Primary tabs

Will Syria really turn over its chemical weapons?

Yes. Syrian President Assad wants no part of a U.S. military strike.
4% (49 votes)
Some. There is no way to effectively collect all of them and determine compliance.
25% (321 votes)
No. That Russia brokered this deal is a cause enough for serious doubt that Syria will take the requirement seriously.
31% (408 votes)
It doesn’t matter. Whether Syria uses chemical weapons or machine guns, this deadly civil war will continue to kill thousands.
40% (518 votes)
Total votes: 1296

 

View more polls

4 Comments

  1. Again, there is no proper answer among the choices given. The various terrorist organizations listed by LieutenantCharlie in all likelihood do possess chemical weapons and are more than willing to use them. Meanwhile, there is no solid evidence that Assad does. He may have. But if he doesn't, he will not surrender them because he can't. There is still the open question of who actually used such weapons in Syria. I sure wouldn't count on the UN to give us that answer, nor am I willing to take Barry's word for it. Bush II was sure there were WMD in Iraq. Never did find them. But we got rid of the evil Saddam! Why not ask the (remaining) Iraqi Christians if that was a good idea. We also got rid of that evil Khadaffi. Ask the Libyan Christians if that was a good thing. Much as it pains me to9 say it, Russia is the only nation making any sensible decisions of late.

  2. Hitler was ready to sign any agreement but he promptly broke them because he knew nobody was willing to enforce them. Who will enforce this "agreement"? The United Nations? Good luck! The Russians? Good luck! The United States? Sounds like boots on the ground and another Iraq fiasco. This "agreement" is proposed without the most important party, the rebel forces (which apparently include terrorist factions hostile to all the other agreement parties), so it's built on sand.

  3. Hitler was ready to sign any agreement but he promptly broke them because he knew nobody was willing to enforce them. Who will enforce this "agreement"? The United Nations? Good luck! The Russians? Good luck! The United States? Sounds like boots on the ground and another Iraq fiasco. This "agreement" is proposed without the most important party, the rebel forces (which apparently include terrorist factions hostile to all the other agreement parties), so it's built on sand.

  4. As of September 6, 2013 the following ISLAMIC Terrorist Organizations are fighting the Assad Government in Syria; Al-Qaeda, the Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Palestine Liberation Organization, Libyan Fighting Group, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad.
    So in a nut shell, if we arm the Rebels and/or bomb Assad, we will be fighting for our ENEMIES and the ENEMIES of the Free World.
    P.S. - Russia is also fighting against many of these same ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, at home and on the Russian border.

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.