Poll: Should the U.S Attack Syria?

[Oxymoron]

In the light of the Conspiracy Compass Thread, I thought it may be interesting to see what the prevalent opinion was on Metabunk re the potential U.S attack on Syria.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/developing-a-conspiracy-compass.2046/

9/2/13 19:30 PM ET

GIVE OBAMA AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATION IN SYRIA?
YES 8.6% (53,091 votes)

NO 91.4% (564,270 votes)

Total Votes: 617,361 So about 9% support it

 

[Oxymoron]

In the light of the Conspiracy Compass Thread, I thought it may be interesting to see what the prevalent opinion was on Metabunk re the potential U.S attack on Syria.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/developing-a-conspiracy-compass.2046/

9/2/13 19:30 PM ET

GIVE OBAMA AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATION IN SYRIA?
YES 8.6% (53,091 votes)

NO 91.4% (564,270 votes)

Total Votes: 617,361 So about 9% support it

No

 

[Mick West]

I added the "Don't Know" option, and voted for it, as I don't feel like I have enough information.

 

[Oxymoron]

I added the "Don't Know" option, and voted for it, as I don't feel like I have enough information.

Yep, it made it anonymous as well.

Anyone registered can vote can they?

Isn't a 'Don't Know vote' more like a No vote as if you feel you don't have enough information, surely you would not wish to vote Yes on such a drastic and consequential action?

 

[Mick West]

Yep, it made it anonymous as well.

Anyone registered can vote can they?

Yes. And they can always discuss their vote if they don't want to be anonymous.

Isn't a 'Don't Know vote' more like a No vote as if you feel you don't have enough information, surely you would not wish to vote Yes on such a drastic and consequential action?

It's more a "wait" vote. Effectively it would be a "no" vote if you were talking about having congress vote today. But it could also be "wait, and if nothing changes, then yes".

To me the evidence seems inconclusive, but tends to suggest it was a Assad instigated chemical weapons attack. Maybe if the Pentagon gave me the same briefing they gave the President, then I'd be convinced.

 

[Noblelox]

But I'm a Brit. Somehow a redcoat voting in a foreign government policy isn't my place. However, If it was my gov I'd have to say "don't know". There is a good arguement for a punishment strike but having dealt with people from the middle east it's rare to get the truth straight away. I would want to here the inspectors report and a debate about strikes good or bad. Right now the splinters on the fence are digging in me arse.

 

[Noblelox]

But I'm a Brit. Somehow a redcoat voting in a foreign government policy isn't my place. However, If it was my gov I'd have to say "don't know". There is a good arguement for a punishment strike but having dealt with people from the middle east it's rare to get the truth straight away. I would want to here the inspectors report and a debate about strikes good or bad. Right now the splinters on the fence are digging in me arse.

 

[cosmic]

I voted "no" based upon available information. As I've stated elsewhere: even if the US can demonstrate the Assad regime's culpability and make a moral argument for intervention, there's no legal justification for such a strike presently under international law. I don't think it's prudent for the US to try and enforce international law with actions which violate it.

 

[Mick West]

A more scientific poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/.../03/National-Politics/Polling/release_258.xml

 

[Boston]

I added the "Don't Know" option, and voted for it, as I don't feel like I have enough information.

Thats an excellent point Mick, which is why I voted a decided "no" we should have enough information and we should be able to trust the information we get, but we can't and we don't. Why ? Only reasonable answer is that "they" don't want "us" to. Until we have a completely transparent form of gubment, of freely elected people not foisted off on us by corporate influence in the political system, then I say they should be completely hamstrung from action of any kind; until the proper information is made available and until our futures are entrusted to those who will keep out better interests in the forefront

I think we need to consider a relatively new term in the sciences called agnotology. see definition here
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...HvZGbQ&usg=AFQjCNEYe60ocOAv-ByYtPMyOKYA7KrmRw

 

[Pete Tar]

I'm totally perplexed as to what it's supposed to achieve, and why conventional massacres are okay but this one isn't.
Wasn't there a slaughter in Egypt of hundreds of people by the regime?
So this is really not about killing people, but what technology you use to do so.

