Voices
in
Japan

poll

Would you support a U.S. military strike on Syria?

46 Comments
© Japan Today

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments
Login to comment

The US really needs to lighten up.

Cut down on wars - both its overt wars and its COVERT ones.

And quit this secrecy - spying on people, secret negotiations in TPP.

Get back on track, guys!

4 ( +15 / -11 )

In addition to a simple Yes/No this vote needs a "Not until I've seem some REAL evidence" button.

16 ( +20 / -4 )

The US has to stop getting involve with religious wars. It is sickening.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

Until real proof is shown, I don't think the US or the international community should do a military strike. I look at Iraq and Libya and I do not see a lot of improvement from before they were attacked and the governments changed.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Harry Gatto-gozaimasu,

In addition to a simple Yes/No this vote needs a "Not until I've seem some REAL evidence" button.

You speak sooth. There are many times when I don't vote on here for this reason.

At the very least, there should be an "I DON'T KNOW" button.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Bertie,

The US really needs to lighten up. Cut down on wars - both its overt wars and its COVERT ones. And quit this secrecy - spying on people, secret negotiations in TPP.

The place would go bankrupt!

1 ( +6 / -5 )

There is evidence; read the news much? One BBC video report is pretty damn compelling. The rockets came from Regime held territory and landed in rebel held territory. It was a well-planned and coordinated attack at a time government forces needed that particular are cleared of rebels. The question remains, why take that risk? But this is one sick regime as we have already seen in the past year.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

No real "good guys" involved in Syria. Despotic regime on one side, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas on the other. The only losers are the Syrian people and I don't think military involvement by the U.S. will help them.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@ letsberealistic

There is no footage at all of the rockets being fired, from whoever did it. That there WAS a chemical attack isn't the point... it's pretty much universally accepted that the attack happened. The point is that there is no proof Assad's forces launched the attack. If the US has such evidence it should present it, either to the UN security council, or to its allies... just saying "we know" doesn't mean anything.

I say no to an attack. The US could end up killing more people than the chem attack.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Simple US government claims to save lives by in the end killing more and more...

Stop trying to be world police USA and focus on your own crisis back in the states....

5 ( +6 / -1 )

If chemical weapons are being used, something should be done to stop that. Chemical weapons are horrific. I have seen people killed/injured by bombs/rockets/bullets etc, and I would rather go that way than by chemical weapons.

I am sure there are other ways of stopping them, but if something needs to be done quickly, the military option is best.

I would only support action if there was absolute proof of chemical weapons though.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I don't understand how anyone could possibly vote 'yes'.. Whoever is responsible, using violence is only going to bring more innocent victims. That should be clear by now. Besides, there's another side to this story, one that you obviously don't hear in the west. It says the rebels and indirectly America are behind the chemical attack. The rebels got the chemicals from Israel via Bandar bin Sultan. Bandar bin Sultan is in contact with the US..

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Besides, there's another side to this story, one that you obviously don't hear in the west.

I'm not in the west, but you are not bringing anything new to the discussion.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sometimes collateral damage is necessary to stop a looming and bigger catastrophe. Action is necessary. To quote one Syrian journalist, he wish 'Bush was the president. Even if he mistakenly attached Cyprus or Jordan in the process, at least he would have done something. Not this coward Obama'

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Nope.

But Al Qaida will be most appreciative if they do.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Besides, there's another side to this story, one that you obviously don't hear in the west. It says the rebels and indirectly America are behind the chemical attack. The rebels got the chemicals from Israel via Bandar bin Sultan. Bandar bin Sultan is in contact with the US..

Did you buy your tinfoil hat, or make it yourself?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

If it's anything like Iraq, America might already be bombing the country covertly.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article137129.ece bombing started "not in March 2003, as most believed, but in August 2002."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How about a Russian or Chinese military strike on Syria?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

That's the thing, Al Qaida would love us to "invade" a Muslim country again so they could get more suicide bombers. Let's just say no. Or just sent in cruise missiles in to mess them up, no boots on the ground.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hmmm, all the anti-US sentiments are interesting. I wonder if the opinions would be different if they had used Sarin gas against your family and neighbors.

I don't support war in any shape or form and I am not from the US, but what is gonna stop these people from using chemical weapons against civilians? Public opinion? Somehow, I don't think that is gonna cut it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Syria isn't worth one drop of American blood, or the price of one American bullet. Let them sort out their problems on their own. If Obama really really wants to do something, he should look to providing humanitarian aid to those displaced by the conflict. A great way for the US to both do the right thing, and build up goodwill in the region.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Hmmm, all the anti-US sentiments are interesting. I wonder if the opinions would be different if they had used Sarin gas against your family and neighbors.

Yeah, I'd just love to have my house bombed by the US right after losing my family and neighbors to a Sarin gas attack.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

War is a necessary reaction to certain evil. It is necessary if we want good to prevail over evil. If not, we can let evil simply conquer. However, we may soon approach a level of civilization where our culture values cooperation over selfishness. A time when certain evil no longer is allowed to grow to a point which necessitates war. When we, as a society, recognize the sign of certain evil early on and act to mitigate before war becomes a necessary evil. Then, and only then will war no longer be a necessary evil. The key is in preventing the cause of war.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yeah, I'd just love to have my house bombed by the US right after losing my family and neighbors to a Sarin gas attack.

