Posted by judasnixon (6403 posts) 11 months, 20 days ago

Poll: Should we intervene in Syria? (134 votes)

Yes 19%
No 80%
#1 Posted by Bruxae (13120 posts) - - Show Bio

No, the US have done enough. Time to rest now.

#2 Posted by Aiden Cross (15562 posts) - - Show Bio

No. Though humanitarian help is a different story.

I do believe there should be a stricter control on weapon supplies to Syria.

#3 Posted by judasnixon (6403 posts) - - Show Bio

I have no clue what we should do about Syria......

Online
#4 Edited by INLIFE (1600 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, the people there would still hate the U.S no matter how much they help them.

So...yeah. That means no.

#5 Posted by Durakken (1593 posts) - - Show Bio

It depends on the goals of the US. In pure moralistic sense I say let them kill each other, but the events that are happening may have much more broad implications to them and if what the videos I'm posting are true, then I certainly think that the US should act as a failure to act could set off a chain of events that would lead to the biggest economic depression the US and perhaps the world has ever seen OR a Nuclear 3rd World War...This being the case. The moral thing might be to attack and interfere... and to some degree, more right thing to do in the eyes of many of us should be to attack.

The first is someone that is fairly eccentric so I don't completely trust his opinion, but it does seem to be supported by other videos I've seen. The second is Howard Bloom who is eccentric, but has a good view on things usually.

#6 Posted by DoomDoomDoom (4226 posts) - - Show Bio

I have no clue what we should do about Syria......

#7 Edited by laflux (14997 posts) - - Show Bio

Well the U.K are not, so if they do, they are going to have to look for a faithful puppy bulldog elsewhere.

#8 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32993 posts) - - Show Bio

What's the point of having international laws if nobody is going to enforce them?

#9 Posted by Pyrogram (36304 posts) - - Show Bio

What's the point of having international laws if nobody is going to enforce them?

We don't have true international laws. We have treaties and constitutions. You can disagree with them anytime you like.

#10 Edited by Edamame (28062 posts) - - Show Bio
#11 Posted by Crimson_Vigilante (488 posts) - - Show Bio

1. No. the U.S. is spending millions on wars we never needed to be a part of. That means WE have to take it in the ass form taxes

2. I'm really not sure how good thread like this are for comic vine......

#12 Edited by _Zombie_ (10379 posts) - - Show Bio

Hell fcking no. We'd have a multi-nation disaster on our hands in no time.

@laflux said:

Well the U.K are not, so if they do, they are going to have to look for a faithful puppy bulldog elsewhere.

Pretty sure France said they'd back the U.S. up, unfortunately.

#13 Edited by _Zombie_ (10379 posts) - - Show Bio
#14 Edited by silkyballfro94 (1634 posts) - - Show Bio

Does America need to be at war all the time? Why don't they send their kids to the frontline and then maybe they could ask. Let us please have peace for at least a couple of years!

Online
#15 Posted by PowerHerc (82612 posts) - - Show Bio

If the U.S. government is telling the truth about the Syrian government gassing their own citizens, then we probably should.

The fact is we might not have the capability to do so effectively due to the massive over-stretching of our military in one unnecessary war (Iraq) and another simultaneous war that has been run in a half-assed manner (Afganistan). The cost of engaging Syria might be more than can be mustered or paid by the U.S. military, people and economy. This is the price of folly.

#16 Posted by silkyballfro94 (1634 posts) - - Show Bio

@powerherc: I think if it is all true and stuff, then the UN should handle it not America.

Online
#17 Posted by Mercy_ (92674 posts) - - Show Bio

No.

Moderator
#18 Posted by INLIFE (1600 posts) - - Show Bio

@powerherc: I think if it is all true and stuff, then the UN should handle it not America.

Actually there are reports that both sides use chemical weapons. There are also terrible stories about the actions of the rebels (cannibalism, executions based on radical Islamic law, etc.). The real Syrians are leaving the country and going south to other nations such as Jordan.

Honestly, the UN can't do $h!t when it comes to such conflicts. They always appear after though.

