SURVEY: Is Russia's involvement in Syria a positive or negative development?

[Scott]

In your opinion, do you believe that Russia's military involvement in Syria will have a positive or a negative effect on Syria and the ME in general?

[Nerone]

it will have it expecially for european. We are facing a real invasion

[Kerryd]

I think you should reword the answers. They should be "Positive" and "Negative".

Or reword the question to:

a ) "Is Russia's involvement in Syria a positive development? (yes/no)

or

b ) "Is Russia's involvement in Syria a negative development? (yes/no)

(edit - maybe even add an "undecided" or "maybe" option to the answers as well.)

Edited November 29, 2015 by Kerryd

[trogers]

First ask, "Why is Russia involved in Syria?".

[SgtRock]

SURVEY: Is Russia's involvement in Syria a positive or negative development?

For who ?

[Katipo]

Russia's involvement might stop the West toppling another dictator, who for all his faults, is the only thing preventing his country from falling to pieces and descending into total chaos (like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan), thus further allowing extremism to seed and spread in the region.

[Seastallion]

I voted because I understood the intent of the question. "Yes" means it's positive, and "No" means you think it's negative.

I think.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Seastallion

[Tywais]

I think you should reword the answers. They should be "Positive" and "Negative".

Or reword the question to:

a ) "Is Russia's involvement in Syria a positive development? (yes/no)

or

b ) "Is Russia's involvement in Syria a negative development? (yes/no)

(edit - maybe even add an "undecided" or "maybe" option to the answers as well.)

Poll edited for clarity. Too many votes in now to add any options.

[retarius]

From my perspective I would like to see Assad remain in power for the next 5 years which is his term limit as I understand it...a total of 14 years and then pass the baton to another secular leader who will hold the nation together. Russia's support of Assad can only be seen as a positive.

For the critics of the English that the question is written in....this is a straw poll not a quantitative market research survey...the question is easily understandable to those who want to understand it rather than criticise...it's a mindset.

[simple1]

Don't know why people claim Assad would hold Syria together, he's such a magnet for hatred. IMO it is too early to make a call on whether Russia's contribution is a positive, could lead to escalation & expansion of conflict in the M.E.

Just because Assad does not adopt religious intellect does not mean he is secular.

http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2013/03/05/269716.html

Edited November 30, 2015 by simple1

[Rancid]

If you support the mayhem, murder and destruction the US has left in its wake of regime change then you are probably against Russian involvement.

If you think enough is enough then you are probably for it.

Since their involvement there are a lot of dead ISIS thugs, the US obviously was never bombing it's own creation or their oil cargoes making Turks rich. See Obama just promised another half billion dollars to support terrorists.

On the downside is whether the neocons will be mad enough to start WW3 if their plans are ruined.

Of course closer to home is what mischief the US will do next on the China front, hopefully the ME is distracting them for now.

[simple1]

If you support the mayhem, murder and destruction the US has left in its wake of regime change then you are probably against Russian involvement.

If you think enough is enough then you are probably for it.

Since their involvement there are a lot of dead ISIS thugs, the US obviously was never bombing it's own creation or their oil cargoes making Turks rich. See Obama just promised another half billion dollars to support terrorists.

On the downside is whether the neocons will be mad enough to start WW3 if their plans are ruined.

Of course closer to home is what mischief the US will do next on the China front, hopefully the ME is distracting them for now.

Are you sure US & coalition forces have not been striking Daesh? Some months back claimed around 15,000 Daesh have been killed by the coalition.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/12/islamic-state-pentagon/73840116/

Below is more info on the number of strikes in Iraq & Syria

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/20/world/war-on-isis-whos-doing-what/index.html

[GerdT]

If you support the mayhem, murder and destruction the US has left in its wake of regime change then you are probably against Russian involvement.

If you think enough is enough then you are probably for it.

Since their involvement there are a lot of dead ISIS thugs, the US obviously was never bombing it's own creation or their oil cargoes making Turks rich. See Obama just promised another half billion dollars to support terrorists.

On the downside is whether the neocons will be mad enough to start WW3 if their plans are ruined.

Of course closer to home is what mischief the US will do next on the China front, hopefully the ME is distracting them for now.

