General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you back the "limited strikes" on Syria
Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2013, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)
Will you back more strikes, or even more involvement, if the strikes don't change anything?
(on edit...please disregard the earlier questions referencing nuclear weapons-they were posted in error. Sorry).
1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
No, I\\\'m just in for the limited strikes | |
0 (0%) |
|
I\\\'ll back some more strikes if the president says they\\\'re needed | |
1 (100%) |
|
I\\\'ll back a LOT more strikes, but not boots on the ground | |
0 (0%) |
|
I\\\'ll as many boots on the ground as they president says are needed | |
0 (0%) |
|
I\\\'ll just back whatever the admin calls for, short of military occupation | |
0 (0%) |
|
I\\\'ll back the military occupation as well. | |
0 (0%) |
|
No opinion | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Little Star
(17,055 posts)Skittles
(153,160 posts)says so in the subject line
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Skittles
(153,160 posts)"I'll back whatever President Obama backs"
The intent is to see how "in" the pro-"strikes" people are on this issue...how far they are willing to go.
There probably are divergences in levels of commitment to this engagement.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nothing wrong with that. There has been an extremely outspoken pro-strike minority here and I'm trying to see how far they go with this.
LooseWilly
(4,477 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)a successful conter-attack by Syria, Iran and\or Russian Federation against U.S. assets or personnel.
That's really how Vietnam got escalated. Started out in '65 as just a USMC mission to protect the airstrip at Danang. Then mission creep set in and, lo and behold, 3 years later, we've got 550,000 troops on the ground there.