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

A resounding NO

reply to post by ItDepends


NO!

NO

(anybody counting?)

No.

Always a no to war and bombs. If Assad is responsible beyond a reasonable doubt, and plans to carry out more attacks on civilians, then and only then should the "UN" (not the US) assassinate him and only him.

Originally posted by lynxpilot
NO

(anybody counting?)

Yup, I'll be posting very shortly all replies through page 6. Thank you for participating!!

No...

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

can we take door number four and move all our troops home
close bases that are not needed over seas
cut our "aid" to other countries that some how keep getting it year after year
and start working on our own problems?

reply to post by ItDepends


No.
Heard it all before.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ItDepends

Thanks Everyone for responding thusfar:
Total Count of Polling after 5 Pages:
ATTACK:
NO: 79
YES: 4
Non-Comm: 2

Total Count of Polling on page 6:
ATTACK:

NO: 14

YES: 0

Non-Comm: 0

Total Count of Polling After 6 pages:
ATTACK:

NO: 93

YES: 4

Non-Comm: 2

Thanks ALL for participating. I'll keep on tracking, maybe one more for tonight. Then a lot of news to be shared over the next two days will still make this thread relevant!
Source

The interview, Assad's first with an American television network in nearly two years, is scheduled to air on "The Charlie Rose Show" on PBS Monday — the same day President Barack Obama is scheduled to sit down with six different television networks, including PBS, to make his case to for a U.S. strike against Syria.

Obama to address nation Tuesday on Syria

Source

Thank you!!

NO!

2.

We simply do not need war, war and more war.

Not no but HELL NO!

They've lied about so many things --weapons of mass destruction, yet none were found, etc. I'm only listing this one because this is the one that always brings me to reality.

Something tells me the whole truth isn't being told about this either --there is SOME agenda behind this for sure.

I say, no, don't attack Syria.

But you know what? Everyone in the country can (and probably will for the most part) say no, don't attack, but they still will regardless.

When will America stop policing the streets of the world and worry about Her own streets? And what actually is going on over there? Doesn't anyone notice that they are attacking the countries that don't have our way of life one by one? Is this all for the One World Government? They definitely seem to be "streamlining" the way of life around the world, doesn't it?

"So I write to speak out, instead of wasting my breath, because my written words can still teach those who are deaf."

Incase no one heard, I say, no --no attack on Syria.

Umm...NO!!! and NOOOO!!!!!!!!

No conclusive evidence Assad is responsible.

No benefit for anyone (but AQ / the U.S. oligarchy).

No legitimacy by the people.

No attack.

NO! And there are consequences for allowing ones leaders to commit genocide and murder and slavery, ie forcing people under sharia and burqa's and primitive conditions, after massacring their children via CIA BROTHERHOOD.

reply to post by ItDepends


No.

Yes

No.

reply to post by twfau


The Syrian people have long been asking Assad to step aside but like any other dictator he refuses. During the protests there were fire fights & Assad unleashed his secret police onto the people. But that said, he hasn't committed genocide and if he falls radical Islamist will take control. To fix Syria Assad needs to step down but first the actual terrorists need to be removed. Once they're out of the picture then Syria can focus on a new leader & govt.