Poll: Will the U.S. invade Syria?

[MarkyMark]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...&dlvrit=992637

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...apons/2695243/

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/25/wo...ria-civil-war/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...medium=twitter

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97O03V20130825

My interpretation of the chemical weapons attack is that Assad has been winning for the a while now will several successful campaigns in Homs, Damascus, and Aleppo so what would he gain from using chemical weapons?He's already winning so he knows that if the chemical weapons are used U.S. will almost definitely intervene and he doesn't want that. The rebels with this knowledge probably set them off and blamed the government and since the west is so quick to believe them, the U.S. wants to attack. Unjustly so. However that may not stop the U.S. this time. I fear they might actually get in to another war in the middle east yet again.

[ariel]

Poll: Americans strongly oppose US intervention in Syria



Only 9% of Americans think Obama sould act now while 25% would back intervention if reports that Assad used chemical weapons are confirmed, Reuters/Ipsos survey shows

Americans strongly oppose US intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.




About 60% of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9% thought President Barack Obama should act.


More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days - just as Syria's civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.



The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25% of Americans would support US intervention if Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46% would oppose it.



That represented a decline in backing for US action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2% of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6% did not.


Taken together, the polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans' resolve not to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.



The results - and Reuters/Ipsos polling on the use-of-chemicals question since early June - suggest that if Obama decides to undertake military action against Assad's regime, he will do so in the face of steady opposition from an American public wary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Some foreign and US officials - notably Republican Senator John McCain, whom Obama defeated for the presidency in 2008 - have called Obama too hesitant in deciding whether to act in Syria. But several Americans surveyed in this week's poll, including Charles Kohls, 68, a former US military officer from Maryland, praised Obama's caution.



"The United States has become too much of the world's policeman and we have become involved in too many places that should be a United Nations realm, not ours," Kohls said in an interview. "I don't think we ought to" intervene in Syria.



Kohls said the possibility of a chemical attack did not alter his belief that the United States should stay out of Syria, or any war for that matter.

Crossing the 'red line'

Obama has called the suspected chemical attack near Damascus on Wednesday "an event of great concern" and directed US intelligence agencies to investigate the allegations of chemical use as he weighs potential responses.



The president met with his national security advisers on Saturday but US officials said he has not decided whether to intervene.



US defense officials, meanwhile, have repositioned naval forces in the Mediterranean to give Obama the option for a missile strike on Assad's regime, which has been backed by Russia and China.



Obama has been reluctant to intervene in the Syria war, where rebel forces opposed to Assad are made up of dozens of militant factions, some not friendly to the United States.



The president warned Syria's government last year that any attempt to deploy or use chemical or biological weapons would cross a "red line."


The White House said that Assad's military appeared to cross such a threshold in June, and responded to reports of Syrian troops using chemical weapons by agreeing to offer military aid to vetted groups of Syrian rebels.



It does not appear that any US weapons have been delivered to rebels so far. As the war has escalated, Obama's administration has come under increasing pressure from various governments, including those in France and Israel, to respond more forcefully to what many have called an unfolding humanitarian and political crisis.


Like Obama, Americans cautious

However, Obama does not appear to be feeling much pressure over Syria from the American people.

In this week's Reuters/Ipsos survey of 1,448 people, just 27% said they supported his decision to send arms to some Syrian rebels; 47% were opposed. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for each number.



About 11% said Obama should do more to intervene in Syria than sending arms to the rebels, while 89 percent said he should not help the rebels.



Obama is considering a range of options. The most popular option among Americans: not intervening in Syria at all. That option is backed by 37% of Americans, according to the poll.



Less popular options include air strikes to help the rebels (supported by 12% of Americans); imposing a "no-fly" zone over Syria that would ground Assad's air force (11%); funding a multi-national invasion of Syria (9%), and invading Syria with US troops (4%).



Deborah Powell, 58, of California, said she initially opposed any involvement by the United States but now supports arming the rebels.



"I was against any involvement after watching a (television) program that said if we give (rebels) the weapons they could turn them against us, but I think now we need to give them the weapons," Powell said.



Asked what changed her mind, she said: "What's going on over there is terrible." However, Powell praised Obama's wariness toward getting the United States involved in another war.









Some Americans believe the use of chemical weapons has changed the game in Syria, and that the United States should get involved as long as other countries did, too.








Jonathan Adams, 56, of California, said that he was "happy that we didn't get involved from the start and I'm glad Obama was cautious. But I think we have gotten past the point of where we should've been involved in some way."



He said reports of chemical weapons use "went way past the line."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...421738,00.html

[Wadaad]

Why do they even bother doing polls, when did American public opinion matter? The US has commando units already fighting in Syria (or atleast stationed in Jordan)

[Loki]

First of all, "NATO" (read: America) will impose a no-fly zone. Then they will pound Syrian positions with cruise missiles, and eventually it could lead to an invasion from sea to topple Assad. Could take months but will probably happen.

Let's wait and see.

[Anthropologique]

No land invasion, that's for certain.

[SilverKnight]

Unfortunately the last one... We should be helping not aiding these scums.

[RandoBloom]

First of all, "NATO" (read: America) will impose a no-fly zone. Then they will pound Syrian positions with cruise missiles, and eventually it could lead to an invasion from sea to topple Assad. Could take months but will probably happen.

Let's wait and see.

This invasion is a scramble to get best they can from the situation. They cant suport assad since he is pro-Iran.
They also cant suport rebels since they are "anti-american" muslims.
So they will probably go in and put someone third in power and push Assad and muslims aside.

[ariel]

Why do they even bother doing polls, when did American public opinion matter? The US has commando units already fighting in Syria (or atleast stationed in Jordan)

of course you support the syrian rebels and the american president.not surprising at all....obama ally of the muslim brotherhood

[Shkembe Chorba]

Maybe it should.

[Philo]

I hope they don't.. It would be dumb for them to intervene. As well I don't want Israel to get into a war.