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

Bulletin

Obama seeks support for attacking Syria while pursuing diplomacy

Full Story Here

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

So for the moment, a number of diplomatic, political and fluid situations are occurring concurrently, which would lead us to believe, that no imminent Military Actions are pending for at least consideration, for at a minimum of at least 3 weeks.

Anything can happen inbetween now and then....more use of Chemical use, but for now, it appears things are being negotiated behind the scenes.

Whehter President Obama's Speach to the American citizens has changed minds is debatable, and probably not in any significant way.

In the meantime, I want to Thank Everyone who chose to participate in this non-scientific poll, but the results seem to resemble the full sentiment of most informed ATSers along with the public. Great Job!

I will continue to maintain this thread and will post updates, more tabulations as warranted. As I see it, we are all in a 'wait and see' moment until the next significant piece of information is announced. Thank you and Peace!!

reply to post by ItDepends


Not no....nut HELL NO !!!

I've already voted "no". Following his speech nothing has changed. I still say NO.

suz62
I've already voted "no". Following his speech nothing has changed. I still say NO.

Understandable.....more questions than answers.....bewildered!!

reply to post by ItDepends


Been there done that....and continue to do so. But answering a question with a question is not my cup of tee, or my french fries. To each to his own.


But for site choices, how about opening a poll in the form of ummmm...ohhhhhh...i dont know,... how about, "does the U.S. or Syria have as a sovereign state the right to defend or attack ?"

Now that's the type of cerebral activity you're more than likely to engage net user's than what this site has as monthly page views on a monthly level.

BTW. simply extending an open palm of friendship.

Manipulativebehavior
reply to post by ItDepends

 

Been there done that....and continue to do so. But answering a question with a question is not my cup of tee, or my french fries. To each to his own.


But for site choices, how about opening a poll in the form of ummmm...ohhhhhh...i dont know,... how about, "does the U.S. or Syria have as a sovereign state the right to defend or attack ?"

Now that's the type of cerebral activity you're more than likely to engage net user's than what this site has as monthly page views on a monthly level.

BTW. simply extending an open palm of friendship.

Thanks, yes I understand, however, this exercise for this thread was very simple, intentionally. It also allowed, as my threads do, the opportunity for the poster to not only answer the very direct and understandable question, but to add thoughts and comments.

I must say that I have been extremely pleased with the responses in answering the single direct question which seems to equate with the view of the general population. GREAT JOB ATSer's!! Additionally, many also chose to add specific personal views on the subject that related to the topic and that also was handled respectfully and thoughtfully.

So, you too have the opportunity to do one or the other or both in this thread, your choice, and it would be respected.

Now as far as your request to begin a new thread, perhaps titled...""does the U.S. or Syria have as a sovereign state the right to defend or attack ?" Sure, that could be created, why don't you have a go for it?

There many examples of 'sovereign state nations' that have been involved in both sides of the coin....throughout history. Then the debate begins, what caused one country to attack another? The country that was attacked, did they have the right to attack back with a powerful and devastating response? If a country led by say, a Dictator, and the Int'l community and surrounding countries withness brutal atrocties against it's onw citizens, does another country or country's have the legal, moral right to step in and help, maybe with sanctions..attempts at negotiations..but if that fails and 10's of thousands of citizens are being murdered and millions are running for their lives as refugees into neighboring country's, then what?

All interesting questions/thoughts and I am sure would create an interesting thread. Within THIS thread alone, many responders have articulated very well their thoughts on the Syrian example. So what say you?

Again, thank you for responding. Oh, I love golf, I'm sure you meant to say a cup of tea, unless you meant a cup of tee's for the golf course....LOL. Just having fun.....have a great day!!

Is this a trick question?

No.

Anybody with half a brain ought to be able to figure this one out, one way or the other. There are multiple reasons.

Only if you think that saving international political face by attacking, just because you made an ultimatum and other's didn't obey it, should you vote yes. And if you vote 'yes', because of this, I'll give you a long list of countries to bomb...

Almost every other POV to lead eventually to a well-reasoned No.

Bombs would do a great deal of good if launched at the Whitehouse, Congress, Federal Reserve, DHS, CIA and so on .. and on ..

The enemy is within - time to get your rope, torch and pitch forks.

Thank you both for taking the time to check in and give your perspectives. I thank you very much! This has been a very interesting thread.....and although the response has been a resounding 'NO' which supports every other public opinion poll, although this was non-scientific, it was GREAT to see so many ATS'ers check in and vote! Thank you all very much!

Pathaka
Is this a trick question?

No.

Anybody with half a brain ought to be able to figure this one out, one way or the other. There are multiple reasons.

Only if you think that saving international political face by attacking, just because you made an ultimatum and other's didn't obey it, should you vote yes. And if you vote 'yes', because of this, I'll give you a long list of countries to bomb...

Almost every other POV to lead eventually to a well-reasoned No.

Thanks Nope, not a trick....just a pop quiz... Thanks again!!

Amagnon
Bombs would do a great deal of good if launched at the Whitehouse, Congress, Federal Reserve, DHS, CIA and so on .. and on ..

The enemy is within - time to get your rope, torch and pitch forks.

Whoaaaaa Nelly!! LOL! How 'bout we drop NO BOMBS NO WHERE? Although your idea about ropes, torches and pitch forks does sound of cool.....Medieval even.