Suppose the US has decided to intervene in Syria

[hedgehog]

and there is some sort of Congressional approval providing legal cover - which course of action would you prefer -

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	The use of drones against Assad and his officers
	0 (0%)
	The use of bombs and/or missles against Assad and his officers
	0 (0%)
	Invasion by ground troops
	0 (0%)
	Some combination of the above
	0 (0%)
	Support based in another country
	0 (0%)
	Support for other parties to intervene (ex. Turkey)
	1 (25%)
	None of the above - i would oppose any intervention
	3 (75%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[stevenleser]

1. I would continue to oppose intervention. nt

[WatermelonRat]

2. Attacking Assad directly would be unwise.

If military intervention does take place, it will probably be like Libya: Providing air support, intelligence, and organization.

[hedgehog]

3. I've added that as an option.

[HappyMe]

4. No intervention.

[dtom67]

5. If we have no money social programs here at home....

Then how in the hell do we have money to spend on the killing of people halfway across the World?

It is a fucking insult that anyone expects me to believe that we will attack ANY nation out of humanitarian concern. We all know that "War" means big profits for a few, and that money will be borrowed in our name. The war profiteers are banging the war drum - any war drum , they do not care where- to drain even more money from the American tax payer.

And then they will tell us we cannot afford Social Security.


Lets apply the chained cpi to warfare: if you cannot afford it , you find a cheaper alternative.

[ileus]

6. We can't hold the worlds hand forever....

What's that old saying about good intentions?