"The US must DO SOMETHING about Syria"..?

Question

Well that's what nine percent are saying anyway.

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria;a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating,making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.

★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★

When was the last time 91 percent of US agreed on anything?

So, a few questions. Do you believe the Kerry- Obama claim that Assad used chemical weapons?

Do you believe (as I do) that Syria will be a basket case of year from now no matter what we do?

How about this plan? Since there's no realistic way to contain chemical weapons over the long run in Syria, the Arab League needs to supply any and ALL boots on the ground. While the US and Allies supply intelligence and Nothing more! I'm totally opposed to US troops policing their streets (as slow moving targets) EVER AGAIN.

If you disagree then please explain why?

Answer 1

How 'bout we mind our own FREEKING BUSINESS?!



Why? Because you're right that Syria will benefit NADA from our dollars and dead. A year after we leave them with the best govt money can buy, they'll be throwing burning tires at each other again.

.

Answer 2

They aren't even 100% sure it was Assad who used those chemical weapons but you can be sure the report that comes out today will say he did. Iran, Russia, and now China have united to say the US will start something much bigger if they get involved. What is the point? Let the UN deal with it.

Answer 3

I do believe that Assad used chemical weapons. If the USA wants to do something useful they should wipe out whatever remaining chemical weapons they know about, then swiftly withdraw.



Yes, Syria will continue to be a basket case, but a basket case without chemical weapons would be preferred. If swift action is taken to remove those weapons you can be sure that Assad and any other middle east looney leader would think twice before using them again.

Answer 4

We lost our strategic advantage over Iran the day Barry assumed command. Bush had them trapped in a pincers maneuver. The CIA had stirred up rebellion. It was there for the taking.



Alas...



As for Syria. They will hate us no matter what we do. Why supply terrorists with arms, that they will use against us?



I am entertaining a theory about Barry. Syria's rebellion is led by Sunni muslims, and he is leaning towards intervention. The Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni. And Barry supported their takeover of Egypt. And denounced the Egyptian military deposing them. Kenya is Sunni. Indonesia is Sunni.

Coincidence? We'll see...

Answer 5

Yes we should do something. Cruise missile or air strike attack to destroy the chemical weapons. To leave them in the midst of the civil war would mean that Assad could use them again--or that if he loses the war Al Queda, the strongest rebel group in Syria, could get their hands on them. Simply take them out of play--and then leave the civil war to the Syrians to sort out.

Answer 6

Are you so discontent with your politicians that you ignore the very reason to help anyone? With only 9% approving action, it is apparent that we've lost our humanity.



To the guy believing we were the hero of WW2, technically, that is only true of the Pacific and even then, it's debatable. Prior to that, we had pacifists just like now crying about the national cost. Surprise, surprise--what happened? Auschwitz, Nanjing, etc.

Answer 7

I'd Prefer to say it is not our problem.



then I think of the Innocent civilians that Assad basically murdered, and I'm thinking if Obama gassed a bunch of US for not praising Allah, I'd want England to come take him out.



So, assad's gotta go.



but I 'm not quite sure how the world ought to go about it.

Answer 8

Agree.

I think Jimmy Hendrix said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0WG-ZUUOsg



Both Russia and China have warned us: "don't do it".

What I can't figure out is.... why are we doing it?



You are correct in that Syria's meltdown can't be fixed.

If action is required, Israel can handle it.

Answer 9

learn from recent history. US say Saddam have weapon of mass destruction, you know the fact now right?



if you know the fact about that now, how come you still believe on US government claim that Syria has been using chemical weapon???



the solution is simple, let them fight among them self, just watch and if you really care about their civilians, open immigration from there to US.

Answer 10

The U.S. already did something about it. How else did Syria get those wepons? Hilary Clinton bragged about suppling them with wepons for some time now.

For some reason Americans are to dumb and blind to comprehand whats going on in front of their faces.

Answer 11

Hey, that's EXACTLY what Clinton/Gore said about Iraq 20 years ago.



“Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors…



“Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.



”The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. "



Speech from the Oval Office by President William Clinton, explaining his attack on Iraq

reported by The Associated Press

Wednesday, December 16, 1998



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clintontext121698.htm



Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc

President Clinton orders attack on Iraq in 1998



Do a google video search on "democrat wmd" to see how many Democrats insisted that Saddam had WMD, all the way back to Al Gore in 1992.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIOtn1wk5g&NR=1

WMD AND THE "LIARS" WHO SAID SADDAM HAD THEM



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk

Gore To Bush: You Ignored Saddam's Terrorist Ties!

Al Gore lashes out face-to-face at President Bush, Sr. in 1992, accusing him of failing to act on Saddam's nuclear weapons and WMD programs.





KERRY ALSO SAID HE FOUND WMD IN IRAQ



YES, HE DID



THIS IS ALL A RERUN OF THE IRAQ WMD LIE FROM 20 YEARS AGO



WHEN WILL WE EVER LEARN

Answer 12

The US trying to be the savior of the world hasn't worked since WW2. Leave it alone.

Answer 13

New wars are fun!!!......Ehh heh....They always find (or create) another reason to be sickening once again.