Poll: Americans Favor launching cruise missiles from naval warships (Syria)

[michigandem58]

...when respondents were asked if the military action is defined to mean launching cruise missiles from naval warships – 50% favor it, while 44% oppose military action...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/08/30/americans-obama-congress-approval-syria-strike/2736855/

[joshcryer]

1. 80% believe he should get Congressional approval.

From your own link.

[treestar]

40. I agree and it will be more than fascinating to see

what the R Congress does. Consistent with their usual ideas, they should want to do it. Will they turn into doves so as to oppose Obama just to oppose him? And with gas attacks to be accepting of, too.

I remember when Congress was fine to go to war in Iraq over much less. Gee, I wonder if they have learned from that?

[scheming daemons]

2. That's all that will happen.... No American soldiers will be used.

[morningfog]

5. Who launches missiles from ships?

[scheming daemons]

7. Correction... No American soldiers will be in harm's way

...

[morningfog]

9. No adverse party could reach the ships?

No planes will need to be used at all?

And when Syria responds with more attacks?

And if Syria attacks Israel?

[scheming daemons]

13. Answers

Tomahawk missiles and drones have no humans on board.

Syria's response won't be against US military.

Israeli soldiers aren't American.



All I said was no American soldiers will be put in harm's way in Obama's response. Not that it wouldn't have adverse effects.


The optics of dead US soldiers is something Obama will avoid.

[morningfog]

19. As long as Obama can maintain the optics so as

To not harm him politically, that's all that matters right?

A follow up, you think the is would sit idly by while Syria attacks Israel?

This has the hallmarks of mission creep all over it. Each step will be argued and justified, but there is no way of knowing where it will end.

[scheming daemons]

22. Your confusing what I think will happen with what I want to happen

..

[treestar]

41. Why isn't it a good thing to avoid dead US soldiers?

Whatever it is that the military is doing? That isn't just a matter of politics for Obama.

[bullwinkle428]

26. "Syria's response won't be against US military." Okay, so what is an

acceptable threshold level of Israeli deaths, given that the blowback from this potential U.S. military action may impact Israel in a really bad way? Simply because we want to "send a message" to a shit-bag dictator.

[hack89]

59. I don 't hear Israel opposing any attack. nt

[jakeXT]

28. They have Yakhont missiles against ships and TOR M1 against cruise missiles

But it didn't even work when Israel attacked them.

One of the Syrian military's most potent assets are its Bastion coastal defense missiles, which Assad bought from Russia in the last few years. They could strike ships in the Mediterranean and would effectively push back the distances from which foreign ships would launch missiles used in any attack. Part of the system are Yakhont anti-ship missiles, which were reportedly Israel's target when it bombed a Syrian depot in July.

According to Sean O'Connor, a Jane's contributor and expert on air defense systems, the surface-to-air batteries and radar sites throughout the country provide overlapping coverage throughout most of the territory, though the system remains more vulnerable in its eastern half. He noted, however, that the Soviet-era systems are vulnerable to complex attacks because each one can only engage a single target at a time.

How Well Could Syria Defend Itself Against U.S.-Led Attack?

Experts agree that Syria's defenses are much larger, better deployed, more advanced and much better trained than Libya's, which the U.S.-led coalition quickly obliterated. Experts also agree the U.S. would still be able to take them out, albeit with significant firepower. Tony Cordesman of CSIS, writing in May about the possibility of enforcing a no-fly zone (not what the U.S. and its allies are said to be leaning toward now) suggested, "It would take a massive U.S. air and cruise missile attack to suppress it quickly."

O'Connor believes the easiest way to do that would be to send a barrage of missiles aimed at the radar sites. "Such a strike would represent a comparatively low-cost and low-risk method of greatly reducing the threat posed by the network," he told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/syrias-readiness-attack-question/story?id=20112785&singlePage=true

[MADem]

33. You do realize that modern warships can "see"

over the horizon? If anything is coming at them that might do them harm, they can shoot it out of the water or sky before you can say Boomshakalaka.

If USA uses air assets, they will fire their weapons from OUTSIDE Syrian airspace.

