85% of Rightish Bloggers Say NO to war with Syria

I was one of those polled so I can't say I'm surprised.

But I would like to know who the 7 bloggers who say yes to going to war with Syria are? And the 11 who say that we should go to war with Syria if they had proof the regime was behind the chemical weapons attack.

What's the rationale? I hate Assad more than most and while I would be the last one to shed a tear should a large crowd introduce him to a noose, I just don't see what comes after that as much better than the status quo.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:16 AM


1 Should be closer to 98%. Who were the 15% I wonder?

Posted by: Vyx at September 05, 2013 11:20 AM

2 Torn between two thoughts, who to win, who to lose, answer simple.....ammunition, must win.
Let them kill each other.

Posted by: obsidian at September 05, 2013 12:29 PM

3 Assad is just as good as any. "Meet the new boss......"

Posted by: Abrog8 at September 05, 2013 12:33 PM

4 Bronco should go ahead and declare war with Russia too. Let's get this thing moving.

Posted by: Abrog8 at September 05, 2013 12:37 PM

5 the use of force is about getting rid of chem weapons. their destruction is important, Israel knows that

Posted by: occam at September 05, 2013 01:04 PM

6 Occam,

Aren't you aware that the proposed strikes are not directed to getting rid of those weapons? They are supposedly directed to generally degrading Assad's capacity.

Posted by: Valerie at September 05, 2013 01:36 PM

7 Without wiping out all factions that are at each others throats in this mess, an attack by the US won't do any good and an all-out attack is n.o.t. what obumbler has in mind. He's trying to use a scare tactic and that just won't work. The man should have studied ME/Arab culture and learned a thing or two so he wouldn't be heading the US into knee deep shit. My own senator has taken a poll of constituents and the 'no' vote by far outweighs any 'yeses'. Assad is a hard core dictator but he's as good as or better than what opposes him.

Posted by: Bubbe at September 05, 2013 01:39 PM

8 Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.......... well when evil is done to muslim women and children maybe we can have some wiggle room on that and tolerate it.ButNOT when christians are killed even though they will get to go to heaven and the muslims can't

Posted by: occam at September 05, 2013 01:40 PM

9 If the west want to waste money in Syria, then give it to the Kurds, who are fighting both Al Qaeda and the Assad regime (well they used to, until Assad decided to concentrate his fight against the islamic fanatics) in Syria. The Kurds are pro-western unlike the rest of the muslim world and they treat their ethnic minorities (i.e. Christians) much better than the Islamic terrorists, who seem to enjoy beheading Christian priests and destroying churches !!

Posted by: Birbal Dhar at September 05, 2013 02:15 PM

10 right on! Get Bronco-ears the hell outta there and let the vermin use up their chemical weapons on each other. Mopping up should be easy after that ... win-win for the world, population reduced ... infrastructure intact.

Posted by: Notyuyayahoo at September 05, 2013 02:25 PM

11 How do you hang a bloke with no chin? He's basically got a face on the front of his neck. Nope, it wouldn't work, he'd keep slipping through and landing on the floor. We need a more creative method than that.

Posted by: Monty at September 05, 2013 03:11 PM

12 Rusty,

I'd say 15% is about right. That would mean that 85% are opposed, or that we have a consensus. Here, I believe, is one of the likely 15%.


I would summarize his position as being "we have a responsibility, regardless of who is President." I consider that position to be ethically and morally sound.

I disagree with him because I do not see any positive outcome to an intervention absent an enormous commitment of our nation's blood and treasure to a nation-building exercise. This administration has shown itself incapable of making such a commitment, and has also shown itself to be careless of our country's blood and treasure.

Posted by: Valerie at September 05, 2013 03:15 PM

13 If the Chemical weapons are such a danger to Israel perhaps they should either do the fighting or get rid of their WMD.

If Canada threatens America with chemical weapons is Israel going to send it's navy and fire missiles at them?

Posted by: Sal at September 05, 2013 07:56 PM

14 Fuck no. And Canada isn't going to buy the let us attack some backward assed Muslim nation anymore either. Canada, the UK, Aussies, New Zealand and others are going to let us fight our own stupid wars. Our only ally is Israel (ha, ha) and their going to stand and let us do the fighting while they do the cheering.
We're on our own. Look for the Russians to bring in air defense systems to pay us back for Afghanistan.

All this bullshit about no boots on the ground is nothing but bullshit. How is it that all our ships waiting offshore have their decks loaded with Marines? They are already estimating that it will take 75,000 troops to complete their plans.
Meanwhile the airheads say
"Aren't you aware that the proposed strikes are not directed to getting rid of those weapons? They are supposedly directed to generally degrading Assad's capacity."

Posted by: Guest at September 05, 2013 11:20 PM

15 How the hell are you going to degrade Assad's capacity while Russia, China and Iran will supply them the next day with whatever they need.
With Russia supplying and manning air defense systems who says we will be successful anyway.
Obama either backs down or Putin is going to make a monkey out of the United States.
It's a lose, lose situation. But what the hell. Perhaps if we look like monkeys we'll learn to mind our own business and not be influenced by what happens in the middle east.
Drill, drill, drill and save American lives.

Posted by: saneman at September 05, 2013 11:26 PM

16 # 14 Guest: Ships loaded with Marine's?
There is the regular deployment of the Kearsarge Amphib ready group. There is an MEU in the med. on a regular rotation it carries most likely a re-enforced Rifle Bn W/assests I bet the MEU has only four to six Tanks.
Every ship most likely is on a regular med. deployment those who are not are Home based in Ports across the Med. and in Rota Spain.
Decks loaded with Marines, TOE is most likely 2000 men/women, that's not loading the decks.
At 75,000 Troops you are discussing what is known as a Field Army not Marines.
Moving that many troops would be quite noticeable.

Posted by: obsidian at September 06, 2013 10:30 AM

17 The answer to you comment was deleted. Seems like Zionist agents on this blog don't wish this information to get out.

Posted by: Guest at September 07, 2013 04:23 AM

18 Nuke the Muslims and let allah sort them out. The only real victims here are the innocent Christians getting killed by both the government and rebels. If we could strike so precisely that we only killed bad guys I'd say send in Ironman and get it done. Sadly we don't have that technology, and we can't really take sides on this war its like choosing between the Nazi zombies and the regular Nazis. I don't really know whats worse the undead Nazis or the living ones. I mean some have brains some eat them. If we take out Assad we will still leave the undead terrorists in charge of a bunch of chemical weapons with scuds no less. If anything at least Assad has yet to use his weapons on other nations, if only for that reason we should be helping him not attacking him. I don't buy the 85% the 15% are nut bars posing as right wingers.

Posted by: gilbert at September 10, 2013 03:08 AM

19 by weapons i meant gas attacks on other nations he has done that right? its getting late and my Assad trivia is going out the window.

Posted by: gilbert at September 10, 2013 03:11 AM

20 hasn't*

Posted by: gilbert at September 10, 2013 03:12 AM

Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0056 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0031 seconds, 28 records returned.
Page size 14 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.