Should we intervene in Syria?

Avatar image for judasnixon
judasnixon

12811

Forum Posts

699

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Poll Should we intervene in Syria? (134 votes)

Yes 19%
No 80%
 • 
Avatar image for bruxae
Bruxae

18147

Forum Posts

11098

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

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

Avatar image for aiden_cross
Aiden Cross

15726

Forum Posts

19758

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 5

No. Though humanitarian help is a different story.

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

Avatar image for judasnixon
judasnixon

12811

Forum Posts

699

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

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

Avatar image for inlife
INLIFE

1614

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#4  Edited By INLIFE

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

So...yeah. That means no.

Avatar image for durakken
Durakken

1930

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 200

User Lists: 1

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.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for doom_doom_doom
DoomDoomDoom

4405

Forum Posts

33212

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 10

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

Avatar image for laflux
laflux

25242

Forum Posts

2367

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#7  Edited By laflux

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

Avatar image for jonny_anonymous
Jonny_Anonymous

45773

Forum Posts

11109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 32

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

Avatar image for pyrogram
Pyrogram

46168

Forum Posts

13113

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 1

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.

Avatar image for crimson_vigilante
Crimson_Vigilante

874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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......

Avatar image for _zombie_
_Zombie_

10572

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#12  Edited By _Zombie_

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.

Avatar image for _zombie_
_Zombie_

10572

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#13  Edited By _Zombie_
Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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!

Avatar image for powerherc
PowerHerc

86191

Forum Posts

211478

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

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.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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

Avatar image for mercy_
Mercy_

94955

Forum Posts

83653

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 15

No.

Avatar image for inlife
INLIFE

1614

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@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.

Avatar image for jonny_anonymous
Jonny_Anonymous

45773

Forum Posts

11109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 32

#19  Edited By Jonny_Anonymous

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

Avatar image for durakken
Durakken

1930

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 200

User Lists: 1

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.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for powerherc
PowerHerc

86191

Forum Posts

211478

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

@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.

Avatar image for powerherc
PowerHerc

86191

Forum Posts

211478

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

@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.

Avatar image for durakken
Durakken

1930

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 200

User Lists: 1

@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?

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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

Avatar image for jonny_anonymous
Jonny_Anonymous

45773

Forum Posts

11109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 32

#26  Edited By Jonny_Anonymous

@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?

Avatar image for inlife
INLIFE

1614

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

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

Avatar image for supreme_chancellor
Supreme_Chancellor

1278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@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.

Avatar image for savagedragon
SavageDragon

2257

Forum Posts

200

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

I really dont know.

Avatar image for jonny_anonymous
Jonny_Anonymous

45773

Forum Posts

11109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 32

@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

Avatar image for mrdirector786
MrDirector786

44708

Forum Posts

23241

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 4

Loading Video...

Avatar image for dabee
Dabee

2421

Forum Posts

306

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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.

Avatar image for durakken
Durakken

1930

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 200

User Lists: 1

@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...

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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

Avatar image for supreme_chancellor
Supreme_Chancellor

1278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@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.

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By Kratesis

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

Avatar image for supreme_chancellor
Supreme_Chancellor

1278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@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.

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@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.

Avatar image for supreme_chancellor
Supreme_Chancellor

1278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@kratesis: Ah that's true kinda.

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

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for supreme_chancellor
Supreme_Chancellor

1278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By Kratesis

@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.

Avatar image for supreme_chancellor
Supreme_Chancellor

1278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@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.

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@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.

Avatar image for supreme_chancellor
Supreme_Chancellor

1278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@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.

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@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.

Avatar image for supreme_chancellor
Supreme_Chancellor

1278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@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.

Avatar image for blood_red_rage
Blood_Red_Rage

513

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

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

Avatar image for methoki
MethoKi

12605

Forum Posts

14

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Define "we".