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

BREAKING NEWS

Syria agrees to 'Russian initiative'


HOWEVER, The Pressure does not seem to be letting up.

BREAKING NEWS
Kerry: Keep military threat

CNN SOURCE ^^

white house live
Next Up...
September 10, 2013 9:00 PM EDT
President Obama Addresses the Nation on Syria
The White House

Source: White House Website

taoistguy

And thankyou for starting the post. I think you can stop counting now. We can see where this is going.

Thank you! It's really not much of a problem, and since I did indicate that I would post the continuing poll results I think it only fair.

Should be interesting to watch what happens considering the latest news regarding Syria's potential agreement to turn its stockpile of chemical weapons over to the Int'l Community. Or, is it a stall tactic??

gentledissident
reply to post by ItDepends

 

Thank you. I hope you didn't think I was addressing you. I was just stating that ATS needs a poll option and that planet cleansers might need their own tally. LOL

edit on 10-9-2013 by gentledissident because: Man, I just woke up.

Ah, Thank you!! No worries! Appreciate you taking the time to reply. Agreed, LOL, there have been a number of suggestions just as you have asked for, an ATS polling site. In the meantime......... LOL

Thank God for sanity at ATS

No

NYET !!

C...

OMsk3ptic
NO!
"Look in his eyes it's all lies, the stars and stripes have been swiped, washed out and wiped, and replaced with his own face, mosh now or die!"

edit on 10-9-2013 by OMsk3ptic because: (no reason given)

Eminem quote? I could google it but it takes out the social interaction.

The chemical attacks perpetrated by US-backed rebels. For now, most Americans are not buying the lies of US government.

My answer is NO to an attack on Syria.

If the congress doesn't approve, I foresee another false flag that will brainwash people to bless another war.

reply to post by ItDepends


The chemical weapons themselves are not the problem.

The whole Assad regime should be removed from power and answer for this crime against humanity; even its military which carried out the attack.

darepairman
I say NO... I might have a different opinion if we had a camander n chief that knew what he was doing or had the best intrest of our country in heart. This man should not be allowed to make a decision on what color socks to ware in the morning, a complete treasonous idiot

Thanks Ed

It's been a while I've not seen such truthful opinion. Unfortunately, the man is just another puppet on the stage.

Continued Tabulation of YOUR ATS Votes, Through PAGE 19 !!!

ItDepends

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL COUNT THROUGH 18 PAGES AS OF 12:01pm e.s.t. U.S.
ATTACK:

NO: 271

YES: 11

Non-Comm: 13

TOTAL COUNT OF PAGE 19 AS OF 1:15pm e.s.t. U.S.
ATTACK:

NO: 13

YES: 3

Non-Comm: 0


TOTAL COUNT THROUGH 19 PAGES AS OF 1:15pm e.s.t. U.S.
ATTACK:

NO: 284

YES: 14

Non-Comm: 13

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you all for participating and providing your thoughts and comments!!!

ItDepends

taoistguy

And thankyou for starting the post. I think you can stop counting now. We can see where this is going.

Thank you! It's really not much of a problem, and since I did indicate that I would post the continuing poll results I think it only fair.

Should be interesting to watch what happens considering the latest news regarding Syria's potential agreement to turn its stockpile of chemical weapons over to the Int'l Community. Or, is it a stall tactic??

Or is it a theatre designed to persuade the masses to run to the UN to sort this all out.
If it is then its working extremely well.
What exactly is the "international community"?

Im starting to feel I have been really played, and I actively supported it. I hope Im wrong.

reply to post by ItDepends


2. Nay.

We have no reason to deploy by land , sea or air attacks on Syria. We would be fighting someone elses war. I feel terrible for the innocents either way this goes, if we did get involved it would be our fault, if we don't it will be our fault.

Considering that people are waking up to the shadows and lies of our government, their ties to the new word order global banking cartel, and their admitted links to countless "terrorists groups". I doubt too many will support another false flag inspired war.

OneManArmy

Or is it a theatre designed to persuade the masses to run to the UN to sort this all out.
If it is then its working extremely well.
What exactly is the "international community"?

