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

Well, I doubt given Obama's echant for unmanned aerial bombardments that even if congress fully authorizes Obama's scheme that we will send much more than Tomahawks and maybe some drones. And I don't necessarrily support it any case. I'm just wondering if we do go into Syria how man leftist will be chanting Obama lied and people died outside Democratic fund raisers.

 

83% against so far and on a political forum where people think....impressive! A percentage that high crosses political lines and thats great. Ill admit when looking back at Iraq something wasnt right, the chem attacks happened years earlier without a problem, but then having of WMD were? Saudis in the planes yet we attack Iraq? I didnt pay much attention to politics back then tbh, i dont think many of us did given the poll differences. 9/11 outrage, still trust in 'we're the good guys' i dont know, but its heartening to see most of us smell a rat here.

 

Originally I was against USA involvement, but now I think the best thing to do is absolutely level the country and start over.

 

I never understood this - dead is dead. I don't see that it much matters whether they died from poison gas or a bullet to the head. Either we are against this civil war based on 100K dead or we are for it (arguably for the same reason). I personally think both sides are extremely dangerous and that cleaning house would be best for the entire Middle East.

 

let somebody else do it! Quit being world police! We're broke!

 

No, not at all, BUT LET SOMEBODY ELSE DO IT, we've done enough, we've been world police for like 70 years! SOMEBODY ELSE DO IT. SOMEBODY ELSE PAY FOR IT! SOMEBODY ELSE'S CHILDREN DIE AND GET MAIMED THERE!

 

Lovely sentiment to bad no one else interested in so doing has the financial or military where-with-all to do much more than lob a few cruise missle in the general direction of Syria.

 

Neither do we, WE ARE BROKE, ask the Tea Party! If we can't spend on schools or infrastructure or healthecare INSIDE THE USA, then we should NOTspend a single penny to stop children from being gassed anywhere else, FKKK 'EM, we have our own problems, FIX THE USA and let the rest eat each other alive if they want to. We can't spend, we have a spending problem, that's al they tell us ad naseum, so if that's true, Syria is way down the priority list, I'd rather give food stamps to crack heads then waste it on bombing somebody, at least the money stays in our economy.

 

The missiles cost about $1.4M each...a Billion is well over 700 missiles which is far more than we have on the scene.

 

Against it this is not like the first Gulf War were we had ,compliments of Bush Sr. diplomatic efforts, a UN resolution with clear targets for action and a massive coalition of nations backing us up the WORLD acting in accord led by the USA to liberate Kuwait and secure the region then we all left when done.

Where is that commitment now if China, the UK, France and say six other nations backed us with both military commitments and we had a clear goal with a UN resolution I could see going in but what appears to be largely on our own - no.

 

You didn't bother to read what I said in the post or look at the stories I liked to did you? Here is the first part again.

$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-Prep...ike-o/17229779 and also this story, http://www.businessinsider.com/milit...ia-cost-2013-9

But let's just say that Obama could pull this whole magic act off for the cost of one missile, which would only cost $1.4 Million dollars. Hey, how would you like to be the guy to step up and pay for it? Just out of the "goodness of your heart". The answer to this ought to be good. How about another $1.4 Million dollars to fix cracks in the streets in your town or maybe a bridge? Are you up for that too? Or would you rather just waste it on making an ass out of the USA in Syria?

 

I am for bombing the rebels!

 

It's always like this, in every one of these "brush war" piles of **** we get involved with. It always starts out with low-ball estimates of what the war will cost, and then it skyrockets! I went to the links you provided and the stories in them, and they say exactly what you said they do.

It's no surprise that Asad would choose to put all of his munitions in deep underground bunkers, and that's why the war-planners are including bombers like B-2's and B-52's, because they can drop "bunker-busters" and destroy things that Cruise missiles cannot.

Who knows how many hundreds of bunker-busters we would need? Who knows where they would need to be dropped. Who knows what would happen if the bunker-busters started detonating poison gas cannisters, killing thousands MORE people. Who really knows what all this wartime extravagance is going to cost? Who knows why in the hell the United States of America is even thinking about getting involved in ANY of this nonsense when we have absolutely no logical reason to be doing it...?

 

I read your post and I looked at both links BUT, the fact remains. We cannot spend a billion on missiles when we do not have the ability to deliver that many and have not indicated any scheme to do so. Your fears are real and your outrage valid but the numbers do not add up.

 

You never know how much a war will cost or what will happen next. They are expensive and dangerous.

If you want to give them a "pin prick" why bother?

And if you want total war be prepared to suffer the consequenses.

Someone once said, "when you draw your sword throw the scabbord away... because moderation is idiocy".

 

Then you need to be right out there on the front lines when the chit hits the fan.

 

Perhaps I should have said that if we must bomb, then I am in favor of bombing radical islamists who want nothing more than to kill anyone and everyone who is not a radical .

 

Personally I was against any U.S. Military Strike upon Syria but it now seems this will happen.

A limited Strike would be a disaster as we must seize all Syrian Chemical Weapons if Assad is removed or else they would find their way into Sunni Extremists hands.

The only way I see a U.S. Strike working is if it is Overwhelming and we use the 82nd and 101st and airdrop them to Chemical Weapons sites.

AboveAlpha

 

It seems more likely that this won't happen since 1) Obama said he won't go without congressional approval 2) the House likely won't vote for the resolution.

 

They have to go.

Obama made this a public affair.

He has classified evidence that will be leaked if Congress does not vote to appose a Syrian Leader who has used Chemical Weapons.

AboveAlpha

 

They will not go because Obama said he doesn't have the constitutional authority to go without congressional approval and the House is not going to pass it.

 

Unless another 'event' happens to help sway public opinion.

 

First of all a U.S. President can authorize the use of Military Force without Congressional Approval.

Congress can after a few months vote to bring back or stop the use of U.S. Forces.

This is going to happen.

AboveAlpha

 

That's not true. The executive powers clause allows for presidential military strikes ONLY if there is an imminent and immediate threat to national security. This has been abused by many presidents, but Obama has specifically said that Syria doesn't fall within that authority.

 

That's true. Although I am still not sure that the House will budge.