Are you sure US & coalition forces have not been striking Daesh? Some months back claimed around 15,000 Daesh have been killed by the coalition.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/12/islamic-state-pentagon/73840116/

Below is more info on the number of strikes in Iraq & Syria

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/20/world/war-on-isis-whos-doing-what/index.html

Your comment reminds me how killed vietkongs had been reported 40 to 50 years back. Every killed vietnamese became a dead vietkong but my wife who grow up close to the border knows that this wasn't the truth.

[GerdT]

It is a pity only to focus on the Russian involvement in the conflict and it is easy forgotten that western countries since the end of WWI have interfered in the region. French, British and US interests have always played a major part, deciding who did run countries, or where undercover operations instigated regime change (Saddam in Iraq was a prime example and from Iran we know that the US and UK toppled a democratically elected government to place the Shah in power).

Assad is not better or worse in the way he abused his powers when dealing with opposition to his regime when compared with the Saudis, or the government of Kuwait, if we can call it a government at all. The problem Assad is facing is that he isn’t marching in the same band as the US. If he would, there would be no problems with arm supplies and moral support from the ‘World No 1’ nation.

[oneday]

Not a good question. The answer is both. Any ISIL they kill is good, anything else is bad.

[simple1]

If you support the mayhem, murder and destruction the US has left in its wake of regime change then you are probably against Russian involvement.

If you think enough is enough then you are probably for it.

Since their involvement there are a lot of dead ISIS thugs, the US obviously was never bombing it's own creation or their oil cargoes making Turks rich. See Obama just promised another half billion dollars to support terrorists.

On the downside is whether the neocons will be mad enough to start WW3 if their plans are ruined.

Of course closer to home is what mischief the US will do next on the China front, hopefully the ME is distracting them for now.

Are you sure US & coalition forces have not been striking Daesh? Some months back claimed around 15,000 Daesh have been killed by the coalition.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/12/islamic-state-pentagon/73840116/

Below is more info on the number of strikes in Iraq & Syria

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/20/world/war-on-isis-whos-doing-what/index.html

Your comment reminds me how killed vietkongs had been reported 40 to 50 years back. Every killed vietnamese became a dead vietkong but my wife who grow up close to the border knows that this wasn't the truth.

You may well be correct the claimed numbers killed do not accurately reflect death toll, at the same time it's nonsense to claim "US obviously was never bombing it's own creation" etc etc - I for one get very tired of the unending conspiracy theories on this forum

Edited November 30, 2015 by simple1

[METV]

Two questions in one.

1/ Should we ally with Russia to solve the Middle East issue? YES

2/ Should we go to war instead of using diplomacy? NO

[Dap]

This wouldn't be my normal train of thought, but in this

case, I think if Obama has a problem with it, I'm gonna'

ride with Putin on this one. He ain't wishy washy and he

doesn't give a fig about PC. He just does it. Got my vote.

[Chicog]

Two questions in one.

1/ Should we ally with Russia to solve the Middle East issue? YES

2/ Should we go to war instead of using diplomacy? NO

I'm not sure the IS have a diplomatic corps.

[Morch]

If you support the mayhem, murder and destruction the US has left in its wake of regime change then you are probably against Russian involvement.

If you think enough is enough then you are probably for it.

Since their involvement there are a lot of dead ISIS thugs, the US obviously was never bombing it's own creation or their oil cargoes making Turks rich. See Obama just promised another half billion dollars to support terrorists.

On the downside is whether the neocons will be mad enough to start WW3 if their plans are ruined.

Of course closer to home is what mischief the US will do next on the China front, hopefully the ME is distracting them for now.

Are you sure US & coalition forces have not been striking Daesh? Some months back claimed around 15,000 Daesh have been killed by the coalition.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/12/islamic-state-pentagon/73840116/

Below is more info on the number of strikes in Iraq & Syria

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/20/world/war-on-isis-whos-doing-what/index.html

Your comment reminds me how killed vietkongs had been reported 40 to 50 years back. Every killed vietnamese became a dead vietkong but my wife who grow up close to the border knows that this wasn't the truth.

Whereas the Russian's claimed/reported success is based on more discriminate counts and procedures?

[Boon Mee]

Of course Russia's involvement in Syria is a positive development. After 6 years of Obama's fumbling, the situation is worse there than better so Putin's job is to clean up now..

