Poll: 60% of Americans Opposed to Syria Attack, Just 9% Support it

Howey you have made a lot of "jokes" about nuking mid-eastern countries. Tell the truth and shame the devil, they're not jokes are they?

Howey, are you a zionist? Is Israel always right? How many Muslim lives is one Israeli life worth?
 
I would like to see all liberals on here take a position on this. Stop hiding.

For or against US air strikes on Syria?

Come on out of hiding. Because I'd really like to see just how many hacks we have on this board. I know for a fact you were all against it when it was Bush.

Show of hands.
 
Darla said:
I would like to see all liberals on here take a position on this. Stop hiding.

For or against US air strikes on Syria?

Come on out of hiding. Because I'd really like to see just how many hacks we have on this board. I know for a fact you were all against it when it was Bush.

Show of hands.
Click to expand...

It's kind of funny that anyone is dumb enough to think this is an apples-to-apples.
 
No, I am not unable to think straight Desh.

You claimed that this was a leader "massacring the population" and then directly compared it to the Holocaust.

200 dead is in no way anyone massacring a country's population. Adding more dead children to this total, is not the answer.

Now, let's be honest and remember that we all knew during the bush years that there is a difference between going to war and "doing nothing", or as right wingers used to say "apologizing" to Assad.

We can definitely work with the international community on this. But killing more innocent men, women, and children? Always wrong.
 
evince said:
It sures seems like the country gassed its own people.


Remember that was ONE of the many reasons the right gave to get Sadam.


It was about the ONLY true one albeit a very old charge
Click to expand...

Have you listened to the russian, or syrian news reports? Are just our State,,,,,, strong armed, sell out media.
 
I doubt its possible, but if we can bomb the capability of them to use the gas again.... without much risk of killing innocents I am for it.

If not I say lets stay out of it, even if they have WMD and have used them on there own people.
 
Well I am fresh back from the Desh/Onceler reeducation camps, and am thinking much more clearly now.

We need to bomb the shit out of them in order to save them. Now, if Bush were doing it, then he'd be lying, and it would be our responsibility to scream against it. But any idiot can see this is a totally different situation where bombing a country is the best way to protect it. Republicans bomb people because they are evil (sociopaths). Obama only bombs people to help them. It's so clear now. And all it took was a one hour session! Thanks guys!

Oh yeah, I am thinking clearly now alright!
 
I can promise you Obama wont send 4000 plus American heros to die in Syria. And Syria has WMD and IS using them.
 
Darla said:
Well I am fresh back from the Desh/Onceler reeducation camps, and am thinking much more clearly now.

We need to bomb the shit out of them in order to save them. Now, if Bush were doing it, then he'd be lying, and it would be our responsibility to scream against it. But any idiot can see this is a totally different situation where bombing a country is the best way to protect it. Republicans bomb people because they are evil (sociopaths). Obama only bombs people to help them. It's so clear now. And all it took was a one hour session! Thanks guys!

Oh yeah, I am thinking clearly now alright!
Click to expand...

Typical emotional, over-the-top response.

It's not apples-to-apples. A lot of Democrats who were against the ground invasion of Iraq were for air strikes. The situations aren't even remotely comparable.

I'm not even for intervention just yet - it really depends on the target & the scale of the operation. But I also think there are times when abuses & atrocities become so terrible that they demand action from the world community.

It was nice to see that you think we should "work with the international community." I really have no idea what that means if it doesn't also involve some sort of intervention.
 
Jarod said:
I can promise you Obama wont send 4000 plus American heros to die in Syria. And Syria has WMD and IS using them.
Click to expand...

Who is "they" though? Is is the Assad government? I would like to see some evidence. Assad has denied the allegations. I am not saying he would admit it, but so far, all we have are allegations. Who benefits from using chemical weapons? Assad was told in no uncertain terms the US would have a military response if he used chemical weapons. How does he benefit from a US intervention there? It doesn't make much sense, and while he might be irrational, I would like some proof. Is that too much to ask for? Have we learned nothing?