Most military action (exceptions for actually defending country from invasion) just looks to me like some freudian spanking by a frustrated father-state. It changes behaviour by physically violating someone, which is no victory at all. A confession reached under torture is on the same level of morality.

 

[John Smith]

The Syrian government killed people the wrong way so now we're going to kill them the right way. #logic

 

[Oxymoron]

It's more a "wait" vote. Effectively it would be a "no" vote if you were talking about having congress vote today. But it could also be "wait, and if nothing changes, then yes".

To me the evidence seems inconclusive, but tends to suggest it was a Assad instigated chemical weapons attack. Maybe if the Pentagon gave me the same briefing they gave the President, then I'd be convinced.

So what if it was proven that Assad did 'do it' and killed 350 people with illegal deployment of gas, what would be the appropriate reaction and who would likely be killed and how many and what effect would that have on Assad, on the Country, in the region and in the World?

And if it is proven that it was the 'so called rebels', should the U.S attack them and 'teach them a lesson'?

And how do you reconcile, (if Assad 'did it'), the US enforcing international law with actions which violate it.?

 

[Oxymoron]

The Syrian government killed people the wrong way so now we're going to kill them the right way. #logic

I didn't know there was a nice proper way to kill innocent people. Is it because the missiles have 'Made in the U.S' on them that it is ok? I exppect the victims will appreciate that distinction.

Who are you going to kill exactly? If it is anything like the Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc fiasco, you will kill far more innocent people than you are 'avenging', as if you are the International Police that acts in its own interests and lawlessly with no regard whatsoever to international law.

Will you love it when the U.S gets more terrorist attacks on its soil and you can impose even more restrictions and surveillance on your own citizens because of it.

 

[Oxymoron]

But I'm a Brit. Somehow a redcoat voting in a foreign government policy isn't my place. However, If it was my gov I'd have to say "don't know". There is a good arguement for a punishment strike but having dealt with people from the middle east it's rare to get the truth straight away. I would want to here the inspectors report and a debate about strikes good or bad. Right now the splinters on the fence are digging in me arse.

Don't really follow your logic here, you can't vote on an international forum on what the U.S should or should not do?

Can I suggest that the vote should be on the 'stated evidence' as there is absolutely no reason why the U.S should not disclose its evidence (and I mean evidence).

I note that Congress has voted to extend the scope of the attack to helping Al Qaeda win the civil war. Nice one... Go U.S of A Ra ra ra.

 

[AluminumTheory]

I vote "no" regardless of who committed the act. It's a huge ****pot that we're stirring down there by attacking them.

To me this whole thing looks like political theater, it was extremely predictable. The right complains because Obama is going to attack Syria without permission from Congress. Now the right complains because Obama is asking permission from congress. If Obama had remained silent on the issue, Congress would be pressuring him to attack. McCain wants to strike and then changes his mind after he got the ball rolling. It's a joke.

 

[MikeC]

I voted "No" - while I am happy to believe that Assad's forces did the gassing and it is clear enough to me that he is an Ass.....something else... I'm pretty much over the US trying to be the moral police force of the world.

And if that leaves the world without a moral police force then perhaps the world should get off it's own ass some day rather than leaving it up to the "superpowers" then complaining about the other side.

 

[MikeC]

Can I suggest that the vote should be on the 'stated evidence' as there is absolutely no reason why the U.S should not disclose its evidence (and I mean evidence).

I agree.

I note that Congress has voted to extend the scope of the attack to helping Al Qaeda win the civil war. Nice one... Go U.S of A Ra ra ra.

and here's part of the arrant nonsense that comes from both "sides" that persists me off no end - the categorizing the whole of the opposition as AQ is dishonest.[/quote]

 

[pseacraft]

"the things I have seen with your eyes..."

