General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould the United States intervene with military force in Syria?
8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
No, the United States should not engage in a military strike and should disengage from the conflict completely. | |
8 (100%) |
|
No, the United States should not engage in a military strike, but it should continue to provide arms to the rebels. | |
0 (0%) |
|
Yes, the United States should engage in a limited, short-term military strike against the Assad regime. | |
0 (0%) |
|
Yes, the United States should engage in an open-ended, long-term military campaign agains the Assad regime. | |
0 (0%) |
|
Other, Please Explain. | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...but in a very real sense diplomacy is stalemated. The Arab League does not want to intervene, other Arab nations don't want to intervene, NATO doesn't seem to want to intervene (especially considering what happened in Parliament), the Russians and Chinese aren't budging, and the Assad regime most certainly has no intention of seeking a political solution. In short, I think it's a fair statement to say that there is little to no room for any diplomatic progress; that's my take on this aspect.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Oh..The poor, poor Children..sob..sob..
And yet Thousands of Children die because of no health insurance, malnourished, violent society and a host of other nasties.
One other thing. I value all life ...a child's life (to me) is no more important than a grown woman or man.