Lol. The poll responses are sort of loaded. I would've voted No, but I'm not sure I'd call the rebels terrorists. Same goes for the yes response. What if I thought we should invade to get rid of Assad, but using chemical weapons on your own people was alright? :grin:
The UN should send a peacekeeping force. Why are we getting dragged into wars. Let some other countries shoulder the massive war debts we have accumulated.
The poll questions are bad, but at this stage, I'm willing to say yes that I support missile strikes as a warning. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm willing to see the Assad regime toppled.
I don't want to get involved in Syria. But, the UN won't do it. And, I shudder to think what Syria and Iran will do once they see the West is not willing to do anything upon a confirmed use of chemical weapons. The killing's about to get worse whether we do or do not act.
Poll options are bad. I'm not sure I want Assad gone. (I might actually prefer him staying). The alternative makes me think that way. Obviously no one should be allowed to use chemical weapons. But I don't want us to get involved in that mess, let them handle it.
I view the hold unilateral war/ bombing to come as a Wag the Dog affair Obama is trying to cover his ass. If he doesn't do it the GOP will claim he is a weakling. Sadly if he does it there will be some saying he should be impeached. Of course it is widely unpopular as it should be and a crying shame to start a war wo Congress and no popular support Even sadder it makes us less safe. You can't just run around killing folks without blowback. The only real winners are the military industrial complex that gets to sell more cruise missiles.
I'm a proponent of letting them handle it, but your poll options are terrible. Loaded answers, to say the least.
