[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

who would be doing the striking?

 

It's not Rocket Science, man. If you support striking Syria militarily, say yes. If you do not, say no. If you have conditions for or against, state them.

 

would these be US strikes? Or from another country

 

I say no. But from what we are hearing.....we (where I 'work') are being told to be ready for this to happen. I personally hate what is going on there but do NOT want to see the middle east again.....Ever.

 

Create your own parameters and answer the question to your satisfaction.

 

Clone threads?

 

no

...

 

No, a thread that has a poll that doesn't have loaded responses. A simple yes or no, and explain your response if you wish.

 

at bigtexx refusing to give any answer at all.

As for me, I'm leaning towards missile strikes, to send a message to Assad to not do this again. Nothing more for now. I personally have no desire to see the war end, really - let the jihadists and the Iranians exhaust each other in this war.

 

I said "no"

 

A big NO.

Stand the **** down, Obama. Nobody wants this but the rebels and your pride.

 

Had to add this. Russia/Iran is chomping at the bit to get a shot at our involvement in the region. China would probably follow as well.

I agree thought. Stand down......

 

No. Isn't a decade and 2 wars in that god awful hell hole of the middle east enough?

 

No.

1) I still haven't hear any remotely decent argument as to why this is in our national interests. I see absolutely no national security threat towards the US coming from Syria.

2) I find the apparent haste for a response in the absence of conclusive evidence mystifying. Why not wait until more conclusive evidence can be obtained? What if the rebels did do this? Al Qaeda and its affiliates are not above something like this.

3) To what purpose? It's already been telegraphed and the impact will almost certainly be very minimal, given that Assad has had time to disperse his assets and prepare for it. I've never heard of a military campaign where you told your enemies what you were going to hit, where, when, and for how long... It's a baffling strategy, to say the least.

4) This seems like a face-saving effort on the part of POTUS. His ego is not worth possible deeper engagement in such a war.

5) Once those missiles fly, the consequences will be impossible to predict. What if they decide to relocate CBW to Hizbolah? What if Iran and Hizbolah decide to attack Israel, or even us (via operatives here)? Syria has coastal defenses and missile boats, what if they get lucky and land a hit against one of our boats - is it worth it then? What if we are drawn deeper into the war and end up with boots on the ground? You can't predict any of these things with certainty before the trigger is pulled. Are you prepared for the possible consequences, and to pay the potential cost?

6) What if the attack causes nothing but minor pain, and Assad calls our bluff and orders another attack? Can you see how we get dragged deeper into this thing?

7) What if the attack tips the balance and Assad falls, and the jihadists take over in the aftermath? That would be an even worse outcome for the entire region than Assad remaining in power.

8) What if American intervention gives momentum to Arab forces in other countries who are pushing against their authoritarian governments, and war breaks out in other countries as a result? I am thinking Jordan first here.

The first one is the biggest problem. Syria presents no threat to us. As ghastly as the chemical attack was, Assad's weapons are not aimed at us. You can argue that CBW use needs to be deterred and an example made of Assad in that effort, but unless the pain is going to be real, and unless it will materially change the situation, it's not much of a deterrent.

The clusterf^k potential here is simply sky-high.

The fact that both liberals and conservatives have finally found something that they can largely agree on should give pause.

 

Well, at least he's patiently weighing his options:

WASHINGTON—Facing mounting domestic and international pressure to respond to the deployment of chemical weapons by the government of Bashar al-Assad, White House sources confirmed today that President Barack Obama is carefully weighing his option for dealing with the war-torn Middle Eastern nation. “The president has conferred with his top advisors and is currently considering everything from authorizing missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, to taking out Syrian regime targets with missile strikes—nothing is off the table at this point,” said White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, noting that the president would “take all factors into consideration,” including the well-being of the Syrian people and the strategic interests of the United States, before settling on his only option. “The president recognizes that the situation in Syria is extremely delicate and that the U.S. faces complex consequences regardless of what he chooses; that’s why he’s giving the one option in front of him so much thought. He will not act until he’s confident in the inexorable decision he’s making.” At press time, Obama had reportedly narrowed his option down to missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, but stated that he would consider it for several more days before making a final decision.[i/]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-weighing-his-syria-option,33641/

:grin:

 

Let our enemies kill each other. Who made America the world police and besides we don't have enough proof that chemicals was used. I can see why Obama thinks taking Assad out is good idea, it will weaken Hezbollah and Iran by taking out one of its ally. Russia gets resource from Syria so I'm waiting to see how they will react if America does attack syria.

 

Great Post! Until we really know who did what...........we do nothing. I feel horrible for the dead men, women and children we had to see watching the videos from the aftermath. Someone deserves to pay for this. Without a damn doubt! But let's not get ahead of ourselves and make sure we get it right.