And Syria will have a hard time 'responding with more attacks' if they do this right, and hit STUFF, not people--like, say, the STUFF they'd use to 'respond with more attacks,' specifically aviation and rocket launching assets that can be used to poison children in their beds....

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. Yeah. Tell that to the families of the Sailors who died on

The USS Stark and USS Cole.

Try again.

[MADem]

36. Yes, and how about those that died in the

Merrimack-Monitor Battle, too?

We didn't have the ability to make full use of radar in WW2, either. And in Vietnam, we had lousy body armor.

If you're going to be all snarky and huffy, at least have some idea of what you're talking about, and understand that unlike some folks, the military actually takes aboard "lessons learned" and they do adjust their tactics and strategies to prevent errors of they've made in the past from happening again.

If the best you can do is cite one incident that happened over twenty years ago in the Gulf, and another that happened while sitting in port in divided, dangerous Yemen, with watchstanders not exercising the appropriate vigilance, and refueling, and for which warplanning/warfighting scenarios have been adjusted to prevent in future, then you don't have a clear idea of how this might go down.

No one is going to be sitting in the close quarters of the Gulf--they'll be out in the nice, expansive Med. And there are many, MANY options for putting ordnance on target.

So YOU try again, there, "Admiral!"

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. So the Stark was blind, and US naval vessels no longer make foreign port calls...

Right?

No Admiral here, just your every day enlisted sailor. You're right.. what do I know?

[MADem]

44. They don't refuel in squirrelly places with

half-asleep watchstanders and no 'stand-off' requirements for small vessels in port anymore, no. And our capabilities and awareness have improved by leaps and bounds since Stark's unfortunate hit. You might recall that three people in leadership positions were fired for their failure to lead and extremely poor judgment after that incident.

You don't know much about this topic, is what you know--and I am basing that entirely on the comments you've made here. Go talk to your CPO, maybe you'll learn a little something. Or have you been out of the USN for ten or twenty years...? Or more?

http://www.navy.mi.th/judge/PDF/6%20ROE%20Case%20Studies%5B1%5D.pdf

http://www.history.navy.mil/Special%20Highlights/USSCole/Attack10Years%20Later.pdf

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. Ooh. I can tell you stood a lot of watches in your day. You sound pretty salty.

CPO? He can learn me for sure, huh? I'll take your advice.

No such thing as a 100% effective CIWS no matter how good the radar is but then you knew that I'm guessing. Maybe a CPO told ya.

[MADem]

51. I really don't think he can "learn you" at all.

You've pretty much demonstrated that with your last few responses.

You should do a little reading, at a minimum--that way you might do a better job of making a credible argument. "It could happen" is a Judy Tenuta explanation--not a military warfighting strategy.

CIWS doesn't need to be "100% effective" if you're operating as part of a larger force outside a constrained environment--but you're the expert, there, swabbie, so you already know this (even as you haven't kept up in the last couple of decades...).

[MADem]

32. That would be SAILORS!

[Capt. Obvious]

47. Marking this post

Just in case some come into harm's way.

[Paladin]

12. Yeah, and the oil will cover the costs, it'll all be over in a couple of weeks....

....and the Syrian people will welcome us as conquering heroes.

We didn't learn a single thing from Viet Nam or Iraq. Not one goddamn thing.

[MADem]

35. What oil? Syria is not a major oil exporter.

I don't understand why everyone is comparing this to Iraq or Vietnam.

There are not going to be any boots on the ground. We're in the middle of a military DRAWDOWN. If we were going to "invade Syria and take their oil (that they don't have much of)" we'd be opening recruiting offices and running "Be All You Can Be" ads around the clock. But we aren't doing that--we're saying "Thank you for your service, here's your last paycheck, turn in your ID card and gear, and the gate to get off the installation is That-a-Way."

This proposal is a 48 to 72 hour evolution to reduce al-Assad's capability to inject chemical weapons into his civil war.

[Paladin]

42. Sorry, I don't buy it. Not anymore. (nt)

[MADem]

45. Well, you're welcome to hold whatever opinions please you.

The fact remains that it's difficult to go to war without combat troops.

