Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes

[Ichingcarpenter]

resident Obama faces an uphill battle in making the case for U.S. military action in Syria. By a 48% to 29% margin, more Americans oppose than support conducting military airstrikes against Syria in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1 among 1,000 adults, finds that Obama has significant ground to make up in his own party. Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed. Opinion among independents is similar (29% favor, 50% oppose). Republicans are more divided, with 35% favoring airstrikes and 40% opposed.



The public has long been skeptical of U.S. involvement in Syria, but an April survey found more support than opposition to the idea of a U.S.-led military response if the use of chemical weapons was confirmed. The new survey finds both broad concern over the possible consequences of military action in Syria and little optimism it will be effective.

Three-quarters (74%) believe that U.S. airstrikes in Syria are likely to create a backlash against the United States and its allies in the region and 61% think it would be likely to lead to a long-term U.S. military commitment there. Meanwhile, just 33% believe airstrikes are likely to be effective in discouraging the use of chemical weapons; roughly half (51%) think they are not likely to achieve this goal.


http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/03/public-opinion-runs-against-syrian-airstrikes/

[NuclearDem]

1. Glad people finally understand the concept of blowback.

Now if only our elected representatives would grasp that too.

[DirkGently]

3. We won't be welcomed as anti-chem liberators?

Occurs to me we do things Saudi Arabia and others would like to see happen, a lot. Granted, we have plenty of "leaders" and death merchants here happy to oblige.

Then we get the bill, the imperialist image, the terrorism, and the giant, world-sucking anti-terrorism measures that go with them.

How about the Saudis get off their behinds and engage in their own nation-building for a change, if that's what they want? They could maybe melt down a gold bidet or something, make an anti-WMD space laser or what have you.

[JRLeft]

2. Public opinion doesn't have the money of the 1%.

[RobertEarl]

4. But the leaders do

They do get some money from the 1%. Heck, they get lots of money. And perks, and bennies. And inside info about investing. Most every congresscritter gets rich while in office, and their friends get even richer.

So when Boehner and Obama agree about something, like this
""Bomb Syria Now"", we know there is some serious money backing it.

Public opinion be damned! Money rules!

[JRLeft]

5. This is why the death budget must not ever be scaled back.

[Faryn Balyncd]

6. It's up to the Barbara Lee/Alan Grayson wing to save America.

(and the Democratic Party) from another disaster.

[Cerridwen]

7. Does "public opinion" always matter or only when

it supports ones stance?

Shall we look into public opinion over the years with regards to gay marriage, abortion, jim crow, segregation, unions, and so forth? Or is this a case of "public opinion" supports my stance so now public opinion matters? It's interesting when "public opinion" becomes the appealed to "authority."

Did you know? Public opinion supported single payer. Yep. Our "betters" took it off the table. At that point in time, our "betters" were the appealed to "authority."

I wonder how "shares our values" polls these days.

[bvar22]

8. Put me down as One More strongly OPPOSED!

Spread the Word,
and VOICE your Opposition LOUDLY.

We still might be able to stop this if enough Democrats believe it will cause them a problem in 2014.

I REFUSE to vote for or support in any way ANYONE who votes FOR this latest insanity.

[woo me with science]

9. Public, schmublick.

What have they done for the One Percent lately?