There are four options: Liberal, Do Nothing Liberal, Do Something Conservative, Do Nothing Conservative, Do Something What is your opinion? This seems like genocide, but the information may or may not be accurate.
What in the hell does political affiliation have to do with it? This is the problem with libs, everything has political connotations to it. There used to be a sayingolitics stopped at the water's edge. It meant that when dealing with foreign policy the petty left/right, conservative/lib politics ended. Of course, that ended with GWB, and now we can't even agree on foreign policy anymore. This country is screwed. And your poll sucks.
syria is an excuse to get into iran. syria/iran have had a defense agreement since 2006 to aid each other if attacked from a common enemy. it's the old magicians trick, slight of hand. not long ago iran was all the rage/news but recently haven't you noticed its been rather quiet??? supposedly it's because of new elections in iran with a more moderate president but don't be fooled. so i choose NONE of your 4 options. in fact your 4 choices are insulting, where is the objective, non-partisan, open minded choice?
You have no clue what you're talking about. See below for the Republican response to Clinton launching cruise missiles at Bin Laden-
Once it became obvious that Obama was not going to attack Iran, the war machine started focusing on Syria, and there is no doubt in my mind that Western meddling is at the root of what's happening over there.
I don't know if I'm a liberal or moderate on the middle east (probably moderate), but i would vote for no action. Nothing short of massive occupation (IMHO) can halt the bloodshed. The only other option is to get a more united international community, but two big dogs want to let assad do whatever he will. Finally, I don't at all trust the fidelity of the reporting we have coming from Syria. The signals just don't make much sense right now.
I am not voting on the poll as I am still trying to fully understand the situation. I am leaning towards that Assad did use chemical weapons as most of the evidence points to that but as other posters have noted it does seem questionable that he would while the Rebels have good reason to trumpet the use of chemical weapons. I am also still very leery of the experience with Iraq and further can't see anything really good that come out of this situation.
My overall view is the worst thing that could happen is for Syria to fall into the hands of Sunni extremists. They would be against U.S. interests, help destabilize the entire region and be the worst option for the Syrian people. At the same time, the thought of allowing Assad to use chemical weapons without severe retribution kills me. It would also send the wrong message to other criminal regimes around the world. It's a very tough call.
I agree and this is pretty much what I feel. Ideally I would like to see a negotiated settlement where Assad leaves and goes into exile like Marcos but I doubt that will happen.
We should probably invade Syria. I mean we've already invaded numerous other countries. What harm could it do to invade one more? I mean, the Pentagon needs a larger budget, after all. Why not enjoy our milk with our honey!?
Yes, and again, "water's edge". What, exactly, does political affiliation have to do with your opinion on intervention in Syria?
Er, no, the worst thing that could happen would be an Al Qaeda (via Al Nusra) takeover of Syria, followed by widespread exportation of Sunni terror across the region. Unless you think that Al Qaeda is less of a threat than Assad?
