Public poll.
Agin. The US has no vested interest in Syria, despite of what Kerry says. We need to stop imposing democracy (or whatever) on other countries.
The US does, however, have a vested interest in discouraging tinpot dictators from using chemical weapons with impunity.
No. Obama’s already said he’s not going to try to topple Assad. Therefore, it’s just going to be a game of “Let’s toss a few missles at them so we can feel good about ourselves.” Fuck that. We’re going to get people killed so we can pat ourselves on back and pretend we did something worthwile, while secretly knowing we didn’t? Not with my support.
They were showing Congressional hearings this morning. I believe it was Rand Paul who said, “We receive thousands of calls. Nobody is supporting this.”
I’m 95% against it, but I checked “don’t know” because there’s a tiny part of me that falls for the “chemical weapons are teh bad” argument. I really think the world community needs to do something to keep Assad from using chemical attacks, and I don’t really understand why it’s just assumed it is the US’s sole responsibility to respond.
OTOH, I appreciate Obama’s handling of the situation. I’d like to see Congress forced to step up and take responsibility for something for a change.
I’m mostly against it but chose “it won’t matter” becasue… well, it won’t matter.
Against it - IMHO no clear goal is being sought.
So, Assad kills some of his own people - to show him, we’ll kill some of his people too! That’ll teach him! 
While I do not support a limited feel-good missile strike…
…I believe Rand Paul is full of shit.
Too much time has elapsed. Those chemical weapons aren’t where they were & we don’t have the advantage of surprise. The time to lightning strike with Tomahawks to destroy the chemical weapons in their storage facilities has now passed.
If we had done it quickly and had made the case to Congress afterward like the chemical plants in Afghanistan in '98, we might have come close to getting the whole stockpile. But the day we saw on the news Congressional Idiots demanding
“embassy security upgrades” before we address getting rid of Proven WMDs, I knew it was hopeless.
I doubt the Russian sailors will thank us for their new tans either. A banner from them saying “Thank You Tea Party!” would be funny though.
I’m willing to believe that the calls he got opposed foreign action.
They don’t want to blow up the chemical weapons. That would be bad news. What they want to do is blow up some of the delivery systems and infrastructure that helps them use the weapons.
Delivery systems are too easily replaced; this option doesn’t take the WMD out of the conflict. Correct me if I’m wrong, but some of these weapons could be delivered through trucks spraying out of the back posing as street cleaners & mosquito sprayers, right?
Unless the stockpiles can be neutralized, I’m guessing that we’d just be spinning wheels at several million a missile.
Q: Iran & its weapons-grade reactors: why is hitting that not the same “bad news”? Radioactive cloud fallout & half life vs chemical cloud fallout. Same extra-border weather pattern drifts, but when the chemicals come down in rain, they’d dissipate
faster into soil and biodegrade while radiation will be in the soil (and milk) for much much longer, right? Or are these chemicals still lethal even after they are absorbed by the soil with no biodegradation?
Casualties argument against direct stockpile assault: I get that people would die because of that option, but significantly less than if the chemical weapons were activated and launched, right?
Example: If a munitions factory explodes, many people in the neighborhood around it will die. If all the munitions in the factory are aimed and fired at people, significantly more people will die. Does not the same logic apply to chemical weapons?
(assumes that chemical weapons biodegrade after ground absorption; an explanation that they do not biodegrade nullifies this question as no one is looking to “salt the earth” there.)
Yes, absolutely and the US needs to go further and establish a no-fly zone.
I’m for it.
I don’t think killing your own citizens is a good idea, regardless how it’s done. Chemical weapons take killing to the next level. Sending a message now, or as soon as possible is a worthy cause.
I am against it. It has nothing to do with us, and Syria is not a threat to the US. Even if Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, of which I am not at all convinced, it is still not our fight.
This smells too much like a show for Iran and North Korea than an equally ridiculous punishment of Assad for gassing his people. And who the heck put us in charge of spanking other nations?
In retrospect, would you think the same about Germany and Hitler? “Germany is not a threat to the US. Even if Hitler used chemical weapons against his own people, of which I am not convinced, it is still not our fight.”
Serious question, and something to think about.
I answered yes even though in my case, the question would rather be “Are you in favour of French air strikes in Syria”
My main problem with strikes is that they should have started 150 000 dead people or so earlier.
Our intelligence over there can’t do much more than pick up vague snippets of phone calls here and there. I don’t trust for a second that we are 100% about the chemical attacks.
Besides, isn’t Assad’s (last) term up in 2014? Has he actually stated he’s never ever giving up power? Or he’s just not giving it up to 172 radically different rebel groups?
I agree. There has to be some international line of morality when too far is too far. If the world doesn’t stand with us, we stand alone then.
Personally, I think the line has been overlooked too often because of the huge mistake the Iraq war was. Not a good enough reason, IMHO.
PS I don’t think this ended up a public poll, btw.
I’m for it, because I like the idea of international justice being used to deter large scale human rights abuses. International justice and interventionism isn’t perfect but it is better than doing nothing. I wish the world had intervened in Rwanda.