General Discussion

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts) Thu Sep 5, 2013, 07:53 PM Sep 2013

If you back the "limited strikes" on Syria

Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2013, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Will you back more strikes, or even more involvement, if the strikes don't change anything?

(on edit...please disregard the earlier questions referencing nuclear weapons-they were posted in error. Sorry).

1 vote, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	No, I\\\'m just in for the limited strikes
	0 (0%)
	I\\\'ll back some more strikes if the president says they\\\'re needed
	1 (100%)
	I\\\'ll back a LOT more strikes, but not boots on the ground
	0 (0%)
	I\\\'ll as many boots on the ground as they president says are needed
	0 (0%)
	I\\\'ll just back whatever the admin calls for, short of military occupation
	0 (0%)
	I\\\'ll back the military occupation as well.
	0 (0%)
	No opinion
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If you back the "limited strikes" on Syria (Original Post) Ken Burch Sep 2013 OP

lol. This poll leaves out the greater majority of DUers. k&r Little Star Sep 2013 #1

it's a targeted poll Skittles Sep 2013 #2

And few takers...so far.... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #3

needs another option Skittles Sep 2013 #6

Indeed. Ken Burch Sep 2013 #4

It leaves out antiwar DU'ers by intent. Ken Burch Sep 2013 #5

Can you add an option so that I can endorse nuking them from orbit? Preferably with sarcasm tag? LooseWilly Sep 2013 #7

Interesting poll I'm not eligible for. Might have been interessting to include an option premised on HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #8

Little Star

(17,055 posts)

1. lol. This poll leaves out the greater majority of DUers. k&r

Reply to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 08:00 PM

Sep 2013

Skittles

(153,150 posts)

2. it's a targeted poll

Reply to Little Star (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 08:01 PM

Sep 2013

says so in the subject line

Junkdrawer

(27,993 posts)

3. And few takers...so far....

Reply to Skittles (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 08:02 PM

Sep 2013

Skittles

(153,150 posts)

6. needs another option

Reply to Junkdrawer (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 08:24 PM

Sep 2013

"I'll back whatever President Obama backs"

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)

4. Indeed.

Reply to Skittles (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 08:19 PM

Sep 2013

The intent is to see how "in" the pro-"strikes" people are on this issue...how far they are willing to go.

There probably are divergences in levels of commitment to this engagement.

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)

5. It leaves out antiwar DU'ers by intent.

Reply to Little Star (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 08:20 PM

Sep 2013

Nothing wrong with that. There has been an extremely outspoken pro-strike minority here and I'm trying to see how far they go with this.

LooseWilly

(4,477 posts)

7. Can you add an option so that I can endorse nuking them from orbit? Preferably with sarcasm tag?

Reply to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 08:25 PM

Sep 2013

HardTimes99

(2,049 posts)

8. Interesting poll I'm not eligible for. Might have been interessting to include an option premised on

Reply to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 08:27 PM

Sep 2013

a successful conter-attack by Syria, Iran and\or Russian Federation against U.S. assets or personnel.

That's really how Vietnam got escalated. Started out in '65 as just a USMC mission to protect the airstrip at Danang. Then mission creep set in and, lo and behold, 3 years later, we've got 550,000 troops on the ground there.

Reply to this discussion