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

They will change such a determination as deemed necessary.

AboveAlpha

 

So you think it is OK for the "cowboy" President to go it alone?

 

We'll see.

 

Even though I still think Obama should have allowed the CIA to covertly supply arms to Syrian Rebels...we are now at this point.

Syria is key for the Iranian Qud's force to be able to supply various terrorist groups with arms.

We cannot do nothing at this point so I would advocate an ALL IN strike.

AboveAlpha

 

Why exactly is 'nothing' not an option? That is what nearly every other country on the globe is doing. It seems to work out pretty well for them.

 

Look at Switzerland, they have profited like bandits simply by being consistently neutral in all of these geo-political war games.

 

We have way too many other issues going on to allow even the slightest hint of there being a Mixed Signal.

AboveAlpha

 

Ahh, it's a peenor thing. That's what I figured though I'm still not convinced.

The American people would be much better served if the US government would stop blowing things up and start minding their own business.

 

NS school funding is a function of state and local government not the feds. And please find a better reason to be against this funding isn't an issue. against a 3.8 trillion dollars in spending a billion dollars in Missiles is chump change. It won't even move the number after the decimal point in 3.8 trillion.

 

the objective is to make the tyrants that use chemical weapons think twice about doing that, nothing more, nothing less

 

Since when have tyrants given a tinker's dam about how many of their people you kill?

 

Against, because the actions of Syria were not in any way related to an attack on us so Article 51 does not apply as it did with Saddam’s call to Jihad which attacked us on 9/11, NATO does not apply, only international law applies and if the United Nations or that ICC court without a bailiff (like with Darfur and the Sudan) does not act, it is none of our business. If the Congress does not approve, and it is not like the mixed messages of the 213 to 213 vote over Kosovo, and the president gets us into war he should be impeached that day before the sun goes down.

 

Ha that is a good one. I have never seen so many mixed signals from a President about a foreign policy issue in my life as Obama has sent out over Syria.

 

That ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Its about time we mind our own business, instead of pretending to be as respected as we once were when we actually had leaders.

 

There is an overall plan specific to making certain your gasoline cost stays below $5 a Gallon.

AboveAlpha

 

I AGREE!

Obama has really screwed up as far as Syria.

Our original plan was to use the CIA to supply the REAL SYRIAN REBELS....with Russian made weapons.

AboveAlpha

 

We have to deal with our own problem before we mess with other countries.

 

The Americans did not turn up there. There, our amphibious ships with special forces. 1 is equivalent to the Russian special forces platoon of U.S. Marines))) If you want to receive the coffins with your children, you are welcome to Syria. Here's a video to lift the spirit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i_XqV7t7sY

 

Obama is not a leader. He is just an empty-suit politician that blows around with the political winds.

 

It is pointless , in a scenario where the rebels win there will still be war between republican forces and jihadists , in best case scenario Assad remains in power ( this secures the integrity of the country) but he is forced to pass democratic reforms and maybe have open elections in a couple of years from now (enough time for new parties to be formed and organized ) .

 

BOMB OBAMA!

 

Oh PLEASE!

Syrian Army Platoons do not even have issued to them Night Vision Goggles.

IF....the U.S. Military had to put boots on the ground they would cut through Syrian Military Defenses like a hot knife through butter.

AboveAlpha

 

Well I would not say that. In the Syrian army is very extensive experience of fighting in the locality of the city. In addition, there amphibious ships with our Russian special forces. We Syrians have rubies are not allowed to handle the bank closer than 200 miles. In Syria, there are also Russian instructor. This is not Iraq or Libya, is off limits. In the Mediterranean, more napravlyayuts

 

What? I do not understand what you are saying.

But I agree the Syrian army is no match for a modern western army.

 

I agree with you somewhat, and I have been back and forth on this issue, but I have ultimately decided that if no diplomatic resolution can be made, we should bomb them. While Syria is obviously not an ally, and I don't agree with supporting a war, this has nothing to do with either the civil war, or it being a humanitarian issue. I have followed this Syria conflict very closely, and it is clear that people don't fully understand the reasoning behind the motives of Obama. Most people who say we should get involved argue that it is a humanitarian issue, while those against it argue the same reasons as you, that being that it is a civil war, and not our business. However, the fact is, whoever used chemical warfare was in violation of international law. Whether it was Assad that actually used it or not is somewhat debatable (and I wish the president would stop simply asserting that it is a fact), and that is why I think we need to wait on any kind of strike until we have all the information.

You also have to consider that while Syria isn't an ally, we have several countries that are strong allies of the U.S. (Turkey, Jordan, Israel, etc.) who are in close proximity to Syria. The use of chemical warfare in that area is not something that we should tolerate. It also poses a threat to us if we don't strike, as Iran may see it as weakness in our foreign policy and begin firing up a chemical weapons program. That is complete speculation, but a definite threat and possibility.

Finally, Obama has basically tied his own hands on this issue. He is in a SERIOUS Catch-22 scenario here, as simply ignoring the attack will make us look weak as a country, as well as weaken our credibility when it comes to making threats. Obama made it very clear that we would not tolerate the use of chemical warfare, no matter who or where it is used. That is a very important threat because when a president draws a red line threat like that, shrugging it off weakens any future threats we may make (and from a game theoretic point of view, threats are a VERY powerful geopolitical tool). Obama made his second mistake by going to congress. While I understand that his intentions were noble, the fact is that congress is probably not going to go along with it. While I really don't like Obama, I think that is idea of a limited military strike to degrade Assad's capabilities was a perfect punishment for the use of chemical weapons. He is the commander and chief, and there are a lot of issues that I disagree with him on, but he should have acted more like the commander and chief in that situation. Now, if/when congress denies his request for a military strike, it is not only going to degrade our credibility, but it is also going to undermine our president internationally, which will be very humiliating for him (which is why, in my opinion, most warmonger republicans are against the attack...to hurt him politically).

Putin saved his ass by offering a diplomatic solution, but I think it is a pipe dream for the issue to be resolved that quickly and simply. If Assad is true to his word (as most dictators are...) then Obama owes Putin a HUGE thanks for getting him out of the mess. But in reality, I think the diplomatic negotiations are simply delaying an inevitable military strike on Syria. Obama also needs to solve this problem FAST, with all the other issues he has coming up. He still hasn't addressed the debt ceiling, and assuming that Republicans are just going to "go along" with whatever his proposal is very naive and ignorant of our president. The fed is also supposed to begin tapering their bond buyback program this month, which is going to have an impact on the financial markets. Lastly, the healthcare exchanges are supposed to be set up by October, and I don't know how close they are to getting that done, but politicians are not known for their punctuality on things like that, so he'll probably have to push that back. But that also runs into the many new statutes of Obamacare that will kick in on January 1st, so he also has to deal with that. If you take into account that Republicans are probably willing to shut down government to stop obamacare from getting funded, Obama has A LOT to worry about right now and really needs to take care of the Syria issue ASAP.