Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #8 - scoobi (09/10/2013) [-]
No idea why America and Canada and other countries are getting involved in Syria. Let them be.
User avatar #33 to #8 - Ruspanic (09/10/2013) [-]
I don't know about Canada and other countries, but the main argument made by US politicians is the moral one, that Assad's use of chemical weapons is morally reprehensible and must be punished. The better, but less prominent argument is that if there are no consequences for chemical weapons use, other countries and groups will think they can get away with using chemical weapons, too. Which would be bad. It's not meant to be a prolonged military campaign, though there's a risk of it becoming one if Assad or his allies react badly to our intervention.
#9 to #8 - sageofbattleon (09/10/2013) [-]
A) I would never want to be hit by any sort of chemical weapon myself so I think it'd be best for everyone if we just get rid of them now B) pretty much every country in the UN has signed multiple treaties obligating them to use force to stop any country using chemical weapons
#69 to #9 - anon (09/11/2013) [-]



User avatar #242 to #69 - Ruspanic (09/11/2013) [-]
Israel doesn't have an apartheid state and does not rely on American tax dollars.
User avatar #34 to #9 - Ruspanic (09/10/2013) [-]
"A" isn't a very good reason, since chances are you would never want to be hit by any sort of weapon at all. That doesn't mean we should aim to eradicate all weapons.
User avatar #17 to #9 - vortexrain (09/10/2013) [-]
Then why is everyone so against going to Syria? I really have no clue; I'm also very uninformed on political stuff.
User avatar #48 to #17 - thewaronbeingcool (09/10/2013) [-]
Because if we intervene then we'll be helping the rebels, who are muslim extremists who are also backed by (amongst others) Al Qaeda.
User avatar #38 to #17 - Ruspanic (09/10/2013) [-]
Well, part of it is that we don't want to be involved in another Middle-Eastern conflict. Although this is supposed to be a limited strike, Assad and his allies could escalate the conflict in response and drag us into a war.

The other part of it is that people don't support either side and are content to let them duke it out. Assad is a brutal dictator supported by Hezbollah and Iran, while the rebels include al-Qaeda affiliates and other religious extremists, and it's unclear who would come out in control of Syria if Assad fell. Both sides have also committed war crimes.
#18 to #17 - sageofbattleon (09/10/2013) [-]
Various reasons. Many EU countries just don't want to be involved with a military campaign right now, and some like Russia and China are against it just because the US and France support it, it is just what they do.
User avatar #20 to #18 - vortexrain (09/10/2013) [-]
The US doesn't support it, Obama ******* does.
User avatar #32 to #20 - hueyfreeman (09/10/2013) [-]
"I'm very uninformed on political stuff"
Hmm better assume Obama is the problem
User avatar #231 to #32 - vortexrain (09/11/2013) [-]
Does Obama not support going to Syria? Read comment 30 before you say that a lot of people want to go there too. I do watch the news every now and then. From what I've seen, most citizens don't want to go over there, and Obama does.
#235 to #231 - sageofbattleon (09/11/2013) [-]
You really have to think about the demographic you are getting your information about. In my experience the most vocal people are the ones opposing what the government wants no matter who the majority is, so no matter if 60% of people support something, on the news it will sound like 100% are against it.

Also, comment 30 quotes a Gallup pole, Gallup interviews about 1000 people per day over landline phones. Two problems with their info then: 1. They are quoting data from two days of polling in that article (2000 out of 313 million is hardly a large enough sample size) 2. Only polling over land lines seriously messes with any "averages" you would get. (Over half of American homes no longer have land lines)
#22 to #20 - sageofbattleon (09/10/2013) [-]
umm no. If you managed to poll everybody in the US right now the vote would come out to at least 50/50. There is strong support base consisting many people for the same reasons I gave above. A) Chemical weapons are just wrong and need to be removed from anybody's hands B) We (and pretty much everybody else) is legally obligated on an international treaty level to do so
User avatar #30 to #22 - Ruspanic (09/10/2013) [-]
Actually, only 36% of Americans support intervention, compared to 51% opposed (the rest are undecided or don't care). According to Gallup. Obviously they didn't poll "everybody in the US" but that's not how polling works.

Also, Syria didn't sign or ratify those treaties. It's one of the few countries not to do so.
#234 to #30 - sageofbattleon (09/11/2013) [-]
A) polls such as the one you referenced neither have a large enough sample size, nor a diverse enough demographic to be considered valid in any way.

B) It doesn't matter what Syria signed, we (and pretty much everybody else, like I've been saying) singed them. There are multiple treaties that mention the use of chemical weapons by any nation, and the need for signers and ratifiers to take action against any nation using chemical weapons for the greater good of the planet.
User avatar #241 to #234 - Ruspanic (09/11/2013) [-]
A) Erm, what? Gallup is one of the world's most respected polling companies for a reason. Its methodology certainly has problems, but it's not like the pollsters are just going around asking their friends and relatives. It does rely heavily on landline phones, but it also calls cell phones to get some of its polling data.
What's your source for "at least 50/50", and why is that more valid than a Gallup poll?

B) Well, yeah. I'm just saying. That point wasn't meant as a rebuttal, just as an addendum.
#24 to #22 - sageofbattleon (09/10/2013) [-]
Also, just to clarify my point: I totally agree with what Russia proposed and with what France proposed on top of that. We don't need a military campaign. The Syrian government was just not cooperating with the US, UK, France, or UN, but when Russia stepped in and asked them to turn over their weapons they agreed. On top of that resolution France has vowed to back that proposal but answer anything aside from full cooperation with military force.

TL;DR if they give up their weapons we don't need military action
 Friends (0)