NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you support US or UN led action against Syria?

Given a good reason.

Given a good reason.

Would them being found guilty of the attack in Lebanon be a good reason for you? Or how about them harboring Iraqi insurgents?

Would them being found guilty of the attack in Lebanon be a good reason for you? Or how about them harboring Iraqi insurgents?

Hmm...not a good enough reason for all-out war. Maybe special forces taking out their leader(s), limited air strikes...well, those are acts of war, I guess.

Let me rephrase: if it can be proven they are guilty of one or both of those, then they should be punished, though I do not have the creativity to suggest what.

Would you support US or UN led action against Syria?

Certainly not. The US imperialists have already caused enough death and destruction in Iraq for the interests of global capitalism without attacking another nation and killing millions more innocent people.

millions more innocent people.And who would these be exactly? Come now, honest answers, not hyperbole, generally works best.

...killing millions more innocent people.

Because millions of people have died in Iraq. Have I missed something.

By the way, I don't want to turn this thread into an Iraq debate, so if GH asks I'll delete this post to stop the madness :p .

Those pesky Syrians... Always invading other countries and acting only in the best interests of ummm... their own best interests.

No.

Let the UN continue to throw resolutions at the Syrians. Syria has only occupied Lebanon since 1979!!

As long as UN, EU and the rest of the world tolerates terrorist organisations like PLO, Hizbollah and others like them there should be no actions against anyone at all in that region.
PLO are terrorists and nothing else, regardless what all the so called politically correct people say.

And before all the yapping begins; no, I don't take sides in that conflict since all are equally at fault. I'm only pointing at some facts that the powers at be in the international community have chosen to neglect.

Would you support US or UN led action against Syria?

Hell yes. They were told to leave lebanon and they haven't! Good ridence

I wouldnt support it, and I dont think the military of the nations that may be involved can stretch that far

Would you support US or UN led action against Syria?

Certainly not. The US imperialists have already caused enough death and destruction in Iraq for the interests of global capitalism without attacking another nation and killing millions more innocent people.

The US hasnt had an imperialistic war since the Spanish American war.

Would them being found guilty of the attack in Lebanon be a good reason for you? Or how about them harboring Iraqi insurgents?

At least one of the two has been found to be true! LOL!!!

The US hasnt had an imperialistic war since the Spanish American war.

Correct my friend.

Technically the UN has asked Syria to leave Lebenanon repeatedly and passed a few resolutions. However Syria refuses to listen. The US believes(and this is before Bush) that Syria has orchestrated attacks against political figures and even a president in Lebenanon. Of course we all know UN Resolutions only mean you talk the otherside to death. Action is never an option in todays modern world.

If it were to happen I'd likely support it, but right now I wouldn't advocate it.

Only limited action. The US should ask the UN to impose sanctions on Syria. In addition, several countries should expel Syrian diplomats, and sever diplomatic relations with Syria. They must do this until a.) Bashir abdicates in favor of a democracy, or b.) Syrian troops withdraw from Lebanon.

Only limited action. The US should ask the UN to impose sanctions on Syria. In addition, several countries should expel Syrian diplomats, and sever diplomatic relations with Syria. They must do this until a.) Bashir abdicates in favor of a democracy,

Not likely!


or b.) Syrian troops withdraw from Lebanon.

Really, the poor bastards have been there since '79. I'd imagine most of their troops are homesick.

Are you Americans making a list of nations to go to war with, like a 5 year plan or something?

Iraq
Syria
Iran
North Korea
...

Would you support US or UN led action against Syria?
I wouldn't support the US no matter what. But I would like them to invade Syria. Another country that will give them nightmares for years to come.

Not likely!

One can still hope.

I wouldn't support the US no matter what. But I would like them to invade Syria. Another country that will give them nightmares for years to come.
You're a fanatic.

Are you Americans making a list of nations to go to war with, like a 5 year plan or something?

Iraq
Syria
Iran
North Korea
...
Nah, the US is just going to take out Camp Wakonda, aka, the hell that is band camp.

You're a fanatic.
Everyone needs a hobby.

I say the US should do a lightning strike on damascus from iraq. Would take them by suprise. They could be sippin mint tea in the presidential suite in a matter of days. and no the us is not stretched beyond means.

Everyone needs a hobby.
Eh, wearing hats and eating cake is a far better hobby.

BTW I saw bush's war plan:

Iraq
Syria
Iran
N Korea
France


Although bush expects french to surrender the first day. Anyway back to my chalk board...

Eh, wearing hats and eating cake is a far better hobby.
I don't like either hats or cakes.

Well, at least the US wouldnt have to go it alone on this one! We could get help from Lebanon, and probably even Israel, though, an attack on Syria by Israel would probably outrage most of the Arab world.

I don't like either hats or cakes.
WHAT???? You are a heretic and the Spanish Inquisition will get you.

I voted no, but only if the we actually thought it out before going to war.

