• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should the U.S. Attack the Assad Regime?

Should the U.S. attack the Assad regime?

  • Yes

  • No

  • I don't care

Results are only viewable after voting.
Doc Savage Fan

Doc Savage Fan

Lifer
I'd like to get see where everyone stands on our potential involvement in Syria. Please feel free to make comments supporting your vote.
 
Based on the information I can find now, no.

First there's the lack of verification of the administrations claims.
Second there seems to be no acknowledgement that actions have consequences and what they are likely to be and plans to address those. Run in, hit and leave isn't going to fix anything.
Third, this seems to be an action without a plan in general. What is really going on? Who knows?
 
I cant see a positive outcome from us getting involved. Our best option from a foreign policy perspective imo is to allow the Assad regime to finish this civil war and keep his stockpiles of chemical weapons with a known entity. If he falls, those weapons will fall into the hands of an unknown. An unknown that sounds truely fanatical.
 
Operation: Just the tip. :colbert:

grumpy-cat-8141_preview_zps9177ab07.png
Click to expand...
 
NO. The rebels fighting Assad are linked to al-qaida. Any US involvement will make the situation worse and people still haven't learned from Libya and Egypt.

They want to attack to make obama look good since he made himself look like an idiot when he said there was a red line. Some of the Democrats even voted to support him so he doesn't look bad.

Here are the rebels killing Christians. Why would anyone want to help them?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/09/05/syrian-rebels-attack-christian-village-n1691989
 
No. There is no real plan, no real strategy, and having a 90-day window of action makes it even more useless. It's the terrorists vs the dictator, why should we be involved on behalf of either side?

Given that we shouldn't be involved and we don't have either a good plan or real strategy, I'm sure the idiots in DC will go full speed ahead.
 
Incorruptible said:
NO. The rebels fighting Assad are linked to al-qaida. Any US involvement will make the situation worse and people still haven't learned from Libya and Egypt.

They want to attack to make obama look good since he made himself look like an idiot when he said there was a red line. Some of the Democrats even voted to support him so he doesn't look bad.

Here are the rebels killing Christians. Why would anyone want to help them?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/09/05/syrian-rebels-attack-christian-village-n1691989
Click to expand...

The 'rebels' are not one cohesive group.

The original rebels, what is authentically the FSA, are a legit movement of people wanting freedom from dictatorship, etc. They were doing really good for a while but basically ended up getting Bashar's regime into a stalemate.

In the void created by the stalemate, 1000's of foreign, ALQ aligned fighters swarmed in from Iraq, Turkey, etc. to basically 'fight' for Islamic radicalism, which is counter to both Syria's regime and the FSA.

While the FSA has essentially told the foreign fighters that they can help the FSA, they've also demanded it be a fight for freedom, not a fight for radical islam.

The ALQ aligned 'rebels' aren't rebels. They're terrorists swarming in with a completely different agenda than the FSA rebels.

I would support the FSA, just not the ALQ guys.
 
TechBoyJK said:
The 'rebels' are not one cohesive group.

The original rebels, what is authentically the FSA, are a legit movement of people wanting freedom from dictatorship, etc. They were doing really good for a while but basically ended up getting Bashar's regime into a stalemate.

In the void created by the stalemate, 1000's of foreign, ALQ aligned fighters swarmed in from Iraq, Turkey, etc. to basically 'fight' for Islamic radicalism, which is counter to both Syria's regime and the FSA.

While the FSA has essentially told the foreign fighters that they can help the FSA, they've also demanded it be a fight for freedom, not a fight for radical islam.

The ALQ aligned 'rebels' aren't rebels. They're terrorists swarming in with a completely different agenda than the FSA rebels.

I would support the FSA, just not the ALQ guys.
Click to expand...

Any military action against Assad would be helping the ALQ guys. ALQ is a sworn enemy of the United States which means that helping them is quite literally giving "aid and comfort to enemies of the United States" which per the Constitution would be an act of treason.
 
TechBoyJK said:
The 'rebels' are not one cohesive group.

The original rebels, what is authentically the FSA, are a legit movement of people wanting freedom from dictatorship, etc. They were doing really good for a while but basically ended up getting Bashar's regime into a stalemate.

In the void created by the stalemate, 1000's of foreign, ALQ aligned fighters swarmed in from Iraq, Turkey, etc. to basically 'fight' for Islamic radicalism, which is counter to both Syria's regime and the FSA.

While the FSA has essentially told the foreign fighters that they can help the FSA, they've also demanded it be a fight for freedom, not a fight for radical islam.

The ALQ aligned 'rebels' aren't rebels. They're terrorists swarming in with a completely different agenda than the FSA rebels.

I would support the FSA, just not the ALQ guys.
Click to expand...

Yes the FSA are secular but the al-qaida terrorists will do what it takes to get control and IF the FSA were somehow to win then al-qaida would fight them over control. The US shouldn't help any of them and I don't understand how the moron obama says that the US is in sequester and has to cut WhiteHouse tours yet can afford to launch missiles into Syria.

