible.

Agreed, we're fucking broke yo.

#38 Posted by Toxin066 (3321 posts) -

They'll bad mouth the shit out of us. Then we'll elongate the wars to the point where we can leave and make us look like the good guys. We'll go into a budget crisis. Our national defense will be cutdown to the point where it risks becoming a hollow military. But they'll still hate us. And all the countries in civil war will cry out "Save us" and America will whisper, "No."

#39 Edited by myketuna (1737 posts) -

@toxin066 said:

They'll bad mouth the shit out of us. Then we'll elongate the wars to the point where we can leave and make us look like the good guys. We'll go into a budget crisis. Our national defense will be cutdown to the point where it risks becoming a hollow military. But they'll still hate us. And all the countries in civil war will cry out "Save us" and America will whisper, "No."

I like what you did there.

Honestly though, I can see why military intervention would seem like a good option, but I think the other recent wars that the US is involved in may have fucked it all up. I wonder if more of the US would be a bit more open to it if we didn't go "all in" on Iraq and Afghanistan.

That said, I voted no military intervention. I don't think we can afford it. And knowing people that serve with my dad who go do many tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think they could do the same thing in yet another country. It's probably not healthy.

#40 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1859 posts) -

Not exactly the website I come to for politics, but it doesn't seem like the public supports intervention. Neither do I.

#41 Edited by mlarrabee (3031 posts) -

I think my country, the United States, shouldn't intervene. We've tangled with enough of the world, and between our few politicians interested in empire-building and most of the world's belief that all of them are interested in empire-building, stepping forward would only damage all involved.

But I trust the reports of Doctors Without Borders and I think 3600 neurotoxin patients with 355 fatalities show that PM Cameron's "contingency plan" needs to be implemented rather soon. Restraint is one thing; isolationism is quite another.

EDIT: So, yes, but not as most people in this thread seem to have taken it, and possibly not as you intended it.

#42 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5903 posts) -

#43 Posted by Stonyman65 (2823 posts) -

It's a really bad idea. The more I hear about the whole thing the more I think back to the beginning of the second Iraq war. Also, from most accounts it looks like the rebels we are supporting are just as bad, if not worse than the government forces they are fighting against. Add to that Russia, China, and Iran drawing a line in the sand threatening a nuclear war if the UN and US intervenes..... It's bad news all around. And then of course there is the whole US and global economy thing to worry about as well. The last thing anyone needs right now is another trillion dollar war.

But it's not surprising. If you've been paying attention to the .gov folks, the US government has had Syria and Iran on the top of the To Do List even before 9/11 happened. Now they actually have an excuse to do something.

#44 Posted by maskedarcstrike (701 posts) -

@stonyman65: I've always been more worried about occupying Iran. It's four times the size of Iraq and has twice the population. An occupation would be a logistical nightmare. I don't think we even have enough troops to have an effective long term occupation there.

That's just the tip of the iceberg for potential problems.

#45 Edited by Stonyman65 (2823 posts) -

@isomeri said:

Assad's government can not regain control of the country, so in my eyes the two options are to let the civil war continue for another two or more years or intervene and tip the scales in the favor of the militia. So I guess I am in favor of a military intervention.

My main concern however is where all those chemical weapons are headed. The weapons are likely to be sold to the highest bidder and people who make high bids on chemical weapons are not usually "the good guys". It's scary to think how easy it would be to bring those weapons to Israel, Europe or the ISAF bases in the Middle East.

If you think chemical weapons are scary, wait until you hear about the 50 lost nukes that Air Force "misplaced" in 2008, and another 8 or so that got lost during the Cold War.

Yeah, so there are about 60 nukes somewhere unaccounted for and written off as lost. And that's not even counting all the ones Russia lost over the years, too.

Now that's some scary shit.

#46 Edited by Turambar (6849 posts) -

Given the sort of rhetoric coming out of other countries as well, those that voiced against specifically US military intervention in Syria, what would be your stance on a British or French led offensive?

#47 Posted by pyrodactyl (2285 posts) -

@animasta said:

Only if it's headed by the UN and Russia stops being a dick about it

Russia will not stop being a dick about it. Their gouvernment much rather have a dictator and a war criminal at the head of the country as long as he's an ally.

#48 Posted by Turambar (6849 posts) -

But it's not surprising. If you've been paying attention to the .gov folks, the US government has had Syria and Iran on the top of the To Do List even before 9/11 happened. Now they actually have an excuse to do something.

Of course, the situation is always more complicated than given credit for. Relationships have always been strained what with accusations of financial and military links between the Syrian government, Hamas, and Hezbollah. However, given that Syria has been a political and military ally towards the US for both Iraq wars as well as an intelligence source following 9/11, categorizing it on the same level as the antagonism between the US and Iran is a rather large misstep.

#49 Posted by Stonyman65 (2823 posts) -

@stonyman65: I've always been more worried about occupying Iran. It's four times the size of Iraq and has twice the population. An occupation would be a logistical nightmare. I don't think we even have enough troops to have an effective long term occupation there.

That's just the tip of the iceberg for potential problems.

Exactly. I mean, hell, we barely had enough troops for Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of military contractors (Blackwater, Triple Canopy etc...) were brought it to fill the gap, and there are still hundreds of them out there today. The government said the Iraq war ended and our troops went home? Yeah, our troops left but they were replaced by a few hundred contractors to do the exact same thing.

If we start shit with Iran it will be World War 3.

#50 Posted by PandaBear (1379 posts) -

@animasta said:

Only if it's headed by the UN and Russia stops being a dick about it

Russia will not stop being a dick about it. Their gouvernment much rather have a dictator and a war criminal at the head of the country as long as he's an ally.

Unlike the American government who has never supported a dictatorship for power/financial gain...

....oops....

Don't worry ... 99% of the world's governments hands are covered in blood.