Would you vote to authorize military force in Syria?

[TNF]

Poll will run for five days.

No (D)

[RogueBeaver]

Yes (R)

[Donerail]

No (D/I).

[ZuWo]

If I were member of Congress and received concrete and clear evidence that Assad's regime was responsibe for the chemical attacks, I could be convinced to vote yes.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The more I watch this 'debate' evolve, the more I nudge closer and closer to "No." For now, I suppose No (D).

[Tender Branson]

I'd probably vote in favour on humanitarian grounds, if only military installations are hit in a short scalpel-like manner.

Otherwise, Obama would only become a laughing-stock figure for Assad (or also the rebels and others - depending who's responsible for the gas attacks) and continue like before.

Obama said last year that there's a red line with regards to gas attacks, so not doing anything is not an option here.

In reality though, I would prefer the Osama-treatment for Assad: The US or friendly intelligence services should find out where Assad is, secretly evacuate all civilians from that area and bomb this building into the ground.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes (not pro-Assad)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes (not pro-Assad)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I love how the left (not all of it, mind you) has so willingly gone to claiming those opposed to intervention are pro-Assad. I suppose ten years ago, they were pro-Hussein. That said, I myself lack a position at this time.

[Goldwater]

Yes (R)

[TNF]

I love how the left (not all of it, mind you) has so willingly gone to claiming those opposed to intervention are pro-Assad. I suppose ten years ago, they were pro-Hussein. That said, I myself lack a position at this time.

Remember, if Obama is doing it, it's fine.

[Lief 🗽]

I love how the left (not all of it, mind you) has so willingly gone to claiming those opposed to intervention are pro-Assad. I suppose ten years ago, they were pro-Hussein. That said, I myself lack a position at this time.

Remember, if Obama is doing it, it's fine.

Call me when Obama is proposing to invade Syria with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, overthrow the government, put in place a new government, and then remain in the country for another decade.

[TNF]

I love how the left (not all of it, mind you) has so willingly gone to claiming those opposed to intervention are pro-Assad. I suppose ten years ago, they were pro-Hussein. That said, I myself lack a position at this time.

Remember, if Obama is doing it, it's fine.

Call me when Obama is proposing to invade Syria with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, overthrow the government, put in place a new government, and then remain in the country for another decade.

Call me when Obama tells us what he actually plans to do. All I've heard the past week is how we must intervene, but no strategy for doing so and no plan on how we wrap up our involvement. This is the same nonsense from a decade ago - all bluster and no plan. You show me a plan, an actual strategy for doing something in Syria, and I'll judge it accordingly. Until then, we have no details from the administration on how it plans to intervene in the conflict and the extent to which it is willing to intervene.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

With enthusiasm (D).

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

NO (pro-Assad, obviously, because I let others dictate my reasoning and win the debate with counter-productive labels)

[TNF]

With enthusiasm (D).

You ever met a war you didn't like, Ben?

[Frodo]

Yes (D)

[Lambsbread]

No (D)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I love how the left (not all of it, mind you) has so willingly gone to claiming those opposed to intervention are pro-Assad. I suppose ten years ago, they were pro-Hussein. That said, I myself lack a position at this time.

Remember, if Obama is doing it, it's fine.

Call me when Obama is proposing to invade Syria with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, overthrow the government, put in place a new government, and then remain in the country for another decade.

Would you support it if he did?  Or do you only support symbolic military acts that don't change anything?

[Peter the Lefty]

Only if it was limited very clearly to a no-fly-zone and nothing more.

[WalterMitty]

yes (d).

[Maxwell]

No (R/pro-Assad/pro-kitten murder)

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Yes (D). Not in favor of hundreds of children being killed by sarin nerve gas and letting the assailant get away scott free.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It is becoming more difficult to say yes. Only because Obama has done such a terrible job nurturing American relations with many of the European powers. I mean, the people look at America in a much better light than they did when Bush was president, but it seems awfully clear that Bush really did go out of his way to, say, make the special relationship with the UK actually mean something. It's all just fancy buzzwords to Obama.

Look at the coalition Bush managed to put together for Iraq. Pretty impressive when you see that the only person of substance Obama's managed to sway is Hollande (unless I'm missing something). I still think there should be a military strike of some kind, but the whole thing has been so bungled. The States should've intervened years ago. Now we've got a shady group of rebels to deal with that we can't trust hasn't been completely infiltrated by al Qaeda, as well as a huge pile of allies who don't trust Obama's judgement enough to agree that action is necessary. How could anyone possibly say this has gone smoothly?

[bballrox4717]

Undecided (D). Yes on principle, no on actual objectives. There are still questions about the potential Syrian response. The failure to create a coalition is troubling.  Does striking Syria get them to stop with the chemical weapons, or just embolden them? If it's just France and us hitting Syria, Assad gets to rail about Western imperialism defending its Zionist interests.

Lets be real: if it weren't for Russia's veto power, this would be gaining way more steam in the UN and other countries would be backing us. There's a defeatist attitude there because it's impossible to come to a unanimous consensus. The precedent of Iraq is scaring the daylights out of countries who want to stop Assad, even though the objectives are closer in line to 1991 than 2003.

It's really tough not to sympathize with Obama's trouble on this decision. He wants to help, but there really is no right answer. Any decision is going to make him look weak, hurt him politically, and embolden Syria, Russia, and Iran. We won't go into Syria to stop their chemical weapons? Why should we go into Iran to stop their nuclear program? We haven't done it with North Korea after all. Being hawkish creates new enemies, being pragmatic makes you look indecisive and weak, and doing nothing allows Russia and China to grant more influence than us in the world.