#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Yes
Side Score: 78
|
 |
No
Side Score: 80
|
|
5
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
Britain supports western strike in Syria
Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
We say that we're not going to be involved in any military conflict. That doesn't mean we'll be ignoring the situation, we shall just be seeking a more peaceful solution. It's wholly different to the speech made by the US state department a few days back, claiming that America isn't even intending to wait for the UN report before charging into Syria, it was only after the British Parliament stated that we couldn't be involved that Obama suddenly decides to consult Congress on the matter and try persuade the United Nations to approve of military action. Side: Yes
My original comment was that i don't believe that the United States can be described as a nation with "good" intentions. The recent argument of mine was just stating the current situation and that your claim of Britain doing nothing can lead to incorrect interpretations. Side: Yes
My original comment was that i don't believe that the United States can be described as a nation with "good" intentions. Right, that's what I said. The recent argument of mine was just stating the current situation and that your claim of Britain doing nothing can lead to incorrect interpretations. No, being British seems to lead to incorrect interpretations. Side: No
It's the same over here with Cameron. Before the Iraq War, Tony Blair made Parliament pass an Act saying that they approved of the military intervention, previously they would do this after any war to assess how appropriate the Prime Minister's actions were. Because Blair made it look as though Parliament supported his decision it enabled him to disperse the blame when the Iraq War started to become a scandal. I believe that David Cameron tried to follow a similar strategy and took a bill to the House of Commons to try get Parliamentary approval. However, his own Conservative Party were outnumbered by the Opposition and Coalition partner the Liberal Democrats (who had also opposed the Iraq War), thus the bill failed and Great Britain is now not going to be involved in any military conflict. Of course, our PM still speaks out that we should intervene alongside the US. But I'm not too sure many people are listening to him. Side: Yes
Just like the British people, the American people also oppose going to war... but for us, it seems like our government may not listen. Obama said the other day that this isn't even as important as Libya... then why does he want to go? To increase our deficit even more? He says that he has information and evidence that Assad has gassed his people and so on, but he won't share that information. Sounds like a load of BS to me. I'm thinking he has ulterior motives behind wanting to attack Syria. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I just found out, Russia and China are now having second thoughts on staying as Assad's ally after he launched the Chemical bomb. Plenty of countries are supportive of Western strike, including Iraq. This isnt America's desire for war. This is now the whole world set to punish those who dare to cross the line Side: No
I don't understand why it is always the United States that has to get involved in every single global issue. One of George Washington's dying wishes was to not get involved in foreign affairs. We've pretty much done the opposite of this ever since, but just to be clear, since when was the US appointed the position of policing the entire world? Furthermore, who are we to impose our morality on others? When there is a threat against us, then by all means squash that threat. But it is not our job to tell other nations how to run their shows. Instead, we can simply voice our opinion and work to hurt the Syrian government in other ways (i.e. fiscally) while aiding any refugees from the country. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Britain and other allies has joined America Russia and China are starting to widraw their alliance with Assad. Iraq is all supportive of American presence (even promising to pay for their stay) just to attack Assad This isnt a battle by America. This is the whole world united to serve Justice Side: No
I think the U.S. shouldn't invade to Syria because it will worsen the situation and millions of people will suffer and die. Almost all important cities are under control of Asad. It's illogical to think that Asad's troops used chemical weapon because they have enough problems. It's clear that opposition used chemical weapon to provoke war and get supported from the outside of the country. If the U.S. will attack Syria there will be mess in a whole country and the war may spread to bordering countries. America will repeat it's mistakes which were done in the war with Iraq. America risks to create a new set of problems, enemies and losing more lives in a fight that can't be won by traditional way and also U.S has a huge debts, unemployment and crime rate is increasing. So it has it own problems to solve instead of loosing billions of dollars on this war it could help it's citizens. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
Yes, while I do not support Obama, we get into jams by saying we have a "red line" and don't cross it...then we are not prepared to do something when the red line is crossed...Well, WTF! We look like we have no spine...either there is or is not a red line. All I know is the line was crossed and now we look weak for not unleashing hell on Syria... Side: No
1
point
Of course not. Ignoring the situation would make the country not only look weak, but we wouldn't be taken seriously for a long time. What the Syrian government did is directly opposite of what we stand for as a nation. And we have said before that if chemical weapons were used, we would step in. Sweeping it under the rug would just be a cowardly move, and would hold no beneficial value Side: No
No they didn't, but they also used them on rebels. They're in a civil war and we're declaring war on them... so we're playing the offense. Assad, though he is corrupt and shouldn't be in power, was defending his own government... giving him more justification to gas his own people, than we have for going to war with him. “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” -Barack Obama, 2007 The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to [war] without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment….The Constitution is clear. And so am I” -Joe Biden, in 2007. Side: Yes
This debate is about whether or not our government should ignore the situation in Syria. Not about if we should go to war against them. You and other people are forgetting that to ignore something means to not take anything concerning the situation into consideration, as well as the fact that the government participates in other activities other than going to war. I'm not saying we should use violence, just that we should pay attention and keep an eye on what's going on. You said yourself that he is corrupt and shouldn't be in power. Isn't that even more of a reason to not ignore what's happening? The reason this situation is so controversial and serious is because the weapons were chemical, and there is a reason no one wants to use chemical weapons. And the fact is, yes, they were using it on rebels, who were a threat to his government, but what you have to realize is that CHILDREN were caught in the crossfire, innocent lives were taken as a result of his actions. And it was more than a thousand people who were killed. That's something you cannot ignore. And I'm not saying the President should make the decision himself. I just saying we should watch was happening, because if he would do that against his own civilians, what about what would happen if we HAD to go to war against them? If this included nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure most of the people up here would agree that the situation should be carefully monitored. But chemical weapons are just as deadly. And I'm still on the "NO" side, I didn't mean to press clarify. Side: Yes
This debate is about whether or not our government should ignore the situation in Syria. Not about if we should go to war against them. If we don't ignore Syria, then we're going to war with them. You and other people are forgetting that to ignore something means to not take anything concerning the situation into consideration, as well as the fact that the government participates in other activities other than going to war. Have you not thought about the consequences this war might bring? If Israel wants to go to war with them, then so be it... but why should we intervene in a civil war that is not our's nor our ally's. Obama wants to do a "limited" attack on Syria, which won't happen. Boots will be put on the ground. We're already at war with Al Qaeda... and guess who is working with the rebels? Al Qaeda. Obama wants to arm these people. Guess who we gave guns to and trained back in the 80's? Osama Bin Laden. When we help our enemies, it comes back to bite us in the ass. The Middle East has been in a civil war for hundreds of years. It's ingrained into their brains. I'm not saying we should use violence, just that we should pay attention and keep an eye on what's going on. Is that what you meant by "we shouldn't ignore them"? Our news isn't going to stop covering the situation in Syria, if that's what you mean. Of course we're going to watch and see what happens... but we shouldn't act unless they become a major threat. The reason this situation is so controversial and serious is because the weapons were chemical, and there is a reason no one wants to use chemical weapons. The Syrian government didn't use the chemicals on us or our allies. What they did was wrong and hopefully the rebels kick there ass for it... but it's not our problem. And the fact is, yes, they were using it on rebels, who were a threat to his government, but what you have to realize is that CHILDREN were caught in the crossfire, innocent lives were taken as a result of his actions. I have a question... why take action now? Civilians and children have been getting killed over there for years. As a matter of fact, they've been getting killed all across the Middle East. How about Africa? Innocent people are being murdered everyday over there and we haven't done shit. Why are civilian lives more important in Syria? If we attack Syria, then Iran and Russia said they would get involved. That's not good. We're looking at a possible World War if we take action against Syria. Side: Yes
