War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Contumacious]

Wow, a massive majority of the members of this forum say no to war on Syria.

thats good to know.

139 to 6 hummmmmmmmmmmm too close to call.

LOL

 

[U2Edge]

I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.

I hear ya, but try to approach it from another angle. If another Nation began bombing the U.S., would you consider that a 'limited missile strike' or an act of War?

You would think act of war because the purpose was never stated nor an end date given for the bombing.

With what Obama is proposing, he is saying a limited missile strike that would not last more than one to two days. He has let Syria know this in advance and stated when it would stop, and why it was being done to begin with.

When you just say WAR in a poll, that brings up different visions in peoples minds. Many people think it means sending 200,000 American troops to invade occupy and pacify all of Syria. Others understand to be one day missile strike.

Do you think there is anything different from sending 200,000 US troops to invade occupy and pacify Syria for years, VS a limited one day launching of missiles to take out a few buildings weapon systems?

 

[kaz]

Do you think there is anything different from sending 200,000 US troops to invade occupy and pacify Syria for years, VS a limited one day launching of missiles to take out a few buildings weapon systems?

Since you chose for yourself the incredibly low standard of whether there is a single thing different, ok, yes, there is something different. It's shorter. It's sort of like the difference between robbing your neighbor's house in the middle of the night and committing a home invasion where you hold them hostage for a prolonged period of time.

However, how they are not different.

1) They are both acts of war.

2) Neither was done with a declaration of war from congress

3) Neither is a Constitutional use of the military to defend the United States.

So, is "anything" different? Yes, the duration.

Are they different?

No.

 

[U2Edge]

I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.

The firing of missiles, or bombing, directed against a foreign government, is an Act of War.

The survey question ( War: Yes or No? ) was correct, both literally and figuratively.

I do not mean this in an unkind way, but, I will repeat something that I said on this board in the past couple of days...

Every thinking person over the age of 10 who sees that question, knows what is meant...

War can be big or small, declared or undeclared, long or short, cheap or costly, bombing-only or full-scale invasion...

The survey question paints with a broad brush - on the macro level - and is sufficient to our purposes...

"No" means no.

"Yes" can mean missile strikes or bombing or full-scale invasion or whatever; TBD later.

I agree with you that it would be good to have more detailed insights into how folks would like to proceed, if the audience chooses military action, and there may very well be room for such a poll in the coming days, especially if Congress and/or the President end-up taking action that contravenes our own little survey mechanism, but, at present, it seems best to simply take the pulse of the audience as to whether we should take ANY action, rather than muddying the waters with details at this early stage in the game.

The mods can speak for themselves but, at first glance, that's MY guess as to why they chose to ask the audience to focus on the existing one... first things first, so-to-speak. I would craft an Action Survey with more options than the one you served-up but your idea is sound... it's merely a bit premature, methinks... nor not...

For whatever that's worth...

Simply using the word WAR conjures up different definitions for different people. People use their own definitions to define war which means people are saying NO based on the idea of the United States invading Syria with 200,000 troops when NOTHING remotely like that is about to take place.

That is why there should be a poll that specifically defines what Obama has expressedly proposed and then see how people react to it, yes or no.

The mods blocked my poll probably because they know that there is more support out there for a limited one to two day missile strike than there is for something generally refered to as WAR.

In doing this, it possibly gives a dishonest impression of what people in this forum feel about a military action that is about to happen. There was no reason to close my poll. It asked something different and would give a far more accurate impression of what people in the forum feel about what Obama is actually going to do.

 

[The T]

There is no possibility of "war with". The only question is whether we will punish Syria or not. My guess is that the president is weighing the political impact which is the only thing democrats ever worry about.

WHY are we going to punish Syria when we didn't punish Clinton and those who gassed and incinerated the Davidians?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?


.

Yes...the Branch Dividians shouldn't be ignored...was that mustard Gas, or just bottled farts lit and thrown causing fires in that compound?

Apples versus cumquats?

 

[kaz]

Simply using the word WAR conjures up different definitions for different people

True, but irrelevant. Military strikes in a sovereign nation is war by any definition.

 

[U2Edge]

Do you think there is anything different from sending 200,000 US troops to invade occupy and pacify Syria for years, VS a limited one day launching of missiles to take out a few buildings weapon systems?

Since you chose for yourself the incredibly low standard of whether there is a single thing different, ok, yes, there is something different. It's shorter. It's sort of like the difference between robbing your neighbor's house in the middle of the night and committing a home invasion where you hold them hostage for a prolonged period of time.

However, how they are not different.

1) They are both acts of war.

2) Neither was done with a declaration of war from congress

3) Neither is a Constitutional use of the military to defend the United States.

So, is "anything" different? Yes, the duration.

Are they different?

No.

Ok, so when do you believe the War in Iraq began?

 

[U2Edge]

Simply using the word WAR conjures up different definitions for different people

True, but irrelevant. Military strikes in a sovereign nation is war by any definition.

So when do you believe the war in Iraq began?

 

[U2Edge]

Wow, a massive majority of the members of this forum say no to war on Syria.

thats good to know.

139 to 6 hummmmmmmmmmmm too close to call.

LOL

The ratio would not be that lop sided if it was properly worded and talked about a limited missile strike instead of just WAR in general.

I made another thread/poll that explicitly defined what Obama was planning and the MODS closed obviously because they were scared they wouldn't get the lop sided results they were hoping for.

