NBC poll: Americans skeptical of U.S. intervention in Syria
Source: NBC News
Fifty percent of Americans say they oppose the United States taking military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad, and nearly eight-in-10 believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using any force, according to a new NBC News poll.
Yet the public is more supportive of military action against the Syrian regime when the scope is limited to using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships.
Read the full poll here (.pdf)
The two-day poll was conducted as the Obama administration weighs launching strikes against Syria for the alleged use of chemicals weapons in its violent civil war, as well as amid growing demands by U.S. lawmakers that Congress should have a voice whether or not to authorize force.
Read more: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-americans-skeptical-of-us-intervention-in-syria?lite
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)No one knows what will happen after we begin cruise missile attacks. We may not be in a position to stop with just a few attacks. These war things have a way of taking on a life of their own. The Vietnam War was only going to be a few fighter/bomber sorties against some North Vietnamese torpedo boat bases.
David__77
(23,557 posts)And not in the pro-war direction. Just sayin'.
liberal N proud
(60,347 posts)The Syrian government killed their own people, so now we are going to retaliate by killing more of their people?
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)however I dont think it will be an Iraq style invasion but rather at most I suspect we are talking about targeted air strikes on key facilities producing said chemical weapons (which makes sense imo) and on their ability to launch them at range which probably means missile sites and air fields again which makes sense.
AllyCat
(16,236 posts)cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)That aside I completely acknowledge that yes there is a risk of some innocents being killed if something goes wrong but if it leads to stopping whoever is murdering people with chemical weapons is it not worth it? Or do you believe its none of our business if people are murdered in another country because they arent our own citizens?
AllyCat
(16,236 posts)Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)Bombing "key facilities producing said chemical weapons" is probably the damn dumbest idea floating around, and it is very reassuring that the 82nd Chairborne is actually in charge of nothing. Bush I's general dicks also thought that would be a great idea when they invaded Iraq the first time; those places are still no-mans lands.
cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)If say they bomb a factory assembling a key but inert component or an air field that stores said key inert components?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)This whole expedition reeks of military adventurism, we have no reason to become al qaeda's airfroce.
AllyCat
(16,236 posts)even after we killed him. And we were there for 10 freakin' years with hundreds of thousands dead. Thousands displaced...into Syria. I wonder how many of them will survive and relocate now?
"logic train..." (lol!)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)durablend
(7,465 posts)Since SOMETHING will have to be cut to pay for it (according to House Republicans, and likely O himself).
Better go suit up, seniors! No more free rides for you!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...but I think the entire planet is "skeptical".
.