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

Keeping You Informed, As I am sure you ALSO continue to monitor the fluid changing positions in the WORLD regarding Action or No Action.

TURN AWAY FROM 'RED LINE'?
Obama willing to try 'diplomatic track'

Obama tells Fox News' Chris Wallace US is willing to negotiate with Russia and Syria over proposal to have Syria turn over chemical weapons to international control, taking a sharp turn from his 'red line' on eve of speech, as Reid says test vote on Senate resolution postponed.

Source

Interesting positioning since Russia has wagged its' tail. The above is significant!!!!

On Tuesday, the President will address the nation from the White House.

President Obama's Speech Notification Link

No. If the West has money to spend (apparently we do) spend it on safe havens for refugees and make sure they have proper shelter, nutrition, sanitation and healthcare.

Continued Tabulation of YOUR ATS Votes, Through PAGE 16 !!!

ItDepends

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

NO: 225

YES: 11

Non-Comm: 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL COUNT FROM PAGE 16
ATTACK:

NO: 17

YES: 0

Non-Comm: 1

TOTAL COUNT THROUGH 16 PAGES AS OF 9:01pm e.s.t. U.S.
ATTACK:

NO: 242

YES: 11

Non-Comm: 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, Thank you ALL for your participation thusfar!! Information, Int'l positions remain fluid. This thread will continue to remain relevant for the time being...so keep your thoughts coming. It's been a great response, and many wonderful, thoughtful comments and positions! Thank You!

The talking heads in the various media outlets continue to keep this story on TOP. It will be interesting to see the Presidents' Address to the Nation on Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013. Then of course, the infamous 9/11 date a day later!!

Thank you!!

reply to post by ItDepends


No and I've made my congressmen fully aware of my opinions.

I vote for number two. I do NOT believe we should have stepped foot in Iraq after 9/11 even after being attacked. (If you go by the mainstream belief of 9/11. Something I did back then.) Now, we have even LESS business in Syria. This is something the Syrian people need to work out.

If we help the rebels, we're helping enemies. Assad is no angel, I'm sure. But I don't think the next person in power would be any better, in fact I believe they'd be worse. Let's instead worry about America, and the nonsense that's going on at our very doorsteps. We're living in a glass house here while throwing tons of stones.

In summary: Screw Obama and his lies, let's get together and fix our own problems.

NO!

NO! No no no, guilty or not.

NO!

reply to post by ItDepends

No. To quote Sarah Palin, “Let Allah Sort It Out.”

Why Syria? A Story Of Competing Pipelines.

reply to post by ItDepends


No.

Second Line

reply to post by ItDepends


No. 1400 dead is a number that the rebels put out that all the mainstream media continue to repeat. The initial intelligence suggested a much smaller number, but US intelligence estimates seem to have a pattern of changing to fit an agenda. You are incorrect in stating that it is a certainty that chemical weapons were used. The UN has not yet said that such chemicals were used. Everyone is bombarded with pictures of dead children so that their thinking is governed by emotion rather than logic. It is not ok to be bombarded with images of dead children when Adam Lanza shoots up Sandy Hook Elementary but it is ok when the US government wants to demonize someone they want to kill. There is no evidence that Assad ordered a chem attack or that Syrian forces used them without an Assad order. Russia has proposed that Syria give up their chemical weapons to avoid a strike. The United States will be hesitant to allow Syria to give up their chemical weapons. Chemical weapons have nothing to do with the US desire to strike Syria. It is all about regime change contrary to what most are saying. Assad has said that he does not want to see any weapons of mass destruction to be used whether they be chemical or nuclear. He skipped over biological because that was not on his mind. The weapons he has are chemical and nuclear. He is able to give up his chemical weapons because he still has a deterrent against a US invasion with his nuclear weapons.

A Big NO!

There is no upside to our involvement, and in all reality, we should be helping Assad defeat the Al-CIAda rebels that are our sworn enemy.

But of course US CIA is encouraging this Arab Spring, so it really doesn't matter what we the People want, but what the PTB have in store for us....

Sirric

No

Just a question:

Obama said no boots on the ground, but if they conducted classified operations with special forces, he wouldn't have to mention it anyway right? There always seems to be a loophole.

Strange days indeed!! Here is an abbreviated look at the Presidents schedule over the next 24 hours. Today alone he has appeared on at least 6 major American Networks.

What happens if nothing happens with the latest news that Syria is considering of turning over its chemical weapons?

Obama says Russian Syria proposal could be a breakthrough

USA Today report here>>

I am not going to change the TOPIC QUESTION: To attack or not to attack....However...many revelations are coming forward that we all need to consider.

I also WELCOME well stated changes in opinion!! We just don't know everything. So, President Obama's presentation tomorrow, Tuesday evening, 9/10 at 9pm e.s.t. U. S. will be a very interesting and perhaps, an unique moment in World and U.S. Histroy!!

Lastly, thank you ALL for your continued participation......a truly free, independent opportunity to allow you to voice your feelings and contribute your sincere and convictions...all well stated civily!! Thank you!! ID

Absolutely not.
What happened to risk vs reward?

No.
No reason for our involvement.

First time poster here but just had to chime in and say...
NO
NO
NO

reply to post by ItDepends


No

2. No, No, and double NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! on attacking Syria. For so many reasons, mainly:

1. It is never a good idea to get involved in any country's civil war. See Vietnam.
2. Assad is fighting Al Qaeda. So....what reason exactly should we be attacking him?
3. He's gassing people. So what? There are much worse crimes against humanity going on in numerous places around the world. Why aren't we attacking those leaders too?
4. It's none of our damned business. Just like whatever Saddam Hussein was doing was his biz, not ours.
5. Hello..... attacks cost money, the military is downsizing at the moment and.....WE ARE BROKE. How can anyone justify an attack on Syria, when the VA is being short funded, and is struggling to take care of the numerous returning Iraq/Afghanistan vets because the government hasn't been funding it to deal with it?
6. So if we get rid of Assad, what's the plan? Who is taking over next? What's that? We haven't even figured out a replacement? Just...leave that nice power vacuum open for some awesome religious extremists? Awesome plan!