I am against action even though I am firmly in the Assad did it camp but what do we - the global community - gain by eliminating a few specific targets that belong to the government forces? I do not agree with equipping the rebels as there are to many unsavory splinter groups mixed in and all bets will be off if Assad's government falls along the lines of post-soviet Afghanistan. That makes for a no - win situation. As much as Assad is a repressive ass he has maintained a sense of stability with his neighbors even if they are advertised as "enemies". The backdoor handshaking that is called diplomacy has shown up recently in ways that most people do not realize, for example, how did the Israeli's manage to get through (and back out) the world's #2 air defense network and destroy Syria's nuclear facility a few years back? And why did Syria magically disappear from the Axis of Evil list soon after that strike? Diplomacy makes strange bedfellows and allows one party to publicly deny the other to accuse all to save 'Face', and everyone gets a win while hiding the fact that they are all sleeping together happily. Personally I despise Assad but would the world be better without him?

 

[JRBids]

I voted no.

My personal opinion is Obama is sorry he drew "a line in the sand" or "a red line" or whatever tripe he said. So he goes to congress cause he knows they're NEVER support anything he wants. SO he can have it both ways: I wanted to, they wouldn't let me.

 

[Pete Tar]

Is America obliged legally, through signatory declarations or whatever, to get permission from the UN? Will a unilateral strike mean anything legally or is it allowed to do whatever it sees fit?

 

[Noblelox]

I voted no.

My personal opinion is Obama is sorry he drew "a line in the sand" or "a red line" or whatever tripe he said. So he goes to congress cause he knows they're NEVER support anything he wants. SO he can have it both ways: I wanted to, they wouldn't let me.

That's how I see it.

With regards the UK our UK PM didn't make much of a case for it either. I watcheed the house of commons live. Didn't emphasise punishment nearly enough. He (PM) didn't look pleased to get a "NO" vote but he didn't look devistated either....just readily accepted the outcome.
You can see the politicians on talk shows warming to the idea now. At the time of the vote there was some other factors, maybe subliminal, going on that could have effecting the thinking process.

Apparent haste to strike before the G8 conference
No confirmed results from the inspection team
Eagerness of the French

 

[Oxymoron]

I note that Congress has voted to extend the scope of the attack to helping Al Qaeda win the civil war. Nice one... Go U.S of A Ra ra ra.

and here's part of the arrant nonsense that comes from both "sides" that persists me off no end - the categorizing the whole of the opposition as AQ is dishonest.

I take your point but it is not factually wrong in essence. Al Qaeda, rebranded as Al Nusra is a significant part of the 'rebel forces'. The term does not specify AQ as the 'whole of the oppsition' as you suggest.

But let us have a look at some disparate figures making the rounds.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/04/how-many-extremists-are-in-syria-anyway

Today, while testifying before the House Homeland Security Committee Kerry told Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas.) that between 15 to 20 percent of the opposition were extremists and that the number of “oppositionists” ranged between 70,000 to 100,000, meaning that Kerry believes that a low estimate of the number of extremists fighting in Syria against Assad is between roughly 10,500 and 15,000.

McCaul told Kerry that in the briefings he received the number of extremists fighting against Assad was estimated to be half of the total opposition force. (NB 35,000 to 50,000) That the secretary of state and the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee have such vastly different estimates on the number of extremists fighting Assad is worrying and hardly reassuring.

Even if Kerry’s lowest estimates are to be believed there are at least 10,000 extremists fighting in Syria. Many of these fighters are foreign, and there is concern about whether they will return to their home countries to carry out terrorist attacks once the conflict is over.

Regardless of how many extremists there are fighting in Syria it is important to remember that it could be the actions of extremists within Assad's opposition, not the Assad regime, that escalates America’s involvement in the conflict. As Reason’s Matt Welch highlighted earlier today, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility of American boots being put on the ground in the event that a group like Al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra looked like they were about to get their hands on chemical weapons during yesterday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

Content from external source

 

[Gary Cook]

Seems like the people who voted no were right to. If this is to believed?

 

[Landru]

Seems like the people who voted no were right to. If this is to believed?

This video has been discussed in another thread. Posting videos alone is in violation of the posting guidelines. Please review the PG to keep the discussions on track.

 

[Gary Cook]

This video has been discussed in another thread. Posting videos alone is in violation of the posting guidelines. Please review the PG to keep the discussions on track.

