Your Vote ATS'ers: Attack or Not To Attack Syria for Alleged Chemical Attacks on its Own Citizens?

I say no. It's not our war.

No! Of course not!
This will be a boost to all extremist, fanatics and islamists.
I'm sill in Lebanon, and Christians are being massacred daily by these so called rebels.
Not all the killings and raping were mentioned but look what just happened today, it s on cnn too:
Syrian Extremist take control of oldest Christian town

The option "Attack Syria" is vague when you consider the sheer number of factions within the country itself. There are two off the top of my head:
1. Rebels
2. Supporters of Assad

but there may be others such as travellers, NGOs (like many charities) etc.

For this reason, unless intervention would be targeted to a specific region within Syria for very specific reasons made public to the world, my answer is no.

Continued Tabulation of YOUR ATS Votes, PAGES 10, 11, 12, 13!!!

Originally posted by ItDepends
Total Count of Polling After 9 pages::
ATTACK:

NO: 138

YES: 8

Non-Comm: 3

ATTACK: Page 10

NO: 10

YES: 0

Non-Comm: 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACK: Page 11

NO: 15

YES: 2

Non-Comm: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACK: Page 12

NO: 19

YES: 0

Non-Comm: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACK: Page 13
NO: 18

YES: 1

Non-Comm: 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL COUNT THROUGH 13 PAGES AS OF 11:45am e.s.t. U.S.

NO: 200

YES: 11

Non-Comm: 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Moshpet

Anyone who blew a gasket over the 22 kids killed in Sandy Brook and demanded action , and who said no is a hypocrite.

we know who committed the Sandy Hook massacre, there is no concrete proof that Assad is responsible for this recent attack, that has been presented to the world other than intelligence agencies saying they have a high confidence.
they also said they had a high confidence that Saddam had wmd's and even provided fake evidence. but we found out later they lied.

I say yes, because mass murder should not go unpunished nor should it be tolerated through inaction.

we also have the UN saying that they believe the rebels are using chemical weapons.

see this article.
U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas

so should we punish the rebels also? i say yes. what about you?

If you allow a crime like this to go unpunished or unanswered you are as guilty as the person who committed it.

so if we don't bomb the rebels, and only bomb Assad, are we only half guilty? or should we just go over and bomb both sides and let the ones who come out of it with most their resources intact win the war?

you have to be blind, not to see what is going on over there, when it became evident that Assad was winning the use and accusations of chemical weapons started. the UN investigations found that it was the rebels and so it was stopped and let die down for a while, then brought back up so that the pretense could continue with the hopes that the world would forget the findings.

No, the USA should not attack Syria.

NO!!!

I find it interesting that most of the people that voted yes didnt even explain why they said yes.
And those that did wanted WW3, which goes some way to account for the "crazies"(the stupid people beyond any rational thinking).

I have been studying government corruption and media manipulation for far too long to not see the propaganda theatre that is playing out before our very eyes.

Its a civil war, its an internal issue, its not even for the UN to get involved, at least not until western destabilization of the region is proven. It will be eventually, but I doubt it will in time to have any bearing on the current situation in Syria.
Now if Assad had invaded Israel or another neighbour, then that is a different story.

Im with Russia's apparent willingness to allow an international force to confiscate the chemical weapons, and then we should leave, only to allow the humanitarian groups to support those that fled Syria.

The only problem there is the "secret agents" working under the guise of humanitarian that I would worry about.

reply to post by ItDepends


Thanks ATS'ers Current Results Have Now Been Posted Through Pages 13!!! Overwhelming Support via YOUR Votes:

"NO" The U.S. Should Not Strike Syria!

A lot of news programs being broadcast today, Obama to appear on 6 newscasts. Charlie Rhodes conducted an interview with the leader of Syria, Bashar al-Assad on Sunday. Clips have already been shown. Full interview scheduled later today, approx. 5pm e.s.t @ U.S on PBS.

I will also continue to bring NEWS updates that warrant informative information. I have purposefully remained neutral, and have only posted NEWS that helps educate, share and allow YOU The ATS'er to contribute to YOU making your decision.

