Should the United States intervene in Syria

[Kemalist]

there's no reason for Syria to attack Turkey.

I wouldn't find it odd if they attacked us, at least the areas we are feeding those terrorist plunderers. But still, I don't think Syria would do that because Assad stated many times that he was aware of the fact that the majority of Turkish people do not approve the stance of the government and there is a great public reaction to that, so he would not want to risk losing his credibility amongst the people which is a great opportunity for him to use it as a triumph card against Erdogan.

[L Ron Cupboard]

There is nothing more honorable than dying for liberty.

Do people actually believe that kind of twaddle?

[Vecherd]

I do not believe it would do any good for Syria and would also cost the U.S a lot of money that they should waste at home.

[South Aztlan]

No, because it is none of their business, all they do is steal there oil. The Organization that should really intervene is the UN's Peace Corps, A.K.A. "The Blue Helmets"

[Socialist Republic of Andrew]

I live in the US, i love the US, but i feel as if the Syrian civil war and other Syrian affairs do not concern the US in anyway possible, unless they're actually harming or affecting US allies or the US itself.

[Zigania (Ancient)]

The question should be:

"Should NATO keep intervening in Syria?"

My answer is no. I don't think Bashar al-Qalb is a very nice person, but the alternative is much worse. Also, you can't impose democracy on a predominantely islamic country, that would be fatal to the religious minorities (who were actually there first, before islam and arabization) since islam is both a manic religion and a violent political ideology.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Then By all means, be the first to take up arms "For the West" and be the first boots on the ground in Syria, ill be right behind you.

Alright, let me use that logic. If you want to pay for other people's healthcare and welfare, feel free to start yourself. I'll be right behind you.

Oh if i could i would pay for everyone's welfare and healthcare i would, along with everything else. But i cant, because i am not in the government, nor possess a massive financial reserve,so i am, unfortunately, not able to do this, and i know that even if i could, and did do this, you wouldn't. Because you cant stand the sight of losing money.

But you are perfectly able of taking a weapon, going to Syria, and fighting, if you can sit there and drone on and on about this so called Honorable cause and why we "The West" as you put it, should intervene, and see our brothers and sisters die on a battlefield. Then, you should be one of the first to do so, you go and fight on some forgotten plain of Syria with a rifle in your hands. Go and fight for this liberty, justice and peace you so love.

[Varijnland]

NO

[Hollorous]

So honorable./

Oh dear, terrorists, murderers and islamofascist scum are not being treated well ;___;

You'd rather have Saddam in charge?

Because all those people locked away were so obviously and definitively proven guilty of something.

[Hippostania]

Do people actually believe that kind of twaddle?

I am still not sure if you just live in a fantasy world devised in your own mind, or if you secretly hate the United States and are using immensely subtle sarcasm to make fun of ignorantly fanatical pro-American peoples.

The freedom you're enjoying right now was enabled by the existence of the United States. United States was the first nation that was founded on the principles of the age of enlightement. United States saved Europe thrice, in WWI, WWII and the Cold War. Every time you say your opinion, you owe it to America. Get rid of that pessimism and have some respect.

[Herrebrugh]

The US should definitely stay out of Syria, for the simple reason that Syria is not part of the States, and therefore is none of their responsibility.

[SD_Film Artists]

Eew, the amount of extremest hyperbole in this thread is distasteful.

[Hippostania]

Oh if i could i would pay for everyone's welfare and healthcare i would, along with everything else. But i cant, because i am not in the government, nor possess a massive financial reserve,so i am, unfortunately, not able to do this, and i know that even if i could, and did do this, you wouldn't. Because you cant stand the sight of losing money.

But you are perfectly able of taking a weapon, going to Syria, and fighting, if you can sit there and drone on and on about this so called Honorable cause and why we "The West" as you put it, should intervene, and see our brothers and sisters die on a battlefield. Then, you should be one of the first to do so, you go and fight on some forgotten plain of Syria with a rifle in your hands. Go and fight for this liberty, justice and peace you so love.

You could sell your computer, your house and everything you own. But you won't. I'm not going to Syria either.

But motivated, loyal and unbeatable soldiers of the United States Armed Forces who voluntarily enlisted will be more than happy to liberate the people of Syria.

[SD_Film Artists]

there's no reason for Syria to attack Turkey.

I wouldn't find it odd if they attacked us, at least the areas we are feeding those terrorist plunderers. But still, I don't think Syria would do that because Assad stated many times that he was aware of the fact that the majority of Turkish people do not approve the stance of the government and there is a great public reaction to that, so he would not want to risk losing his credibility amongst the people which is a great opportunity for him to use it as a triumph card against Erdogan.

Or because Assad can't afford a war with Turkey?

[Nua Corda]

Eh... not really.

They were civilians, not soldiers; they were murdered, many of them by US troops. And honor is a steaming load of horse dung, it means nothing.

That war was a travesty of ignorance, aggression and greed; we should have left bloody well alone. Saddam would have died soon enough, and his sons were rapidly self-destructing. An internal revolution was inevitable, and would have produce the same result with a far lower death toll.

Yes. There is nothing more honorable than dying for liberty. Civilian casualties happen, they're unfortunate but unavoidable. But those who died are heros; they made the ultimate sacrifice so Iraq could be free. And sorry, honor does mean something.