Would you support US or UN led action against Syria?

Certainly not. The US imperialists have already caused enough death and destruction in Iraq for the interests of global capitalism without attacking another nation and killing millions more innocent people.
Um, hegemonists, thank you. And what's with the exaggeration? We killed nowhere near millions. in any of the post soviet actions. To suggest such is quite funny.

Syria has only occupied Lebanon since 1979!!

When does it stop being occupied land and start being part of the other country? Surely we can't expect national borders to be fixed forevermore from now on.

Just curious what people think.

I believe the region is already de-stablised enough without adding to the problem. As for the bombing in Lebanon, I know of no evidence that proves Syria was involved.

Evidently have all those who have said yes, reckoned with the fact that such an attack would likely lead to Iran stepping in on Syria's side? I'd say before anyone attacks Syria, it would be advisable to ensure that Iran is being truthful when it asserts that their nuclear capabilities are only civillian and not military...

I believe the region is already de-stablised enough without adding to the problem. As for the bombing in Lebanon, I know of no evidence that proves Syria was involved.

No evidence to prove that they weren't either.

Evidently have all those who have said yes, reckoned with the fact that such an attack would likely lead to Iran stepping in on Syria's side? I'd say before anyone attacks Syria, it would be advisable to ensure that Iran is being truthful when it asserts that their nuclear capabilities are only civillian and not military...

If anyone believes that Iran's nuclear capabilities are for civilian use only, is dreaming.

There's an odd mis-statement at the start of this poll.

The UN has never "led" any operation. They have always either "authorized" action, as in Kuwait, or have given complete command and control to one country over others involved in the operation (as in the resolution to defend Korea).

I repeat - it doesn't lead anything.

The rate we are going a world war would initiate...

"3rd world war will be fought with Missiles
4th world war fought with sticks."

If the other major powers stay out of it (and they have every interest in staying out of it), then there won't be a world war.

Syria, Lebanon, and Iran may end up with new governments or a lot of craters, but they won't be able to stop it from happenning.

If the other major powers stay out of it (and they have every interest in staying out of it), then there won't be a world war.

Syria, Lebanon, and Iran may end up with new governments or a lot of craters, but they won't be able to stop it from happenning.


I never said that...What I said was the rate we are going a world war would occur...

A North Korean War I fear the most..

I never said that...What I said was the rate we are going a world war would occur...

A North Korean War I fear the most..

China will, in the end, not move to help North Korea.

China makes a lot of money from trade with the US (and rest of the world).

It's better to make money and have jobs and great development than it is to help some idiot who built a few bombs.

North Korea is effectively isolated, militarily and politically. Naturally, you have to wait for them to either starve to death or make the first move.

If we make the first move, then China can say, "well, it looks ok to take Taiwan today".

I will not support invasion taken against Syria under the current conditions.
They have yet to prove themselves to be a massive threat that warrants an invasion.
Now, bombing the crap out of them and their new buddies in Tehran...I can handle that.

China will, in the end, not move to help North Korea.

China makes a lot of money from trade with the US (and rest of the world).

It's better to make money and have jobs and great development than it is to help some idiot who built a few bombs.

North Korea is effectively isolated, militarily and politically. Naturally, you have to wait for them to either starve to death or make the first move.

If we make the first move, then China can say, "well, it looks ok to take Taiwan today".

Maybe...But it is truly scary if North Korea possesses such W.M.D..And knowing their leaders hatred of America, he actually seems like he would use it.

However correct me if I am wrong but I am led to believe that in an American war plan against Korea, Nuclear attacks to cripple the countries infrastructure would be deemed fine.

That of course would not please china having their atmosphere messed up, thus that could trigger something bad. Also China enjoys having a buffer zone and near enough puppet state to protect them, so who knows...?

I dont belive there should be direct military action against Syria since the people of Syria are getting tired of it. Same can be said for North Korea...but the Liberal Media wont touch dissent in a country like that. Might make the Americans look good for trying to intervine.

I belive bombing runs from Israel, The United States, and possibly Great Britian will happen if Syria doesn't stop.


Isint it interesting that China...CHINA will most likely be the decideing factor in North Korea...in a GOOD WAY. Yikes...

Maybe...But it is truly scary if North Korea possesses such W.M.D..And knowing their leaders hatred of America, he actually seems like he would use it.

However correct me if I am wrong but I am led to believe that in an American war plan against Korea, Nuclear attacks to cripple the countries infrastructure would be deemed fine.

That of course would not please china having their atmosphere messed up, thus that could trigger something bad. Also China enjoys having a buffer zone and near enough puppet state to protect them, so who knows...?

If North Korea uses nuclear weapons, there will be a US nuclear response. If the weapons are airburst, you don't have to worry about fallout. However, if there are ground bursts, there will be fallout.

The weather and wind will not take the fallout to China. It would blow east out to sea. Japan might have more to worry about.