Sorry I did try to find if it was. I wanted to know what people here thought about it. I found the right thread eventually.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

Polls like this are pointless. People vote for no for instance for any number of different reasons....Because they don't want their countrymen sent to a dangerous situation....or they don't want their country (in this case the US) risking collateral damage....or they're just plain pacifists. Either way, any action by the USA would have to be under the umbrella of the UN.

 

[Gary Cook]

Polls like this are pointless. People vote for no for instance for any number of different reasons....Because they don't want their countrymen sent to a dangerous situation....or they don't want their country (in this case the US) risking collateral damage....or they're just plain pacifists. Either way, any action by the USA would have to be under the umbrella of the UN.

"Any action by the USA would have to be under the umbrella of the UN"?

Is that the law?

Has that been the something the USA have adhered to?

 

[Melbury's Brick]

"Any action by the USA would have to be under the umbrella of the UN"?

Is that the law?

Has that been the something the USA have adhered to?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-syria-crisis-brahimi-idUSBRE97R0EW20130828

Any U.S. military action taken in response to apparent chemical weapons attacks in Syria would need to be approved by the United Nations Security Council, international envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said on Wednesday.
" International law says that military action must be taken after a decision by the Security Council. That is what international law says," he told a news conference in Geneva......................Certainly international law is very clear - the Security Council has to be brought in."

Content from external source

 

[Gary Cook]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-syria-crisis-brahimi-idUSBRE97R0EW20130828

Any U.S. military action taken in response to apparent chemical weapons attacks in Syria would need to be approved by the United Nations Security Council, international envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said on Wednesday.
" International law says that military action must be taken after a decision by the Security Council. That is what international law says," he told a news conference in Geneva......................Certainly international law is very clear - the Security Council has to be brought in."

Content from external source

That is interesting and seems true but I doubt Obama would adhere to that if he could get away with it and his government seem to have a way of creating excuses for violence.

 

[Jason]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-syria-crisis-brahimi-idUSBRE97R0EW20130828

Any U.S. military action taken in response to apparent chemical weapons attacks in Syria would need to be approved by the United Nations Security Council, international envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said on Wednesday.
" International law says that military action must be taken after a decision by the Security Council. That is what international law says," he told a news conference in Geneva......................Certainly international law is very clear - the Security Council has to be brought in."

Content from external source

The only caveat about bringing in the Security Council in a decision on whether or not to use force is Russia will most definitely vote NO in that situation, and China would likely follow suit... Thats where the US might try to get an alliance of the "willing" if the Security council will fail to act...

 

[Gary Cook]

The only caveat about bringing in the Security Council in a decision on whether or not to use force is Russia will most definitely vote NO in that situation, and China would likely follow suit... Thats where the US might try to get an alliance of the "willing" if the Security council will fail to act...

By writing "fail to act". Does that mean you think they should? And how/why?

Some would see that a victory for peace and harmony.

 

[Jason]

By writing "fail to act". Does that mean you think they should? And how/why?

Some would see that a victory for peace and harmony.

Who would see war as a victory for peace and harmony?

 

[Gary Cook]

Who would see war as a victory for peace and harmony?

No I am saying that if China for example "fails to act" - Then surely that is a good thing?

Would you rather them act?

Just trying to work out what your position is related to that.

 

[Jason]

No I am saying that is China for example "fails to act". Then surely that is a good thing? Would you rather them act?

Just trying to work out what your position is related to that.

China will vote no, so will Russia. So the only way the US will be able to do anything in Syria is if they go in it alone or with some allies of the willing. We've already seen congress and the Senates' dismay and unwillingness to give their vote for action, so the President would be acting alone in this to be honest with. So in the end its a moot point, unless we can prove that Syria actually threatens our security. People often confuse what's going on with that country because they listen to the media too much instead of researching the particulars. In my opinion, most of the rebels in Syria are most likely made of different terror groups. So I say let Syria do the dirty work. Who benefits from going to war in Syria and overthrowing that government. The US certainly doesn't, but I would bet Saudi Arabia would.