Oh my fecking God, can you not read and understand my opinion? I do not want a war to happen and I am not supporting the decision to engage them through violence. What do you not understand. I JUST WANT THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT AND TO NOT PRETEND THAT THERE IS A CIVIL WAR HAPPENING IN SYRIA. Are you actually able to count your brain cells on one hand, because you seem to lack the intelligence to realize that I just want us to pay attention, that's all. And I'm not just talking about the media covering it, I'm also talking about the government examining the whole situation and where it's going to go from here. What do you not understand about the introduction of chemical weapons in this situation? IF THEY WILL USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE, THEN THEY WILL NOT HESITATE TO USE THEM ON US SHOULD WE GO TO WAR. If you're going to manage and protect a country, you have to use strategy. If you use strategy, the most basic rule is to always know your enemy. You asked "Why take action now", and this is the only good reason: just like the introduction of atomic weapons during World War II, the use of chemical weapons now means that now its become a real threat. Before, everyone was like "Let's not use them, because it will cause more harm and devastation than intended and is too extreme." What this man did was go past that fragile limit, and now we have to realize that if one man will, others will to. Therefore, monitoring the situation WITHOUT USING FORCE, is what my opinion is. Do you understand that? Did it sink past your thick skull? You saying that ignoring the situation is the best way to go is basically saying, "Hey, let's live in ignorance about what's happening in Syria, so if anything major does happen, we won't know about it." Side: Yes
Oh my fecking God, can you not read and understand my opinion? I do not want a war to happen and I am not supporting the decision to engage them through violence. What do you not understand. I JUST WANT THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT AND TO NOT PRETEND THAT THERE IS A CIVIL WAR HAPPENING IN SYRIA. Yeah, I did read and understand your flip-floppy opinion... did you read mine? I addressed what you said. Has the government not been paying attention to them? Because the last time I checked, they were having a fucking congressional hearing over it! Are you actually able to count your brain cells on one hand, because you seem to lack the intelligence to realize that I just want us to pay attention, that's all. You're a kid... you must be, because your arguments are very childish. You don't have the slightest understanding of anything I said to you. And I'm not just talking about the media covering it, I'm also talking about the government examining the whole situation and where it's going to go from here. CONGRESS! Have you not been watching the news? What do you not understand about the introduction of chemical weapons in this situation? IF THEY WILL USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE, THEN THEY WILL NOT HESITATE TO USE THEM ON US SHOULD WE GO TO WAR. Keywords: IF WE GO TO WAR Syria is in a civil war. They had only threatened to use chemical weapons on themselves... and that's what they did. If you're going to manage and protect a country, you have to use strategy. If you use strategy, the most basic rule is to always know your enemy. I would imagine that our intelligence agencies are focused on Syria right now... and probably have been for some years. You know how our government works, right? You asked "Why take action now", and this is the only good reason: just like the introduction of atomic weapons during World War II, the use of chemical weapons now means that now its become a real threat. Chemical weapons have been used before. They actually date back all the way to World War 1. Saddam Hussein used them in the 90's. What makes them a bigger threat now? What this man did was go past that fragile limit, and now we have to realize that if one man will, others will to. You don't have a solid opinion on this matter, do you? Therefore, monitoring the situation WITHOUT USING FORCE, is what my opinion is. Then why are you arguing with me? You clearly agree with my opinion. Do you understand that? Did it sink past your thick skull? You saying that ignoring the situation is the best way to go is basically saying, "Hey, let's live in ignorance about what's happening in Syria, so if anything major does happen, we won't know about it." This is hilarious! I hope you respond. You made yourself look like a total fool trying to prove me wrong, when in fact... you agree with me! I obviously didn't mean ignore as in "stop monitoring them". The government will monitor them for many more years to come. I mean ignore as in don't RETALIATE. Can you get that through your thick skull? Side: Yes
I am fully aware of the fact that Congress is discussing the matter. That's good. But what you're supporting is the idea that the US should completely ignore the situation, meaning that discussing it will not happen. Am I wrong? And my opinion has not changed throughout the course if this debate, its just that everytime I add another post, I have to try and simplify it more so you can actually understand what I am saying. And my age has nothing do with the fact that you can't grasp what I am saying to you. Please explain how my arguments are childish. And I'll say this again: I know Congress is monitoring the situation. But I want them to continue doing so as well. Them discussing the situation in the present is irrelevant in this debate since we are arguing about should they do so as long as its going on, aka the future. And I was talking about if we would go to war in a different situation, not pertaining to their current conflict. And yeah, I learned how government surveillance works when I was in 3rd grade, but again, completely ignoring that would stop additional information coming in relating to the conflict. Duh. And Saddam Hussein wasn't a government authority who had a voice among other world leaders, plus I knew chemical weapons have been used before. The fact that everyone wanted to stop using them is the point I was trying to make, but clearly you missed that. And if you didn't mean supporting the word "ignore" like its defined in the fucking dictionary, then why the hell didn't you just say "we shouldn't ignore it, but we shouldn't retaliate either" and argue for this side? When you add "completely" and "ignore" together, you get what I've been saying all along: pretending its not happening, not keeping tabs on the situation, and stuffing anything referring to the situation under the rug. So its HILARIOUS that you think I made a fool out of my self since, technically, you agree with me, and not vice versa. Lets see YOU respond to that. Side: Yes
But what you're supporting is the idea that the US should completely ignore the situation, meaning that discussing it will not happen. That's not what I'm suggesting... because that won't ever happen! Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I have to try and simplify it more so you can actually understand what I am saying. And my age has nothing do with the fact that you can't grasp what I am saying to you It's actually too simplified. And my age has nothing do with the fact that you can't grasp what I am saying to you. Oh, so you are a kid? That explains a lot. Please explain how my arguments are childish. Your previous argument was full of childish insults. Okay, I'm going to stop. I skimmed over the rest of your argument and it's absolutely pointless. You completely misunderstood everything. I'm not going to argue with you anymore because you are just way too naive. Maybe you'll understand when you get older. Side: No
That's exactly what you are suggesting actually. Just because it won't ever happen doesn't mean you're not suggesting it. Obviously its not simplified enough. Calling someone thick-skulled isn't childish when its true. You can stop arguing all you want, it doesn't mean you're right. And by the way, because you've stopped arguing, you're basically ignoring me. Side: Yes
1
point
The Middle East has been in a civil war for thousands of years. Millions, maybe even billions of innocent people have lost their lives over there. Why act now? Every time the West tries to intervene, the situation gets worse. There is currently a genocide going on in Africa, what have we done for them? Why are Syrian civilians suddenly more important than any of the others? Side: Yes
1
point
Aye, but no one in the Middle East desires to continue their fight. And you are wrong. Iraq and Afghanistan are completely in favor of Western intervention against Assad's regime. Even saying that they will pay for the soldiers stay in exchange for joining the fight Syria isnt any more important than anyone. It is Assad who crossed the line and now deserves to face his music . Britain France and other allies are in favor of a military strike Russia and China are withdrawing their support for Syria Al Queda turned his back from Assad This isnt a fight by America. This is the whole world hell-bent on bringing justice. Why do you resist? Side: No
Aye, but no one in the Middle East desires to continue their fight. And you are wrong. Iraq and Afghanistan are completely in favor of Western intervention against Assad's regime. That doesn't change the fact that they DO continue the fight... and wrong about what? Iraq and Afghanistan are in favor the same as Al Qaeda, who not only is at war with us... but supports the rebels. Syria isnt any more important than anyone. It is Assad who crossed the line and now deserves to face his music Assad isn't the first person to use chemical weapons, nor is he the first to use them on civilians. Britain France and other allies are in favor of a military strike Britain isn't for it! They voted against it! Russia and China are withdrawing their support for Syria Russia sent three warships over there yesterday. Al Queda turned his back from Assad Al Qaeda isn't a person... it's a terrorist group. This isnt a fight by America. This is the whole world hell-bent on bringing justice. Why do you resist? Well, I just proved to you that it isn't the whole world... and most American's don't want to go to war. Side: Yes
1
point
That doesn't change the fact that they DO continue the fight That doesn't change the fact that they wanted to END the fight Assad isn't the first person to use chemical weapons, nor is he the first to use them on civilians. We created the UN to ensure never again to use weapons of mass destruction. And Never Again it has to be Britain isn't for it! They voted against it! Russia sent three warships over there yesterday. Russia and China's support will depend on whether Assad will be proven guilty of violating the UN laws Al Qaeda isn't a person... it's a terrorist group. Sorry for the misinformation but it still changed nothing. It is still an ally of Assad that decided to join the rebels instead Well, I just proved to you that it isn't the whole world... and most American's don't want to go to war. Evil truimphs when good men do nothing Choosing to turn a blind ear towards the innocent makes you no better than oppressing them yourself Side: No
