Do You Support Obama's Plan For More Syrian Refugees.

[Aquitaine]

Fair enough. So let's just leave it as armed combat. Has the US or the UK being involved directly in armed combat in Syria aside from the Special Operations and minuscule air strikes against ISIS.

Want to lay the blame for the exodus of the population of Syria where in actuality it is......Assad, and those that support him...Russia, Iran, and the other Muslim groups opposing Assad? Or do you think that the US is to blame for everything wrong in the world? I would probably assume that many of you including the Obama think that is fact.

Providing material support for Syrian militias hasn't helped.

 

[esmith]

You can't ask a direct question and then immediately amend it to suit your argument. Nice try.

Just trying to appease you. You pointed out that the US hadn't declared war since the start of WWII. I agreed with you and modified it to say armed combat. What's the issue. Be specific please, sometimes I don't understand what you young whippersnappers are saying.

 

[esmith]

What's your definition of armed combat? You mean on the ground troops? We have been/are involved in Syria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria

yes as per my post #56, 58 which said "Except for the minuscule air attack and special ops against ISIS"

 

[esmith]

Providing material support for Syrian militias hasn't helped.

I would say that the minuscule support given to them is far out-shadowed by the actions of Russia and Iran support of Assad. Of course as always it is the West's fault isn't it?

 

[Buttercup]

yes as per my post #56, 58 which said "Except for the minuscule air attack and special ops against ISIS"

You consider these minuscule?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-smuggling-to-fund-terror-group-a6746211.html

http://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0814_Inherent-Resolve (Over 3k Syrian air strikes)

 

[Quetzal]

I would say that the minuscule support given to them is far out-shadowed by the actions of Russia and Iran support of Assad. Of course as always it is the West's fault isn't it?

Now you are trying to make light of US involvement to make your argument easier. Let it go, your argument is dead in the water.

 

[esmith]

You consider these minuscule?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-smuggling-to-fund-terror-group-a6746211.html

http://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0814_Inherent-Resolve (Over 3k Syrian air strikes)

Yes.

 

[Buttercup]

Yes.

Are you saying you wont be satisfied until we send in ground troops?

 

[Aquitaine]

I would say that the minuscule support given to them is far out-shadowed by the actions of Russia and Iran support of Assad. Of course as always it is the West's fault isn't it?

Everything our governments do is miniscule in your eyes it seems. Miniscule air strikes, miniscule Special Ops, miniscule material support for rebel militias (some of whom split off in to ISIS) etc.

Just can't bring yourself to ever consider that the good ol' US of A may sometimes engage in behaviour that is unhelpful and/or aggressive to other nations, can you?

Regarding Russia and Iran, should we really be wanting to compare ourselves to them, shouldn't we be aiming higher in terms of our behaviour?

 

[Aquitaine]

You consider these minuscule?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-smuggling-to-fund-terror-group-a6746211.html

http://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0814_Inherent-Resolve (Over 3k Syrian air strikes)

Just over 3600 airstrikes by the US alone, dayum I didn't think it was that much - talk about "miniscule"! xD

 

[Quetzal]

Everything our governments do is miniscule in your eyes it seems.

Only if it is counter to his political position, which is my primary point. The evidence and series of events supports the idea that the refugee problem is, in one or many ways, in part due to American involvement.

 

[Buttercup]

The evidence and series of events supports the idea that the refugee problem is, in one or many ways, in part due to American involvement.

Exactly. As said so well earlier in the thread by @Midnight Rain, when you help ignite someone's house, you can't lock them inside.

 

[Quetzal]

Exactly. As said so well earlier in the thread by @Midnight Rain, when you help ignite someone's house, you can't lock them inside.

Certainly, and if we want to entertain the notion of an alternative, that's fine. But I can't think of anything at the moment that would offer a solution that would not keep the inhabitants in immediate harm.

 

[Buttercup]

Certainly, and if we want to entertain the notion of an alternative, that's fine. But I can't think of anything at the moment that would offer a solution that would not keep the inhabitants in immediate harm.

True. And I'm against the idea of sending in ground troops so there's that aspect to consider as well.

 

[Quetzal]

True. And I'm against the idea of sending in ground troops so there's that aspect to consider as well.

As am I, if there is any solution proposed "away from here", so to speak, we would need to deploy personnel to help oversee it.

 

[esmith]

Are you saying you wont be satisfied until we send in ground troops?

Last time I checked we had Special Operations activities in Syria and Iraq. Of course I suppose you agree with the Obama that this isn't "boots on the ground". No, I do not foresee a large number of US troops involved on the ground against ISIS, but there will have to be ground troops involved to defeat ISIS. Now I don't know who is going to be involved but it is going to have to happen.

 

[esmith]

Let's ask a very simple question.
Do any of you want the threat of ISIS removed and not "just contained"
If you want the threat of ISIS removed how do you propose to do it without putting someones ground troops and civilians in harms way.

 

[Quetzal]

Let's ask a very simple question.
Do any of you want the threat of ISIS removed and not "just contained"
If you want the threat of ISIS removed how do you propose to do it without putting someones ground troops and civilians in harms way.

You are changing the topic because you are cornered. That's cute.

 

[Buttercup]

If you want the threat of ISIS removed how do you propose to do it without putting someones ground troops and civilians in harms way.

I honestly don't know the answer to this portion of your question, I'm not a military strategist. Civilians are already in harm's way though. You don't employ air strikes and never hit innocent men, women and children.

 

[Quetzal]

I honestly don't know the answer to this portion of your question, I'm not a military strategist. Civilians are already in harm's way though. You don't employ air strikes and never hit innocent men, women and children.

It is a ridiculous question anyway. There is no way any of us could formulate an effect plan of action because some of the greatest strategists and think tanks have more information/resources, and still struggle.