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

No, especially without clear evidence of who is guilty.

That said, it does still leave a two and a half year problem of civil war that doesn't have any clear sign of ending. Do we have an obligation to help stop the bloodshed? Absolutely yes. Perhaps instead of picking sides the US government could could come to an agreement with the security council to send representative peacekeeper forces from each member and enforce a cease fire on both sides of the line.

My 2p worth

No

However Russia and China should allow the Internation Criminal Court to try Assad for Genocide.

reply to post by DaRAGE


no
2nd line

Waiting for concrete evidence...

But i know that will turn up year's from now..

so NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Thanks Everyone for responding thusfar:

From Page 1:

Attack:

NO: 19

Yes: 0

From Page 2:

NO: 16

YES: 2

Non-committal: 2

Current Tally after 2 Pages: 39 Responses

Attack:

NO: 35

YES: 2

No Comm: 2

Thank you all for taking the time to provide your input!!

There is no simple answer... but i'll say "no".

I'm of the understanding that taking out Assad will just cause a full on Shia / Sunni civil war, and completely destroy any of the other religions living in the country as hardline fundamentalists (like the foreign hardliners who have entered Syria to help the rebels) kill them all.

Hardline dictator, or all out civil war. Not much of a choice.

Somebody on the radio was saying the other day that any crazy fundamentalists who take over the country will also start a war against Israel to regain the Golan Heights, as even Assad has threated to do. And I'm not convinced that a Country/Country war on top of a civil war is a good thing for the people.

Oh hell no!

That said, would we ever consider trying to take out the rebels?

Just a thought.

A firm and resolute NO. Also, if Israel and America is attacked, I hold my yea vote until confirmation that it was not a false flag.

NO, the U.S. should not strike Syria

Originally posted by DaRAGE
If it starts WW3 then yes.

If it doesn't start WW3 then no.

Volunteering to be at ground zero for the big kick off?

No, the world has enough crap going on, if as much energy went into sorting out Fukushima, which is going to kill more of you Americans than another war will then the world would be a much better place and theres hope.

Absolutely not!!!

2) No!

So far there is not enough evidence to prove who carried out the chemical attack.

If Syrians are killing Syrians then how does it help Syrians if the USA also begin killing Syrians?

Why is it ok to kill using bombs and guns but not chemical weapons. A weapon is a weapon and klling is killing!

reply to post by ItDepends


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

NO. Not American but say no as this will affect everyone who lives on this planet. Leave them alone.

No, we should keep our noses out of their business

King

reply to post by ItDepends

NO

2. NO, the U.S. should not strike Syria!

a big , "oh hell no!"....

but that's not to dismiss the fact that someone dispersed chemical weapons [nerve agents] on a civilian populace.

this thing has been in the worx for quite some time.

Assad, despite maintaining a sort of 'stability' in both the region and his own country has been 'asked' repeatedly to step down, by both and the same. his own people and outside interests. he's refused... again, repeatedly.

NOW... the way today's world worX ... he's not going to be given another choice/chance to do that... just as with Saddam .... his time has come, and 'the ferryman' awaits his due pay. ;o

rest assured, Assad will be toppled, one way or another.

If not right here and now, a later date might just find him, too, in a 'spider hole'.

yup.