And I'll tell you Jarod, I was never one who glorified US deaths over the deaths of the people we were there murdering. It's all well and good he's not going to send 4,000 US servicepeople to their deaths, I am sincerely happy that, but it in no way negates the Syrians we are going to kill. Their lives matter just as much.
 
Darla said:
I would like to see all liberals on here take a position on this. Stop hiding.

For or against US air strikes on Syria?

Come on out of hiding. Because I'd really like to see just how many hacks we have on this board. I know for a fact you were all against it when it was Bush.

Show of hands.
Click to expand...

I'm flat-out against it.

And I also want to know, who died and left us boss? Why aren't the European countries stepping up on their own? Why isn't Israel?
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm flat-out against it.

And I also want to know, who died and left us boss? Why aren't the European countries stepping up on their own? Why isn't Israel?
Click to expand...

I think you can see that any Israeli involvement would just cause the whole Middle East to explode. I imagine that the Israeli government would much rather have Assad in power than yet another bunch of loonies demanding a return of the Caliphate and the fuil implementation of Sharia law. I must admit I just can't see why Assad would want to release chemical weapons knowing what would happen. It really doesn't make much sense as he is winning the battle anyway.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I think you can see that any Israeli involvement would just cause the whole Middle East to explode. I must admit I just can't see why Assad would want to release chemical weapons knowing what would happen. It really doesn't make much sense as he is winning the battle anyway.
Click to expand...

I read this article and it just ticked me off. How easy it is to encourage the US to send our troops to their possible deaths while they sit back and call the plays.

"Prominent Israeli Cabinet ministers are calling for a U.S.-led response to a what appears to have been a chemical attack in Syria last week that the prime minister describes as a “terrible crime.”

Benjamin Netanyahu told his Cabinet on Sunday that “this situation cannot continue.”

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni told Israel Radio that a U.S. response to the alleged poison gas attack would help discourage future chemical weapons use, but also have security implications for Israel.

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz told Army Radio the attack requires a response. He said the chances that Syria would attack Israel as a result of U.S. action were slim but that the army should be prepared for such an eventuality.

Neither Netanyahu nor the ministers specified what type of response they were urging. The Obama administration is considering military options."

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/israel-syria-us-response-95878.html
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I think you can see that any Israeli involvement would just cause the whole Middle East to explode. I imagine that the Israeli government would much rather have Assad in power than yet another bunch of loonies demanding a return of the Caliphate and the fuil implementation of Sharia law. I must admit I just can't see why Assad would want to release chemical weapons knowing what would happen. It really doesn't make much sense as he is winning the battle anyway.
Click to expand...

Tom finally made a post that makes sense.

I'd love to see an American war-monger address this.

Assad knows the US will intervene if he uses chemical weapons. Assad knows he will be removed from power if this happens (see; Libya)

So Assad goes ahead and uses chemical weapons.

And the dopes on this board go right along with it. What is really amazing is that Onceler has the balls to call anyone stupid. Talk about a dupe.
 
christiefan915 said:
I read this article and it just ticked me off. How easy it is to encourage the US to send our troops to their possible deaths while they sit back and call the plays.

"Prominent Israeli Cabinet ministers are calling for a U.S.-led response to a what appears to have been a chemical attack in Syria last week that the prime minister describes as a “terrible crime.”

Benjamin Netanyahu told his Cabinet on Sunday that “this situation cannot continue.”

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni told Israel Radio that a U.S. response to the alleged poison gas attack would help discourage future chemical weapons use, but also have security implications for Israel.

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz told Army Radio the attack requires a response. He said the chances that Syria would attack Israel as a result of U.S. action were slim but that the army should be prepared for such an eventuality.

Neither Netanyahu nor the ministers specified what type of response they were urging. The Obama administration is considering military options."

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/israel-syria-us-response-95878.html
Click to expand...

I don't think there is even the remotest possibility of troops on the ground but it is very scary nonetheless. What is even worse is that Iran is finally starting to become less belligerent, any action against Assad will encourage the hardliners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top