Yeah, and if it is left to continue it could very well be the other way around. It could be your house being bombed by Syrian troops after they attacked you with Sarin gas.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

****No to Syria, and any further support of any kind to foreign nations!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Disillusioned: True. But why add more sources of aggression in the region? Speaking of my hypothetical house, the chances of its being bombed just goes up.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The question should be where did the gas come from? Somehow, I don't think Syria made it but if they did, who sold them the equipment to make it. Wonder if the UN inspectors will say who's shells were used? BTW, the UN inspectors are only there to find out if gas was used not who used it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Cortes ElijahSep. 02, 2013 - 07:11PM JST Stop trying to be world police USA and focus on your own crisis back in the states....

... except in a weird way they are trying to deal with their crisis back home. The core of their crisis is a nation that still loves fossil fuels, and has an incredibly high per capita oil consumption rate. There are countries with higher, but mostly they're huge oil producing countries like Kuwait.

The U.S. government has been a huge fan of "free market" economics, and hasn't pushed green power at all, and there's a powerful pro-oil lobby resisting any green movement, to the point where the U.S. economy is still incredibly reliant on oil, with very little progress having been made compared to other countries.

How does that apply to the Syria situation? Well, the U.S. needs oil. Syria has oil. The U.S. needs oil CHEAP, and LOTS of it. Now oil is getting more and more expensive and demand exceeds supply, so it is a seller's market. The U.S. doesn't like having to line up behind other countries saying, "Please Syria, may we have some oil please."... what it prefers to do is say, "Want your country to look like Iraq? No? Then give us oil and make it CHEAP!".

... what this entire thing boils down to is that the U.S. is frantically searching for some reason to justify their current strategy of thuggery.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

the US has its own decisions on this, glad to hear that the President is going first for public debates mostly through Congress. The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians shows how the world should react to its own rules. As expected without the US involvement and leadership, the Syrian govn't will go on using this weapon as if no one is watching. and if every country is silence, this could also roll-out of Syria affecting nearby countries as already seen through the influx of thousands of refugees to Jordan etc, just in minutes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The US should take care of American and Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange before getting embroiled in another war.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The US has no business getting involved in Syria. They didn't have any business getting involved in Iraq or Iran, either. But they don't care. Their government is represented by politicians who care only for themselves and their own gain, and over-developed god complexes that make them want to take over the entire world. If Obama bombs Syria, you can bet that country is gonna have another Vietnam crisis with their citizens. As in riots in the streets, protestors at D.C. and ever capitol, etc. The US is doomed no matter what I think, though. Their government will never change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If chemical weapons are being used, something should be done to stop that.

Agree with that, but we don't need another war. Look at the mess caused by the Iraq / Afghanistan invasion, what is the result there? A good old fashioned assassination, Assad and a few of his top men, no need for more scorched earth tactics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Question to the "No" group. Did you see the film of the effects of the chemical weapons? The bodies contorted in death, the people so close to death and choking that you knew it was just a matter of hours? Did you see that and conclude that nothing needs to be done? Forget US led, should NOTHING be done?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"A good old fashioned assassination, Assad and a few of his top men, no need for more scorched earth tactics."

OK, could you do the assassination for us, please? Thanks a whole lot in advance!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Question to the "No" group. Did you see the film of the effects of the chemical weapons? The bodies contorted in death, the people so close to death and choking that you knew it was just a matter of hours? Did you see that and conclude that nothing needs to be done? Forget US led, should NOTHING be done?

Are you saying the only thing to do is to use conventional weapons against people who have already been subjected to chemical weapons? (Have you seen the effects of conventional weapons? Limbs blown off, entrails spilled, bodies pulverised?) If something can be done that would (1) convincingly put a stop to the use of all weapons, chemical and conventional, against civilians (2) target only those responsible for the use of said weapons against civilians and (3) be in the best interests of the people of Syria as opposed to US (or Western) arms manufacturers, then I would be in favour of 'doing something'. If on the other hand the only thing you can do is hurt more people while the people who need to be dealt with stay snug and safe in their underground bunkers, than yes, it's better if nothing is done.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No MisoSep. 05, 2013 - 10:29PM JST Question to the "No" group. Did you see the film of the effects of the chemical weapons? The bodies contorted in death, the people so close to death and choking that you knew it was just a matter of hours? Did you see that and conclude that nothing needs to be done? Forget US led, should NOTHING be done?

Nothing? No. Firing missiles randomly into Syria? Definitely not!

The U.S. has no idea what's happening in Syria. It took days before they could actually say with any certainty that there had been a chemical attack, and they're still not certain (despite what they're saying) who really launched it. They sure as hell have no idea what targets are military and what targets are civilian, and even if they did their track record in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that even if the U.S. did know they wouldn't avoid civilian targets anyway.