As well the main reason this is happening is because obama made the comments about the red line and democrats voted with him to make sure he doesn't look bad.

Over 100,000 people have been killed so why wasn't anything done before? Around 1500 people were killed in the chemical attack.

Also it would be nice if obama was this concerned about what happened with Benghazi.
 
TechBoyJK said:
The 'rebels' are not one cohesive group.

The original rebels, what is authentically the FSA, are a legit movement of people wanting freedom from dictatorship, etc. They were doing really good for a while but basically ended up getting Bashar's regime into a stalemate.

In the void created by the stalemate, 1000's of foreign, ALQ aligned fighters swarmed in from Iraq, Turkey, etc. to basically 'fight' for Islamic radicalism, which is counter to both Syria's regime and the FSA.

While the FSA has essentially told the foreign fighters that they can help the FSA, they've also demanded it be a fight for freedom, not a fight for radical islam.

The ALQ aligned 'rebels' aren't rebels. They're terrorists swarming in with a completely different agenda than the FSA rebels.

I would support the FSA, just not the ALQ guys.
Click to expand...

Can you back up this claim?
 
Atreus21 said:
If there is proof that the Assad regime is using chemical weapons, absolutely we should.
Click to expand...

I think we should get a coalition of willing American citizens (like Atreus) and allow them to intervene. Putting a bunch of good American boys at risk for Al Qaeda is immoral. Our soldiers have had more than a decade of war, I say give the poor bastards a break.
 
everybody just needs to stay the fuck out of Syria, what started out as a class war has been hijacked by extremist Sunni groups in an attempt to create yet another islamic shithole, helping the terrorists would be a bad fucking idea.
 
No. A year or two ago I would have said yes. Unfortunately the opposition has become full of scum and so I am not even sure Syria will be better off with Assad gone.
 
bshole said:
I think we should get a coalition of willing American citizens (like Atreus) and allow them to intervene. Putting a bunch of good American boys at risk for Al Qaeda is immoral. Our soldiers have had more than a decade of war, I say give the poor bastards a break.
Click to expand...

If called upon I would do it, but a more reasonable metaphor is me intervening if I saw a neighbor trying to suffocate another neighbor. Even if they were my enemies.

I don't want to go to war on behalf of Al-Qaida either. But we either defend the principle that chemical weapons are a big no-no, or we don't. And by not defending it we become less civilized and more barbaric. We place less limits on acceptable means of warfare. If we do not respond to the use of chemical weapons, why should we respond to biological or nuclear weapons?

I hate to admit it but I agree with Obama's speech a few days ago. The consequences of inaction are unthinkable. We implicitly encourage open flouting of nearly a century of international precedent that chemical weapons cannot be used.
 
Last edited:
Doppel said:
Can you prove the moon isn't made of cheese? It is common knowledge and beyond debate that the opposition forces are full of Allah snackbars/holy war types.
Click to expand...

That's not what he said. He said it was originally a Syrian-based group of otherwise non-radicals until it was hijacked by the crazies. I wanted to know if there was some source for that.
 
Atreus21 said:
That's not what he said. He said it was originally a Syrian-based group of otherwise non-radicals until it was hijacked by the crazies. I wanted to know if there was some source for that.
Click to expand...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-syria-crisis-usa-rebels-idUSBRE98405L20130905

A European security official with experience in the region said that extremist rebel factions were so strong and well-organized in the north and west of Syria that they were setting up their own public services and trying to create an Islamic ministate along the Iraqi border.

By contrast, the official said, more moderate rebel factions predominate in the east of Syria and along its southern border with Jordan but have largely devolved into "gangs" whose leaders are more interested in operating local rackets and enriching themselves than in forming a larger alliance that could more effectively oppose Assad's government.

"I've heard that there are moderate groups out there we could, in theory, support," said Joshua Foust, a former U.S. intelligence analyst who now writes about foreign policy.

"But I've heard from those same people and my own contacts within (U.S. intelligence) that the scary people are displacing more and more moderate groups. Basically, the jihadists are setting up governance and community councils while the moderates exhaust themselves doing the heavy fighting," Foust said.
Click to expand...
 
I don't want to go to war on behalf of Al-Qaida either. But we either defend the principle that chemical weapons are a big no-no, or we don't. And by not defending it we become less civilized and more barbaric. We place less limits on acceptable means of warfare. If we do not respond to the use of chemical weapons, why should we respond to biological or nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT, we intervene, Al Qaeda wins, gets the chemical weapons, detonates in New York with 1 million dead and THEN YOU DEMAND WE GO TO WAR YET AGAIN!

Necons always leading from behind.... I wish they were all on the front line.
 
bshole said:
BULLSHIT, we intervene, Al Qaeda wins, gets the chemical weapons, detonates in New York with 1 million dead and THEN YOU DEMAND WE GO TO WAR YET AGAIN!

Necons always leading from behind.... I wish they were all on the front line.
Click to expand...

A hilarious accusation, considering the bulk of the support for an intervention comes from the left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top