Syria Poll. Are you for or against US involvement?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tshrimp, Sep 5, 2013.

?

Do you support the President wanting to get militarily involved in Syria?

  1. Support President to take military action - Liberal

    11 vote(s)
    10.5%
  2. Support President to take military action- Conservative

    3 vote(s)
    2.9%
  3. Other

    6 vote(s)
    5.7%
  4. No opinion yet

    7 vote(s)
    6.7%
  5. Do NOT support President to take military action - Liberal

    44 vote(s)
    41.9%
  6. Do NOT support President to take military action- Conservative

    34 vote(s)
    32.4%
  1. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #1
    Syria Poll. Are you for or against US involvement?

    I am curious about the breakdown between liberal and conservative as I think this is one of those topics that might not be separated by party lines.
     
  2. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #2
    Not American.

    But I firmly believe that the US would do it's self, and the world a great service, by staying out of Syria.
     
  3. Tilpots macrumors 601

    Tilpots

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Location:
    Carolina Beach, NC
    #3
    The use of chemical weapons against children cannot go unpunished. I fully support military action. I am a liberal leaning Independent.
     
  4. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #4
    We don't have a clear plan with a clear end-goal.

    I can't support this action while we don't have that.

    We're just going to bomb them for a bit. We're actually doing nothing about the supposed use of Chemical Weapons by Assad.

    -Liberal
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    What evidence do you have that the attack was carried out by the Assad government? Would such military action be targeted at the right people? What if it kills a lot of innocent people? Who is going to rebuild the infrastructure destroyed? Should Assad be personally targeted, like Gadaffi and Hussein? Who is going to hold/pull the country together? Answers on no more than one sheet of A4, please.
     
  6. Tilpots macrumors 601

    Tilpots

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Location:
    Carolina Beach, NC
    #6
    No evidence was provided directly to me.

    Yes.

    What if it doesn't and kills exactly to whom the strike it was intended?

    No.

    It's citizens with international help.



    I've written my Congressmen and hope he and our other elected officials decide to strike. I hope your Parliament reconvenes when they feel they have sufficient evidence and also votes to authorize a strike.
     
  7. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #7
    I chose other, here's my option:

    Support President to take military action 2 years ago - Liberal
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    If your government is proposing to kill people and attack a foreign government in your name, don't you think they should be providing credible evidence of a "qualifying" crime?

    Without evidence, you have no idea, quite apart from the inevitable collateral damage.

    That would indeed be a first.

    Why not?

    What, like they do in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq?

    Not in my name.
     
  9. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #9
    The only strike I would support is one against the "rebels" not the government. The west is proposing to get in on the wrong side of this fight.
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Fundamentally I don't trust the security services one bit. If they want their evidence to be taken seriously they need to massively improve their credibility.
     
  11. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #11
    Left leaning independent against a strike. The poll options suck so I chose 'other'.

    I've seen reports that phone calls to Congress are running 1200-1 against a strike.


    Ah, the old, for the children argument. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #12
    [​IMG]
     
  13. Tilpots macrumors 601

    Tilpots

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Location:
    Carolina Beach, NC
    #13
    Yes, the old children argument. I wouldn't break up a fight between two adults, but I would with an adult against a child. I understand my opinion is not popular. Not my concern.
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    Most fights I've seen between adults have been broken up.
     
  15. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #15
    You're, of course, assuming that US involvement won't kill any children, which is a bad assumption.

    The fact that President Nobel Prize wants to go to war is an embarrassment.
     
  16. applesith macrumors 68030

    applesith

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #16
    I read through these boards quite a bit and usually never agree with you. But you are on the money with this particular issue.

    I think it's clear that most people who have supported Obama's presidency and those who oppose most of his policies are against getting involved in Syria. He is making impulsive and decisions with this and not working with Congress. He should have worked on different resolutions with Congress before this red line talk.
     
  17. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #17
    I'm torn. If we hadn't already invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq and suffered so many casualties and spent so much money then I'd support it. However, we don't have the resources to invade the entire middle east--which it seems we're on the path to doing.

    Arab countries have offered to pay for the entire operation--but only if it deposes Assad. I don't think we can depose Assad with an airstrike--and that means yet another invasion and more casualties.

    Perhaps an alternative is to arm the rebels with advanced weapons and let them take matters into their own hands for their own country.
     
  18. Orange Furball macrumors 65816

    Orange Furball

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Location:
    Scranton, PA, USA
    #18
    I strongly believe that we must go to war with Syria, but only if other nations go with us too. This could end badly, but leaving the use of chemical weapons alone can too.

    It'll either be World War Two part two if we ignore it, or World War Three if we get involved.

    Personally I would go with World War Three.
     
  19. Cox Orange macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    #19
    The BND (German secret service) said yesterday, they had listened to a phone call between someone of the Hizbullah and a General of Assad's Army. They say they gave strong evidence that it was Assad. The General said, Assad was angry and had overreacted for a moment and ordered the use of chemical weapons, soon afterwards realizing it was a mistake, out of overreaction.

    Hm, I hope they did not listen to someone who just pretended to be a general of Assad's Army. Or it was a fake call by the rebels. I mean how do they know that...?

    I am surprised they did not hand these information over to the US, allready. Maybe they are still examining the "tapes". The last time Germany handed over "evidence" to the US, was before the Iraq war. Interestingly they strongly noted, they they do not believe the source themselves and do not suggest using this in front of the UN. The source became famous under his code-name "curveball". The story ended in Germany stating, that "curveball" had just "bragged". Rumsfeld made himself some nice pictures of chemical weapons being moved around on trucks and the US went to war. Maybe both sides have learned.
     
  20. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #20
    I'm not sure if you're facetious with the "World War" reference but I've heard people talk as if this could lead to some massively destructive outcome for the U.S. How could this escalate? It doesn't sound like anyone would stand up for Syria if an airstrike took place. Our relations with Russia would certainly deteriorate--but this certainly wouldn't become a proxy war.

    I'm not saying we should strike or not--just wondering what people's perceptions of a negative outcome would be.
     
  21. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #21
    What ? I'm the only person with no opinion ? I'm kinda waiting for the U.N. to come up with evidence before saying yea or nay.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  23. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #23
    Not for nothing, but we went down that route before, in 1981. Putting it short and blunt, Ronald Reagan gave weapons/armed Osama bin Laden. Look where that got us.

    BL.
     
  24. oldhifi macrumors 6502a

    oldhifi

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Location:
    USA
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    Perhaps the military-industrial complex wants to keep creating monsters, to keep themselves in business.
     

Share This Page