We created the UN to ensure never again to use weapons of mass destruction. And Never Again it has to be You obviously don't have family and friends serving in the Middle East. If you believe so strongly in this, I recommend that you go and enlist and get your ass over there. Our war with Al Qaeda isn't finished. We can't afford another one. Wrong Britain said that they might supply humanitarian aid. They still don't want to take action. So how am I wrong? The British parliament made it very clear that they don't support going to war. Russia and China's support will depend on whether Assad will be proven guilty of violating the UN laws This article is four hours old: http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/ Changed nothing. It is still an ally of Assad that decided to join the rebels instead An enemy of an enemy is not our ally in this case. We are currently at WAR with Al Qaeda. Why help the people responsible for 9/11? I already know that Al Qaeda supports the rebels, you didn't need to share that link. So what happens? Assad's regime falls and Al Qaeda takes over? Oh, so now we're giving our biggest enemy a country! Lets say Obama sticks to his word and we only take out the chemical weapons, because his plan isn't to take out Assad... well, guess what? The civil war will still continue... and on top of that, Assad, Iran and Russia will be pissed. Oops! Looks like we just caused World War 3! Choosing to turn a blind ear towards the innocent makes you no better than oppressing them yourself What do you want to do about Africa and the rest of the Middle East? How about North Korea? Innocents are being murdered everyday... but Syria is where we draw the line? Side: Yes
1
point
If you believe so strongly in this, I recommend that you go and enlist and get your ass over there. Give me a reason why I should not believe it. Britain said that they might supply humanitarian aid. They still don't want to take action. I fail to see any difference. Supplying aid to the rebels is the same as going against Assad isnt it? This article is four hours old: Qoute: "Russia backs Syria’s contention that the Aug. 21 attack was a “provocation” on the part of rebels seeking international intervention in the country's 2 1/2-year-old civil war. Putin suggested Friday that to attack Syria without obtaining U.N. Security Council authorization would put the United States “outside the law.” The Security Council is unlikely to approve such action because Russia and China, another Syria ally, hold veto power." Putin is wise enough not to ruin Russia's name by protecting a criminal. He is merely waiting for decisions of the UN. After that, his leadership will be questioned. So what happens? Assad's regime falls and Al Qaeda takes over?and on top of that, Assad, Iran and Russia will be pissed. Better to take chances to change the future than cowering in fear and regret our cowardice What do you want to do about Africa and the rest of the Middle East? How about North Korea? Innocents are being murdered everyday... but Syria is where we draw the line? We have no reason to intervene with them. Every country has their own set of rules to follow. But things change when the people started to revolt. Side: No
Give me a reason why I should not believe it. We're at war. Our soldiers are being killed over something avoidable. Going to war with Syria could lead to World War 3. Do you think our citizens lives are expendable? Like I said, if you want to go to war, then I recommend going over there and risking your own life. I fail to see any difference. Supplying aid to the rebels is the same as going against Assad isnt it? Uhhh... the difference is that our biggest ally doesn't want to fight along side us. Why do we have to go to war? Why can't we just supply humanitarian aid like Britain? "Russia backs Syria’s contention that the Aug. 21 attack was a “provocation” on the part of rebels seeking international intervention in the country's 2 1/2-year-old civil war. Which means that Russia isn't buying the evidence that the UN provided. They're sticking with Syria. Putin suggested Friday that to attack Syria without obtaining U.N. Security Council authorization would put the United States “outside the law.” The Security Council is unlikely to approve such action because Russia and China, another Syria ally, hold veto power." This quote supports my argument, not yours. Putin is wise enough not to ruin Russia's name by protecting a criminal. He is merely waiting for decisions of the UN. You truly don't understand what that article said, do you? After that, his leadership will be questioned. His leadership is already questioned... he's the leader of Russia. Better to take chances to change the future than cowering in fear and regret our cowardice You can't be serious? That's really messed up considering the possible outcomes. We have no reason to intervene with them. Every country has their own set of rules to follow. But things change when the people started to revolt. People are revolting in all of those places that I named. Side: Yes
1
point
We're at war. Our soldiers are being killed over something avoidable. Going to war with Syria could lead to World War 3. It appears like you have forgotten that as we speak, more innocent people are being killed. Isnt it just humane to save them? Assad's Chemical attack is a violation of the UN laws. Refusal to bring in justice will only shame the codes of conduct and give reason for him to do it again Why do we have to go to war? Why can't we just supply humanitarian aid like Britain? Remember the previous war in Libya? After the civil war, the armed rebels ruled the streets like thugs and up until now, they are still the countries main problem. If no one will stand to lead, no one will know where to go. Which means that Russia isn't buying the evidence that the UN provided. They're sticking with Syria.This quote supports my argument, not yours.You truly don't understand what that article said, do you?His leadership is already questioned... he's the leader of Russia. Correct me if im wrong, but the article states that Putin is ready to defend Syria but he is open to change his mind depending on the evidences that the UN will provide. It is basic for a leader to not protect criminals or else your people will lose their support for you. Putin should be aware of that and if he is wise enough, he will soon take his forces away You can't be serious? That's really messed up considering the possible outcomes. We have 2 choices 1. Pretend we see nothing 2. Do something Both has its negatives, but I vote for the lesser among evils People are revolting in all of those places that I named. Look again. They are too naive to rebel. Trying to free them will be considered an act of invasion in the UN laws. We cant touch something that we cannot reach Side: No
It appears like you have forgotten that as we speak, more innocent people are being killed. Isnt it just humane to save them? Innocent people are being killed across the World, why don't we save them too? Assad's Chemical attack is a violation of the UN laws. Refusal to bring in justice will only shame the codes of conduct and give reason for him to do it again What are we going to do? He moved his Chemical weapons into civilian areas and Obama says we are going to do a limited strike... how will we avoid collateral damage? Remember the previous war in Libya? After the civil war, the armed rebels ruled the streets like thugs and up until now, they are still the countries main problem. We supported the rebels in Libya. If they are Libya's problem, how do you think the Syrian rebels will turn out? Correct me if im wrong, but the article states that Putin is ready to defend Syria but he is open to change his mind depending on the evidences that the UN will provide. You're wrong. The U.N. has already found evidence, but Putin is going to continue supporting Syria. He has veto power, so he's saying that the U.N. Security Council won't be able to give the US authorization to attack Syria, because he won't allow it. It is basic for a leader to not protect criminals or else your people will lose their support for you. Putin should be aware of that and if he is wise enough, he will soon take his forces away Russia is allies with almost all of our enemies. They are the ones who supplied Syria with the chemical weapons. We have 2 choices 1. Pretend we see nothing 2. Do something Both has its negatives, but I vote for the lesser among evils Going to war with Syria will lead to a larger deficit. We're already trillions of dollars in debt. On top of that, Iran said that they will attack Israel if we attack Syria. Iran supposedly has nuclear weapons. Russia is going to defend Syria. Attacking Syria could lead to World War 3... and if that happens, then they might reinstate the draft. That means that they can enlist you and me, and if we say no, then we're breaking the law. The cons outweigh the pros when it comes to attacking Syria. Look again. They are too naive to rebel. Maybe in North Korea... but everywhere else in the Middle East and Africa has rebels. Besides, the ones who don't fight back, don't have the proper equipment to defend themselves. We helped arm the Syrian rebels, why can't we help the other countries? I think you're just too naive to see the big picture. Side: Yes
1
point
Innocent people are being killed across the World, why don't we save them too? The inability to help everyone is not an excuse to help someone What are we going to do? My goal is to give you reason to punish Assad. How to do it is best left to those with experience We supported the rebels in Libya. If they are Libya's problem, how do you think the Syrian rebels will turn out? Exactly the reason why I said "Someone has to lead" You're wrong. The U.N. has already found evidence, but Putin is going to continue supporting Syria. Nope. It was America who says that only Assad has the capabilities to launch chemical weapons. But Russia has found links that connects the attack towards Rebels as they once used the same sarin gas at Khan-al-Assal but killed only 24 people. The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It charged that what it called the current “hysteria” about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Russia is not an Idiot. They have their reasons for fighting. Convince them with evidence, and they will leave Going to war with Syria will lead to a larger deficit. The cons outweigh the pros when it comes to attacking Syria. And if no one give force to the judgement of the UN against the crimes commited against the international laws, it will only open up more holes to show how weak the UN congress is. Cowardice can only benefit us until when other countries started to do the same and violate the codes. But if we act, we can raise the morale of the world powers to protect what has to be protected but everywhere else in the Middle East and Africa has rebels. . And did they violated the UN code big enough for the world powers to act? Side: No