And we're deep in the process of sending many of ours HOME....

[The Link]

3. Breaking news: Amerians are bloodthirsty fuckers.

Especially when it can be done remotely.

[Sparky 1]

55. Apparently!

Enough war already. Where in the Constitution does it say OUR taxes should pay to police the world?

[morningfog]

4. Desperate spin from that link. Why not use the actual headline?

[Democracyinkind]

6. Do you ever get dizzy from all the spinning?

[kelliekat44]

8. I just don't believe this poll. Most of the US wants us to stay out PERIOD!! nt

[deutsey]

15. It seems Americans are ok with strikes from ships

but not anything beyond that, if these polls are accurate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014580693

But "the polls" also told us it was too close to tell during the last election...

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. 100% of EVERYONE I know say not only NO, but FUCK NO to ANY

Type of military action in Syria. I guess we weren't polled.

The USA Today can fuck themselves.

[deutsey]

16. I'm not hearing any support for any kind of military action, either

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. I have yet to talk to one single person who supports any military action against Syria

[Rex]

63. That is not even remotely what the headline says.

Poll: Americans want Obama to get Congress OK on Syria

The pro war spin is strong with this OP.

[99Forever]

11. Another steaming pile.

Same shit, different day.

Spin, spin, spin.

As if.

[G_j]

14. sigh

spin spin spin

[WCLinolVir]

17. Misleading, isn't this?

"50% of Americans say they oppose the USA taking military action against Assad, and 42% support it, according to the new poll."

If I had to choose between eating dog shit or poisoned cake, I'd choose eating dog shit. I can see the headline now-Woman prefers to eat dog shit.

[Scootaloo]

18. Wow. Even Fox wouldn't massage an article so much as you have.

Bravo, sir.

[morningfog]

20. Sycophants can be worse than fox.

[Scootaloo]

21. Is that what it is?

All I know is that the article does not mean what the poster is saying it means.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. the actual headline of this article: Poll: Americans want Obama to get Congress OK on Syria

here are the first two paragraphs of your article:

Nearly 80% of Americans think President Obama should seek Congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria, according to a NBC News poll published on Friday.

Seventy-nine percent of respondents say they want the president to go to receive congressional approval before taking any action.

here is the fifth paragraph of your article:


Overall, 50% of Americans say they oppose the USA taking military action against Assad, and 42% support it, according to the new poll.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/08/30/americans-obama-congress-approval-syria-strike/2736855/

[seabeckind]

25. I think the difference is the slant of the news source

USA today is a right wing paper and slants their stories that way. The same report on the poll on NBC says that the people oppose it.

If you look at the actual poll it is obvious that the people aren't swayed.

Yet.

Explains why the napalm reports now in the news -- with very graphic pictures...

Cui bono?

Who stands to gain the most if we take out a big chunk of the Syrian military capability?

Hint: it's not a syrian.

[BlueCheese]

50. USA Today played it pretty straight here.

If you click on the link, you'll see that the main tenor of the headline/article is about public opposition to any action.

[cali]

27. Poll: 80% of Americans say Obama should get Congressional approval before

taking any fucking action at all. Trust you to post something misleading, hon.

Nearly 80% of Americans think President Obama should seek Congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria, according to a NBC News poll published on Friday.

Seventy-nine percent of respondents say they want the president to go to receive congressional approval before taking any action.

<snip>

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/08/30/americans-obama-congress-approval-syria-strike/2736855/

[Bluenorthwest]

29. The need to mislead: Actual headline and article very differnt than this mendacity

Poll: Americans want Obama to get Congress OK on Syria

Very dishonest OP tactics. Very. To do this around issues of war is beyond acceptable spin limits. This is the very sort of bullshit that Busho did. Massage those facts.

[n2doc]

30. So long as no American has to pay a price

Americans will go for anything. We could not care less about the people of Syria, this is just another opportunity to "teach them sand-..... a lesson!" Look at Iraq. We were told it would be quick, painless and pay for itself, no need to raise taxes or start a draft. Only when those things proved untrue did the majority of Americans start to oppose it.

