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

[retromike22]

Let's have a mock forum election on Military Action in Syria. This poll runs for 7 days.

Results:

Democratic - Yes         18 (20.5%)
Republican - Yes         5 (5.7%)
Independent - Yes         6 (6.8%)
Democratic - No         27 (30.7%)
Republican - No         15 (17%)
Independent - No         15 (17%)
Democratic - Present         1 (1.1%)
Republican - Present         1 (1.1%)
Independent - Present         0 (0%)

Total Votes: 88


The measure is defeated:
No: 57 (64.7%)
Yes: 29 (32.9%)
Present: 2 (2.2%)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Absolutely.

[Eraserhead]

An emphatic "No". Just because Obama is supporting the latest war of choice doesn't make it right.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I'm assuming this is just airstrikes, like Yugoslavia or Libya?

[DC Al Fine]

No, regardless of what the action is.

[Eraserhead]

I'm assuming this is just airstrikes, like Yugoslavia or Libya?

For now...

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Yes. Opposed to sarin nerve gas attacks on children.

[Donerail]

No (supportive of gassing children, pro-Assad, or whatever ridiculous label the interventionists have decided to use today).

[Marokai Backbeat]

No, and it's not because I'm opposed to humanitarian intervention, or because I'm particularly dovish in general, or because I love Assad. I haven't heard a compelling case yet, or enough evidence that Assad is really, totes, super duper for suresies behind the chemical weapons attack. So far it's been a lot of bluster, hearsay, and the US and UK going "really, trust us, we're legit convinced, don't worry about it" which isn't enough for me and shouldn't be enough for anyone else.

I need a compelling case as to why air strikes will do good in this case and what the long-term strategy is, as well as evidence that the target is actually guilty of what he's being accused of. There's been none of that so far; just a lot of people riled up behind their backlit glossy/matte screens typing up ridiculously holier than thou outrage at anyone who is skeptical or wants to see more before committing.

I supported, wholeheartedly, the intervention in Libya. This is much more thorny and the outcome much more murky. Different situations are different.

[Frodo]

How many more of these Syria threads are we going to have?  We already have ten. 

[ElectionsGuy]

Republican-No

[Sbane]

Hell no! We don't even clearly know who is responsible for the attacks.

[Eraserhead]

How many more of these Syria threads are we going to have?  We already have ten. 

It's kind of a big deal.

[J. J.]

No, unless Obama can show it is the national interest.  I think he should be given the chance to do so. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, and it's not because I'm opposed to humanitarian intervention, or because I'm particularly dovish in general, or because I love Assad. I haven't heard a compelling case yet, or enough evidence that Assad is really, totes, super duper for suresies behind the chemical weapons attack. So far it's been a lot of bluster, hearsay, and the US and UK going "really, trust us, we're legit convinced, don't worry about it" which isn't enough for me and shouldn't be enough for anyone else.

I need a compelling case as to why air strikes will do good in this case and what the long-term strategy is, as well as evidence that the target is actually guilty of what he's being accused of. There's been none of that so far; just a lot of people riled up behind their backlit glossy/matte screens typing up ridiculously holier than thou outrage at anyone who is skeptical or wants to see more before committing.

I supported, wholeheartedly, the intervention in Libya. This is much more thorny and the outcome much more murky. Different situations are different.

Agreed. Libya was a low population desert country, so it made sense that the war wasn't going to last too long.

[Vosem]

Republican-Yes (the only one so far, remarkably); Obama put a red line there and now he has to go enforce it.

[bedstuy]

Hell no! We don't even clearly know who is responsible for the attacks.

The Syrian government is responsible according to all the information and news reports I've seen. 

[Sbane]

Hell no! We don't even clearly know who is responsible for the attacks.

The Syrian government is responsible according to all the information and news reports I've seen. 

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

This is what I am seeing. Not that this is conclusive proof or anything but there are a lot of questions that are unanswered. Why would Assad even do this to begin with? He has an upper hand just with conventional weapons and he knew he would be left alone if he stuck to those. So why do it? Assad is most definitely not a crazy.

[xavier110]

Never - D

[bedstuy]

Hell no! We don't even clearly know who is responsible for the attacks.

The Syrian government is responsible according to all the information and news reports I've seen. 

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

This is what I am seeing. Not that this is conclusive proof or anything but there are a lot of questions that are unanswered. Why would Assad even do this to begin with? He has an upper hand just with conventional weapons and he knew he would be left alone if he stuck to those. So why do it? Assad is most definitely not a crazy.

Please, that article is laughable. 

To answer your question:
Chemical weapons are a form of terrorism that is meant to intimidate the anti-Assad civilian population and rebels. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, we don't need to be throwing ourselves into foreign wars.

[Sbane]

Hell no! We don't even clearly know who is responsible for the attacks.

The Syrian government is responsible according to all the information and news reports I've seen. 

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

This is what I am seeing. Not that this is conclusive proof or anything but there are a lot of questions that are unanswered. Why would Assad even do this to begin with? He has an upper hand just with conventional weapons and he knew he would be left alone if he stuck to those. So why do it? Assad is most definitely not a crazy.

Please, that article is laughable. 

To answer your question:
Chemical weapons are a form of terrorism that is meant to intimidate the anti-Assad civilian population and rebels. 

Why is it laughable?

[bedstuy]

Hell no! We don't even clearly know who is responsible for the attacks.

The Syrian government is responsible according to all the information and news reports I've seen. 

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

This is what I am seeing. Not that this is conclusive proof or anything but there are a lot of questions that are unanswered. Why would Assad even do this to begin with? He has an upper hand just with conventional weapons and he knew he would be left alone if he stuck to those. So why do it? Assad is most definitely not a crazy.

Please, that article is laughable. 

To answer your question:
Chemical weapons are a form of terrorism that is meant to intimidate the anti-Assad civilian population and rebels. 

Why is it laughable?

It doesn't comport with any of the other available information about the chemical weapons attacks and just basic logic.  And just the premise is crazy, you couldn't kill hundreds of people and affect thousands by "mishandling" sarin gas. 

[Earthling]

I would vote No.

I don't know if we can trust all of the rebels. From newsreports that I have seen there are many fundamentalists active in Syria and we should not help them getting control over that country. I would really like to help the Syrian people but the I think it will hurt them far more if the West jumps in and takes Assad out. And Libya is not a succes, Egypt is not a succes, why would Syria be a succes?

[TNF]

Absolutely not - D