For supporters of military action against Syria.

[Puzzledtraveller]

Would you support military action against Syria if a Republican presently occupied the White House with all else being the same?

[Arctic Dave]

1. Sitting back for the gymnastics show.

[Puzzledtraveller]

2. Hehe, I am on my lunchbreak so I thought, what the hell.

I'll pose the question!

[Aerows]

36. And a fine question it is, my friend!

It will be highly enlightening if folks answer honestly.

[Aerows]

33. Can I sit here?

Will you share your popcorn?

I'll make a cheese and fruit plate to go with it.

[Arctic Dave]

40. I brought the big bucket. Help yourself.

he he

[darkangel218]

3. I think we all know the answer to that.

[The Magistrate]

4. My View On The Matter Would Be The Same, Sir

Rather mixed....

[Puzzledtraveller]

6. I can understand mixed

[Bluenorthwest]

14. mixed like a cake that one can both have and eat?

That's the centrist position, take no position just take measurements and remain equidistant from both yes and no.

[KittyWampus]

18. "You're either with us or against us" Nov 6, 2001.

[The Magistrate]

15. I Try To Judge These Things On Individual Merit, Sir

I supported going into Afghanistan in 2001, it was absolutely necessary.

I opposed going into Iraq, as obvious, arrant stupidity.

I supported going into Libya, and continue to do so.

I do not think we are, by this late date, and after the diversion to Iraq, doing ourselves any good in Afghanistan today.

I have no objection to current policies regarding Yemen and the Tribal Territories.

I am opposed to attacking Iran over its nuclear program, as I consider it unlikely to succeed.

[leftstreet]

5. Some would. Reagan Democrats in the WH tend to get a pass

I've noticed anyway

[darkangel218]

8. I wasnt on here when the Iraqi war started

Was anyone pro war on DU?

[leftstreet]

11. Uh, Bush was in office

[darkangel218]

12. So no one here supported the Iraqi war.

Exactly what I thought

[leftstreet]

16. That's what I just said

Reagan Democrats tend to get a pass on war

Republicans don't

Hello?

[The Magistrate]

20. There Were Supporters Of Invading Iraq Here, Sir

A good number thought ousting Hussein was worth doing, and some did consider a good case had been made he was pursuing or maintaining stocks of nuclear or gas weapons. It was not the dominant view, but it was certainly present, and expressed by members in good standing.

[leftstreet]

23. Yes, of course

Though I believe the intent of the OP was exposing the difference in majority attitude depending on which party occupies the WH

[The Magistrate]

24. If So, Sir, It Has Probably Failed

I would doubt the majority position here is support for action in Syria, and President Obama is a Democrat, after all....

[David__77]

39. This is true, but almost no one here supported Iraq war unless the UN approved.

This time, you have a minority that doesn't care whether or not the UN approves it. I find that difference to be telling. Further, those who would have supported it with UN approval were much more "shy" about it, as I recall.

[darkangel218]

25. Im a female lol

[The Magistrate]

28. i Did Not Address You, Ma'am

I addressed the person who made the post you replied to, who joined up apparently in 2005, after the Iraq matter was a settled question....

[darkangel218]

31. Ah okays :)

[KittyWampus]

7. Since I am ambivalent, I'd probably be in same position. However, Republicans are prone to unwise

military actions of any type.

Obama has proven himself to be more circumspect.

[Puzzledtraveller]

10. That's why I added all else being the same

as many would postulate that action would be a forgone conclusion under a republican. I do agree that President Obama is not going all John Wayne, which is good.

[one_voice]

9. I would still have mixed feelings. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

13. The real question is how much they'll howl when things fuck up nt

[el_bryanto]

17. It's not quite a trick question, although verging on it

I don't support action against Syria anyway, as I think it will make things worse. But it certainly possible to believe that this administration would handle it better than, say, a George W. Bush or Romney administration would.

If you imagine a line from complete success to complete failure on the part of military intervention, it's possible to place a Mitt Romney at one point (deep in failure territory) and Obama in another (in success territory). I place both in failure territory, but place Romney deeper.

Bryant

[BlueMTexpat]

19. My view would be exactly the same.

I do not now and never have supported military action under circumstances which have been carefully staged to support a blatant RW agenda such as PNAC's.

The US has found it convenient to play down chemical weapons attacks when it suited us. See, e.g., http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/protected-charges-chemical.html

Of course, once it didn't suit us, many of the very same persons who had protected Saddam turned against him and used the same decades-old attacks they had previously supported as one excuse among others to invade Iraq.

