Poll: Should the U.S Attack Syria?

Should congress give Obama authority to conduct military operations in Syria?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 15.6%
  • No

    Votes: 23 71.9%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 4 12.5%

  • Total voters
    32
Status
Not open for further replies.

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I added the "Don't Know" option, and voted for it, as I don't feel like I have enough information.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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

Member
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

Member
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

Senior Member.
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.
 

Boston

Active Member
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

Senior Member.
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.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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.?
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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. :rolleyes: Nice one... Go U.S of A Ra ra ra.
 

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
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

Closed Account
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.
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
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. :rolleyes: 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

Active Member
"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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Member
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

Banned
Banned
I note that Congress has voted to extend the scope of the attack to helping Al Qaeda win the civil war. :rolleyes: 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
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
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

Active Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
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

Active Member
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

Senior Member.
"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


 

Gary Cook

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



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

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


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

Active Member
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.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
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

Active Member
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

Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Gary Cook

Active Member
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

Senior Member
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

Active Member
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Clock Poll: Do you think that threads should be closed after being debunked? Site Feedback & News 6
D How do you think about debunking? General Discussion 29
Rroval Man Claims Mars Space Station Discovered On Google Mars (VIDEO, POLL) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
SR1419 New Poll: Conspiracy Beliefs Fall Along Party Lines General Discussion 0
Mick West Conspiracy Theory Poll Results Shows Party/Age/Race Splits on Chemtrails, etc. Contrails and Chemtrails 21
George B Poll . . .What makes people who believe in the Chemtrail conspiracy tick. . ?. . Choo Contrails and Chemtrails 76
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
R How much blood should there be here? Boston Marathon Bombings 7
H2meloen Clouds formed when they should not? Contrails and Chemtrails 52
Mick West Attached images should now appear in quotes. Site Feedback & News 4
Mick West What should we rename "Fortean phenomena"? Site Feedback & News 35
Mick West hotmail and live.com emails should work now Site Feedback & News 0
George B Should there be a Conspiracy Forum Rating System. General Discussion 35
FuzzyUK Probiotic foods - should you be consuming them? Health and Quackery 14
MikeC This 777 should be identifiable for a year or 2..... Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Clock "They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Quotes Debunked 96
Marcus Mudd A Debunking site should open the possibility of debunking the paradigm Site Feedback & News 28
David Fraser Should we debunk "hoax" tragedies with "crisis actors"? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Links to old posts should be fixed Site Feedback & News 6
Mick West I don't think you should tell people they are ignorant. Practical Debunking 15
Mick West Debunked: "we should have stopped the nuclear program of Israel" ... JFK Quotes Debunked 24
Mick West Debunking Sites you Should Check First Practical Debunking 3
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Russia Predicts US Will Use Fake Chemical Attack In Syria as Pretext for Missile Attacks Current Events 9
Mick West Russian Claims of a "False Flag" Chemical Weapons Attack in Douma, Syria Current Events 10
Whitebeard Sergei Skripal 'Nerve Agent' Attack Current Events 46
Mick West "Sonic Attacks" at the US Embassy in Cuba - Mass Hysteria? Current Events 69
Mick West Explained: Charlottesville Car Attack License Plates - Ohio GVF 1111 (and GVF 1122) Conspiracy Theories 2
Trailblazer Debunked: CNN reported "psyop" re London Bridge attack [actually "SIOC"] Current Events 0
Qualiall Syria Chemical Attack 2017 Current Events 49
Mick West 2017 Westminster attack Current Events 23
Mick West 2016 Berlin Truck Attack Conspiracy Theories Current Events 13
deirdre Debunked: Blanketman photo proves Nice attack a false flag Conspiracy Theories 2
M Guccifer Claim: Nuclear attack in Chicago or Pennsylvania 2015 Conspiracy Theories 11
Hevach Debunked: Philae Landing Faked Conspiracy Theories 20
S RT claims BBC stages Syria chemical attack to propagate war. [BBC Responds] Conspiracy Theories 49
AluminumTheory Anonymous: False Flag 9/11 Style Attack in LA in May Be Imminent (on or around November 15th) Conspiracy Theories 16
A Evidence of Prior Knowledge of a Planned Attack 9/11 4
Alchemist Odigo Says Two Workers In Israel Received Message Predicting Some Attack Hrs Before 9/11 9/11 6
Critical Thinker US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt' Conspiracy Theories 5
Mick West London Woolwich Knife Attack: Conspiracy theories debunked by Infowars Conspiracy Theories 233
Oxymoron Surveillance/Attack Drones... Coming to an area near you. Wonderful world. Conspiracy Theories 99
Oxymoron Is Israel planning unilateral nuclear attack on Iran starting in December Conspiracy Theories 28
Mick West Debunked: Alex Jones, PJ Watson, Geoengineering: Our Environment Under Attack Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Related Articles












































Related Articles

Top