The inability to help everyone is not an excuse to help someone It's an excuse to say "wtf?" Exactly the reason why I said "Someone has to lead" Too bad Obama's goal isn't to take out Assad or his government. He just wants to get rid of the chemical weapons. Nope. It was America who says that only Assad has the capabilities to launch chemical weapons. But Russia has found links that connects the attack towards Rebels as they once used the same sarin gas at Khan-al-Assal but killed only 24 people. What are you even talking about? That doesn't change the fact that Russia is supporting Syria. The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It charged that what it called the current “hysteria” about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. You can show me articles all day. Russia has already made up their mind. Russia is not an Idiot. They have their reasons for fighting. Convince them with evidence, and they will leave We have evidence. Do you really think that they are dumb enough to believe that the chemical weapons they gave to the Syrian government were used by some other group within Syria? Why do you think they gave Syria the chemical weapons in the first place? And if no one give force to the judgement of the UN against the crimes commited against the international laws, it will only open up more holes to show how weak the UN congress is. Cowardice can only benefit us until when other countries started to do the same and violate the codes. I sure hope you took my advice and went to enlist. You can't call us cowards because we don't want to go to war. A war where we're going to be playing offense. A war that may lead to an even bigger war. What do you think is going to happen after we bomb Syria? Attacking a country is never just quick and easy. It will lead to something of a much larger scale. And did they violated the UN code big enough for the world powers to act? What difference does it make? So they didn't use chemical weapons... people are still dying! You don't find a problem with civilian deaths unless they are by chemical attacks? Side: Yes
1
point
It's an excuse to say "wtf?" Let me rephrase that to: "The inability to help everyone is not an excuse to not help someone" Sorry for the bad construction Too bad Obama's goal isn't to take out Assad or his government. He just wants to get rid of the chemical weapons. Civil wars are sacred grounds. Of course the force has to be limited or else it will be considered as an Invasion What are you even talking about? That doesn't change the fact that Russia is supporting Syria.Russia has already made up their mind. The report states that Russia's support will only last till Assad was proven guilty We have evidence. Do you really think that they are dumb enough to believe that the chemical weapons they gave to the Syrian government were used by some other group within Syria? The rebels has complete access to Chemical Weapons and they were caught using one in battle. Its just America again jumping on the conclusion that Assad is behind it You can't call us cowards because we don't want to go to war. But this isnt a war. This is justice. Your a coward if you will ignore the voice of the innocents So they didn't use chemical weapons... people are still dying! You don't find a problem with civilian deaths unless they are by chemical attacks? Unless the deaths are caused by banned weapons in a massive scale, the UN is powerless to intervene. Side: No
Civil wars are sacred grounds. Of course the force has to be limited or else it will be considered as an Invasion After we blow up Assad's chemical weapons, do you think we'll be finished? No, him and his allies will retaliate against us. We'll end up putting boots on the ground. Just to let you know, I'm pretty sure that attacking Syria is just an excuse for us to go to war with another country. I'll let you guess which one. The report states that Russia's support will only last till Assad was proven guilty Russia will continue to support Syria no matter what. That is their closest Middle Eastern ally. They even have a naval base in Syria. Also, Syria buys their equipment from Russia. If we take out Syria's chemical weapons, Russia will replace them. The rebels has complete access to Chemical Weapons and they were caught using one in battle. Its just America again jumping on the conclusion that Assad is behind it So, now you don't support going to war? We're defending the rebels. Assad is the enemy if we go to war. But this isnt a war. This is justice. Your a coward if you will ignore the voice of the innocents Don't try and turn this around on me. You're sitting in your fucking air conditioned house on your computer chanting "go to war!" What are you going to do to support this war that you believe so much in? I'm going to say it again and again until you respond to it... go enlist. Are you crippled? Unhealthy? What is your excuse? Maybe you aren't trained... don't worry, they'll train you! Unless the deaths are caused by banned weapons in a massive scale, the UN is powerless to intervene. How about we go after Russia for selling them those banned weapons? Are you down for that? Side: Yes
1
point
After we blow up Assad's chemical weapons, do you think we'll be finished? No, him and his allies will retaliate against us. No because a personal vendeta among counties does not exist in an allience. Russia will continue to support Syria no matter what. This is the part where I will ask you to prove it. So, now you don't support going to war? We're defending the rebels. Assad is the enemy if we go to war. I was saying that America has a chance of being wrong in their suspicions (again) Nothing more. Don't try and turn this around on me. You're sitting in your fucking air conditioned house on your computer chanting "go to war!" Do you think that a war is played on the battlefield alone? I pay my taxes, and I have the right to decide where I want it to be used. The number of countries that support a strike against Assad is growing. Why do you resist? How about we go after Russia for selling them those banned weapons? Are you down for that? Actually, no one knows who sold those Chemicals. And even if we do, it is unrighteous to punish a business man when he is unaware of where the costumer will use it. Side: No
No because a personal vendeta among counties does not exist in an allience. Uhhh... what? Iran already said that they would retaliate if we attacked Syria. Hell, they're even calling for us to be attacked right now! This is the part where I will ask you to prove it. I can give you some more if you want...? I was saying that America has a chance of being wrong in their suspicions (again) Nothing more. What's your point? Do you think that a war is played on the battlefield alone? I pay my taxes, and I have the right to decide where I want it to be used. I'm not an idiot. I know how a war works. You may pay your taxes, but that doesn't give you the right to call people who don't support going to war "cowards". You aren't a leader, you aren't involved in the military. If you want us to play the offense in this war, then you need to be out their with our soldiers... or else YOU are the coward. The number of countries that support a strike against Assad is growing. Why do you resist? The number of American's who don't support going to war is increasing. Why do you resist? Actually, no one knows who sold those Chemicals. And even if we do, it is unrighteous to punish a business man when he is unaware of where the costumer will use it. You said it yourself... chemical weapons are banned. Russia knew that when they sold him those weapons. Side: Yes
1
point
Uhhh... what? Iran already said that they would retaliate if we attacked Syria. Hell, they're even calling for us to be attacked right now! Its the code of allience to protect your ally. But once the fight was over, any plot for revenge will be shunned upon. I can give you some more if you want...? I just read it. its all just the same news about Russia sending fleets for Syria. But in end, the situation all says the same thing; "Referring to the gas attacks in Damascus on Aug 21, these countries said: "We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world's rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable."" Just as what your articles said, Russia will only protect Syria as long as it proves itself worthy of being protected. What's your point? You are jumping on the conclusion that there was proof that Assad was behind the attack. But theres none (not yet) You may pay your taxes, but that doesn't give you the right to call people who don't support going to war "cowards" Sorry, but people who turns a blind eye towards inhumane actions are called "cowards". The number of American's who don't support going to war is increasing. Why do you resist? Because I prefer to listen to the voice of what has to be done. You said it yourself... chemical weapons are banned. Russia knew that when they sold him those weapons. Selling chemical weapons are banned. But selling deadly toxins isnt. Anyone can buy toxins by simply promising to use it for scientific purposes. But loading it on rockets is a different issue Side: No
Its the code of allience to protect your ally. But once the fight was over, any plot for revenge will be shunned upon. And when do you think the fight will be over? I just read it. its all just the same news about Russia sending fleets for Syria. But in end, the situation all says the same thing; I was giving you multiple articles because I wanted to show how many different news agencies have covered it. "Referring to the gas attacks in Damascus on Aug 21, these countries said: "We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world's rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable."" Did you read the entire article? You're quoting Susan Rice's statement that was made by her and our allies. Russia is still going to support Syria. Just as what your articles said, Russia will only protect Syria as long as it proves itself worthy of being protected. Russia is going to protect Syria if we attack them. End of story. I can break down each article word for word if you'd like, because apparently you don't understand. I'm not trying to offend you, but you really aren't getting it. You are jumping on the conclusion that there was proof that Assad was behind the attack. But theres none (not yet) Obama has already made up his mind on who he wants to go to war with. Like I said, I'm sure there are ulterior motives behind going to war with Syria. Sorry, but people who turns a blind eye towards inhumane actions are called "cowards". I'll say it again... go enlist. Don't worry, you can take your time, because if we do go to war... it's going to last longer than 90 days. Because I prefer to listen to the voice of what has to be done. This doesn't have to be done. Syria didn't want to go to war with us. Selling chemical weapons are banned. But selling deadly toxins isnt. Anyone can buy toxins by simply promising to use it for scientific purposes. But loading it on rockets is a different issue I didn't say Russia sold Syria toxins. They sold them chemical weapons... which as you just pointed out, are BANNED. Side: Yes
1
point