#19 Edited by Jonny_Anonymous (32993 posts) - - Show Bio

@silkyballfro94: the UN are a peace keeping force, they are not aloud to handle things

#20 Posted by Durakken (1593 posts) - - Show Bio

If the U.S. government is telling the truth about the Syrian government gassing their own citizens, then we probably should.

The fact is we might not have the capability to do so effectively due to the massive over-stretching of our military in one unnecessary war (Iraq) and another simultaneous war that has been run in a half-assed manner (Afganistan). The cost of engaging Syria might be more than can be mustered or paid by the U.S. military, people and economy. This is the price of folly.

As Howard Bloom points out... the gas attack did happen. However, we don't know who is responsible for the attack and the US has not shown who has done it, but has declared that the Syrian government did it.

#21 Posted by silkyballfro94 (1634 posts) - - Show Bio
Online
#22 Posted by PowerHerc (82612 posts) - - Show Bio

@powerherc: I think if it is all true and stuff, then the UN should handle it not America.

Sounds good but when it comes to military intervention every time the U.N. intervenes it's, for all practical purposes, really the U.S. military that does the job. Besides, Russia is using it's veto to keep the U.N. from getting involved anyway.

#23 Posted by PowerHerc (82612 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:
@powerherc said:

If the U.S. government is telling the truth about the Syrian government gassing their own citizens, then we probably should.

The fact is we might not have the capability to do so effectively due to the massive over-stretching of our military in one unnecessary war (Iraq) and another simultaneous war that has been run in a half-assed manner (Afganistan). The cost of engaging Syria might be more than can be mustered or paid by the U.S. military, people and economy. This is the price of folly.

As Howard Bloom points out... the gas attack did happen. However, we don't know who is responsible for the attack and the US has not shown who has done it, but has declared that the Syrian government did it.

Exactly. The U.S. has said who is responsible but has not proven it. Given it's track record, I don't think anyone should automatically trust the U.S. government.

#24 Posted by Durakken (1593 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonny_anonymous: Oh yeah, in that case no one or NATO forces.

Why would the North Atlantic Trade Organization do anything to an Asian State that only touches the Mediterranean Ocean?

#25 Edited by silkyballfro94 (1634 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken: I don't know jeez, just throwing out some suggestions brah

Online
#26 Edited by Jonny_Anonymous (32993 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:

@silkyballfro94 said:

@jonny_anonymous: Oh yeah, in that case no one or NATO forces.

Why would the North Atlantic Trade Organization do anything to an Asian State that only touches the Mediterranean Ocean?

Because it's not cool to watch over a thousand pepole choke to death on tv while sitting around eating dinner?

#27 Posted by INLIFE (1600 posts) - - Show Bio

If only we had S.H.I.E.L.D.

#28 Edited by Supreme_Chancellor (99 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:

@silkyballfro94 said:

@jonny_anonymous: Oh yeah, in that case no one or NATO forces.

Why would the North Atlantic Trade Organization do anything to an Asian State that only touches the Mediterranean Ocean?

Because it's not cool to watch over a thousand pepole choke to death on tv while sitting around eating dinner?

They have the Arab League. NATO has nothing to do with the Arab world. It should not have anything to do with them.

#29 Posted by SavageDragon (2248 posts) - - Show Bio

I really dont know.

#30 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32993 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonny_anonymous said:

@durakken said:

@silkyballfro94 said:

@jonny_anonymous: Oh yeah, in that case no one or NATO forces.

Why would the North Atlantic Trade Organization do anything to an Asian State that only touches the Mediterranean Ocean?

Because it's not cool to watch over a thousand pepole choke to death on tv while sitting around eating dinner?

They have the Arab League. NATO has nothing to do with the Arab world. It should not have anything to do with them.

that really doesn't make it right

#31 Posted by MrDirector786 (43490 posts) - - Show Bio

#32 Posted by Dabee (2383 posts) - - Show Bio

They're gassing innocent kids. It's no different to those affected than if it was happening here. To be against it just shows ignorance towards what's really going on down there, or sadism.

#33 Posted by Durakken (1593 posts) - - Show Bio

@supreme_chancellor said:

@jonny_anonymous said:

@durakken said:

@silkyballfro94 said:

@jonny_anonymous: Oh yeah, in that case no one or NATO forces.

