How would you vote on Military Action in Syria if you were in Congress?

[politicallefty]

I would not support any military action at this time (D). It's most troubling to me how so many draw the line at chemical weapons, regardless of the number killed. I'd really like to know how it's worse that a thousand pelple dying in chemical attacks is worse than 100,000 being killed through conventional methods.

[anvi]

No (I).  You don't conduct air strikes that would be both militarily ineffectual and would probably kill innocent people just to make a point about the injustice of chemical weapons.  In "humanitarian intervention," you either go all-in, with both aid to victims and military defense of the victimized group, or, if you're not willing to go that far, you issue verbal condemnations and try to politically and economically isolate the regime doing it.  Half-assed airstrikes in this case lose you credibility, rather than gain it for you.  On top of that, the Syrian situation is far too complex, with lots of bad players on both sides, to hurl ourselves into as a combatant. 

[NewYorkExpress]

Present (D)... But if push came to shove the vote is no(D)... Syria ultimately could be worse than Egypt, or Iraq, and that is a very disturbing situation to deal with even if, we are just lobbing missiles at them.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes (not an Assad-lover)

[Torie]

No for the present. There is no rush, and at least publically, the case has not been made. It is not at all clear what would be accomplished that would turn out to be positive. This is one of those the devil is in the details situation, and I would need to know all those details, and be persuaded by them. It might be best to try to work out some plan of action with "the willing" if and when there is a redux. The major problem here is the concern about what the alternatives are to Assad. It looks really grim. So if it's too risky to depose him, and it is all about chems, and only chems, the way forward to get that to stop without anything else changing, in a surgical, non sanguinary way, just seems like an incredibly difficult objective function to achieve.

And it's premature. The investigators are not done, there is still ongoing diplomatic chat, and so forth, and as the US generals said, this task can as easily be done a month from now, as now. There is no need for an element of surprise, or ephemeral window of opportunity, which needs to be exploited now before it closes.

[J. J.]

One question is what happens after the attack?

Would the US be able to destroy Syria's stockpile?

Would Syria adopt a "lose it or use it" stance, if not? 

Could we see an acceleration of the civil war, or involvement of Israel?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes (not an Assad-lover)

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

No (Assad loving, America hating, puppy kicking, chemical weapon supporting, Allah worshiping, isolationist racist)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, only if topple Assad.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Independent - no.

[t_host1]

 In the context of being a rep., I, could not give a go on a military attack. My colleague rep. Rogers R-Mi says it’s not about saving Pres. Obama, yet in reality, our present position has been entirely created by the Obama policy, which is understood to be for pro-Islamic governance that has little fundamental correlations’ with a constitutional republic divined from Christian beliefs.
 
 There are some questions to why and who is responsible for the mass murder; none of the answers at present have any possible conclusion for a state of life in Syria.

 The Russians want to talk; I’d prefer action on their part to end the Syrian war and take full responsibility for the stability for a civil Syria.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This nonsense about pretending to care about humanitarian issues is getting old. The Second Congo War and its aftermath led to 5.4 million deaths, all in the last 15 years. Crickets from the US there.

[Eraserhead]

This nonsense about pretending to care about humanitarian issues is getting old. The Second Congo War and its aftermath led to 5.4 million deaths, all in the last 15 years. Crickets from the US there.

Exactly. This is why John Kerry and his crocodile tears are so ridiculous.

[barfbag]

I'd say no and ask the president to show me the chemical weapons of mass destruction.

[retromike22]

The UK says they have new evidence. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23975030

[MasterJedi]

I would of course vote Yes (R).

[7,052,770]

This nonsense about pretending to care about humanitarian issues is getting old. The Second Congo War and its aftermath led to 5.4 million deaths, all in the last 15 years. Crickets from the US there.

The fact that we made a terrible mistake 20 years ago shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing now...

[Maxwell]

Absolutely not (R)

[Lief 🗽]

This nonsense about pretending to care about humanitarian issues is getting old. The Second Congo War and its aftermath led to 5.4 million deaths, all in the last 15 years. Crickets from the US there.

The fact that we made a terrible mistake 20 years ago shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing now...

This to me is one of the most morally reprehensible arguments made by the True Leftist Anti-Imperialist Obama = Bush opposition (and they make many). They somehow manage a straight face while on the one hand criticizing America for past humanitarian inaction, while at the same arguing for continued humanitarian inaction in the present!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No (sane).

[politicallefty]

This nonsense about pretending to care about humanitarian issues is getting old. The Second Congo War and its aftermath led to 5.4 million deaths, all in the last 15 years. Crickets from the US there.

That's also not to mention the fact that in the context of Syria alone, over 100,000 already died prior the alleged chemical attacks. The humanitarian crisis in Syria started over two years ago. Where were those that called for attacks on the Syrian government back then (other than Iraq War-style neocons)? I don't understand why the line is drawn over the method of death, rather than the actual number of those killed. Those that support action now seem to say that 1000 deaths with chemical weapons is worse than 100,000 killed with conventional warfare. I cannot make sense of that, despite what we all may think of chemical warfare.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No

[Eraserhead]

This nonsense about pretending to care about humanitarian issues is getting old. The Second Congo War and its aftermath led to 5.4 million deaths, all in the last 15 years. Crickets from the US there.

The fact that we made a terrible mistake 20 years ago shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing now...

This to me is one of the most morally reprehensible arguments made by the True Leftist Anti-Imperialist Obama = Bush opposition (and they make many). They somehow manage a straight face while on the one hand criticizing America for past humanitarian inaction, while at the same arguing for continued humanitarian inaction in the present!

I wouldn't call dropping some bombs on people and then letting the civil war continue on afterward a "humanitarian action".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This nonsense about pretending to care about humanitarian issues is getting old. The Second Congo War and its aftermath led to 5.4 million deaths, all in the last 15 years. Crickets from the US there.

The fact that we made a terrible mistake 20 years ago shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing now...

This to me is one of the most morally reprehensible arguments made by the True Leftist Anti-Imperialist Obama = Bush opposition (and they make many). They somehow manage a straight face while on the one hand criticizing America for past humanitarian inaction, while at the same arguing for continued humanitarian inaction in the present!

Plus Obama was just a State Senator then. What the [Inks] did he have to do with US foreign policy at the time?

[J. J.]

The numbers against are going up slowly.  It was about 60%; now it is 65%.