And when do you think the fight will be over? When the government surrendered Did you read the entire article? You're quoting Susan Rice's statement that was made by her and our allies. Russia is still going to support Syria. Nope, it was message given by G20 leaders. Russia is going to protect Syria if we attack them. End of story. "Russia could approve military strikes against the Syrian government if the West presented watertight evidence of chemical weapons crimes but warned the use of force without UN approval would be an "aggression." Their loyalty is limited. End of story Obama has already made up his mind on who he wants to go to war with. Like I said, I'm sure there are ulterior motives behind going to war with Syria. I support Obama for now. I'll say it again... go enlist. To die for the sake of doing what right is an eternal joy. But the fact that I contributes the most behind their backs is my physical limitations This doesn't have to be done. Syria didn't want to go to war with us. Justice isnt something that you choose. I didn't say Russia sold Syria toxins. They sold them chemical weapons... which as you just pointed out, are BANNED. I made my research Russia says: "Russia supplying Syria with chemical weapons is 100% false. Supplying conventional weapons "which can" be modified to support a chemical weapons program is not even in the same ballpark as "supplying" chemical weapons. You can modify a pipe into a pipe bomb. Does that mean Ace Hardware is "supplying" pipe bombs?" Side: No
When the government surrendered How long do you think that will take? Nope, it was message given by G20 leaders. Ugh... "Susan Rice and our allies" consists of a few G20 leaders. The G20 is divided on support for the war. I believe only nine out of the twenty nations actually support attacking Syria. "Russia could approve military strikes against the Syrian government if the West presented watertight evidence of chemical weapons crimes but warned the use of force without UN approval would be an "aggression." If you paid attention to the rest of the article, you would realize that does not mean that they will no longer support Syria. What it means is "You can legally attack Syria if you find evidence, but we're still going to support them". If America attacks Syria, whether it be before evidence is found or after, Russia is still going to defend them. Justice isnt something that you choose. It is in this case. "Russia supplying Syria with chemical weapons is 100% false. Supplying conventional weapons "which can" be modified to support a chemical weapons program is not even in the same ballpark as "supplying" chemical weapons. You can modify a pipe into a pipe bomb. Does that mean Ace Hardware is "supplying" pipe bombs?" Of course Putin is going to deny that he supplied Syria with chemical weapons. It's illegal! Assad is denying that he gassed his own people. Do you believe that? The rebels are denying it too. So someone is lying... do you just believe everyone? There are more articles stating that Putin DID supply Syria with chemical weapons, then there are that say he DIDN'T. Side: Yes
1
point
How long do you think that will take? Haste makes waste The length of time is the last thing to worry about The G20 is divided on support for the war. I believe only nine out of the twenty nations actually support attacking Syria. 11 actually. Namely: Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, Britain and the United States If you paid attention to the rest of the article, you would realize that does not mean that they will no longer support Syria. That would be considered illegal and Putin's people will be his own enemy if he do so. It is in this case. It isnt, and never should Of course Putin is going to deny that he supplied Syria with chemical weapons. The Code of Justice states: "Everyone is innocent until proven guilty" It doesnt matter how many people condemns him. If there is no evidence, there is no punishment Side: No
The length of time is the last thing to worry about The longer we're there, the greater our deficit will increase. Our gas prices will go up as well. 11 actually. Namely: Britain doesn't really count. They voted against military action... so it's more like 10. That would be considered illegal and Putin's people will be his own enemy if he do so. Legalities won't matter. Russia will veto the UN Security Council's vote to go to war and then America will be going after Syria illegaly. This is similar to the Kosovo situation in 1999. The UN Security Council was held up by a Russian veto and American and NATO forces still intervened illegaly. It doesnt matter how many people condemns him. If there is no evidence, there is no punishment Assad hasn't been proven guilty. The rebels haven't been proven guilty. So who do you think we should attack, because according to you... everyone is innocent so far? Side: Yes
1
point
The longer we're there, the greater our deficit will increase. Our gas prices will go up as well. Small price for the safety of the troops Britain doesn't really count. They voted against military action... so it's more like 10. The rest are unsure or against isnt it? The number of those who supports it are growing. Why are you scared of fighting for what is right? Legalities won't matter. It matters. How can you make the people follow you when they know that you are protecting a criminal? And it appears like you are judging Russians in a racist manner Assad hasn't been proven guilty. The rebels haven't been proven guilty. So who do you think we should attack, because according to you... everyone is innocent so far? Exactly why the UN is studying the case. Side: No
Small price for the safety of the troops We are TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. Our other war that we are currently in has also increased the debt... and guess what? Our troops are still dying. The difference between our war with Al Qaeda and the war with Syria, is that Al Qaeda attacked us first... Syria hasn't attacked us! Attacking the Syrian government will strengthen al Qaeda... our main enemy. The rest are unsure or against isnt it? The number of those who supports it are growing. Why are you scared of fighting for what is right? The number of American's who DON'T support it is growing as well. Other countries shouldn't speak for our country. If the American people don't want to go to war, then America shouldn't go to war! It's that simple. This isn't our problem. Why can't the other countries deal with it? Why are we the police of the world? We have more important problems we need to focus on. It matters. How can you make the people follow you when they know that you are protecting a criminal? And it appears like you are judging Russians in a racist manner A racist manner? Give me a break! You're obviously running out of arguments, not that it matters though, because you never understood what you were talking about in the first place. I know how Russia is. They're allies with most of our enemies. They still hold the cold war mentality. Also, you apparently didn't read the rest of my comment. Russia will veto the attack, we will still go to war. We'll be breaking the law, not Russia! If you don't understand what we're talking about, then just admit it. You continually ignore most of my keypoints and misunderstand the others. Exactly why the UN is studying the case. You want to attack them, so who do you want to attack? You've clearly already made up your mind. Side: Yes
1
point
We are TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. Our other war that we are currently in has also increased the debt... and guess what? Our troops are still dying. The attack makes a mockery of the UN laws, endangers the neighboring allies and leaves the rule open for terrorists to do the same. Soldiers always die, they are aware of that. Their question is what they will die for. Other than being war weary, I see no other reasons not to fight Attacking the Syrian government will strengthen al Qaeda... our main enemy. The number of American's who DON'T support it is growing as well. Other countries shouldn't speak for our country. If the American people don't want to go to war, then America shouldn't go to war! All the moral reasons to fight leans with us, we have the capability to help and the international support is growing. Yet you still refuse to act nor accept the name "coward". You disgust me I know how Russia is. They're allies with most of our enemies.Russia will veto the attack, we will still go to war. We'll be breaking the law, not Russia! You cant judge a person by whom they hang out with. Even Russia has a taste for Justice You want to attack them, so who do you want to attack? You've clearly already made up your mind. I made up my mind to punish those who violated the law. But I am not to quick to jump on the conclusion on who is responsible for it. Is there a problem? Side: No
Soldiers always die, they are aware of that. Their question is what they will die for. Other than being war weary, I see no other reasons not to fight I gave you reasons, you're just too naive to understand them. Nope Your links never support your arguments. Did I ever say that the Syrian rebels were dominated by al Qaeda? No. Al Qaeda is supporting the rebels and fighting among them. Al Qaeda actually led the rebels in an attack on a Christian village the other day. If the Syrian government falls, the second greatest military influence in Syria, al Qaeda, will take over. All the moral reasons to fight leans with us, we have the capability to help and the international support is growing. Yet you still refuse to act nor accept the name "coward". You don't know shit. You can call people cowards all day, but you are completely ignorant on this topic. You thought al Qaeda was a person... let me repeat that... YOU thought our biggest enemy was a PERSON. You disgust me Your ignorance disgusts me. How can you know so little about the world you live in? You cant judge a person by whom they hang out with. Even Russia has a taste for Justice Are you Russian? You sure do defend them a lot. I recommend you take a few hours to do some research. I made up my mind to punish those who violated the law. But I am not to quick to jump on the conclusion on who is responsible for it. Is there a problem? You aren't punishing anyone. You're sitting on your ass saying "Justice must be served!". It's absolutely pathetic. What makes it even more pathetic is your lack of knowledge on the subject. Side: Yes
1
point
I gave you reasons, you're just too naive to understand them. The reasons you gave are acts of selfishness and self importance. I can see the logic, but not the righteousness If the Syrian government falls, the second greatest military influence in Syria, al Qaeda, will take over. Exactly the reason why military intervention must come. With the force of the UN, you can take down Assad, protect the innocents and renew their congress You thought al Qaeda was a person... let me repeat that... YOU thought our biggest enemy was a PERSON. You thought Eben Alexander is a Christian You measured a woman's purity by her hymen We are all humans, we make mistakes. The important thing is how we learn from it You don't know shit. You can call people cowards all day, but you are completely ignorant on this topic.Your ignorance disgusts me. How can you know so little about the world you live in? Your attitude in defeat marks your worth as a person. Funny how you condemn Malachi's immaturity but you are not so different Are you Russian? You sure do defend them a lot. I recommend you take a few hours to do some research. Judging a person by his origin is a form of racism. Doesnt matter where I came from. It is the voice of reason that should be taken focus on You aren't punishing anyone. You're sitting on your ass saying "Justice must be served!". I already said the reasons right? To die for the sake of doing what right is an eternal joy. But the fact that I contributes the most behind their backs is my physical limitations Side: No