[ubonjoe]

A inflammatory post has been removed.

[BrainLife]

OMG, most people here are so out of touch with what is really happening out there in the real world.

Stop believing the mass media, your politicians/governments, they do not have your (the common, working people) best interests at heart.

I will not try to educate you, just use the great (still free and uncensored, for now) Internet and look beyond Thai bars and girls.

Otherwise you have no right to vote, if you don't know what is going on.

[craigt3365]

Of course Russia's involvement in Syria is a positive development. After 6 years of Obama's fumbling, the situation is worse there than better so Putin's job is to clean up now..

You mean after 6 years of trying to only bomb ISIS targets and limit civilian deaths?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/20/world/war-on-isis-whos-doing-what/index.html

The United States and its coalition partners have targeted ISIS with 8,216 airstrikes -- 5,383 in Iraq and 2,833 in Syria, through November 16, the Pentagon says.

Through the end of October, the United States struck ISIS 5,473 times, compared with 1,574 strikes by other countries in the coalition, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

Perhaps not as effective as we'd like to see. But both the US and Russia tried this in Afghanistan and failed. Perhaps bombing isn't the answer?

[Credo]

I have no idea whether it's ultimately going to be a positive or a negative, but I don't think more fighting is going to lead to a more stable ME. Of course, I don't know that anything done by the outside world will lead to a more stable ME.

[Pakboong]

Of course Russia's involvement in Syria is a positive development. After 6 years of Obama's fumbling, the situation is worse there than better so Putin's job is to clean up now..

You mean after 6 years of trying to only bomb ISIS targets and limit civilian deaths?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/20/world/war-on-isis-whos-doing-what/index.html

The United States and its coalition partners have targeted ISIS with 8,216 airstrikes -- 5,383 in Iraq and 2,833 in Syria, through November 16, the Pentagon says.

Through the end of October, the United States struck ISIS 5,473 times, compared with 1,574 strikes by other countries in the coalition, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

Perhaps not as effective as we'd like to see. But both the US and Russia tried this in Afghanistan and failed. Perhaps bombing isn't the answer?

Most of ISIS are not indigenous to Syria so the old claim about fighting a guerilla war against an enemy on their own land doesn't really apply.

Most after action thinking on the Afganistan conflict had to do with having to fight in that terrain with motorized infantry when it was really a fight better suited to leg infantry. Both countries have admitted to this but it is funny that nobody got it when it mattered. We had to fight too far from our mounts because of the terrain and the Afgans took huge advantage.

Seems like the world no longer wants to walk while fighting.

[Ghostnigel]

....and while we have been talking about this, Putin has got on with the job, not pussy-assing around talking about it.....

Also, another 100,000 'refugees' have crossed europe's borders. Those middle-eastern visa agencies do a quick job supplying the masses with valid visas....what? What you saying?..... they don't have visas?....no 90 day reports? lucky b'stards.

[quandow]

It depends on which side of the fence you sit on. If you support Halliburton and its ilk selling death, then it's a negative thing. Putin isn't fooling around and wants to put an end to this foolishness. The Western politicians want this to draw out as long as possible. Peace isn't profitable.

[soomak]

Putin/Russia are certainly very serious about fighting all enemies of Assad in Syria. They bomb ISIS, which is a very positive thing. They also bomb other Syrian rebel forces, some of which are Muslim fanatics, while others are "normal" people who want to overthrow a pretty brutal dictator. So mixed feelings about this issue.

But overall, Assad, although a dictator and an unlikable leader by almost anyone even in Syria, was certainly better than what we are seeing now going on in Syria.

The big question is what will happen when ISIS is defeated? putting Assad back in charge will not work and will not be accepted by the US and some EU countries.

Free elections? Democracy? unfortunately that hasn't worked yet in any Arab country ...

[farangmick]

After reading the comments to articles in the British press along the lines of Russia's actions, I found a large majority of readers to be in favour of Putin. Maybe a reaction to the vacillating weakness of Obama and Cameron. The ME only seems to function under a strongman dictator or monarch, and attempting to impose a democracy just sets all the tribes and religious factions at each others throats. Putin has cut through all the crap, picked a side and is bombing the rest. Good on him. Not like the sneaky Turks, only attacking the Kurds, possibly the only half-decent ME mob fighting ISIS.