 

[Gary Cook]

China will vote no, so will Russia. So the only way the US will be able to do anything in Syria is if they go in it alone or with some allies of the willing. We've already seen congress and the Senates' dismay and unwillingness to give their vote for action, so the President would be acting alone in this to be honest with. So in the end its a moot point, unless we can prove that Syria actually threatens our security. People often confuse what's going on with that country because they listen to the media too much instead of researching the particulars. In my opinion, most of the rebels in Syria are most likely made of different terror groups. So I say let Syria do the dirty work. Who benefits from going to war in Syria and overthrowing that government. The US certainly doesn't, but I would bet Saudi Arabia would.

I agree with you 100%. I was just checking rather than prompting. Glad you are on the side of humanity and reason. =)

If I am correct then Syria and the USSR have a mutual protection pact. Or at least I think Syria does with Iran and Iran with Russia. I am not a fan of any government but one could argue that Russia has the right not to let any of it's allies down.

 

[Syrez]

No I am saying that is China for example "fails to act". Then surely that is a good thing? Would you rather them act?

Just trying to work out what your position is related to that.

Again, you're quite right Gary. 'Fail to act' is simply another way of saying 'comply with the rule of international law'. Pretty consistent twisted interpretation of law from the United States government as well, where lawfulness is expressed as 'failure'. Hence the increasing marginalisation of such countries. Good will win through. The United States government and certain allies live in a hermetically sealed bubble of contradiction that seals its demise as a respected player in international affairs. Sabre rattling while the world at large has moved on. Almost a complete joke now, since Ukraine. No one is paying attention any longer, and neither should you.

 

[Gary Cook]

Again, you're quite right Gary. 'Fail to act' is simply another way of saying 'comply with the rule of international law'. Pretty consistent twisted interpretation of law from the United States government as well, where lawfulness is expressed as 'failure'. Hence the increasing marginalisation of such countries. Good will win through. The United States government and certain allies live in a hermetically sealed bubble of contradiction that seals its demise as a respected player in international affairs. Sabre rattling while the world at large has moved on. Almost a complete joke now, since Ukraine. No one is paying attention any longer, and neither should you.

Thanks for the support. Although I have to say we are not really supposed to be simply political. This is a science forum essentially. I try and question people more than try and teach them because politics is subjective. I agree with what you are writing though of course. Just the wrong kid of forum really for that. Personally, I am trying to create more harmony between so called conspiracy theorists and debunkers. The people here are actually nice and rational. But they are sticklers for science and hard facts. Fair enough.

 

[Jason]

If I am correct then Syria and the USSR have a mutual protection pact. Or at least I think Syria does with Iran and Iran with Russia. I am not a fan of any government but one could argue that Russia has the right not to let any of it's allies down.

I think the better word for their relationship is business partners. Russia doesn't really care for the Iranian government or the terrorist that reside there. The same can be said with Syria and Russia. Allies isn't the right word, because Russia would never enter into a war with the west over Syria or Iran, and thats evident by the turmoil that ensued last year when the US was deciding what to do over the chemical attacks. Puttin was against it and wanted to work things out through policy and forceless intervention and had no desire to enter into war....

 

[Gary Cook]

I think the better word for their relationship is business partners. Russia doesn't really care for the Iranian government or the terrorist that reside there. The same can be said with Syria and Russia. Allies isn't the right word, because Russia would never enter into a war with the west over Syria or Iran, and thats evident by the turmoil that ensued last year when the US was deciding what to do over the chemical attacks. Puttin was against it and wanted to work things out through policy and forceless intervention and had no desire to enter into war....

Well does anybody really care for anybody. I am pretty much sure that Russia doesnt care any more or less for Syria than the USA really cared for the people of Iraq under Sadam. Its all a game really. A silly but dangerous one.

Although saying that, Russia has to care for its allies to the degree that it cant keep letting them down and still retain allies.

World politics is ruthless and if countries think Russia is weak they would side with the USA even if deep down they despised them.

Like I say I dont back any government but right now if I have to prefer Russia as a vain attempt to stop Western hegemony then I will.