Arizonans Don't Want Military Action in Syria, According to Poll

syria-flag-independence.jpg
Freedom House via Flickr
Syrian opposition protesters.


Despite the actions of Republican Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, their constituents oppose military action in Syria, according to poll results.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted yesterday to pass a resolution that would authorize a military strike against Syria, and both McCain and Flake, who are on that committee, voted in favor of the resolution.

See also:
-John McCain and Jeff Flake Vote for Syria Strike
-John McCain Plays on Phone During Syria Hearing

According to the poll of Arizonans from Summit Consulting, 51 percent of Arizonans said they oppose military action, whereas just 28 percent say they support it. Twenty-one percent were unsure.

Republicans oppose it, 67 percent to 16 percent, as do Independents, 49 percent to 25 percent. The Democratic kiss-asses voters support striking Syria, with 44 percent in favor, and 35 percent opposed, according to the poll. (Obama's the one calling for "targeted military action against Syrian regime targets.")

Although many Republicans in Congress have opposed the strike, McCain thought he heard something about bombing a foreign nation and came running to the defense of the idea. His buddy Flake was right behind him.

More information about the poll can be found here.

Send feedback and tips to the author.
Follow Matthew Hendley on Twitter at @MatthewHendley.



My Voice Nation Help
8 comments
eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

Sorry, John. The shit that's going on in Syria is bloody awful. But it's not in our interest to intervene. The best thing we can do, along with Turkey, Jordan and Israel is to contain it and prevent the fighting from engulfing what's left of Lebanon. Thing number one is that we have no way of telling the goodies from the baddies. We must remember the debacle in Afghanistan. Our support for the Mujahadeen, who morphed into the Taliban and provided Al-Kaida a training and operations base. Syria has a dozen or more factions fighting the Assad regime. Many of them are worse than him. No, the best thing to do is just let Allah decide the winner. And keep the fighting locked inside Syria's borders.

bgray59
bgray59

The strike as designed is ill considered and will cause an Ecological and human disaster.  Following is an analysis which was sent to Senator mccain, Senator Flake and Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick.  To date no response has been received from their offices.


With the President announcing his plans to attack Syria's Chemical weapons storage and manufacturing sites, I pulled out some of my old Chemical Weapons manuals, reviewed wind patterns and checked on the locations of the sites. Following are my conclusions as to the feasibility of the plan to safely destroy the chemicals and the impact of the plan as announced.

First the sites identified in Janes, are for the most part located near major population centers and the Mediterranean Sea.

At this time of year the prevailing winds place the population centers and sea downwind of the target sites.

The attack plan using a limited number of Tomahawks will release major quantities of the Agents into the air. To destroy the agents a follow on attack with hyperbaric or fuel and air munitions are necessary. These flame weapons must be delivered within minutes of the Tomahawk strikes otherwise the chemicals will disperse and they will begin their destructive course on the wind.

Given the parameters of the planned assault, no manned bombers, the flame,incendiary weapons are not in the mix. Only manned bombers can deliver a firestorm sufficient to cover the entire site and destroy the chemicals.

Without the manned bombers the following scenario will result.


The gas clouds from sites located near the sea will be blown out over the Mediterranean were it will combine with the water and begin killing all sea life. These agents will create a dead zone in the sea covering hundreds of square miles. An ecological disaster which will surpass the damage done by the Gulf Oil Spill by several magnitudes.

Those sites which are located inland will release their cloud. Based on the prevailing winds, that cloud will float over Syria's major population centers and farming areas. It will kill thousands of unprotected civilians. The Syrian military is trained and equipped to deal with chemical attacks. The gas will not degrade the Syrian military.

It will destroy the farmland. The gas will kill all beneficial insects, microbial life and depending on the concentrations even the enzymes which make plant growth possible.


After the gasses have completed their work on Syria, they will proceed on the winds crossing into Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. The concentrations will be diluted so that it is not imminently hazardous to human and animal life. Long term effects are another question which has not been fully studied. 

The cloud will be strong enough to kill insects. The beneficial insects like bees will be eliminated. Without these and other insects food production will be stopped. This area provides much of Europe's fruits and vegetables. 

In short this operation is ill conceived and will, if executed as announced, create a human and ecological tragedy which is incalculable. 

bobby5527
bobby5527

at least our president is callling for a debate and vote after all the whining by by folks like senators McCain and Graham to get the U.S. involved. which is more than our previous president did when it came to invading Iraq.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

Of course, in reality, McCain was against it until Obama met with him and changed his mind.

Obama told the world that we would use military force if Syria used WMD.  They did.  Now we've either got to take at least some token military action or fade into embarrassed irrelevance in world politics.


valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@bobby5527  

The only reason he's called for a vote is that he's sure he'll get the approval.  Otherwise, he would have gone ahead without it.  He said himself that he didn't really need their approval.

The whole thing was Obama's idea, as you might recall, not McCain's, et al.

 

fishingblues
fishingblues topcommenter

@valleynative   Damn, what a huge responsibility to be the sheriff of the entire world.  It certainly gets old not to mention expensive.  We have expended massive amounts of blood and treasure policing the world.

cons:     1.   Obama is too incompetent to handle it properly and he is already considered a joke by the rest of the world.  2. it is effectively our enemies fighting our enemies.  3.  Iraq and Afghanistan were more than enough for awhile.   4.  Isolationism is looking pretty good right now. 

Pros:  1.  If we allow it (terrorism and gassing of citizens) to happen uncontested, it will only get worse.  Iran, North Korea and a host of other rogue nations are watching very closely.  

logicman
logicman

@fishingblues @valleynative I hate the idea of going into this country but another pro to this is it looks like the rebels are going to succeed so we might as well join them and reap the benefits after overthrow.

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

@logicman @fishingblues @valleynative WHAT benefits? What we have in Iraq now is a regime that is not vehemently anti-U.S. Something like that is possible in Syria when the fighting is over, but it'll probably turn out to be much, much worse.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...