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: 5
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
No...and I've signed a petition online at the petition site for whatever good it could do.

To the poster who is holding up the circle of life philosophy, if you believe that is how things should be.... like a beast, then the circle will necessitate YOU being the buffalo one day. Some camera man is going to be making his commentary without lifting a finger to help as you continue to moo and groan in pain as if someone is coming to help while being eaten alive.

Have fun with that because maybe the circle isn't as big as you think it is and maybe time is almost up.

PS... There are other ways to solve the financial crisis than to let bankers control everything, but you'd have to be able to comprehend it. You'd also have to be able to comprehend how this war mongering circle of life thing is what got us into this mess in the first place but I guess some just think chasing their tail in the circle of life is an intelligent existence, that is until their ass is getting eaten by a lion... or they are suffering from injury or hunger in an escalated war that they supported.




posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I have a thread pretty much the exact same as this posted last week i think

Link

only difference is that I was more asking if a proper ATS pole would be possible

just saying.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Yes, the US should take some kind of military action in Syria. If for no other reason than the US President threatened action. I am sure that my vote will be an unpopular one, and I am unsure if military action is the correct move, but the US President must not make idle threats. A vote should be irrelevant, military action should only be threatened in the most serious of situations, and it should never weigh popular support.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
No...



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Volunteering to be at ground zero for the big kick off?


No way mate. I'm going to sit back and just enjoy the show of all the new technological and military weapons they bring out en-mass that they've been building / suppressing all these years



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItDepends

Originally posted by ItDepends
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!!

Great comments and some very thoughtful considerations being contributed, Thank You!
Page 3 Tally:
Attack:
NO: 17
YES: 0
Total Count of Polling after 3 Pages:
Attack:
NO: 52
YES: 2
Non-Comm: 2
Thank you all very much!! Definitively 'NO' at this point. But, again, I commend the many who have added additional thoughts and comments. It is pretty obvious that people feel strongly and have strong feelings for them!!


Note: Some comments are just that, which is ok, There have been just 2 that I have considered 'non-committed' and they were on Page 2! (non-scientific polling, but it's your vote!!

PAGE 4 TALLY:

ATTACK:

NO: 12

YES: 1

Non-Comm: 0

Total Count of Polling after 4 Pages:

ATTACK:

NO: 64

YES: 3

Non-Comm: 2

Thank you all for your replies and comments!!

edit on 8-9-2013 by ItDepends because: adjusted data



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I have a thread pretty much the exact same as this posted last week i think

Link

only difference is that I was more asking if a proper ATS pole would be possible

just saying.

Thanks OtherSide. I honestly missed your question to the "Board Business & Questions". Interesting, I did not see a response from the Site Moderator. Anyway, yes you did begin to ask a number of questions that certainly pertain to this subject.

I guess I just tried to make it basic on one single question. A lot of good feedback here as well. Did you have a position on the matter?

Thank you



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Got to go with # 2 no nope nada ...Protect your country in your country and to heck with protecting the bankers interest in other country's ..oh and I live in kanada eh ...peace



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
No.

Absolutely not.

Huh uh.

No way.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


NO



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. NO



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
NO, the US should NOT attack SYRIA



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by n00bUK
 


No



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Thank you again to all that have participated in this thread thusfar! I have also sparingly have added some additional information to this thread to bring some greater clarity to the topic. Here is an excellent capitulation of information on the history of chemical warfare that you may find interesting. A very brief and easy read.

Source: Brief History of Chemical Weapons


How long have poisonous weapons been used?
For more than 2,000 years. As early as 600 B.C., the Athenians poisoned the wells of the Spartans, who later tried lobbing burning sulfur pitch over the walls of Athens, hoping to fill the city with toxic smoke. Genghis Khan used that same trick, catapulting burning sulfur pitch during his siege of fortified cities around A.D. 1200.

What makes these weapons different?
In a literal sense, they're not, since the goal of warfare is to kill lots of people in an efficient way. Bombs, missiles, and other munitions achieve very similar results, especially when dropped on civilian areas. But chemical weapons evoke a strong emotional response, perhaps because they can be invisible, and victims often suffer slow and agonizing deaths, convulsing and gasping for breath.

What happened?
World War I. On April 22, 1915, Germany attacked Allied troops outside Ypres, Belgium, with chlorine gas. It was the first time a lethal gas had been used on a large scale in a modern war. "Suddenly we saw... this yellow wall moving quite slowly towards our lines," ..... the Allied line "was absolutely covered with bodies of gassed men. Must have been over 1,000 of them."

How did the world react?
The Allies saw how effective gases could be, and started using them. Both sides went on to use phosgene, a choking agent, and mustard gas, which causes painful burns and blisters. By the end of the Great War — dubbed by historians "the chemists' war" — more than 90,000 soldiers had been killed by poison gas, many succumbing only after days or weeks of agony. A million more were injured — many blinded for life. The world's horror led the League of Nations in 1925 to draft the Geneva Protocol, banning chemical weapons in war and declaring that their use "has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world." Most nations signed on (though the U.S. did not until 1975).

Why did Syria get them?
Syria began stockpiling chemical weapons in the 1970s and '80s, after losing three consecutive wars to Israel. The Syrians saw chemical weapons — which have been called "the poor man's nuclear weapon'' — as a last resort to counter Israel's military superiority and nuclear arsenal. Syria has been steadily manufacturing chemical weapons ever since. Intelligence services have estimated Syria's stockpile at 1,000 tons of chemical weapons, stashed in 50 facilities.....With its back against the wall, the regime has proven its willingness to use them.


Additionally, if you are not familiar with President Obama's reference during his G20 visit in Russia where he mentioned that the prohibition for the use of Chemical Weapons was not 'his' Red Line, but the Worlds, it goes back to this history that you may find interesting: Banning of Chemical Weapons: The Geneva Protocol



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


2. No
Final Answer



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
NO

NO

NO




posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
No.
No.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I am torn on this issue if I'm honest.... Intervention in syria could just make things a hell of a lot worse...and my initial view is it's not our fight..... then again we have seen what happens when we bury our head in the sand and do nothing... ie Hitler/Pol Pot/Saddam Hussein

I'm British and the chances of us getting involved at this point are slim but i would rather we did if it would prevent the deaths of potentially hundreds/thousands of lives...

If these weapons continue to be used i think the international community will be left with no choice but to act but as it stands right now to do so would be dangerous given the instability of the region...

what really worries me is how quiet Israel is on the issue.... i think if this does escalate to all out war then israel will be the spark that ignites the fuel...

i really hope they find a peaceful resolution but with Obama talking to all the networks tomorrow and a speech planned for tuesday I'm thinking that is less and less likely



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
No
I am no fan of Assad,but I fail to see any evidence that he was in any way responsible for this attack.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Really,???

Alleged?

Commit to killing thousands of people over allegations?

Do we need to entertain this?



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join