General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSimple Yes or No: Do You Support U.S. Involvement in Syria
I am not a star member and can't do a poll so your yes/ no answer will have to do.
Interested in the general feeling about yet another foreign involvement.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Humanitarian aid to help the refugees fleeing Syria, absolutely.
tridim
(45,358 posts)No wait, white.
Boiling complex situations down to a simple yes-or-no question is not a good idea. It tends to become flame-bait by default.
SaltyBro
(198 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)You're a very low poster, even after 5 years on DU, and apparently have so little interest in what's going on here that you haven't recommended anything on this site, yet you want others to give their 'recommends' on what you're interested in?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Nothing is as simple as that abstract question.
Response to dynasaw (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Geeze ... that word includes everything from ... diplomatic meetings to a total full scale invasion.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)They can get their final holy war out of the way and be done with it once and for all-
alc
(1,151 posts)If you want to get more complex and discuss different types of involvement I'll have more complex answers. CIA? NSA? Press? Military/Air/Ground? UN? NATO? Goals/purposes of any of those?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)ananda
(28,783 posts)..
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)I simply remember that there were no WMD's, and I'm going to need more convincing than what I've seen presented at this point.
I don't believe, either, that this will be a short-lived conflict if indeed a conflict begins.
Plus, it's not like we have any pressing problems at home or anything, right???!!! (Sarcasm, of course.)
onyourleft
(726 posts)eom
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)The Stranger
(11,297 posts)No one -- NO ONE NO ONE NO ONE -- wants the U.S. to intervene militarily.
This has all the workings of PNAC or some Neocon shit going on.
The rebels fighting Assad don't even want the U.S. involved -- except to arm them with weapons so they can have a "fair fight."
malaise
(267,824 posts)LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)We should mind our own business
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Not in the least.
bhikkhu
(10,708 posts)I support a good outcome and peace in the middle east. I support the rule of law and international law.
I hope for the best, but I don't know which is the best way to go in Syria. Either option could be a bad outcome, and both options could be harmful to international law - if a chemical attack is ignored, or if the UN is bypassed in responding to the attack.
In any case, it is a world problem much more than an Obama and the MIC problem. So far.
samplegirl
(11,415 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)To make war, no. That's a PNAC wet dream on the way to their hot date in Tehran.
avebury
(10,946 posts)Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)About the justification for military intervention AND the scope/nature of US military involvement?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)We have no business policing the world in their own affairs. We don't even know if chemical weapons were used or who used them. We can't afford this shit, and need to be spending our tax dollars to the benefit of the American people here at home. Jobs are scarce, our infrastructure is shit, we keep shaving more and more off of social safety nets and all so we can go bombing the crap out of some other country for no legitimate reason making the 1% even more fat and happy.