Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

gopiscrap

(23,761 posts) Thu Sep 5, 2013, 09:54 PM Sep 2013

How do you think the US HOuse will vote on attacking Syria?

4 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	vote yes to attack Syria
	1 (25%)
	vote no to not attack Syria
	3 (75%)
	punt the issue down the road
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How do you think the US HOuse will vote on attacking Syria? (Original Post) gopiscrap Sep 2013 OP

The House and Senate resolution is for an intervention 'use of force' Tx4obama Sep 2013 #1

And that worked out so well didn't it? Savannahmann Sep 2013 #3

The intervention stopped Gaddafi from going in and killing tens of thousands of folks ... Tx4obama Sep 2013 #6

It takes more than a few bombs. Savannahmann Sep 2013 #7

Attack: To set upon with violent force. bunnies Sep 2013 #4

They're spineless and opportunistic so I think they'll pass it. rug Sep 2013 #2

it will be an "attack". dictionaries are your friends nt msongs Sep 2013 #5

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)

1. The House and Senate resolution is for an intervention 'use of force'

Reply to gopiscrap (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 10:05 PM

Sep 2013

But I guess by using the word 'attacking' you'll get more folks riled up.

Funny how folks didn't constantly use the words 'war' or 'attack' when Obama intervened in Libya.

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)

3. And that worked out so well didn't it?

Reply to Tx4obama (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 10:08 PM

Sep 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023593996

Warlords running amok, the Prime Minister of Libya threatening to bomb the Ports because the local warlords are selling the state owned oil to whomever shows up, and Libya gets none of that money.

Yes, things worked out swimmingly in Libya.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)

6. The intervention stopped Gaddafi from going in and killing tens of thousands of folks ...

Reply to Savannahmann (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 10:19 PM

Sep 2013

... any wiping out everyone in Misrata (I think it was Misrata).

Anyway, yes - the intervention DID do good at the time.

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)

7. It takes more than a few bombs.

Reply to Tx4obama (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 10:37 PM

Sep 2013

It takes more than a few dozen bombs. How many stores have you been in where there is a sign up that says if you break it, you bought it? You can't just run a dictator out of the country and pat yourself on the back and declare mission accomplished. The power vacuum means that a bunch of people who are not powerful enough to take over number one fight amongst themselves, and the people suffer.

How many thousands have died because of tribal warfare amongst the warlords? How many more will die because we ran a dictator out and wished the people well as we rode off into the sunset?

You don't get to break something, and then dash out of the store. You broke it, you bought it.