Latest polls - what Americans think about Military Intervention in Syria (STRONGLY opposed)

Here are some recent polls on what Americans think about military intervention in Syria. Not only does Americas allies not want military intervention, but the vast majority of Americans don't want it either. So when the press says that Obama is going this solo .. they aren't kidding. It's just him and Valerie Jarrett and John McCain ... and a handful of other weenies who want to kick off World War III in Syria ...

August 25th Reuters Poll

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

60% of Americans think America should not act in Syria.
9% of Americans think Obama should act in Syria.
(the other 31% must be undecided )
25% of Americans support intervention if Assad uses chemical weapons on civilians.
46% would still oppose it.
What Americans Think about Military Intervention in Syria

Keeping in mind that polls can be skewed to look however the pollsters want ... this latest poll was taken by the Obama-shill machine NBC. The results are interesting. Although I would have thought the number of people disagreeing with Obama on this would have been higher. (I suspect some padding of the numbers by NBC ... making the edges less sharp against their guy ... )

NBC News - Americans Skeptical of US Intervention in Syria

50% of Americans oppose military intervention in Syria.
42% of Americans support military intervention in Syria.
79% of Americans say Obama needs Congressional Approval before action.
(6/10 of democrats and 9/10 of republicans say he needs congressional approval)
21% of Americans think action in Syria would be in our national interest.
44% of Americans approve of Obamas job performance.
35% of Americans approve of Obama's handing of Syria.

USA Today covered this NBC poll story

Previous Polling on Syria/Obama
Quinnipiac University Poll 6/28 - 7/8

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Syria?"
33% Approve 48% Disapprove 19% Unsure

"Do you support or oppose the U.S. sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups in Syria?"
27% Support 59% Oppose 13% Unsure

"Do you think it is in the national interest of the United States to be involved in the conflict in Syria, or not?"
27% It is in U.S. national interest 61% It is not in U.S. national interest

I'm against it completely. Let them duke it out, we can clean up after.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I wouldn't know what to aim my missiles at....
Until I sent in the Marines to sort it out, and then I would be stuck in Syria, unless I wanted a base there and then that would be perfect for my motives.

If I was an expanding empire I mean.

I am one of the Americans Strongly opposed to Syrian Intervention.

Why are those three polls so very far apart?

They all show the American public being opposed to military action in Syria, but the numbers are really not in line from poll to poll.

Personally, I don't know anyone that thinks we should intervene militarily.

Originally posted by Dustytoad
I wouldn't know what to aim my missiles at....

I swear this is true ... yesterday afternoon FOX NEWS had a map of Syria on it's website and it had the targets mapped out for everyone to see. The article discussed how the military hits would go even further in Syria than Damascus. It was the battle plan. I wish I had a screen shot of it ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing. the amount of LEAK coming from this administration is OUTRAGEOUS.

This wasn't the exact map that was shown but it looked like it. And each of those dots and things in Syria was a target. This isn't a small operation. It's not a quick in and out. It will have LONG RANGE effects. And there will be lots of dead Russians because there are Ruskies at those sites. Russia will be ticked. It wouldn't surprise me if they had people there on purpose so that if any died they would have an even bigger excuse to nail Obama (and the USA) back.

The Week - 4 likely targets

ABC News - Pentagon Strike Plans

reply to post by FlyersFan


Unfortunately, the current administration has already locked in it's second term. So I would guess these polls and public opinion would be of little consideration right now.

To quote Neo

Stay the hell out of Syria ! !

Watched a little video last night from WeAreChange's YouTube channel which is pretty decent;



Personally, I think if you want war then go sign up & get on that front line, lets see how fast your opinion changes then

Originally posted by butcherguy
Why are those three polls so very far apart? They all show the American public being opposed to military action in Syria, but the numbers are really not in line from poll to poll.

One poll is from back in July. The Reuters poll is most recent and they don't have an agenda. The NBC poll is recent and their numbers aren't as against Obamas decision on this ... but don't forget that NBC is the Obama-shill machine and so it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to skew the poll to more favor Obama.

I take Reuters as the most accurate and up to date. I'd like to see more polls by neutral sources ...
I'm betting the numbers against Syrian intervention would be even higher as time goes on.