[IdaBriggs]

31. This attack must have been the one my friend's brother saw happening.

"The tough poll numbers for the White House come one day after members of Obama's national security team provided 26 lawmakers with an unclassified briefing to detail some of the intelligence that they say shows regime loyalists linked to Syria President Bashar Assad was responsible for an Aug. 21 chemical attack outside Damascus that left hundreds dead."

There are no words.

[MADem]

37. Richard Engel reported that it was al Assad's brother who did the deed....

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/28/20231217-assad-assassination-attempt-may-have-prompted-chemical-weapons-strike?lite

They were pissed about a FSA assassination attempt a couple of weeks back....

[IdaBriggs]

46. I had been a little confused when Ahmad kept saying "the other day" on Wednesday.

I mean, you just don't attack the suburbs of a major population center like Damascus - if you aren't a murdering scum-lord.

Ahmad said the dead were between five and six thousand, not the reported 1,300 -- and I *REFUSED* to look at his facebook pictures. (The photos were taken by family and friends in Damascus.)

[shenmue]

38. Targeted strikes

If we take out the chemical plants, we may not have to do anything else.

I just don't want us to twiddle our thumbs while Assad keeps killing people.

[MADem]

48. Iran is a source of manufacture, unfortunately.

So there's more where that came from.

They've got tons of stuff in bunkers, too.

Probably better to take out anything that can deliver the blow--if it launches a rocket, hit it.

They won't get it all, but they can make a good dent. The idea will be to make it worth their while to stop using that weapon, and to tell them "Keep it up and we'll do that again, and again, and again."

Perhaps al-Assad's ministers will persuade him to go on holiday, and leave the running of the government to the VP--the much vaunted "Yemen Scenario" that most people in US government favor. No regime change, just a "reset" so that diplomacy can resume.

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. I've been hearing all day on NPR that the regime has been busy moving materials to residential areas

they've emptied out their barracks and governmental buildings. I'm concerned about the actual effectiveness of a strike since we've pretty telegraphed our strategy, and lost the element of surprise. It's a real quandry. Some here seem so absolutist in their viewpoints, you'd almost think they got a personal briefing? I wish I could be as sure as that.

[MADem]

60. A targeted strike wouldn't hit residential areas.

It would hit assets. Some assets--like airfields, for example, cannot be moved. There's zero motivation to incur additional loss of life on top of the civilians already slaughtered.

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. But we know how the regime will spin this, not that they have any credibility...

but I certainly understand the president's dilemma here. Everyone is saying something needs to be done, but nobody wants to be responsible for doing whatever it is, "that needs to be done".

I wasn't clear, and I know they won't target residents, but the question still remains...are we making a horrible situation even worse? I'm really torn on this one. We can't let despots unleash chemicals on their people, but the whole world needs to condemn these actions, and the ones who don't need to be shamed into doing some collective retaliation against the regime, and their supporters.

I was surprised at the Brits, but Merkel is weighing the political costs, and that just seems wrong somehow.

[geek tragedy]

43. If only 50% favor cruise missile strikes, that's really low.

Americans LOVE cruise missile strikes.

[michigandem58]

64. And 44% opposing is even lower n/t

[Scurrilous]

52. K & R

[David__77]

54. If 99% were for it, and 1% opposed, I'd be a proud "1 percenter."

We will see how this plays if Obama makes the wrong decision and intervenes. I think when the blowback comes, there will be more than finger pointing.

[Sparky 1]

56. Me too!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

57. I'm surprised that this poster has the quiet complicity of one group here

It's obvious what the OP is, what he's up to, whether on the subject of Syria or Snowden/Greenwald. There are those who know this person for what he is, yet remain silent because they'll take any help they can get, no matter the character or quality of the source. This group would be more credible if at least a couple of them disavowed this kind of garbage propaganda. But they don't. This is telling.

[devils chaplain]

58. Sad to say... I think 50% of Americans would support launching cruise missiles at anywhere

They surely had it coming for some reason or another, right?

[Rex]

62. Poll: Americans want Obama to get Congress OK on Syria

So why not use the headline provided? Not pro war enough?