Why would the North Atlantic Trade Organization do anything to an Asian State that only touches the Mediterranean Ocean?

Because it's not cool to watch over a thousand pepole choke to death on tv while sitting around eating dinner?

They have the Arab League. NATO has nothing to do with the Arab world. It should not have anything to do with them.

that really doesn't make it right

oops NATO is Treaty not Trade. That makes more sense...

#34 Posted by Kratesis (4266 posts) - - Show Bio

We should not intervene militarily. Instead intervention should come in the form of arms and supplies to specific rebel groups.

#35 Posted by Supreme_Chancellor (99 posts) - - Show Bio

@dabee said:

They're gassing innocent kids. It's no different to those affected than if it was happening here. To be against it just shows ignorance towards what's really going on down there, or sadism.

Why don't we stop every tyrant inside of Africa doing the same on a daily basis?

You cannot. And SHOULD NOT police the world.

#36 Edited by Kratesis (4266 posts) - - Show Bio

@supreme_chancellor: We can, and we should, accept some policing duties as necessary to protect our interests and the interests of our allies.

#37 Posted by Supreme_Chancellor (99 posts) - - Show Bio

@kratesis: I don't think you can. Conflicts of interest will always arise. Policing the world aka military presence whenever something goes wrong won't ever turn out well.

#38 Posted by Kratesis (4266 posts) - - Show Bio

@supreme_chancellor: Of course we can, and of course we do. Conflicts of interests are part of the game and they always have been.

The most dominate navy in the history of the world keeps the majority of our trade safe and provides a security umbrella for the rest of the world to operate in. The occasional intervention when it is our interests is the only real choice. To withdraw into the old policy of isolationism would be short sighted and foolish.

#39 Edited by Supreme_Chancellor (99 posts) - - Show Bio

@kratesis: Ah that's true kinda.

The British Empire thrived in isolationism...with the best Navy the world had ever known :P

#40 Posted by Kratesis (4266 posts) - - Show Bio
#41 Posted by Supreme_Chancellor (99 posts) - - Show Bio
#42 Edited by Kratesis (4266 posts) - - Show Bio

@supreme_chancellor: That is NOT isolationism. It was only a policy of avoiding entanglement in European alliances. The eurocentrism of the time lead to its label, but it was hardly an isolationist policy.

#43 Posted by Supreme_Chancellor (99 posts) - - Show Bio

@kratesis: They got involved in virtually nothing within the EU. It is, and that's how it's taught in UK schools...the time of isolation. People want to go back to that now, and have a referendum to leave the EU properly. You can't dispute history lol Or maybe all of the qualified historians are wrong.

#44 Posted by Kratesis (4266 posts) - - Show Bio

@supreme_chancellor: And the EU is not the world lol. Avoiding alliances with Europe while entangling themselves in Canada, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Australia, India, ect ect ect.. that isn't isolationist, just avoidance of MILITARY entanglements in ONE volatile region.

#45 Edited by Supreme_Chancellor (99 posts) - - Show Bio

@kratesis: I cannot deny that. It's true true. Britain isolated themselves at home but stole everything abroad! I wonder if that kinda of ideology would work now or lead to a downfall..hmm.

#46 Posted by Kratesis (4266 posts) - - Show Bio

@supreme_chancellor: It would probably work pretty well. Nothing has changed. There are still a small number of countries with advanced technology and there are still weaker countries with large amounts of natural resources.

#47 Edited by Supreme_Chancellor (99 posts) - - Show Bio

@kratesis: Probably. Trade would probably lessen, but third world countries would probably be used greatly to western benefit I imagine.

#48 Posted by Kratesis (4266 posts) - - Show Bio

@supreme_chancellor: Well perhaps. If say, the US seized Saudi Arabia's oil the Saudi's wouldn't be trading it, but we would. Only the countries that had the right resources would be disturbed. Oil would be a big one.

#49 Posted by Blood_Red_Rage (508 posts) - - Show Bio

We as in the USA? No we shouldn't. We have no place in their quarrels really.

#50 Posted by Batman242 (4860 posts) - - Show Bio

Define "we".