Personally, I don't know anyone that thinks we should intervene militarily.

same here. Democrats .. Republicans .. whatever. No one wants to go in.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I'm waiting for the POTUS to say that U.S. citizens do not understand how the Syrian conflict affects National security. But he won't explain how it does either.

Not a poll on Americans .. it's on the Brits ... but I still think it's interesting.

Telegraph UK

As it emerged that the West could launch cruise missiles within days, a poll found wide public opposition to British involvement in “any kind” of military action in Syria. In a survey of 2,000 people by YouGov, only nine per cent supported sending British troops to fight in Syria, with 74 per cent against. Three-quarters backed sending humanitarian aid.

The Brits are against military intervention in Syria. Only 9% support it.
They oppose it even more than the citizens of America.

France No Longer Shoulder to Shoulder with USA

According to an IFOP poll, 59 per cent of French voters oppose French involvement in an air-strike in Syria. The poll found that UN action would be supported by 55 per cent of French people – so long as the French military does not take part.

And the majority of the French don't want military intervention in Syria either.

I don't understand why world leaders aren't listening to the people who elected them.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
I'm waiting for the POTUS to say that U.S. citizens do not understand how the Syrian conflict affects National security.

I"m starting to think his rabid dog mentality with this might have to do with Syrian oil pipelines or something. Obama released a declassified report justifying a Syrian strike . But it's all 'chemical chemical chemical' which has nothing to do with the USA.

Something about the oil pipelines and gas fields is tickling my brain .. but I can't put my finger on it.

ATS Thread - US Military has Doubts about Syrian Strike
Looks like the US Military .. including the Joint Chiefs ... are in line with what Americans are thinking. They are against a strike. It serves no purpose. They are strongly opposed ...

"But the public is more supportive of military action when it is limited to launching cruise missiles from US naval ships, 50 per cent favour that kind of intervention, while 44 per cent oppose it."

news.in.msn.com...

Perceptions are changing I guess....buy the story America...it will ease your conscience

Okay I admit that this is off topic ... but ATS just switched to this new system and I want to experiment and give it a try. I'm using this as a practice .....

Just checking .....

Okay ... back to the topic ....

reply to post by n00bUK


That one guy was talkin about Cereal at one point, I didn't know whether to or

I'm waiting for the POTUS to say that U.S. citizens do not understand how the Syrian conflict affects National security. But he won't explain how it does either.

reply to post by TDawgRex


The U.S. always uses the "national security" issue every time it enters a conflict. It's getting old now, and I think the American public are getting tired of it. This conflict in no way affects "national security." I think if we aggravate it by launching missiles, we will than have a "national security" issue, because it's going to create more enemies for the United States.

Originally posted by WeRpeons

I'm waiting for the POTUS to say that U.S. citizens do not understand how the Syrian conflict affects National security. But he won't explain how it does either.

reply to post by TDawgRex

 

The U.S. always uses the "national security" issue every time it enters a conflict. It's getting old now, and I think the American public are getting tired of it. This conflict in no way affects "national security." I think if we aggravate it by launching missiles, we will than have a "national security" issue, because it's going to create more enemies for the United States.

You are right on the nail head. People need to stop looking at the way the rest of the world is run from their own cultural viewpoint. It just doesn't work that way. This is not an emotional issue anymore. It never really was on in the first place.

If the emotions were so great, we would have sent forces into Rwanda back in the 80's. And Darfur in the 90's.

I am strongly opposed. This is not our fight, and not our business what anyone does.

If the united states government was so against the use of chemical weapons they would not have used them ever, and they would not have looked the other way while saddam hussain was killing his citizens... until it was in their ' best interests' to not look the other way anyway...

this whole thing is a farce and the united states just panting to get in there is more than ridiculous..

A) We cannot afford it and we will never be able to if the perpetual wars continue as they are too costly when Americans are loosing all their jobs to overseas contracts.

B) It is dangerous because we are making enemies we did not need to have, and our once enemies who we now appear to be befriending even though they killed many many Americans on American soil, will only bite the hand that feeds them now.....

Someday, the world will say no more to all this # we are dishing out and its game over... and no one will help us then either

I oppose... most vehemently

The question is, if the majority opposes and our government does whatever they want anyway what will we do? Will we sit and be good little slaves or will we say no more?