The reasons you gave are acts of selfishness and self importance. I can see the logic, but not the righteousness I've given you articles, I've given you history lessons, I've had to correct you multiple times... you just don't understand. Look at the BIG PICTURE. Exactly the reason why military intervention must come. With the force of the UN, you can take down Assad, protect the innocents and renew their congress Wait... so now you think Assad is innocent? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? You thought Eben Alexander is a Christian That has nothing to do with this debate... but he is a Christian, at least he claims to be. That's just another example of your ignorance. You measured a woman's purity by her hymen No I didn't. You apparently don't understand any of our debates. We are all humans, we make mistakes. The important thing is how we learn from it You don't learn. I've been trying to teach you. You only catch the simple stuff. Sorry, but it's true. Your attitude in defeat marks your worth as a person. Funny how you condemn Malachi's immaturity but you are not so different You called me a "coward" and said that I "disgust" you. I decided to stoop down to your level for a little bit. We could have a group vote if you want to see who had the better arguments. You'd be suprised how you're arguments appear to outsiders. Judging a person by his origin is a form of racism. Doesnt matter where I came from. It is the voice of reason that should be taken focus on You don't seem to know much about Russia. To die for the sake of doing what right is an eternal joy. But the fact that I contributes the most behind their backs is my physical limitations Which is probably just a load of BS. Side: Yes
1
point
Look at the BIG PICTURE The bigger picture is that more and more innocents are stuck in mindless violence. The bigger picture is that we have the power to change it yet the majority of the population prefer to delude themselves in their cowardice Wait... so now you think Assad is innocent? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Let me rephrase that to: "With the force of the UN, you can take down the one at fault, protect the innocents and renew their congress" Thanks for pointing it out That has nothing to do with this debate... I can say the same thing to yours No I didn't. You apparently don't understand any of our debates.You don't learn. You can check out your words. The debate topic is still alive. You called me a "coward" and said that I "disgust" you. What else do you wish to be called? We could have a group vote if you want to see who had the better arguments. You'd be suprised how you're arguments Bragging about achievements are done at FB. But if thats what can raise your self-esteem, then sure. Whatever floats your boat, I guess You don't seem to know much about Russia. You seem to overestimate your knowledge Which is probably just a load of BS. I pity the fool Side: No
The bigger picture is that more and more innocents are stuck in mindless violence. They are in a civil war. You would have never cared if chemical weapons weren't used. The media had been covering Syria before the chemical attacks too. Did you pay attention then? The bigger picture is that we have the power to change it yet the majority of the population prefer to delude themselves in their cowardice The bigger picture is that Iran said they will bomb Israel if we attack Syria, sending us to war with them. Iran has nuclear weapons. The bigger picture is that our soldiers have been waiting to come home and we're just going to send them off to another war. The bigger picture is that our economy can't take another war. This could possibly lead to World War III. You can check out your words. The debate topic is still alive. So what? Intangible thought you meant sex too. I don't actually think sex is corruption. I've heard people say that before and you seem like they type that would say it. Bragging about achievements are done at FB. But if thats what can raise your self-esteem, then sure. So you're admitting that I had the better arguments? You seem to overestimate your knowledge You seem to lack it. Side: Yes
1
point
Did you pay attention then? Yes, and now that I have the chance to do something, I have no intention of cowering This could possibly lead to World War III. If it is a war brought by doing the right thing, I see no reason to fear I've heard people say that before and you seem like they type that would say it. Nope, but I dont like to talk about off topics. So ill skip this (if you dont mind) So you're admitting that I had the better arguments? I dont watch your arguments. Only you can decide yours You seem to lack it. Knowledge is not an excuse to be racist Side: No
Yes, and now that I have the chance to do something, I have no intention of cowering What are YOU doing? Telling everyone on CD that you support going to war with Syria? That's pretty damn useless if you ask me, especially considering how thick-headed you've been throughout this debate. If you want to do something, then you need to get over there and help. You don't have to join the military. You can just fall within the rebels and fight among them. How about you help supply some humanitarian aid? That shouldn't be a problem, should it? You believe SO much in helping these people yet you are doing nothing to actually help them. That to me is a coward. If it is a war brought by doing the right thing, I see no reason to fear Assuming you aren't American, would you have jumped in the middle of our civil war? Let me make it even simpler, if you saw two people shooting at eachother, would you storm in there with your gun? Syria is in the middle of a civil war... we aren't allies with either side. What right do we have entering it? Nope, but I dont like to talk about off topics. So ill skip this (if you dont mind) That's fine with me. You probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. Knowledge is not an excuse to be racist How is that racism? For all you know, I may come from a Russian background. Would you call it racism if I said that the North Korean government is corrupt? No, because it's very well documented. Same with Russia. I remember not too long ago, I saw an interview with a Russian billionaire who pointed out that "corruption" is embeded in the Russian mindset. Russia has accepted that and they find no need to change as of yet. Their actions have been documented. They've blocked us from interferring with Syria before. They're going to do it again. Side: Yes
1
point
What are YOU doing? Convincing more people to support the troops, letting my words be known and of course, practicing freedom of speech. I work best behind their backs, but give me a body meant for battle and you will see me on the front lines. Assuming you aren't American, would you have jumped in the middle of our civil war? If one violated the rules of the UN, yes If you saw two people shooting at each other, would you storm in there with your gun? If it endangers the public, yes It is is a duel between fools, no How is that racism? Criticizing the government isnt racism. Racism is when you speak ill to the Russians in general. Putin may lead them to bad routes, but it is the people who decides where to go. And I dont suppose that they desire to protect a criminal side. Side: No
Convincing more people to support the troops, letting my words be known and of course, practicing freedom of speech. You're convincing people to support the troops? Uhhh... everyone suppports the troops... but they aren't the ones making the decision to attack Syria. Letting your "words be known" and practicing freedom of speech aren't doing anything for the Syrian people. So you aren't doing anything of value. I work best behind their backs, but give me a body meant for battle and you will see me on the front lines. You aren't working behind their backs. At least not in a way that is helpful to them. Are you crippled, old, or overweight? Crippled; then donate money. Old; I doubt you're too old... you can still give them aid. Overweight; not an excuse. If one violated the rules of the UN, yes That's what drives you? Someone breaking a UN law? Give me a break! Then you should have joined the fight against America in 1999. Look it up. We've broken International Law multiple times. It is is a duel between fools, no That's what the Syrian civil war is. Criticizing the government isnt racism. Racism is when you speak ill to the Russians in general. Give me an example of where I made a racist remark about Russia. Putin may lead them to bad routes, but it is the people who decides where to go. The people don't decide where to go... he's a dictator! And I dont suppose that they desire to protect a criminal side. Do you know anything about Russia? Side: Yes
1
point
You're convincing people to support the troops? Uhhh... everyone suppports the troops. Rallies on the street and internet. Thats not my definition of support Letting your "words be known" and practicing freedom of speech aren't doing anything for the Syrian people. It is, when the people will listen and allow themselves to be convinced "Enemy or not, if you are willing to listen, you are free to dine on my table" -Alexander the Great You aren't working behind their backs. At least not in a way that is helpful to them. I pay my taxes, and fight misinformed netizens. My skill set are limited to this. But if theres anything else you wish me to do, I am all ears That's what the Syrian civil war is. Its not because a chemical weapon was used and makes a mockery of the UN. That's what drives you? Someone breaking a UN law? Give me a break! It isnt in the magnitude as big as what happened in Syria. Give me an example of where I made a racist remark about Russia. You just did: "The people don't decide where to go... he's a dictator!" Thats the same as saying "Russians are too stupid to decide their own enemy" Or did I misunderstood? Side: No
Rallies on the street and internet. Thats not my definition of support Our president says if we go to war or not. Our soldiers just follow orders. Do you really think that our soldiers who have been fighting al-Qaeda overseas for 12 years, want to go over to Syria and help them? People don't want us to go to war because of our troops. The President ran for office claiming that he would bring them home. All he's done is add another war. I pay my taxes, and fight misinformed netizens. My skill set are limited to this. But if theres anything else you wish me to do, I am all ears Misinformed citizens!? LOL! You are the definition of a misinformed citizen. You just did: "The people don't decide where to go... he's a dictator!" Thats the same as saying "Russians are too stupid to decide their own enemy" That's not racism! That's the truth! Calling someone a dictator isn't an insult when they really are one. Side: Yes
