Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

[MystikWizard]

(Reuters) - Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825

Seems like the country has learned a valuable lesson since involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I think the media has been beating the drums of war in trying to cheer the public on the side involvement ... since after all that equals ratings for them ... not to mention John Kerry seemingly feeling the public out for support ... but Americans are not taking the bait.

Thoughts?

 

[Lostlover]

Considering the public was sold on the Iraqi war lies, and since many of the warmongers are still alive (albeit barely), I think all Obama needs is a good marketing machine and he'd have support for this war in a jiffy.

 

[ChickenGuy]

The difference in mood in America within just 10 years is quite staggering, from an outside view.

In 2003, I saw a hawkish American public ready and supportive for a full-scale war, and a ground invasion, against a nation where a unilateral attack was unwarranted and unneccessary, and which I STILL scratch my head and have no answer to this day for exactly why it was done.

In 2013, I see a reluctant American public refusing a FAR lesser task involving NO ground troops and at much reduced risk, where the evidence is clear and the atrocity is immediate and fully known, and which simply requires a few precision missile strikes against selected targets.

I find it SO supremely ironic that 10 years ago I saw France being lambasted and derided by your country, and yet now it is the French that are supportive of military action and playing a role and contributing, their president is pushing for justified action, and America is suddenly the one having to be dragged reluctantly along.

It's like stepping into the twilight zone and everything's opposite. Why the complete turnaround?

 

[Telstra]

The difference in mood in America within just 10 years is quite staggering, from an outside view.

In 2003, I saw a hawkish American public ready and supportive for a full-scale war, and a ground invasion, against a nation where a unilateral attack was unwarranted and unneccessary, and which I STILL scratch my head and have no answer to this day for exactly why it was done.

In 2013, I see a reluctant American public refusing a FAR lesser task involving NO ground troops and at much reduced risk, where the evidence is clear and the atrocity is immediate and fully known, and which simply requires a few precision missile strikes against selected targets.

I find it SO supremely ironic that 10 years ago I saw France being lambasted and derided by your country, and yet now it is the French that are supportive of military action and playing a role and contributing, their president is pushing for justified action, and America is suddenly the one having to be dragged reluctantly along.

It's like stepping into the twilight zone and everything's opposite. Why the complete turnaround?

Lebanon and Syria used to be a French colony and the French still want influence ?

 

[Jack Springer]

The difference in mood in America within just 10 years is quite staggering, from an outside view.

In 2003, I saw a hawkish American public ready and supportive for a full-scale war, and a ground invasion, against a nation where a unilateral attack was unwarranted and unneccessary, and which I STILL scratch my head and have no answer to this day for exactly why it was done.

In 2013, I see a reluctant American public refusing a FAR lesser task involving NO ground troops and at much reduced risk, where the evidence is clear and the atrocity is immediate and fully known, and which simply requires a few precision missile strikes against selected targets.

I find it SO supremely ironic that 10 years ago I saw France being lambasted and derided by your country, and yet now it is the French that are supportive of military action and playing a role and contributing, their president is pushing for justified action, and America is suddenly the one having to be dragged reluctantly along.

It's like stepping into the twilight zone and everything's opposite. Why the complete turnaround?

Another big difference is that Congress was involved in 2002 and 2003 .... in 2013 they evidently will not be involved. Obama will strike without the approval of the US Congress.

 

[rareboy]

^ What a pile of bullshit. There's neither indication or proof that Congress has not been and will not be involved in the authorization of force. What you and the other head in the sand reactionaries don't acknowledge is that the Congress knows full well what is going on through the Committees...the US Congress has been permitted to be let off the hook because since the total fuck-up over Iraq...there's not one politician left in Washington who wants to have their name attached to any new military incursion in another sovereign state where the US has not been directly attacked.

 

[palbert]

The US has no business doing anything militarily with regard to Syria. Period.

And I've heard nothing about proceedings under the War Powers Resolution.

A doomed adventure that bodes ill.

 

[rareboy]

^ The only reason would be as a member of NATO if it was obliged under some treaty to get involved on behalf of Turkey. And even then..it would be likely an aircraft carrier to support the French and British.

 

[darden]

good

if the UN or NATO get involved (or even if the Arab League requested our support), I'd have no problem with the US providing ancillary help or humanitarian aid, but I don't think it's our place to spearhead any kind of military action in a conflict where both sides of the war hate us.

 

[palbert]

If we are being consistent we should arm the rebels with chemical weapons.

Declassified papers reveal that Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iran did not cost him US support

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...veussupportofiraqichemicalweaponsattacks.html

 

[T-Rexx]

It's like stepping into the twilight zone and everything's opposite. Why the complete turnaround?

Everything is not "opposite."

We are being told that the USA has incontrovertible evidence that a Middle Eastern country is using weapons of mass destruction against its own people. It is therefore necessary for the USA to attack.

Sound familiar?

Barack Obama is George W. Bush, II

 

[kallipolis]

Cyprus Mail article is reporting official reports that the British air bases on Cyprus report no increase in air traffic...which is official jargon for the exact opposite.

http://cyprus-mail.com/2013/08/27/cyprus-does-not-expect-uk-base-to-play-major-in-syria-action/

A couple of readers' comments that follow the article:

Robert, I know several people working in Akrotiri, all 3 said there had been 'significant' increase in traffic and activity levels in the last 2 days, if Akrotiri is not going to play a part in this, what on earth is it there for? Is it just a R & R camp for the WAGS of the RAF? So, who, exactly do you believe?

Exactly Robert. I have friends in israel who were able to tell me today their news reported American military planes at Akrotiri today

 

[Kulindahr]

Everything is not "opposite."

We are being told that the USA has incontrovertible evidence that a Middle Eastern country is using weapons of mass destruction against its own people. It is therefore necessary for the USA to attack.

Sound familiar?

Barack Obama is George W. Bush, II

That's what I was thinking last night as I heard Kerry on the tube.

 

[darden]

sounds like they're strongly considering a day or two's worth of bombings.

feels like a terrible idea to get directly involved, even from afar, without UN cover. one civilian casualty and we'll just further inflame our enemies,

 

[Jack Springer]

^ The only reason would be as a member of NATO if it was obliged under some treaty to get involved on behalf of Turkey. And even then..it would be likely an aircraft carrier to support the French and British.

Carrying water for Obama is a tough job. You have to leave your common sense and intellect at the door and blindly follow.

 

[Rolyo85]

True that. Totally unlike the blind history revisionism that it takes to support Bush.

 

[rareboy]

Carrying water for Obama is a tough job. You have to leave your common sense and intellect at the door and blindly follow.

You don't understand the US role in NATO at all, do you?

 

[palbert]

It appears that France is all-in with this frolic.

(French President) Hollande spoke with President Barack Obama on Sunday and told him France, like Britain, would support him in a targeted military intervention, according to the paper.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/france-syria_n_3823398.html

But then ....

The U.S. commander of the first Gulf War ‘Storming’ Norman Schwarzkopf jibed that ‘going to war without the French is like going duck shooting without an accordion’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ritain-really-trust-French.html#ixzz2dBtoRZBi

 

[rareboy]

Once again...it is up to the Arab League countries to get their own regional act together. If Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States can remain silent about this and sit and do nothing....then does everyone not realize that the Western nations are being set up once again to fail?
You'd think that after 100 years of this, that England, France and the US would have figured it out.

 

[darden]

if nothing else, for as much heat as I give Obama, shit like this makes me extra glad McCain lost.

we'd have a hundred thousand troops liberating Damascus right now and trying to convert them to democracy if President McCain were in the White House.