jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (36 posts)

Are you for or against the invasion of Syria?

  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    An IPSOS poll stated that 63% of the American people are against. 22% are for. Which one are you?
    I am against.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As a UK national i am against.

      Let Muslims fight for so called Muslim lands.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That is a racist statement. What about let the Syrian people fight against the extremist invaders. It would be closer to the truth. And so far, since we Westerners did not finance those mercenaries it would not have happened.
        When the Turkish people are fighting for their freedom against a muslim government established by the US. Look at Egypt, same type of government.
        I am wondering which criteria allow us to determine that one is a democracy and therefore we shall not intervene (Turkey) and the other is a dictatorship (Syria) given that a NATO report clearly stressed that more than 70% of the population supported Assad, that he asked for a referendum what we refused knowing that he would win the majority?

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe a religionist statement but not a racist one. (Is religonist a word? Maybe it should be the amount of times people get the meaning mixed up with racist)
          And Maxoxam many of the fighters for Allah are from many races.
          I would be happy if the UK stayed out of every conflict in so called Muslim countries and i would be happy to see those who believe there to be so called Muslim countries go and live there if they wish.
          Because Assad has the support of 70% of his people does that mean he should be allowed to kill the 30% that don't support him?
          Anyway if the Muslim brothers win in Syria they will have another platform for launching their rockets into Israel.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So far the only one constantly agressing its neighbor is Israel. Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Palestine, Turkey through its fleet were attacked within a year, let's not confuse roles.
            I've been to Baath "muslim" countries and they were very moderate religiously speaking. It is interesting to see that the real religious ones are from Saudi Arabia, Qatar that is to say countries that possess financially your country. How many Syrians live in your country? How many of them are extremists? Possess assets or have a political weight in the UK or elsewhere?
            Who did say that he killed 30% of his population? Don't you think that it is contradictory? Which dictator didn't flew his country? What do you think of a dictator who dreams of uniting the middle east in a commercial market similar to the UE? This kind of thinker will scare westerners that will see a potential economic power and another competitive platform in development.
            In the back of their minds Europe and the United-States enjoy the second-class countries status and low economic level of the middle east. Their economical growth is not in their interests.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't say he killed i said should he be able to kill the 30% who don't agree with him. The radicals would love to annihilate Israel, after all its not a Muslim country and only Muslims will be tolerated in the middle east.
              Its funny how you see the determination to survive as an act of aggression.

              1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It is a matter of semantic, didn't your "should" mean "led to the killing of 30% of the Syrians"? Otherwise where is the point of underlining it?
                Isn't it free to express any opinion on any country? We can criticize and condescend China, Iran but when it comes to the middle east criticizing Israel it's a NO-NO.
                The only aggressor is Israel. Which country did Syria attack?
                Determination to survive? Have you ever been there? I've never seen survivors as happy! Please what are you talking about?

                1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You can criticize Israel all you like but that's all you seem to do and i suppose you are one of those who would see it wiped from the face of the earth also.
                  As for Syria it is without doubt the radical Muslim brothers have decided that Assad is the enemy and that Syria should be another Islamic state, that is why they flock from all over the world to fight Jihad.
                  I will agree though that without the backing of other states the middle east would probably be a more peaceful place, that is of course after the Muslim brothers have taken over.

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not for the Jews to be exterminated from the world map, I am just against their middle east policy consisting in killing anybody that will express himself against them. Roland Dumas, former French foreign minister, just revealed it. Does it mean that you are agreeing with me, that the world, especially Syria in that matter doesn't need another Afghanistan fiasco where a Talibans-like regime will overthrow a more moderate one?

    2. aguasilver profile image87
      aguasilverposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Against, but I think it will happen anyway.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am counting on the counterweight of Russia to dissuade the US to make such a glaring mistake. The Syrian army is among the strongest and their public opinion is aware of the Westerners' intentions towards their country. Nothing better to fuel patriotism.

        1. aguasilver profile image87
          aguasilverposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You could be right, Gog and Magog are about due to enter the scene right on cue....

    3. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I am adamently opposed, another foreign entanglement? That is all we need right now. As with  our own civil war, why can't we let the primary players work out their own destiny without outside interference

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with your statement. Let them solve their problem. Our intervention only shows that we are protecting our future interests.

      2. 0
        Justsilvieposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We are so of like minds!!!

  2. HollieT profile image88
    HollieTposted 3 years ago

    I'm against.

  3. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    I'm against, because the rebels are not some sort of secular group fighting for freedom in Syria.  They have very conservative interpretations of the Koran, are very much supported by Al Qaeda, and have committed many human rights abuses themselves.  If two corrupt groups are fighting each other, who are we to intervene?

    The real reason the U.S. wants to get involved in Syria is because of oil and power.  Syria is an ally of Iran, and if we can topple Syria, Iran has one less ally, and we are one step closer to controlling Middle East oil.

    1. HollieT profile image88
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly, perfectly stated!

    2. maxoxam41 profile image80
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is exactly what is happening there. Independent news are echoing from your voice.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We are now beginning to provide aide to the rebels.  The thing is, Syria isn't Libya.  Assad won't go down nearly as easy, so in addition to the reasons I outlined, it's also going to be incredibly difficult to "overthrow" him.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image80
          maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't believe that we just started our help. How do you think that impoverished radical muslims suddenly embark to Syrian land, have machine guns, can sustain a two year war if not through our help?
          I personally don't consider Assad as a dictator to dethrone. He suggested to the international community the organization of a referendum. Is it the language of a dictator?

    3. IslandBites profile image83
      IslandBitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "The real reason the U.S. wants to get involved in Syria is because of oil and power.  Syria is an ally of Iran, and if we can topple Syria, Iran has one less ally, and we are one step closer to controlling Middle East oil."

      Agree 100% with your statement.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oil and natural gas.

  4. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I haven;t seen any suggestion of invasion, what poll are you quoting?  The most I have seen suggested was providing arms.

    1. HollieT profile image88
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I guess they're just using fighters other than the US and UK military. Although I suppose, that's not technically invasion.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well it isn't.  Any more that Russia giving government forces weapons is a coupe.

        IMHO both sides are a nest of vipers.

        1. HollieT profile image88
          HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I agree, they're just sending other nation's sons and daughters to their deaths, rather than their own.

        2. maxoxam41 profile image80
          maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The Russians entered the conflict because the US, Britain, Qatar, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel were/are by proxy or directly attacking Syria.

    2. maxoxam41 profile image80
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why don't you check the news? Independent ones. I guess you are for the intervention.

    3. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this
  5. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    I'm opposed to an invasion, and I'm opposed to arming rebels.

    1. HowardBThiname profile image90
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I am also opposed to both an invasion and to arming the terrorist rebels in Syria. After seeing women lose rights in both Egypt and Libya, I'm none too confident that action in Syria would amount to anything better. The rebels are religious extremists - I'm never for promoting extremism over secularism. I guess we haven't learned our lesson from the days when our "arms" led to the development of Al Qaeda. I hear a "no fly zone" is being discussed. That would amount to a military action - or an "invasion," but we're just parsing words. When we enter into the conflict by giving one group the method with which to kill another group - we've already lost our soul. Russia is considering supporting Asaad. Then what would we have? A US/Russia war being fought by proxy? We don't really seem to care how many Syrians die. As long as we gain some control over our oil that lies beneath their sand.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Finally Reason prevails!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    I don't think Obama is planning to "invade" Syria. (An invasion would be a huge mistake in my opinion.)

 
working