Your Vote ATS'ers: Attack or Not To Attack Syria for Alleged Chemical Attacks on its Own Citizens?

reply to post by ItDepends

NO!

No

Continued Tabulation of YOUR ATS Votes, Through PAGE 15 !!!

ItDepends

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL COUNT THROUGH 14 PAGES AS OF 3:45pm e.s.t. U.S.

NO: 213

YES: 11

Non-Comm: 8

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL COUNT PAGE 15.

NO: 12

YES: 0

Non-Comm: 2

TOTAL COUNT THROUGH 15 PAGES AS OF 6:21pm e.s.t. U.S.

NO: 225

YES: 11

Non-Comm: 10

NO.

We should NOT attack...
second

reply to post by ItDepends


A BIG FAT HE*& NO! If anything we should have sent aid and provide intel for them (Syria that is) to kill off that muslim brotherhood. I still dont understand how any politician thinks. Must be the lack of AIR when a politician sticks his head up his own ass.

We need to send support to Egypt still and help them get under control before we even think about making a move on Syria

No clear evidence..

Definitely a 'No'..

Only if Assad is proved beyond doubt to have used them would I vote a yes..
And China, Russia, UK and the rest of the world would then already be with them..

reply to post by ItDepends


No

No.

reply to post by ItDepends


Providing the latest 'Breaking Information" On This Topic

BREAKING NEWS
Obama: 'Breakthrough' is possible on Syria

Keep the pressure on, he says
Russia's proposal for Syria to put its chemical weapons in international control is a "potentially positive development," President Obama tells CNN. FULL STORY.........[url=http://cnn.com]CNN LINK

No

reply to post by ItDepends


Hell no. Truthfully, even if Asaad did commit attacks using chemical weapons, why should the United States get involved? Why is it our job to police the world? It's not. Not that I believe Asaad had anything to do with the chemical weapons attack if one even happened.

No.

reply to post by ItDepends


NO ATTACK, fix our own country first starting by flipping Detroit

reply to post by ItDepends


Another vote for "NO."

Instead of missles, why not help the millions of displaced Syrians? C'mon Mr President, use that Nobel Peace Prize for something other than a paperweight! I bet you could win more hearts thru humanitarian efforts than you could with a missle.

Ahh Nuts NO
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by ItDepends

Based on alleged Bashar al-Assad approved use of chemical attacks and the death of more than 1,400 civilians including at least 400 children, is a military strike warranted?

Sorry for not reading other posts….I’m just throwing my vote in.

NO….there is no strike warranted because we’ve seen NO evidence.



As far as I'm concerned we HAVE NO IDEA who used the chemical weapons. I think The House will come to the same conclusion before they vote NO.

NO!!!

No...Absolutely NO!

My position has always been to not negotiate with terrorist.
Don't help the terrorist when their fighting terrorist.
Let them dwindle their numbers down on both sides,
the less of them the better for us all...
I hope every civilian refugees out of their
and let the bad guys kill each other..