 

[kaz]

Simply using the word WAR conjures up different definitions for different people

True, but irrelevant. Military strikes in a sovereign nation is war by any definition.

So when do you believe the war in Iraq began?

I would divide it into three stages.

1) HW's lead up to and invasion of Kuwait and attacks in Iraq in the process.

2) Clinton having no fly zones over the South, then the North and invading Northern Iraq.

3) W invading Iraq to topple Hussein.

I oppose all three. Our military should not be in the middle east. And they were all acts of war. Not seeing your point.

 

[kaz]

There is no possibility of "war with". The only question is whether we will punish Syria or not. My guess is that the president is weighing the political impact which is the only thing democrats ever worry about.

WHY are we going to punish Syria when we didn't punish Clinton and those who gassed and incinerated the Davidians?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?


.

Yes...the Branch Dividians shouldn't be ignored...was that mustard Gas, or just bottled farts lit and thrown causing fires in that compound?

Apples versus cumquats?

As terrible as Reno murdering American citizens was, I'm with you in that I don't see what that has to do with acts of war against Sovereign nations.

 

[kaz]

Wow, a massive majority of the members of this forum say no to war on Syria.

thats good to know.

139 to 6 hummmmmmmmmmmm too close to call.

LOL

The ratio would not be that lop sided if it was properly worded and talked about a limited missile strike instead of just WAR in general.

I made another thread/poll that explicitly defined what Obama was planning and the MODS closed obviously because they were scared they wouldn't get the lop sided results they were hoping for.

I checked your post count and sure enough you're a newbie.

 

[The T]

WHY are we going to punish Syria when we didn't punish Clinton and those who gassed and incinerated the Davidians?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?


.

Yes...the Branch Dividians shouldn't be ignored...was that mustard Gas, or just bottled farts lit and thrown causing fires in that compound?

Apples versus cumquats?

As terrible as Reno murdering American citizens was, I'm with you in that I don't see what that has to do with acts of war against Sovereign nations.

KUDOS and REP! Well done. Precisely.

Inas MUCH *I* don't trust this government, but would rather SPIT ON IT as it exists apart from the Founder's intent? I thought that comparison was LAME and the ultimate embellishment. Apples/Cumquats...indeed.

 

[U2Edge]

True, but irrelevant. Military strikes in a sovereign nation is war by any definition.

So when do you believe the war in Iraq began?

I would divide it into three stages.

1) HW's lead up to and invasion of Kuwait and attacks in Iraq in the process.

2) Clinton having no fly zones over the South, then the North and invading Northern Iraq.

3) W invading Iraq to topple Hussein.

I oppose all three. Our military should not be in the middle east. And they were all acts of war. Not seeing your point.

I was thinking you might say when W invaded in March 2003 which would be incorrect under your previous definition of war. The United States bombed Iraq every year between the end of the Gulf War in 1991 and the start of the operation Iraqi freedom in 2003. So I'm glad to see your consistent in your thinking.

I supported all the "phases of that war" as they were necessary for US national security. The Persian Gulf has been a vital area of US national security since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be so in the early 1940s during World War II.

 

[U2Edge]

139 to 6 hummmmmmmmmmmm too close to call.

LOL

The ratio would not be that lop sided if it was properly worded and talked about a limited missile strike instead of just WAR in general.

I made another thread/poll that explicitly defined what Obama was planning and the MODS closed obviously because they were scared they wouldn't get the lop sided results they were hoping for.

I checked your post count and sure enough you're a newbie.

What is your point?

 

[kaz]

The ratio would not be that lop sided if it was properly worded and talked about a limited missile strike instead of just WAR in general.

I made another thread/poll that explicitly defined what Obama was planning and the MODS closed obviously because they were scared they wouldn't get the lop sided results they were hoping for.

I checked your post count and sure enough you're a newbie.

What is your point?

In red

 

[kaz]

The Persian Gulf has been a vital area of US national security since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be so in the early 1940s during World War II.

The Constitution doesn't give authorization to use the military for "US interests," it gives authorization to use it to defend the US. And the Founders chose the right standard.

I did support blowing the crap out of the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda who actually attacked us. I lived in NY many years and worked for a period across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center. That was an attack on the US.

However, actually invading Afghanistan and "nation building" I don't support.

 

[U2Edge]

I checked your post count and sure enough you're a newbie.

What is your point?

In red

There is no other logical reason to block a poll that is asking something different from another.

 

[The T]

The Persian Gulf has been a vital area of US national security since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be so in the early 1940s during World War II.

The Constitution doesn't give authorization to use the military for "US interests," it gives authorization to use it to defend the US. And the Founders chose the right standard.

I did support blowing the crap out of the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda who actually attacked us. I lived in NY many years and worked for a period across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center. That was an attack on the US.

However, actually invading Afghanistan and "nation building" I don't support.

Building puppets isn't my thing either. Present the concept to them and HOPE it takes root...otherwise? GET OUT.

 

[U2Edge]

The Persian Gulf has been a vital area of US national security since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be so in the early 1940s during World War II.

The Constitution doesn't give authorization to use the military for "US interests," it gives authorization to use it to defend the US. And the Founders chose the right standard.

I did support blowing the crap out of the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda who actually attacked us. I lived in NY many years and worked for a period across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center. That was an attack on the US.

However, actually invading Afghanistan and "nation building" I don't support.

Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I.

Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!