So bout that Syria..

[mShred]

Seems like with all the talk about Syria, EVERYONE has different ideas on what we should/will/can/can't do. I've been in about a hundred arguments between work, home, and IRC about the matter.
I'm curious to see what everyone else has to say about the matter. Thoughts?

PS: I'm normally not the one for politics at all, but I figured I'd try and spark a conversation.

[Shade_of_Gray]

I tend to have something of a non-interventionist stance... I'd argue that if the Syrians want our help, they should petition to be annexed as another state. Then, if it passes, we protect them as our own citizens, from enemies foreign or domestic.

It might be argued that this is imperialism. That may be, but at least it's more honest about our intentions to make miniature United States out of other countries.

[Goatboy]

I tend to have something of a non-interventionist stance... I'd argue that if the Syrians want our help, they should petition to be annexed as another state. Then, if it passes, we protect them as our own citizens, from enemies foreign or domestic.

It might be argued that this is imperialism. That may be, but at least it's more honest about our intentions to make miniature United States out of other countries.

I am on my kindle and don't feel like typing a ton, but basically this.

[Skyfa11]

does America really need to police the world?

[Shade_of_Gray]

does America really need to police the world?

Those who think so would usually argue something along the lines of "instability in the rest of the world represents a threat to America, so America must take preemptive action to neutralize or reduce the threat."

[-Ninjex-]

does America really need to police the world?

Those who think so would usually argue something along the lines of "instability in the rest of the world represents a threat to America, so America must take preemptive action to neutralize or reduce the threat."

Yet going to war is one of the biggest threats you could place on your country. It doesn't reduce the threat, it just puts the country in harms way.

I personally feel that our military should be a purely defensive military. One that will take actions only to defend their country if a "threat" is made towards us. This does not include what people would call another country blowing itself up. It's like "oh hey, bro you can't kill people!", followed by "Now, Billy, give me a gun to kill the people killing people." I don't feel like Syria really poses a threat, even since they have flat out said "We did not do this." This alone tells me they really aren't a threat to the US.

Who knows who did the chemical attack anyway? We are just pointing fingers and marching into combat in the direction it's pointed. For all we know, it could have been a terrorist attack, derp a derp

Imagine if that happened here, no doubt in my mind says that no matter who did it, 100% of the time, the government would say it was a terrorist attack from elsewhere, and we wouldn't have any countries coming in trying to piss on our soil.


As a refresher, I believe the military needs to exist, of course. I just believe that compromise should negotiated if possible; and if we can't, and the country is an actual threat to the safety of ours, then we set up defensive percautions. Fuck all of the super hero shit, we aren't batman. We are a country that is already head over heels in dept, and we spend only God knows how much for military equipment each year.

[Shade_of_Gray]

I personally feel that our military should be a purely defensive military. One that will take actions only to defend their country if a "threat" is made towards us. This does not include what people would call another country blowing itself up.

This.