It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 16
56
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 

NO!




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
No



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Continued Tabulation of YOUR ATS Votes, Through PAGE 15 !!!

ItDepends

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL COUNT THROUGH 14 PAGES AS OF 3:45pm e.s.t. U.S.

NO: 213

YES: 11

Non-Comm: 8

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL COUNT PAGE 15.

NO: 12

YES: 0

Non-Comm: 2

TOTAL COUNT THROUGH 15 PAGES AS OF 6:21pm e.s.t. U.S.

NO: 225

YES: 11

Non-Comm: 10
edit on 9-9-2013 by ItDepends because: Formatting, still learning new ATS, but it's all good!!!

edit on 9-9-2013 by ItDepends because: I goofed up with page numbers....had to update!! Results through pages 15!!

edit on 9-9-2013 by ItDepends because: Sorry, Formatting Change....still learning the new ATS....but cool so far!!

edit on 9-9-2013 by ItDepends because: Still Learning New Format: Correction



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
NO.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
We should NOT attack...
second



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


A BIG FAT HE*& NO! If anything we should have sent aid and provide intel for them (Syria that is) to kill off that muslim brotherhood. I still dont understand how any politician thinks. Must be the lack of AIR when a politician sticks his head up his own ass.

We need to send support to Egypt still and help them get under control before we even think about making a move on Syria
edit on 9-9-2013 by St0mP121 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
No clear evidence..

Definitely a 'No'..

Only if Assad is proved beyond doubt to have used them would I vote a yes..
And China, Russia, UK and the rest of the world would then already be with them..



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


No



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
No.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


Providing the latest 'Breaking Information" On This Topic


BREAKING NEWS
Obama: 'Breakthrough' is possible on Syria



Keep the pressure on, he says
Russia's proposal for Syria to put its chemical weapons in international control is a "potentially positive development," President Obama tells CNN. FULL STORY.........[url=http://cnn.com]CNN LINK



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
No



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


Hell no. Truthfully, even if Asaad did commit attacks using chemical weapons, why should the United States get involved? Why is it our job to police the world? It's not. Not that I believe Asaad had anything to do with the chemical weapons attack if one even happened.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
No.




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


NO ATTACK, fix our own country first starting by flipping Detroit



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


Another vote for "NO."

Instead of missles, why not help the millions of displaced Syrians? C'mon Mr President, use that Nobel Peace Prize for something other than a paperweight! I bet you could win more hearts thru humanitarian efforts than you could with a missle.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Ahh Nuts NO
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 



Based on alleged Bashar al-Assad approved use of chemical attacks and the death of more than 1,400 civilians including at least 400 children, is a military strike warranted?

Sorry for not reading other posts….I’m just throwing my vote in.

NO….there is no strike warranted because we’ve seen NO evidence.



As far as I'm concerned we HAVE NO IDEA who used the chemical weapons. I think The House will come to the same conclusion before they vote NO.
edit on 9-9-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
NO!!!



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
No...Absolutely NO!



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
My position has always been to not negotiate with terrorist.
Don't help the terrorist when their fighting terrorist.
Let them dwindle their numbers down on both sides,
the less of them the better for us all...
I hope every civilian refugees out of their
and let the bad guys kill each other..



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join