Im starting to feel I have been really played, and I actively supported it. I hope Im wrong.

edit on 10-9-2013 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Well I think you are correct about trying to get the hopelessly anemic U.N. to gather and to finally unite on something that makes sense.....Syria giving up its' Chemical Weapons.

As far as the Int'l Community, well I guess I would start with all of the NATO and the recent G20 Nations. However, the more the merrier. Just speaking for myself, I would really love to see more countries be outspoken, especially the M.E. countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc...!

Thanks very much!! ID

ItDepends

OneManArmy

Or is it a theatre designed to persuade the masses to run to the UN to sort this all out.
If it is then its working extremely well.
What exactly is the "international community"?

Im starting to feel I have been really played, and I actively supported it. I hope Im wrong.

edit on 10-9-2013 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Well I think you are correct about trying to get the hopelessly anemic U.N. to gather and to finally unite on something that makes sense.....Syria giving up its' Chemical Weapons.

As far as the Int'l Community, well I guess I would start with all of the NATO and the recent G20 Nations. However, the more the merrier. Just speaking for myself, I would really love to see more countries be outspoken, especially the M.E. countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc...!

Thanks very much!! ID

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

The way I see it, the international community consists of USA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, UK, CHINA. Thats hardly representative is it? They are more equal than all the other nations that make up the UN, as they are the only ones that can veto. The UN is a racket, far more corrupt than the individual nation states that make it, and thats what worries me.

OneManArmy
The way I see it, the international community consists of USA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, UK, CHINA. Thats hardly representative is it? They are more equal than all the other nations that make up the UN, as they are the only ones that can veto. The UN is a racket, far more corrupt than the individual nation states that make it, and thats what worries me.

Would you not include Germany, Canada, India, any country from South America?

There are 193 United Nations (UN) member states, and each of them is a member of the United Nations General Assembly.[2]

Source U.N. Members

So I think there are a lot more Nations that could be more vocal. In the meantime, many just seem to sit on the side lines and depending on how the wind is blowing, they get pulled along.

ItDepends

OneManArmy
The way I see it, the international community consists of USA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, UK, CHINA. Thats hardly representative is it? They are more equal than all the other nations that make up the UN, as they are the only ones that can veto. The UN is a racket, far more corrupt than the individual nation states that make it, and thats what worries me.

Would you not include Germany, Canada, India, any country from South America?

No I would not, for the simple reason, they do not sit on the security council, they do not hold any veto's.
They can use influence, but ultimately the UN consists of the security council, and that has just 5 members.

reply to post by InkontinentiaBouquet


I believe they are going to attack but not because of the humanity of the US government! Since when has the US government given a dam about atrocities anywhere in the world? The only time they do is when it suits the
interests of TPTB and the crony capitalists that are the hidden hand behind every war and FFA anywhere in this
despicable world! Even if this was about stopping atrocities, how can bombing a nation and killing more civilians stop anything? This is all about provocation, that of the state of Iran! have you ever heard the quote
from the bible that goes “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone"?
Well America is not so innocent that it has any right to judge! In fact we may be more guilty then any country
since Nazi Germany!

NO NO NO NO

Line 2

NO NO No NO NO

OneManArmy

ItDepends

OneManArmy
The way I see it, the international community consists of USA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, UK, CHINA. Thats hardly representative is it? They are more equal than all the other nations that make up the UN, as they are the only ones that can veto. The UN is a racket, far more corrupt than the individual nation states that make it, and thats what worries me.

Would you not include Germany, Canada, India, any country from South America?

No I would not, for the simple reason, they do not sit on the security council, they do not hold any veto's.
They can use influence, but ultimately the UN consists of the security council, and that has just 5 members.

Ok, and that has worked out how well? All I'm saying in regards to Int'l Community...I speak just for myself, is that I would like to see more countries become more vocal, state their positions and let it be known. Many more could be added including Japan, Australia, Turkey.....South Korea....I am just of the opinion that when Worldwide issues are being discussed, it would be better to be more inclusive rather than leaving it to a handful of countries. Just my opinion! Thanks!

Note: As far as the U.N. 'veto' power, it doesn't or hasn't shown much power. Country's have gone and did exactly what they have wanted to do no matter what the U.N. says. (i.e. Iraq, Iran, U.S., Russia, No. Korea, etc.)