That war was a war of liberation and democracy. It could be compared to the emancipation of slaves; Iraqis who had been slaves under Saddam were liberated from the shackles of tyranny. It was the duty of the United States of America as the greatest nation on Earth to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq. Freedom doesn't need clocks.

But they didn't "die for liberty". They were killed by your "greatest nation on earth".

Prove that honor means something. Prove that there is a consistent, objective reason for using "honor" as a calculus.

If the liberation of slaves was accomplished by carpet-bombing slaves and confederates alike, then killing and raping the slaves and torturing southern whites who had nothing to do with the war, and if it ultimately did nothing to actually liberate slaves, then sure, maybe you can compare them.

So honorable./

Oh dear, terrorists, murderers and islamofascist scum are not being treated well ;___;

You'd rather have Saddam in charge?

All Middle-Eastern people are now automatically terrorists, murderers and islamofascist scum? "K, all Conservatives are now automatically facist, racist, homophobic inbred bucktoothed developmental disabled hicks. See the fallacy here?

[Al-Faisal]

So honorable./

Oh dear, terrorists, murderers and islamofascist scum are not being treated well ;___;

Is that all you can do? Spew ignorance and excuses to rationalize abuse and murder?

You'd rather have Saddam in charge?

I'd rather hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians had not been murdered by the US and its "liberation" over a pile of blatant lies by said US government. But I suppose every children blown apart or burned to death was a terrorist, murderer, and islamofascist.

[Paixao]

I've been thinking about organizing a PMC to go blat-blat on some Syrian dictator hide, but that costs too much money.

You could go join the ex-Libyan rebels that now work as as freedom fighters/mercs for the Syrian Rebels?

[Al-Faisal]

There is nothing more honorable than dying for liberty.

Do people actually believe that kind of twaddle?

Only the ones who will not be doing the fighting or dying, like Hippostania.

[Terraveritas]

There is no winning in this situation for the USA. None. Zero payoff.

My opinion is that the USA should stay out of all foreign affairs from now on. We should protect our borders, and spend our money educating our people. The gravy days are over in the USA, so it is high time we stop spending our money like drunken sailors on shore leave.

Best wishes to the Syrian civilians, and to the Palestinian civilians, and the Israeli government, and to all the rest of the world that supposedly needs our money... ooops, I mean help.

[Al-Faisal]

Then By all means, be the first to take up arms "For the West" and be the first boots on the ground in Syria, ill be right behind you.

Alright, let me use that logic. If you want to pay for other people's healthcare and welfare, feel free to start yourself. I'll be right behind you.

Changing the topic since your opinion is ignorant? We'll give this one to Huskar Social Union.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Do people actually believe that kind of twaddle?

The freedom you're enjoying right now was enabled by the existence of the United States. United States was the first nation that was founded on the principles of the age of enlightement. United States saved Europe thrice, in WWI, WWII and the Cold War. Every time you say your opinion, you owe it to America. Get rid of that pessimism and have some respect.

I am glad to hear you respect Stalin for his role in defeating the Nazis.

[Hippostania]

But they didn't "die for liberty". They were killed by your "greatest nation on earth".

Civilian casualties are unfortunate but they are unavoidable. You can't wage war without killing some civilians. These people gave their lives so their countrymen could be free.

Prove that honor means something. Prove that there is a consistent, objective reason for using "honor" as a calculus.

Oh god, not this anti-realist bullshit again.. Honor means that you've made a great sacrifice for something good. Like dying for liberty.

If the liberation of slaves was accomplished by carpet-bombing slaves and confederates alike, then killing and raping the slaves and torturing southern whites who had nothing to do with the war, and if it ultimately did nothing to actually liberate slaves, then sure, maybe you can compare them.

Yes, all American soldiers killed and raped Iraqis. Your blatant hypocrisy and anti-Americanism is showing.

All Middle-Eastern people are now automatically terrorists, murderers and islamofascist scum? "K, all Conservatives are now automatically facist, racist, homophobic inbred bucktoothed developmental disabled hicks. See the fallacy here?

Of course not, but the people in that prison are.

[Corporate Councils]

No, because it is none of their business, all they do is steal there oil. The Organization that should really intervene is the UN's Peace Corps, A.K.A. "The Blue Helmets"

Yes, we're only interested in Syria's oil because the US totally has way less oil than Syria /sarcasm.

If we wanted Syria's oil, we probably could have just purchased it, just like all of our allies were doing before the Arab Spring.



Also the Blue Helmets have such a stellar track record of preventing mass killings. Like that time in Srebrenica where they bravely watched Serbian military and paramilitary forces murder thousands of Bosniaks, or that time in Rwanda where they did pretty much the same thing again.

Just as America didn't intervene in Georgia, I don't think that Russia and China would intervene here other than Russia continuing to fly in troop wages to the government. Not that America would intervene in Syria anyway, as there isn't the will to have another Libya; and at least Libya's rebels were quite organised where as Syria's rebels are a patchwork of different groups with different ideologies.

What Libyan revolution were you watching that I missed?

[The Sheika]

As far as Syria goes, I think the only intervention that should be done on the part of the United States should be support with funding, weapons, and on-the-ground consultants in limited numbers. Unless there is some kind of crime against humanity being carried out, the less involved the better off we are.

[Hippostania]

I am glad to hear you respect Stalin for his role in defeating the Nazis.

Stalin was far worse than Hitler. America should have advanced across Europe and immidiately started heading for Moscow, accompanied by nuclear weapons.