This video is called Turks in Antakya Protest Against Turkish Government Interference in Syria war.
After the Iraq war, supposedly about Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons, which turned out to be non-existent after the United States invasion, supposedly a ‘humanitarian’ war, which cost over a million dead, millions of wounded and horribly ill newborn babies, and millions of refugees … after the Afghan war … after the Libyan war … after war in Somalia … drone war in Yemen … etc. etc.: only a small minority of people in the USA want another war, this time in Syria.
If the USA would be completely democratic, that would mean no war. However, many people ask: to what extent is the United States a democracy?
From Reuters today:
As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll
By Lesley Wroughton
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Americans strongly oppose U.S. 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 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent 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 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. officials said he has not decided whether to intervene.
U.S. 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 U.S. weapons have been delivered to rebels so far.
Oh, come on, Reuters! Not openly, but through CIA, Turkey, Libya etc. back doors they do deliver weapons. As you yourself have documented. As the New York Times and others have documented.
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 percent said they supported his decision to send arms to some Syrian rebels; 47 percent were opposed. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for each number.
About 11 percent 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 percent of Americans, according to the poll.
Less popular options include air strikes to help the rebels (supported by 12 percent of Americans); imposing a “no-fly” zone over Syria that would ground Assad’s air force (11 percent); funding a multi-national invasion of Syria (9 percent), and invading Syria with U.S. troops (4 percent).
**To see the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll on whether the U.S. should intervene in Syria if chemical weapons are used there, go to http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM43/type/day/dates/20130531-current
(Editing by David Lindsey and David Storey)
IN JUST 40 minutes of telephone conversation, imperialist leaders Obama and Cameron, on Saturday, decided the fate of millions of people in the Middle East, the Gulf and perhaps much further beyond when Cameron declared at the end of the conversation that he believed that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons on the outskirts of Damascus: here.
The allegations concocted to justify a war of aggression against Syria are no less grotesque than the lies used ten years ago to justify the US invasion of Iraq: here.
Syrian Kurdish leader says Assad not to blame for attack: here.
- Most Americans oppose intervention in Syria even if chemical attack confirmed (haaretz.com)
- Hagel: Pentagon prepared to exercise military options on Syria, if Obama chooses (jpost.com)
- No Rush (reuters.com)
Pingback: British government sabre-rattling about Syria | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Anti-war in Syria demonstrations today | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: US spies don’t know who used chemical weapons in Syria | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: No British troops to Syria, Britons say | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Cameron defeated, Syrian war threat not over | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Iraq veteran arrested for playing banjo at Syria war protest | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Women against wars, a history | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Women against wars, a history | Ώρα Κοινής Ανησυχίας
Pingback: Syria war threat delayed, not off yet | Dear Kitty. Some blog