1
point
Our president says if we go to war or not. Our soldiers just follow orders. Then allow me to rephrase that to "Support the decision of the President" Now do you understand? Do you really think that our soldiers who have been fighting al-Qaeda overseas for 12 years, want to go over to Syria and help them? Punishing the accused isnt helping anyone but the civilians. It bringing an advantage to the other side is an unintentional bonus You are the definition of a misinformed citizen. Whatever That's not racism! That's the truth! Calling someone a dictator isn't an insult when they really are one. The fools are always sure -Socrates Side: No
Then allow me to rephrase that to "Support the decision of the President" You sure have been doing a lot of rephrasing. Punishing the accused isnt helping anyone but the civilians. It bringing an advantage to the other side is an unintentional bonus Helping the civilians will have a significant cost if we try to help them through war. It's not smart. The fools are always sure -Socrates That quote doesn't work as a response to my argument, because my information is based off of fact. However, it could be applied to someone who is positive that we should go to war but doesn't understand the awaiting consequences of the action... or in other words, YOU. Side: Yes
1
point
You sure have been doing a lot of rephrasing. Does it matter? Helping the civilians will have a significant cost if we try to help them through war. It's not smart. Its called war if it is a conflict between nations. But if it is supported by the UN and have a major international support, its called "Justice". That quote doesn't work as a response to my argument, because my information is based of off fact. No facts has ever supported racism However, it could be applied to someone who is positive that we should go to war but doesn't understand the awaiting consequences of the action Fighting for something worth dying, or living under the comfort of the blanket? You make me sick Side: No
Does it matter? Yeah, it shows that you screw up a lot. Its called war if it is a conflict between nations. But if it is supported by the UN and have a major international support, its called "Justice". No, it's called war. Attacking Syria will obviously start a confilict between our two nations. We'll also end up going to war with Iran. No facts has ever supported racism That's the thing though, I never said anything racist. I described the Russian government and mindset. Things that they have even claimed about themselves. Sorry, but pulling the racism card on me isn't going to work. Fighting for something worth dying, or living under the comfort of the blanket? This isn't something worth dying over. It's not our fight! 62% of Americans don't want us to go to war. You make me sick So the majority of Americans make you sick too? I can live with that. Side: Yes
1
point
Yeah, it shows that you screw up a lot. "It isnt about mistakes, it is about the courage of correcting it that makes a man wiser" -Anonymous No, it's called war. Attacking Syria will obviously start a confilict between our two nations. We'll also end up going to war with Iran. If your reasons are true and good, i see no reason for cowering That's the thigh though, I never said anything racist. You claimed that Russians are puppets of their government just because they are a dictatorship. And deny the chances of revolt. Your claiming they are stupid How is that not racist? This isn't something worth dying over. It's not our fight! Again, when it involves severe violation of the UN laws, it isnt a war anymore. But a humanitarian crime. It isnt a fight, but punishment So the majority of Americans make you sick too? I can live with that. Taking comfort in numbers changes nothing about yourself. But I can understand your insecurities. Everyone wish to join the crowd "A fools paradise is a wise mans hell" -Thomas Fuller Side: No
"It isnt about mistakes, it is about the courage of correcting it that makes a man wiser" "Stupid is as stupid does" -Forrest Gump If your reasons are true and good, i see no reason for cowering This isn't a boxing match, it's a a war between two nations. You claimed that Russians are puppets of their government just because they are a dictatorship. And deny the chances of revolt. Your claiming they are stupid I never said they were puppets. Holy shit, am I arguing with myself here? Your ignorance is incredible. Again, when it involves severe violation of the UN laws, it isnt a war anymore. But a humanitarian crime. It isnt a fight, but punishment It's still a war. A country is not a criminal. They will fight back and their allies will fight back as well. Taking comport in numbers changes nothing about yourself. But I can understand your insecurities. Everyone wish to join the crowd Since when did you start understanding stuff? You've been oblivious throughout this entire debate. Apparently, your lack of understanding is detrimental to your decision-making process. You blindly support things that you don't understand. You form your opinions in the same way that a child would. "Let's go to war with Syria because they did bad stuff to themselves". That pretty much sums up all of your arguments. Maybe you need to pay attention to what the crowd is saying. Those numbers send a clear message. One that you aren't catching on to. "A fools paradise is a wise mans hell" "In a modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason" -Ernest Hemingway Hey look! I can find quotes to support my argument too! Side: Yes
1
point
This isn't a boxing match, it's a a war between two nations. its a war between criminals and UN I never said they were puppets. Holy shit, am I arguing with myself here? "The people don't decide where to go... he's a dictator! That's not racism! That's the truth! " -GuitarGuy You deny the capabilities of the Russians to start a rebellion against a leader who will force them to fight for a criminal. And claim they are stupid. How is that not racist? It's still a war. A country is not a criminal. They will fight back and their allies will fight back as well. No one wants to fight along side a criminal. Once Assad was proven accused, all the UN will turn against him or it will give a bad image to the supporting countries. That is all Maybe you need to pay attention to what the crowd is saying. Those numbers send a clear message. One that you aren't catching on to. You know what they say: "The moment you followed the herd, is the moment you lost your ability to think for yourself" Democracy isnt justice. Side: No
its a war between criminals and UN The UN consists of more than just our allies. Russia and China's UN veto is preventing us from legally taking action. You deny the capabilities of the Russians to start a rebellion against a leader who will force them to fight for a criminal. And claim they are stupid. How is that not racist? I never said they were stupid. They support Putin and his decisions. Nothing wrong with the people supporting their leader, who happens to be allies with our enemies. Russians tend to not like us. No one wants to fight along side a criminal. Once Assad was proven accused, all the UN will turn against him or it will give a bad image to the supporting countries. That is all No one? Really? Then why are there countries defending Syria? You're so naive! Wake up! Side: Yes
1
point
The UN consists of more than just our allies. Russia and China's UN veto is preventing us from legally taking action. Question is, how long? Even Russia and China knows that there is no point in defending a country that kills its own people and cares nothing about them than trade of arms. I never said they were stupid. They support Putin and his decisions. Nothing wrong with the people supporting their leader, Americans are currently rallying againt Barrack because they do not like his decisions. What makes you think that Russians will not do the same once they found out that Putin is forcing them to fight for a criminal? No one? Really? Then why are there countries defending Syria? Defending Syria or fighting against America? Theres a difference Side: No
Question is, how long? They won't give up until America takes illegal action. Even Russia and China knows that there is no point in defending a country that cares nothing about them. Russia has persuaded Syria to hand over all of their chemical weapons. Obama might agree that this is acceptable, but he's still considering going to war... so he obviously has ulterior motives for attacking them. Americans are currently rallying againt Barrack because they do not like his decisions. What makes you think that Russians will not do the same once they found out that Putin is forcing them to fight for a criminal? The thing about Russia is that they aren't stupid. Most of them are actually pretty smart. They know that their government supports Syria. Russians have the right to freedom of the press and they see global news just like us. The news isn't delayed over there. If they had a problem, they would have spoken up by now. Defending Syria or fighting against America? Theres a difference Both. France and the U.S. are the main advocates for attacking Syria, where as Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Pakistan, and Venezuela are among the few of Syria's allies who are against it. Iran and the terrorist organization Hezbollah, promised immediate retaliation if Syria is attacked. Side: Yes
1
point
They won't give up until America takes illegal action. That would be the fault of America's impatience Obama might agree that this is acceptable, but he's still considering going to war... so he obviously has ulterior motives for attacking them. Till then, he has my support The thing about Russia is that they aren't stupid. Most of them are actually pretty smart. They know that their government supports Syria. Aye, and they also know that there is no solid evidence for who caused the chemical attack. I prefer to wait for the results Both. France and the U.S. are the main advocates for attacking Syria, where as Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Pakistan, and Venezuela are among the few of Syria's allies who are against it. An alliance lasts only till your ally has done something worth of destroying your trust. Everything will be decided upon by the voice of the UN Iran and the terrorist organization Hezbollah, promised immediate retaliation if Syria is attacked. The keywords there are "terrorist" and "extremist" The rest you can guess Side: No
That would be the fault of America's impatience So now you think patience is important? More and more civilians are dying each day we wait. If we're going to war, it would make sense to go now, would it not? Aye, and they also know that there is no solid evidence for who caused the chemical attack. I prefer to wait for the results You can't support Obama and Putin at the same time, at least not regarding this matter. Personally, I agree with Putin's tactic, which is for the Syrian government to hand over their chemical weapons. Obama says he will look into this matter, but he is still pushing for an attack. An alliance lasts only till your ally has done something worth of destroying your trust. Everything will be decided upon by the voice of the UN Have you ever thought that maybe Syria's allies don't care that he gassed his own people? Not every country has the same moral principles. The keywords there are "terrorist" and "extremist" I never said "extremist", but yeah... and guess what happens if we don't attack? They don't retaliate. Iran isn't a terrorist organization though. They're Syria's most powerful Middle Eastern ally. Side: Yes
