Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Polls Show Only A Slim Majority Of Americans Support The U.S. Strike On Syria



ABC News: 51 percent back US strike on Syria but with concern about Russian relations (POLL)

The slimmest majority of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll supports the Trump administration’s missile strike on Syria, with strongly partisan opinions, muted appetite for further action, little confidence it’ll achieve the desired effect – and majority concerns about the impact on U.S. relations with Russia.

Fifty-one percent in the national survey support the air strike. Four in 10 overall are opposed, with the rest undecided.

The same number, 51 percent, also support an explicit U.S. policy to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power, a point on which administration policy has seemed inconsistent.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: A narrow majority support the missile strikes .... only one in five favoured an increased U.S. troop presence in Syria (CBS poll).

More News On Polls Showing Only A Slim Majority Of Americans Supporting The U.S. Strike On Syria

Polls: Majority support missile strikes against Syria -- Politico
Poll: Narrow support for Trump’s strike in Syria -- Washington Post
Poll: Narrow majority backs strikes on Syria -- The Hill
What Americans think about U.S. strike on Syria -- CBS
US Polls: Americans Support Missile Attack on Syria, But Not Further Military Action -- VOA

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's great, actually. While I do appreciate a good ass whopping when it comes to Assad, without a clear strategy in place I'm happy that Americans don't support it too overwhelmingly.

Because once Assad is removed, who steps in? He's a minority leader, and his minority is struggling for survival. OK, that's understandable, but what follows? Splitting Syria into several parts? Who would enforce those lines? Who would ensure security and re-training of police force? What governmental system do "Syrians" want? Is there even still "a Syrian" (what minority/minorities are included in this?) Or will it all fall apart?

I really feel bad for all Syrians, but if they don't know what to do, how can they expect us to know? If someone comes up with a plan (that reduces blood shed, re-establishes a functioning government that represents all its citizens etc. etc), I'm happy to help, even go to the front line.. but without a plan that I can believe in, I don't see what we can realistically do, except stop WMDs and help refugees, and try to hold Russians and Iranians accountable for their war crimes.

RussInSoCal said...

As a vet myself and as someone who still has close friends and family on active duty, I am quite done with Syria and the whole middle east for that matter. Trump had to launch the strike (for several reasons) and it looks to have had the desired effect so far. But to deploy another 50,000 troops into Syria. To waste blood treasure in that failed state... forever... That I'm NOT in favor of.

/Let Russia keep it.

King Aragon said...

American won't even protest the war we r too Bissy for war

Jay Farquharson said...

"Americans support strikes on Syria -- but no bump for Trump"

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/04/11/Poll-Half-of-Americans-support-strikes-on-Syria-but-no-bump-for-Trump/6321491934906/


Jay Farquharson said...

http://m.goarmy.com/locate-a-recruiter.m.html

B.Poster said...

Russ,

I agree with you about not deploying 50,000 troops to Syria. Even if this were something worthwhile which it isn't we don't have the resources to do it.

Very respectfully, please explain why Trump had to launch these strikes. In a nation awash with chemical weapons wouldn't it have made more sense to properly investigate this to try and find out what really happened before taking action. Once we know who and what we're in a better position to know precisely WHAT we should do.

Again, very respectfully please explain this so called "desired effect." The only "effects" I see are 1.) Syria's fight against ISIS/Al Qaeda had been going quite well. While on it's surface it seems a rather preposterous claim assuning 20% of Syria's air force was destroyed the fight against ISIS/Al Qaeda is severely undermined with no one to pick up the slack. 2.) We had tentative cooperation with Russia in Syria to fight ISIS. Now this is all but destroyed further hampering the fight against ISIS and making confrontation between the US more likely ehich has the potential to end VERY badly. 3.) Relations with Russia are now further strained makkng negotiations even more difficult.

This had some effects alright. None of them seem desirable. Please explain. What am I missing here?

RussInSoCal said...

B Poster - Trump had to launch the strikes because not to do so would send reverberating signals of the same Obama-like passivity our adversaries have been enjoying for the last 8 years. Trump bombed Russia's client state. Just a year ago it was clear that any attack on Assad was a direct attack on Russia. That bluff is called. Iran is now eying the Bush carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf. Chins has on off the Korean Penn. In other words the audience for the attack on Syria wasn't Assad. it was Russia, Iran and China. Russia and China got the message. Still waiting on Iran.

The desired effects are: 1) China halts coal deliveries From DPRK. 2) A report of 150,000 PLA troops oriented aggressively at their NE border. (dubious as it may be - the message is clear). 3) Russia not interfering with the strike or aftermath and now hosting Tillerson. And Tillerson is a polar opposite of John Kerry.

This was Trump's first "test". And he didn't blink.

B.Poster said...