North Korea is not a buffer, nor a puppet state, for China. It is a liability and an embarassment.

No evidence to prove that they weren't either.
There's no evidence that the USA were not involved, nor that France wasnt, nor that England wasnt, nor that my cat wasnt....in fact, I dont recall a single shred of evidence that proves you werent involved Corneliu...perhaps you should turn yourself into your local law enforcement officials post-haste, just on the off-chance it was you... :rolleyes:


If anyone believes that Iran's nuclear capabilities are for civilian use only, is dreaming.
I've not suggested that they have or dont have military nuclear capabilities...

If North Korea uses nuclear weapons, there will be a US nuclear response. If the weapons are airburst, you don't have to worry about fallout. However, if there are ground bursts, there will be fallout.

The weather and wind will not take the fallout to China. It would blow east out to sea. Japan might have more to worry about.

North Korea is not a buffer, nor a puppet state, for China. It is a liability and an embarassment.

True, who uses it first will sway the international opinion. The next point is also correct; however somehow I doubt Japan would enjoy nuclear damage again.

Indeed some people say it is a burden on China. However like I said before having U.S.A on the doorstep is not something they would desire. But I agree that they definitely don't want a nuclear armed neighbour, thus I see them putting N.Korea back on the diplomatic table.

Nevertheless I would still hate to invade them without using W.M.D. Whoever does will be in for a hell of a fight.

If North Korea uses nuclear weapons, there will be a US nuclear response. If the weapons are airburst, you don't have to worry about fallout. However, if there are ground bursts, there will be fallout.

The weather and wind will not take the fallout to China. It would blow east out to sea. Japan might have more to worry about.

North Korea is not a buffer, nor a puppet state, for China. It is a liability and an embarassment.


Exactly, look at Communist China.
Look at Communist North Korea. There like a annoying little half-brother that they would ditch in a second if given a good enough chance.

Eh, if the UN or the US alone invaded Syria then thee would be a massive insurgency that would take hundreds if not thousands of lives from the occupying armies. Then if Iran attacks and Iran is invaded you can probably double or triple the amounts lives lost due to insurgeny.

Due to that fact I think that there will be a lot more talking before any military action would happen.

Eh, if the UN or the US alone invaded Syria then thee would be a massive insurgency that would take hundreds if not thousands of lives from the occupying armies. Then if Iran attacks and Iran is invaded you can probably double or triple the amounts lives lost due to insurgeny.

Due to that fact I think that there will be a lot more talking before any military action would happen.

There are fewer people in Syria than there were in Iraq. And the insurgency in Iraq is reduced to hiding in the Sunni triangle area, and doing one of two things:

1. blowing up people at random (sometimes an American, but most often their fellow Iraqis).
2. Kidnapping GI Joe dolls and claiming that they have captured an American soldier (as they have absolutely no way to do this now).

More to the point, unlike the insurgents in Vietnam, who routinely massed and attacked American troops in bloody battles that inflicted continuous casualties, we're able to annihilate any insurgents stupid enough to mass for an attack (90 percent casualties amongst insurgents in Fallujah), and let's look at the numbers:

9 years of Vietnam got us 55,000 dead. That's 6,111 per year.
2 years of Iraq got us 1486 dead - of which about 1000 are actual insurgent casualties. Hmm. That's 500 per year. So we're doing, what, 12 times better, and we're able to prevent insurgents from taking over the country or driving us out, or even doing what they want?

The people of Lebanon would probably be glad to see the Syrians go.

No, there wouldn't even be hundreds of thousands of insurgents in Syria. And I would bet that within a year, any insurgency would be effectively crippled.

It's not possible to fight American troops, even in a street combat situation involving men against men. Ever fight against men who were wearing rifle-proof armor, who could see in the dark, and had more accurate weapons, and had far, far more training in urban combat and shooting at people-like targets?

And who, each, in the course of a single year of training, had fired more ammunition than you and everyone in your terrorist cell had SEEN in their entire lifetimes?

No, it's a bad time to be an insurgent, because it's wash day, and the US has come to pick up the dirty laundry.

I wouldn't support the US no matter what. But I would like them to invade Syria. Another country that will give them nightmares for years to come.YEAH...

like VonWitz I voted yes :D
I want the Bushites to invade Syria,Iran,NorKorea,Vietnam,Indonesia,etc. I want it all..and i want it now..

gimme 4 more years.... 4 M-O-R-E--Y-E-A-R-S !!! :D

YEAH...

like VonWitz I voted yes :D
I want the Bushites to invade Syria,Iran,NorKorea,Vietnam,Indonesia,etc. I want it all..and i want it now..

gimme 4 more years.... 4 M-O-R-E--Y-E-A-R-S !!! :D

... :rolleyes: Honestly now. Grow you up, You and VW.

... :rolleyes: Honestly now. Grow you up, You and VW.
I want the Bushites to Invade nonstop...honest. :cool:

gimme 4 more years.