1
point
So now you think patience is important? More and more civilians are dying each day we wait. If we're going to war, it would make sense to go now, would it not? Being lazy is not being patient. And being reckless isnt being quick You said it yourself that this is a sensitive issue that can ignite a war. Except if the UN can approve the action first. Thats the quickest way possible Personally, I agree with Putin's tactic, which is for the Syrian government to hand over their chemical weapons That we can agree on Obama says he will look into this matter, but he is still pushing for an attack When that happens, my loyalty to Obama will be lost Have you ever thought that maybe Syria's allies don't care that he gassed his own people? Not every country has the same moral principles. A country such as that will never last. Once Assad was proven guilty, the only ally he will have are terrorists who can double cross him anytime. guess what happens if we don't attack? They don't retaliate. But there were no plans of attacking them. They are just using Syria as an excuse to pick a fight against America (again). Typical terrorists Iran isn't a terrorist organization though. They're Syria's most powerful Middle Eastern ally. But they are ruled by extremists. It makes no difference, does it? Side: No
Being patient is not being lazy. And being quick isnt being reckless You do know that "isn't" is supposed to have an apostrophe in it, right? You've been leaving them out the entire debate. You said it yourself that this is a sensitive issue that can ignite a war. Except if the UN can approve the action first. Thats the quickest way possible Right... you contradict yourself... A LOT. That we can agree on That's good, but what about the justice you kept talking about? You wanted the people responsible to be held accountable for their actions. You had basically said that you want revenge for the civilians who died. When that happens, my loyalty to Obama will be lost Why? An attack is what you wanted all along. A country such as that will never last. Once Assad was proven guilty, the only ally he will have are terrorists who can double cross him anytime. You have no proof of that. Patterns throughout history can almost guarantee us that his allies will remain loyal. He'd have to personally affect them in a negative manner, in order for any sort of tension to arise within their alliance. But there were no plans of attacking them. They are just using Syria as an excuse to pick a fight against America (again). Many people believe that we're just using Syria as an excuse to attack Iran. But they are ruled by extremists. It makes no difference, does it? What makes you think that they are ruled by extremists? Side: Yes
1
point
That's good, but what about the justice you kept talking about?Why? An attack is what you wanted all along Justice can have more forms than you think. Surrendering the chemical weapons will give us no more reason to fight. But a sanction will still be proposed sooner or later. You have no proof of that. Patterns throughout history can almost guarantee us that his allies will remain loyal. No one wants to protect a criminal Thats all you need to know. Many people believe that we're just using Syria as an excuse to attack Iran. "Believe". Its not a fact, but I am open to be convinced. What makes you think that they are ruled by extremists? They are aware that they are ruled by extremists Side: No
Justice can have more forms than you think. Surrendering the chemical weapons will give us no more reason to fight. But a sanction will still be proposed sooner or later. I don't think Assad will face any sort of sanction, other than being strictly forbidden from ever using chemical weapons again. At least that's what Obama said during his National Address last night. This is of course, assuming that Obama agrees to these terms and decides not to attack Syria. No one wants to protect a criminal Thats all you need to know. That's all I need to know? What are you some sort of expert now? Corrupt nations have no problem protecting a corrupt ally. "Believe". Its not a fact, but I am open to be convinced. You're difficult to convince. You tend to just ignore the facts when they're right in front of you. They are aware that they are ruled by extremists “victory for wisdom, moderation and maturity... over extremism.” You really need to start reading more than just titles. Side: Yes
1
point
We tackled this one already. I have no intention of repeating the argument We didn't tackle it. I suppose this argument is now over, isnt it? Only if you don't respond to this, but that'll be a victory for me if you don't. I typed up a pretty long argument and you only responded to a small portion. Actually, you responded to a comment that didn't really need a response. You've changed your position little by little throughout this debate. I can only assume that what I said got to you. But the one thing I wanted to say that I didn't get to, is that good leaders make their decisions based off of intelligence, not emotion. Attacking Syria will be an emotional response. Side: Yes
1
point
We didn't tackle it. Read the Russia argument. Attacking Syria will be an emotional response. Violation of UN laws demands right punishment. Fearing the consequences, thats the emotional response. Only if you don't respond to this, but that'll be a victory for me if you don't. Question will be, how long can you fool yourself? Side: No
Read the Russia argument. It would be easier if you just provided me with a quote. Violation of UN laws demands right punishment. You're pretty close to contradicting yourself again, but I don't want to stop you. So, please clarify? What should the punishment be? Question will be, how long can you fool yourself? Well, I've already had people on here tell me that they agree with me, so... Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
No, I'm saying that we shouldn't ignore the fact that a nation has attacked its own innocent civilians with a weapon that would be near impossible for themselves to defend against. And what's interesting is that you cannot have a mature debate, and offer no true argumentative statement concerning this topic. Other than "playing games with other people's lives", why should the US ignore this situation? Please, enlighten me. Side: No
Other than "playing games with other people's lives", why should the US ignore this situation? Please, enlighten me. First of all it's none of our business. If you think the chemical attack in Syria (if they even did) amounts to fly dung then you are mistaken. Syria's situation is baby talk. The situation in Syria is clear. You have a military dictator that rules with an iron fist. Then on the other hand you have the Muslim Brotherhood (a.k.a Al Queda) shooting innocent Iraqi truck drivers because of their belief. YES, THEY ATTACKED OUR OWN ALLY SUPPLY LINES. So now I want to ask you, why should we get involved in Syria? Anyone who wants to go into Syria needs their head examine. Side: Yes
IM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD GO INTO SYRIA WITH GUNS ABLAZE. I'm just saying the situation shouldn't be IGNORED, SWEPT UNDER THE RUG, HIDDEN IN THE BACK OF THE CLOSET, and other synonymous phrases having to do with pretending a problem doesn't exist. For one thing, giving aid to help Syrian citizens and trying to prevent future actions like this will portray the US as a potential ally. And should the US go back on their word about getting involved if chemical weapons were used? Good politics is all about posturing, making yourself look big without revealing your secret intelligence/weapons etc. So if we go back on our word, it will make US look bad. Duh. And with everything going on now, we shouldn't risk appearing weak. Side: No
It's no use arguing with him. He thinks by ignore, we mean that our news shouldn't talk about them, our government shouldn't pay attention to them, and our citizens shouldn't think about them. It's actually kind of funny that he has misunderstood us that deeply lol. Side: Yes
That's basically what he said. If he meant something different, how about using a different choice of words or clarifying his debate? And you're the one contradicting yourself, not me. So I think you should look in the mirror before calling someone else unintelligent Side: No
1
point
Ignoring the situation wouldn't make us seem weak nor would it cause us to not be taken seriously. The UK has voted against invading Syria and yet they are one of the most respected powers in the world with one of the strongest economies. Although we may not agree with it as a nation, we simply cannot go in and fix every problem in the world with guns ablaze. Side: Yes
I'm not saying that physical force should be taken, I'm just saying that SOMETHING should be done about it. Ignoring it AFTER the fact that our government has said that if chemical weapons were used, we would get involved would be the reason we, as a nation, would appear weak or cowardly. And yes, we would lose our credibility if that happens. Side: No
2
points
2
points
First off, what did he do to America? Second off, why are we controlling how the rest of the world lives? Third off, why are we responding to death with military action (fighting fire with fire)? Fourth off, why must we constantly entangle ourselves in foreign affairs when we have plenty of issues at home? Side: Yes
2
points
what did he do to America? America? No, UN laws, yes why are we controlling how the rest of the world lives? It isnt about control. This is about punishing those who dare to violate the laws which was implemented for a reason why are we responding to death with military action If you have a better solution, I am all ears why must we constantly entangle ourselves in foreign affairs when we have plenty of issues at home? "When we said never again, it does not mean "once in a while". It means never again" - Barrack Obama There is a reason why we created the UN and struggle to keep peace. Being tired of conflicts is normal. But evil triumps when good men do nothing Side: No
1
point
1
point
2
points
peolpe who use chemical weapons want U.S intervention.these people have strong hold in Syria . i think the situation will be just like Afghanistan.strong groups in syria will make their own boundaries. one side will work along with americans and other side will control the areas against americans. both groups will use a lot of guns .only civilians will suffer. people in strong groups will make their own governments and rule their areas.Syria will be divided into two or many countries. Side: No
|
