Forgot your password?

Should the U.S. bomb Syria?

Displaying poll results.
Absolutely not.
  14835 votes / 48%
No, but there's a reasonable case to be made.
  7002 votes / 23%
I'm not sure.
  2738 votes / 9%
Yes, but there's a reasonable case not to.
  2194 votes / 7%
  1958 votes / 6%
Where is Syria?
  1690 votes / 5%
30417 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should the U.S. bomb Syria?

Comments Filter:
  • by Goldsmith (561202) on Monday September 09, 2013 @02:17PM (#44800401)

    Who was it that used chemical weapons in Syria? Back (3 months ago) when UN weapons inspectors were allowed to determine things like that, their conclusion was that it was the rebels (there have been many chemical weapons attacks there).

    There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons as well, but the only proven cases were uses against the Syrian government.

    Ok, so we're going to bomb someone who was the victim of a chemical weapons attack because we think he retaliated in kind? This after Syrian allies went to the UN to get help rounding up the people we know used chemical weapons... and we blocked it. If there's truth to this narrative (which is significantly more documented by the UN and Russia than our government's story), we're way in the wrong here.

  • by Kelbear (870538) on Monday September 09, 2013 @03:40PM (#44801601)

    (I take no credit for the following post, but I thought this was an interesting attempt to suss out the true rationale for U.S. military intervention in Syria. Whether or not you think intervention is warranted, I think most can agree that the government's rationale for intervention is pretty murky. )

    This is from "Arguss" on reddit. Link to the original post (as well as his supporting links!) is here: []
    I recommend you read it there instead since the formatting hasn't carried over well, but if you don't want to click-through:

    "I've been reading through these comments, and I don't think any of them strike at the truth of the matter. I apologize if this seems blunt. Hereafter I will provide a detailed examination of US interest in Syria.
    refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism.
    Chemical weapons aren't why the president is interested in Syria. The US has actually been interested in helping the Syrian rebels for a long time. That last link is from the past few days, but they're all connected, which I'll get to.
    The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council, a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN, which I linked above. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers.
    So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels-- why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it's all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik.
    Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia's only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian's only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn't the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region.
    Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite-- a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite, which are not friends with each other. Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It's in Iran's interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran.
    Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good

  • by mcvos (645701) on Monday September 09, 2013 @04:24PM (#44802165)

    However, had NATO done so, then Russia would have been forced to call in the entirety of the Warsaw Pact nations to defend Syria, again kicking on WW III.

    You're a bit out of date there. The Warsaw Pact has ceased to be about 22 years ago.

  • by Glock27 (446276) on Monday September 09, 2013 @08:08PM (#44803961)

    Was it moralistic to use weapons of mass destructions (freaking Nukes) in Japan?

    Yes it was. (BTW the correct usage is "was it moral...?".)

    Totally unnecessary as the Japanese government already signalled to sign a peace treaty. Nooooo. don't haggle with the Japanese. Let's incinerate hundred of thousands of them, destroy two cities and give millions cancer just to show who the biggest Penis has.

    Spoken like someone who hasn't read enough history about those times. The Japanese soldiers were brutal, inhuman opponents. They were well known for their merciless and sadistic acts. After Pearl Harbor and what followed "haggling" with the Japanese was not an option. The requirement was unconditional surrender, which by the way has worked out very well since.

    Nor were the consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki anything like what you portray... I wonder if you aware that the conventional attacks on Tokyo caused more loss of life...?

    The USA has forever lost the right to use the word "Moral". Don't dare to use that word.

    You are a fine example of the ignorance created by our current "educational" system. Like all countries, the US has its flaws. I defy you to name another country that's done as much for the betterment of humanity. I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of WW II American casualties are proud of you. Right?

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan


Forgot your password?