Simple, straightforward poll: Are you for or against US military action in Syria?

This is a simple, uncomplicated poll of Forum participants, with no political or propaganda overtones. It is designed simply to guage public sentiment in numbers and percentages, for, or against, American military involvement in the civil war in Syria. I did not include a "don't know, don't care" option because if you don't know or care, it doesn't matter what you think.

After you vote, though, please feel welcome to comment, as always....

 

Against, I want to quit being World Police, no matter how many children are gased! besides, we're BROKE! tea party said so, we can't spend on this if we have to cut spending to benefit people inside the USA, so I have no problem standing by and seeing Holocaust 2013 happen. F 'em!

 

I am against it.

I will not be terribly upset if we limit our action to remote strikes with a specific purpose, but I don't see any reason to put our troops in harms way there. Syria is no threat to the United States. I think it is terrible what is happening to the Syrian people, but I don't think we should put boots on the ground in that situation.

 

I voted against it simply because I do not trust Obama to do anything effective except waste $150M in scarce weapons.

 

Bomb the chit out of them

 

I'm against it.

Constitutional reasons aside, I don't entirely get it. Syrians are killing Syrians, so we're going to kill us some Syrians to punish Syrians for killing Syrians?


edit: I just want to thank for creating an honest poll without trying to create any idiotic loaded questions.

 

If any Americans had been hurt or killed or if there were any American interests I'd say to go in and bomb the living hell out of Syria. As it is we don't have any business going there. We have no allies there. There's only a dictator and a bunch of radical Muslims who hate America anyway.

 

I am for

The world not just the USA should take any uses of Chemical and biological weapons as a serious threat to world stability. As such an example should be made of Syria (even if it was the rebels). No government or ngo should be able to believe that they can use these weapons without consequences. I just wish we could bomb both sides as a reminder that the world is watching and will respond.

 

From your other posts I know you are a liberal person on most issues so I appreciate your good judgement in this one. I agree with you even though I think all these brutal dictators should be done away with on principle. We should remember that whether or not Asad caused this gas attack his forces have caused the deaths of about 98,000 other Syrians.

But the truth we can't get away from is that we are not the policeman of the world anymore. We never should have been in the first place. We are the broke, depressed United States, with a weak economy that hasn't really improved much over the past five years. We can't go around fighting people's civil wars for them. It is wrong and we simply cannot afford it. A country that worries it can't meet its obligations to its own people should never be blowing billions of dollars recklessly overseas on military campagns that may not even be justified. Besides, we never have even been shown any proof that Asad ordered the gas attacks.

 

I would really like to support the President in this. Politics stops at the water’s edge and all that’ however Obama has managed to make it as difficult as possible to support a policy in which the publically stated goals are to accomplish nothing. They’re not to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons, cripple the regime, or do anything of any military significance. It’s a military mission with no military objectives, and frankly, not even political ones.

Obama should have just fired his missiles last week without all of the foreplay and advanced warning. We would have already been on to another issue by now with the feeling that we had sort of accomplished something. Instead, there was the desperate pleading for international support, an embarrassing House of Commons vote, and now an upcoming Congressional vote that’s likely to be even more embarrassing.

 

Hardly any allies to speak of.
No approval from the UN security council .
No clear objectives.
Questionable "allies" on the ground.

Ya, sounds like a great idea.

 

I am for limited military action that does not involve a full military military response . I am fine with air strikes, sending elite strike teams like Seal Team 6. Perhaps even sending military advisors to assist the rebels in better planning their attacks.

 

I think we need to bomb Syria...to save Syrians from bombs. Or something like that.

I don't know what should be bombed. I don't know what objectives could be achieved by bombing. I just know that we need to bomb some (*)(*)(*)(*)! And now! It's the American way.

 

Against...We bomb Syria...we kill russians...Iran attacks Israel...we support Israel...russia supports Iran...China steps in...North korea supports China

someone pushes the button....all hell breaks loose.

 

$150 million? Dude, now theyre talking about a Billion Dollars in missiles, and on top of that theyre also saying that now they would need to add large scale air strikes by B-2 and B-52 bombers. How much would that cost? Could any of those latest gen Russian antiaircraft missiles that Asad has been given shoot down old bombers like a B-52? Look at this, http://www.kmbz.com/Obama-Admin-Preparing-for-Larger-Military-Strike-o/17229779 and also this story, http://www.businessinsider.com/military-strike-syria-cost-2013-9

This is a strange way to put on a show for Iran, if that is what Obama is really trying to do. No matter how you look at this thing it is not supported by any reliable proof, and there is no logical reason why the United States should be doing this. Of course I voted no. I would have to be as stupid and weird as Obama is to vote yes.

 

I am against military action on Syria. Where are all the anti-war Democrats at? They are silent. Obama drew the red line. Now it is drawn again. We need to stay out of Syria. Let the ME figure it out.

 

Against. For a lot of reasons. There is no goal or end result to be acheived. The reasoning that has been used to justify force has nothing to do with the security of the United States--but more with "saving face". Both factions in Syria are pretty much bad factions. We are helping our enemies directly and indirectly-- as the rebels really...are most likely those who are against the principals of the United States.

 

Against it.

1) in the event of Assad being ousted, the US funded al-Qaeda affiliates will assume power and finish the ethnic cleansing of Syrian Christians, Alawites, and Shias.

2) the only way to even oust Assad, which would lead to worse consequences anyways, is to outspend Russia and thus fund a proxy war In Syria that would break us.

 

The alternatives are between bad (Assad) and exponentially worse (rebels). If the US intervenes we will immediately become the bad guys.

 

I am against it.

 

Apparently for most people here using chemical weapons, a clear violation of International laws since WWI should be an action utterly without consequence...

That or everyone believes Secretary Kerry and President Obama are lying through there teeth about the intelligence.

 

The Syrian rebels just released a video, aired on CNN, threatening to use chemical weapons if the US doesn't intervene soon. So, if both sides are in favor of this, why support one evil over the other? Is the end-game irrelevant, Gary?

 

I think we should start out just sending in "advisors". Then we should engage in a series of air strikes that sweep through Syria like rolling thunder. In support of these airstrikes we'll need to set up airbases and as a consequence we should commit troops to support the airbases. If and when these ground forces suffer any losses we should commit thousands more troops in their defense.

Oh and we should also bomb the hell out of Laos and Cambodia. Finally, we should evacuate everyone via helicopter from the roof of our embassy.

Let's go 'Murica!! There's some (*)(*)(*)(*) that needs bombing and we're just the mf-ers to do it!

 

If the rest of the international community refuses to enforce these standards, why should we spend blood and treasure to enforce this treaty ?

 

So all a faction has to do is put together enough chemical or biological weapons to kill a few hundred, use them on their own people ( a loss considerably less than what they would have lost in a battle against their opponent ) and America will fly in an pound the snott outta their enemies...

So we just run around the world bombing who ever gases their own side?

And this will reduce the amount of chemical weapons being used?

-