This is actually encoutaging that only a slim majority of Americans support tbis. The way this has been sold I might have expected highef support. This does suggest that a sizeable portion of Americans haven't abandoned common sense and if Trump or anyone else feels they need to dxpand this support would likely fall further.

No bump for Trump is hardly surprising. The media has sold this a "humanitarian" action that had to be done. As such, very, vety few even those who supported it wanted to do it. It does nothing to advance US interests, does much to undermine them, and pkaces our people at greater risk but we had to do it for humanitarian purposrs or so we are told. As such, POTUS can expect no bump here.

For those who oppose this, we know how to ask badic questions. 1.)Over 500,000
people have died already. Why are we now so suddenly worked up mow? Why the sudden urgency? 2.) In a nation known to be awadh in chemical weapons how can wr be certain who actually used these weapons? 3.)US "Intelligence" says Assad was behind it. They've been wrong either through malfeasance or incompetence a number of times. Why should we trust them now? 4.) We've been manipulated onto things both by foreign and domestic sources a number of times. How do we know we aren't being manipulated here? The story of the man who buried family members with his own hands and seeing the interview is particularly heart wrenching. I'm not trying to be insensitive hete. Why does his case get spdcial attention over the other 500,000 who have died? We need to get the full facts. Is he a prop in a staged attack? Is he associated with Al Qaeda? Again, we've been manipulated so many times we have every right to be jaded. He needs to interviewed by Congress as part of the investigation. We need to know who and what he is and why his case is so

Wow, in spite of the endless drum beat in support of this from the media only slightly more than half support this. In times past, support would've been close to 80%. I've suspected Americans are beginning to catch on. Hopefully these results are accurate. This would mean the country is moving in the right direction, a silver lining in an other wise dark cloud.

Jay Farquharson said...

LMFAO

"Democrats:
37% support Trump's Syria strikes
38% supported Obama doing it

GOP:
86% supported Trump doing it
22% supported Obama doing it

http://driftglass.blogspot.ca/2017/04/today-in-both-sides-do-it-parasite-cult.html?m=1

B.Poster said...

Russ,

Thanks for the reply. I posted my last post before I saw yours and is not in response to your post. Since my eyesight is not the best, the device I use to post here does not allow for a direct reply to a post.

As always, I very much appreciate constructive dialogue. As far as a bluff being called, I'm expecting a Russian reprisal somewhere for this. There may be a reprisal coming ftom Iran as well. As for China's help eith North Korea, it's way to early to know how much we can expect.

Like you I have friends and family in the military. Fortunately none in the Middle East or South Korea although they have been stationed there before and could be again. I wonder what the South Koreans think about all this? Also you do realize if Korea becomes a hot war that in all likelyhood those 28,000 US troops currently there are dead within 24 hours don't you?

Besides I'm not convinced this attack wasn't staged or carried out by the rebels. If this is so, I hope this was not coordinated with the US government as a pretext to send a "message." As I've stated elsewhere, motive and opportunity. The "rebels" have/had both in abundance. Also, Russia has just been handed the opportunity on a gokd platter to increase there involvement in Syria and the middle east. If the goal was to keep them out or to get them to jettison Assad the bombing is likely to have the opposite effect.

Much of this could have been avoided had we taken the time to properly investigate the facts. At least this is my considered opinion. As stated, constructive dialogue is very much appreciated.:-)

B.Poster said...

Russ,

Thanks for the reply. I posted my last post before I saw yours and is not in response to your post. Since my eyesight is not the best, the device I use to post here does not allow for a direct reply to a post.

As always, I very much appreciate constructive dialogue. As far as a bluff being called, I'm expecting a Russian reprisal somewhere for this. There may be a reprisal coming ftom Iran as well. As for China's help eith North Korea, it's way to early to know how much we can expect.

Like you I have friends and family in the military. Fortunately none in the Middle East or South Korea although they have been stationed there before and could be again. I wonder what the South Koreans think about all this? Also you do realize if Korea becomes a hot war that in all likelyhood those 28,000 US troops currently there are dead within 24 hours don't you?

Besides I'm not convinced this attack wasn't staged or carried out by the rebels. If this is so, I hope this was not coordinated with the US government as a pretext to send a "message." As I've stated elsewhere, motive and opportunity. The "rebels" have/had both in abundance. Also, Russia has just been handed the opportunity on a gokd platter to increase there involvement in Syria and the middle east. If the goal was to keep them out or to get them to jettison Assad the bombing is likely to have the opposite effect.

Much of this could have been avoided had we taken the time to properly investigate the facts. At least this is my considered opinion. As stated, constructive dialogue is very much appreciated.:-)

Andrew Jackson said...

Bomb the Russkis,bomb the Iranians ,invade Lebanon,use napalm on Hezbollah and completely obliterate them them! Wars over!