Seeing the same names and faces associated with the hue and cry for attacks on Syria - and wondering why either Assad or the rebels would be so criminally stupid as to do something as heinous as this that would certainly bring all hell down upon them - my own theory is that, if chemical weapons were indeed used, covert ops from agents outside Syria were very much involved.

Think about it! And remember the bloody and catastrophic precedents.

[Puzzledtraveller]

21. I'm with you on this.

[The Straight Story]

22. Yes - but I would not trust them to do it in a limited way

Clinton used limited air strikes and we didn't end up in war.

I would support that in this case no matter who was president.

Why do people allow their moral beliefs to be dictated by who is in power? I support action, not all out war boots on the ground.

Talked to my son today and he feels the same - and knows full well if it gets out of hand he will be called back to duty. He hated the Iraq war, was a senseless waste of time and he put himself in harms way for nothing.

Again, I support limited strikes - but know well it could get out of hand (Syria attacks Israel, Iran gets involved, etc and so on).

I trust Obama more than I would a republican to keep it in hand.

[Puzzledtraveller]

29. I seen a few responses like that and it makes sense.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. I generally can support a limited military intervention here and there

if justified by facts and a reasonable cause and involves careful planning that minimizes our involvement and probable casualties (think Bosnia in the 1990's). Invading and occupying Iraq OTOH didn't involve any of those things, particularly since there was no known and (then) current WMD threat to anybody, not even to Iraqi citizens. I'm pretty neutral on the current situation in Syria but I'd probably be more worried about it if Bush were (P)resident given what we know about how he handled Iraq and Afghanistan during his (P)residency. Sometimes the difference in which party is in the WH DOES make a totally legitimate difference and doesn't have anything to do with mindless Obama/Democrat worship and, at least so far, President Obama- like Presidents Clinton and Carter before him- has seemed more calculated, thoughtful, observant, and cautious in regards to military actions and am more inclined to support him- even if I don't fully embrace the cause- when they feel like they have to act or want to act to help support another country. Whether or not I trust the person responsible for our foreign policy goes a long way to determining whether I support what they do.

[Puzzledtraveller]

34. I think it's reasonable to say you would be more supportive under Obama

than any republican yet still offer some support either way. I'm seeing that in several responses.

[pampango]

27. If Bush/Cheney/McCain were in the White House, the US would have attacked long ago.

I give Obama credit for not doing in Syria what B/C/M would have done long ago for the wrong reasons and in the stupidest way possible.

I don't believe a strike even now, after all of Obama's restraint, is a good idea because it will make a terrible situation even worse. I blame most of Syria's problems on Assad, but the fact is there is little we can do about them. I feel for the Syrian people. I'm glad I am not the president.

Oh and I would support a republican president even less. They are not known for restraint, wisdom or any level of caring for people in other countries. (Not surprising since they care little for most people in our country, as well.) They attack without showing any of these traits.

[Puzzledtraveller]

32. Good points

I don't think those who may support strikes purely on partisan grounds number all that much. It would be troubling to see that. Many responses show measured consideration.

[shanti]

37. You're right about that

They definitely would have, because Syria is/was always part of the PNAC plan.

[SamReynolds]

30. Well, let's see....

Did Saddam Hussein launch a chemical attack against his own people before the 2003 invasion?

No.

Were the people of Iraq crying out for help against their own regime in 2003?

No.

Did Bashir al-Assad launch a chemical attack against his own people there?

Yes.

Are the people of Syria crying out for help?

Yes.


In one case, we went in uninvited. But now, we have to stay 'morally pure' even in the face of the dying innocents.

Republican or Democrat, if we here in this nation were being gassed and killed for fighting against the regime, I'd hope that other nations would help us out no matter what their ideology.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. +1

The two situations are in no way identical.

[HangOnKids]

38. But the message is coming from the same MIC propaganda whores

Yet you want to trust the liars? If this message was coming from a cheating partner would you believe it a second time?

[pampango]

41. The message is coming from Obama/Biden rather than Bush/Cheney. I see a difference.

Bush/Cheney would have been bombing, if not invading, Syria long ago. For the 2 1/2 years since the Syrian uprising began Obama/Biden have shown restraint, diplomacy and the sense that military measures are a last resort, not a first. I see a difference.

Obama/Biden are convinced that Assad launched the chemical attack. Bush/Cheney would have ordered the intelligence services to find "evidence" of Assad's guilt and would have ignored any evidence that did not suit their policy of military force. I see a difference.

Bush/Cheney openly declared that regime chance was its reason for invading in Iraq. Obama/Biden have declared that punishment for using chemical weapons is the reason for any US air attack in Syria. I see a difference.

[HangOnKids]

42. Good with that 20-20 vision maybe you could do a commercial for Lens Crafters n/t