More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Last answered 2 months ago
Distribution of answers submitted by American voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Nov 19, 2015. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Choose a demographic filter
- District of Columbia
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
More stances on this issue
Send Congressional relatives first. If their children/grandchildren are worth sacrificing, then it is probably a necessary war. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Reston, VA
This should be a "dark" war, and full out no holds barred, CIA, special forces, etc... 4 years ago from a Republican in Winter Haven, FL
If it affects USA then yes. If not who really cares what they do in their lands! If America is using land over there for military exercises then we should stop! Let them fight their own battles. If they kill each other why would we bother, they do this to... 4 years ago from a Constitution in Jonesborough, TN
We should send upfront advisors,and drones and increase bombing first. 5 years ago from a Republican in Dix Hills, NY
No, Only if they attack us first. 5 years ago from a Republican in Hanover, PA
No. ISIS is killing more Islamic folks in the middle east and, "conquering," local (middle eastern) territory. The various regional military forces should be dealing with their own problems. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Serenada, TX
Yes, but only as part of an international coalition. 5 years ago from a Republican in Glastonbury Center, CT
Yes but make sure our troops understand that there are many innocent people who aren't terrorists and should not be hurt in any way; verbal, physical or emotional. 5 years ago from a Democrat in New York, NY
Yes, form a coalition with our allies, go in, and sweep away ISIS. 5 years ago from a Republican in Lansing, MI
The current admin is playing games. We must conduct airs trikes with validity to the impact towards an end result. If we are to send troops it is all or nothing. With a committed resolution as to who we are backing and how we will ensure the government we... 5 years ago from a Republican in Dallas, TX
Intelligence about ISIS is critical; I would favor sending a fairly significant number of special ops forces into the areas held by ISIS in Syria and Iraq both to wage a guerilla type of action and to gather concrete intelligence on where ISIS forces can... 5 years ago from a Democrat in South Burlington, VT
We should not physically fight with ISIS until they come onto our grounds, but ally with other European and Middle Eastern countries that are against ISIS to help take ISIS down. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Ivy, VA
NO and we should stop creating, training, and funding terrorist groups like ISIS and others. 5 years ago from a Libertarian in San Diego, CA
No we need to think of the civilians in Syria before going over there and bombing them. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Kenilworth, NJ
Yes, but with rules of engagement that are not politically correct. 5 years ago from a Republican in Highland Village, TX
What is the objective? Who is the enemy? Were are troops needed? And what is the plan? Until these questions are answered, no. 5 years ago from a Constitution in Smyrna, TN
Yes, but start with intense, targeted air campaign followed ground troops but eliminate rules of engagement that hinder the ability of our troops to carry out their mission or protect themselves. 5 years ago from a Republican in Valatie, NY
We should let Russia, France, Jordan, and our Arab allies handle ISIS in Syria and provide France with intelligence on ISIS locations for them to hit. Ground troops must be sent in to win in Syria. Americans can still use NATO. To avoid WWIII with Russia,... 5 years ago from a Republican in Cherry Hill, VA
We cannot fight conventially.
Send JSOC to train and conduct multiple targeted raids every night, disrupt their streams of income and combat their propaganda via cyber warfare. Use local trained forces to conduct large ground attacks and have JSOC send units to accompany them and call in air units.
Raise security in major cities and increase surveillance gathering on people to stop future events and plans.
Raid all domestic high risk individuals like they are doing in Paris and question them.
There is so much more we could be doing, but conducting conventional war just doesn't work anymore - plus it's just a political nightmare. 5 years ago from a Green in Loveland, CO
Only if countries like Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, & other middle eastern countries are willing to match us man for man. 5 years ago from a Republican in Lindale, TX
Yes but we need to be committed to training the local military and creating a politically and economically stable country in Syria and Iraq so that they are no longer breeding grounds for groups like Daesh (ISIS). 5 years ago from a Democrat in Olympia, WA
Yes, but only if we are going to fight for an ultimate victory. After that use the same process that was used at the end of WWII in Germany and Japan. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Alice Acres, TX
We should listen to our military generals. 5 years ago from a Republican in Delhi Hills, OH
Send in elite spec ops teams and eliminate high profile targets and cripple their infrastructure online and physical chain of command. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Denver, CO
Yes, only if we intend to actually let the military do their job without the political hamstringing. 5 years ago from a Constitution in Lake Darby, OH
No, but punish the Syrian government for their support of ISIS. 5 years ago from a Republican in Fort Hood, TX