Is this so hard to grasp? The U.S. has no clue, it has a bad track record for killing babies and children, and it has no moral authority whatsoever.

Should something be done? Believe it or not, but there are already some international groups in Syria right now doing some very good work. Look them up, donate money.

As for Assad and the rebels... well that's something the Syrians have to sort out. We can help and support by insisting on weapons inspections, international monitors, etc. But at the end of the day an enemy army moving in solves absolutely nothing. Has Iraq taught the U.S. nothing? Did Vietnam teach the U.S. nothing? ... seriously, its hard to find another nation so stubbornly resistant to the idea that not everything is a nail that needs to be hammered down. Yes, we know you have a big military. However, just because you have a big military does NOT mean that every problem has a military solution.

Chose the right tool for the right job. The U.S. military is a tool alright, but its not the right one.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I have not read one word about what the objective of a military strike would be nor what the "end game" is. Would the goal be to remove Assad? Who would take his place, Hamas? Hezbollah? Is the goal to secure the chemical weapons? Do we know where they all are (sounds a lot like Iraq). When do the military strikes stop?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A military strike with "no boots on the ground" means that we will shoot or drop things that blow up on people and equipment.

It's probably nicer and faster to be blown up than to be gassed, but I don't view dropping bombs or shooting missiles as a humanitarian gesture. People suggesting this have their hearts in the right place, but not their brains.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The munitions manufacturers and their shareholders are eager to prove the efficacy of new weapons systems, in the hopes of earning bigger profits. Syria is seen as a convenient test site, where collateral damage to civilians will not be treated seriously.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@cleo and frungy - so we agree then. The focus on US led is too strong. It has to be international, and it needs to be 2 years ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No MisoSep. 07, 2013 - 07:43AM JST @cleo and frungy - so we agree then. The focus on US led is too strong. It has to be international, and it needs to be 2 years ago.

I don't think so. I think we need to support and help Syria, but at the end of the day it has to be SYRIA's choice what happens.

I've been trying to find a good analogy to explain this and I think I've finally come up with one, domestic violence. In families where there is a violent parent it does no good to call the cops to arrest the parent, because inevitably the family resists outside interference. In the end you normally need to wait until the family come to their own solution and dictate to the cops what they want done, how and when. Without a strong group inside Syria that has popular support there'll be a massive power vacuum even if Assad steps down tomorrow and we'll have the same situation in a few years. Syria as a nation needs time to deal with this crisis in its own way, to reach consensus on what it wants, and throughout the people need help, support and whatever measure of protection we can give them. That may mean accepting refugees (shock! horror!), or it may mean sending medical supplies, but it definitely DOES NOT mean any sort of military action, whether U.S. led or internationally led.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Frungy, it's an awful analogy. To let a child at risk, a child in danger be exposed to violence and abuse is nothing short of criminal. What if the parent escalates the violence, is it OK for the child to be killed, knowing you could stop it? Could you live with that on your conscience?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No MisoSep. 08, 2013 - 10:30AM JST Frungy, it's an awful analogy. To let a child at risk, a child in danger be exposed to violence and abuse is nothing short of criminal. What if the parent escalates the violence, is it OK for the child to be killed, knowing you could stop it? Could you live with that on your conscience?

... So your solution (i.e. the solution the U.S. is advocating and you're defending) is to step in and kill the child pre-emptively, and then turn to the abusive parent and say, "Ha! Beat you to it!!".... wow, simply genius.

The simple fact is that you don't have a solution, and neither do I. Why? Because this isn't something we can solve, the people of Syria need to solve it. At least my proposed course of action doesn't ADD to the body count and doesn't make a me a murdered. You... not so much.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

.. So your solution (i.e. the solution the U.S. is advocating and you're defending) is to step in and kill the child pre-emptively, and then turn to the abusive parent and say, "Ha! Beat you to it!!".... wow, simply genius.

Take the stick out of the parents hand or just prevent the parent form doing anymore harm - have you thought about doing that? Just seems so obvious to me.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No MisoSep. 08, 2013 - 02:39PM JST Take the stick out of the parents hand or just prevent the parent form doing anymore harm - have you thought about doing that? Just seems so obvious to me.

So obvious? Then where is the "stick"? Who's holding the "stick"?

The U.S. claims to have proof, but it is so weak that even after seeing it the congress won't approve a strike, and the "proof" isn't being shown to anyone outside of the U.S.... presumably because these countries have their own data and it wouldn't stand up to close inspection and comparison with other countries' intelligence.

The truth is that the U.S. has NO CLUE who's holding the chemical weapons, where they are, who launched the attack or anything else.... but it wants to go ahead and fire off some rockets anyway.

... and to you this is the "obvious" solution? You've got to be kidding me.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So obvious? Then where is the "stick"? Who's holding the "stick"?

Yep, "where is the stick" is the lone you need to focus on - you can forget the other stuff for now. Enough intelligence around to work that one out. The issue is old boy, that Assad supporters are now acting as human shields at key strategic sites.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites