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

Darla's version of IA is so entertaining.

Let the record show that I haven't "gone along" with anything. But I don't dismiss 200 innocent deaths as "not really a massacre - hardly worth worrying about."
 
I am anti-war regardless of who is starting the war. I am very disappointed in so many liberals becoming Democratic apologists on this issue. Dead is dead. Try telling the mothers of the dead that it's different because Obama did it. Man, that is some bullshit.

Amen, I am sick of it as well.
 
Your numbers are way off. Over 100,000 people have been killed in this civil war so far. At the rate Assad's killing his own people, there won't be any more of those children you're mourning left anyhow.



Why is that, Darla? Because they're used as human shields. The government's embedding itself in schools and hospitals and residential neighborhoods, knowing full well that bleeding hearts like you will scream "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!"

Those same people fighting against Assad right now are parents. They have children killed by their leader. They want to end this fighting as much or more than you do.

Let them make the determination whether to put their child in danger now with military strikes or let it go on for years and years under Assad.

So, if we go into this civil war how many more thousands will there be dead.

I have not heard your number of dead, is there a site I may refer to for the numbers.

Sorry, but your number seem a little high.
 
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.

I do not support the air strikes. I believe we need to stay out of Syia's civil war.
 
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.

I agree with your analysis, I also believe that the lives of the people of the middle east are just as valuable as American lives. The point of my post was to point out the incredible hypocrisy of those Americans who were emphatic about going to war in Iraq, cheerleading the war in Iraq, salivating at the idea of sending out boys and girls into Iraq... who now are against President Obama involving us in Syria or having simply been tangentially involved in Libya.
 
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.
against, even if the collected data were to show Assad did this - which makes no strategic sense whatsover, as Assad (and Hezbollah, and Iran, and the Shiite jihadists) never needed to do this. They were winning the land war, since Hez joined.

It's beyond stupid - it is not our war, none of it. It is a Syrian CIVIL WAR - a proxy wrs for reshuffling the alliances/powerbases in the ME.

I Srsly think we are all up in arms becuase Putin is getting his sphere of influence, also with a new port in Tartus, Syria -
replacing the couple of piers there now.

Which allows Russia to field a Blue Water navy -not that it has a chance against our 6th fleet in the Mediterranean.

But we don't want Russia to expand. So we are going to use this, to show we still have influence

It's a PROXY war for the US, and the players in the ME.

Stay out of it - replacing Assad is not necesarily a good idea." Better the devil you know..etc"
 
If they are going to do that, they need a UN resolution but China and Russia won't allow it. It is a total rat's nest of a dilemma.
true. but there xcan still be a 'co-alition of the willing'. What is the haste to do this without at least waiting for the UN?
 
There is no way we just sit back and allow a leader to kill people so they can keep control.


never again do we sit and watch a WWII just get out of control before we step in.

WWI was why we hesitated.


hesitating now would be the same thing


But maybe just this one time THE REST OF THE WORLD can step up and do what you think needs done so that, just this one time, the folks here in the good ol USA can let someone else do the dirty work and wind up with the blood of the innocent on their hands.
 
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.


Then maybe for a while we can work on the abuses and atrocities that claim the lives of the innocent and occur right here in the good ol US of A!

You know...like the atrocity that is the lack of adequate mental health care for the sick here in this country? How many innocent children have died at the hands of some mentally unstable person with a gun in the past year?

Is that not an atrocity that needs addressing?
 
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


EXACTLY!

If President Netanyahu is so gung ho to help injured Syrians, why isn't Israel doing something?
 
against, even if the collected data were to show Assad did this - which makes no strategic sense whatsover, as Assad (and Hezbollah, and Iran, and the Shiite jihadists) never needed to do this. They were winning the land war, since Hez joined.

It's beyond stupid - it is not our war, none of it. It is a Syrian CIVIL WAR - a proxy wrs for reshuffling the alliances/powerbases in the ME.

I Srsly think we are all up in arms becuase Putin is getting his sphere of influence, also with a new port in Tartus, Syria -
replacing the couple of piers there now.

Which allows Russia to field a Blue Water navy -not that it has a chance against our 6th fleet in the Mediterranean.

But we don't want Russia to expand. So we are going to use this, to show we still have influence

It's a PROXY war for the US, and the players in the ME.

Stay out of it - replacing Assad is not necesarily a good idea." Better the devil you know..etc"

A blue water navy? Much I love Russia, they only have a dry dock navy. A new port won't change that.
 
No More War! The 60%!!!

no-intervention-syria.jpg


Syria-web-258x400.jpg
 
So, if we go into this civil war how many more thousands will there be dead.

I have not heard your number of dead, is there a site I may refer to for the numbers.

Sorry, but your number seem a little high.

Assuming the link Cawacko posted is the same I read the other day, yes my number is right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/bashar-assad_n_3815391.html

I agree with your analysis, I also believe that the lives of the people of the middle east are just as valuable as American lives. The point of my post was to point out the incredible hypocrisy of those Americans who were emphatic about going to war in Iraq, cheerleading the war in Iraq, salivating at the idea of sending out boys and girls into Iraq... who now are against President Obama involving us in Syria or having simply been tangentially involved in Libya.

I posted this the other day regarding Egypt. It essentially remains the same for Syria, except with Syria we need to save the people from Assad. Yes, hundreds of thousands are dead,

Please excuse me, Annata. In case you didn't notice, there's some really crazy people around here who have already accused Obama of the Syria situation.

As far as what's going on, yes I know. Assad is killing thousands of people while the PC rest of the world lets it happen because to act on the knowledge of him using chemical weapons without positive, definite proof would put us right back to Bush's invasion of Iraq for what he claimed was WMD.

I also know Assad needs to go. I don't know if you've read any of my posts, but one point I like to make about any conflict like this is I support the wishes of the people. I was opposed to the Vietnam conflict because there was no need for it...the people of Vietnam were happy with their communist government. They didn't want us there.

Same with Iraq. Same with Afghanistan. The people are happy with their miserable existence under a brutal dictator. They don't care they've been brainwashed by the government - the government provided them with electricity, food, water, education, and health care.

They don't want us there.

Since Vietnam, this nation should have learned that you cannot change a country, you cannot change how the people of a country feel about democracy, you cannot change the government of a country - if the people don't want you to.

That's the big difference between the Arab Spring uprisings and the situations in Libya, Egypt, and Syria. The people want change. They want their dictator gone. They want democracy, even western ways (btw...the desire of a capitalistic culture and blue jeans and rock and roll is what eventually what caused the upheaval in Vietnam, Thailand, and other far east nations. It was a cultural incursion, not a military one.) We must support them in this quest or our Constitution isn't worth the parchment it's written on. This country was founded on freedom from oppression, who are we to deny other nations that chance?

I'm also aware al Qaeda is infiltrating the rebels in Libya and Syria, and other factions are supporting the military in Egypt. They're providing them with the weapons and ammo to fight their civil war because we won't. I'm also aware the US has indirectly supplied non-military aid to these factions.

I'm also aware al Qaeda are a terrorist organization and are doing this for their own good. Much like a non-violent organization supported the original Egyptian regime change, the Muslim Brotherhood; who then managed to elect a President with their religious views in mind.

Why is the current upheaval in Egypt, Syria, and Libya occurring? Because the people want peace. They don't want a dictator in charge, they don't want a religious sect running their country...they want a democratic, sectarian government. Just like we have. Who are we to deny them that? Who are we to not assist them in this goal?

It's a massive change. One they've not experienced in years. At one time Libya, and Egypt were vacation destinations with a fervent middle class, top notch education, universities and a happy people. (For that matter, so was Afghanistan) They want that life back.

There's going to be hiccups along the way. There already are. But I repeat - we must help them reach their goal.

(This is probably the most succinct view of the middle east I've written on here. I hope y'all will understand why I support our government's future goals in these three nations.)

The children? There are already over a million child refugees of this civil war. That's just children! If you guys are so concerned about the children, what should be done?

If we don't intervene now, Assad will just kill more.
 
I just saw a little Syrian girl, maybe six or seven, on TV:

"Does Obama want his children to be like us? Does he want us to grow up knowing he didn't help us?"
 
But maybe just this one time THE REST OF THE WORLD can step up and do what you think needs done so that, just this one time, the folks here in the good ol USA can let someone else do the dirty work and wind up with the blood of the innocent on their hands.

You know Zap, I know it will never happen but this is what I want. I have 6 nephews who have all done tours in the Middle East from the 90's to now. I like for them to have a break from being the world's referees for a change.
 
Back
Top