LASTLY

I am so very pleased by the demeanor of the responses thusfar! Very excellent replies, convictions and well thought out responses by many expressing WHY and HOW they feel leading up to their current stance/vote!

Thank You! I will continue to post the tabulations as your interest continues and further information is published via the Media.

Great Job

reply to post by OneManArmy

I find it interesting that most of the people that voted yes didnt even explain why they said yes. And those that did wanted WW3, which goes some way to account for the "crazies".

What kind of reason could they come up with?

"Because Assad killed people.... we need to kill a lot more." ?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

I find it interesting that most of the people that voted yes didnt even explain why they said yes. And those that did wanted WW3, which goes some way to account for the "crazies".

What kind of reason could they come up with?

"Because Assad killed people.... we need to kill a lot more." ?

I really don't know, the "crazies" are beyond intelligent discussion or action, I wouldn't dare to hazard a guess as to what goes on in the mind's of imbecile's. I think they would like to see a firework's display, so they can stare and dribble in awe.
But it is a fact that the "crazies" account for up to 10% of any poll. Im not trying to be nasty or derogatory, it's just the way it is.

I mean really, what sort of idiot want's world war 3? Unless they are suicidal.

reply to post by ItDepends


I definitely think Assad must be brought to answer but so must the many war criminals on both side's of this conflict, I genuinely think a Aggressive UN peacekeeping force should be dispatched under UN mandate but as it seem's that the UN has been deadlocked by China and Russia whom most of them still fear it is a dangerous road for the US to go down to act on it's own or even with a few allies.

It is a complicated war not least because of the propaganda being used by both side's but because the rebel's are not a unified faction and according to some reports may have been (And I have no doubt in my mind they are accurate) responsible for the Jihadist murder of native christian's as well as being split along the line's of internal Islamic sect division's.

I can not truly say weather we should or not intercede but like a bomb the situation need's to be defused, If We do successfully intercede then we may gain a stronger position as Iran develops the Atomic Bomb but if on the other hand we do nothing then once again the world has stood around while innocent's on both side's have been massacred, We all know that when Iran develops the Bomb it will be used at some point.


If America goes in they had be better prepared for the inevitable escalation to more theaters possible with a Cino/Russian military pact and there use of these rogue states as a buffer zone which is obviously what Putin want's.

In short I think there is essentially no choice though non want more kid's brought back in body bag's it is only a matter of time before the Jihadists attack the west in full force and they have established fifth columns already in most western nation's whom through equality law's are now em-placed to cripple those nations'.
Personally I wonder if maybe America should back Assad instead as a quick victory would spare innocent lives and bringing him on board may still allow the necessary pressure to be brought against Iran but how to get Putin and the Chinese on side as they are really using this to empower themselves as they make a grab for the number one power position by the mid century and are seeing only there own long term vested interests.
They think the western powers would be at there own back gate should these buffer states fall but I think that the ensuing chaos will eventually spill onto the street's of Europe and then America and when it does god help our children then.
Also they are looking with avaricious eyes upon the asset's of Europe and America as our military is undermined and our politicians are growing more ephemeral and weak like impotent and indecisive fools, show a dog weakness and it will go for the throat with no mercy but show it strength and it will back down to it's place in the pack.

If we go Ahead then we must show full strength and no weakness as that is what Putin and the Chinese will be watching for, if a few egg's need to be cracked then so be it but we must be ready for the consequences and Cameron better fall back on treaty mandate and provide from us any assistance necessary.

Definite No.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by ItDepends

 

I definitely think Assad must be brought to answer but so must the many war criminals on both side's of this conflict,

Hey, dont forget the war criminals that took us into an illegal war in Iraq. They deserve as much punishment as Assad.

NO!

NO

No

My answer is No, but....

A part of me, wants to say YES just because of Putin and his threats.

reply to post by ItDepends


I vote a loud and clear "NO!"

Absolutely NO!

Second line

reply to post by GraciaEspn


Too late for that, my friend. Regardless, I also vote "NAY"