Forgot your password?

Should the U.S. bomb Syria?

Displaying poll results.
Absolutely not.
  14833 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.
  2193 votes / 7%
Absolutely.
  1955 votes / 6%
Where is Syria?
  1690 votes / 5%
30411 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This discussion has been archived.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 Chrisq (894406) on Monday September 09, 2013 @10:45AM (#44797335)

    NO

    Absolutely. Assad is terrible but the the Al Quaida supporting Muslim brotherhood is worse

  • Absolutely not! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GIL_Dude (850471) on Monday September 09, 2013 @10:46AM (#44797355) Homepage
    Bombing even selected targets will just make innocent people pay for the actions of a few. There are a few people who were involved in ordering the chemical attacks. If anything were done, those few would be taken to international court (the Hague is it?) and charged with war crimes. That should be the extent of it. Oh, and someone should investigate the claims that the rebels also used chemicals several months ago. There might be some folks that need to be charged with war crimes there too.
  • Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scubamage (727538) on Monday September 09, 2013 @10:55AM (#44797457)
    As a citizen of the US, I agree with you. Sadly, most of our populace is happy eating Mcdonalds and watching Snooki, so they're too apathetic to voice any opinions to our congress critters. At this point, I fear the military industrial complex is turning the cogs.
  • Re:Absolutely not! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09, 2013 @10:55AM (#44797473)

    Exactly. If your solution to the problem of innocents being killed results in more innocents being killed, then your solution is invalid, and you become the aggressor rather than the hero. It doesn't matter whether you killed those innocents accidentally or deliberately, because the victim gets to decide the meaning of justice, not you. The bottom line is that the vicims of "collateral damage" (let's be real and call it manslaughter) don't give a damn what your agenda is. From that point on, you are the aggressor, not the hero.

  • by paavo512 (2866903) on Monday September 09, 2013 @11:00AM (#44797525)
    What I don't get at all is why US thinks it has right or obligation to start bombing another independent country. Granted, the civil war there has gone a bit out of hands, but this did not bother anybody in case of Rwanda or several other places.

    We have a dedicated organization to handle such matters - UN. If UN reaches a conclusion that military operation is the only way to proceed and then turns to US to get military help, only then should US start to think about bombing anything or anybody.
  • Re:No. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ichthus (72442) on Monday September 09, 2013 @11:18AM (#44797729) Homepage
    I think you're way off base here. I'd bet the majority of our populace is against "intervention." And, it looks like congress is as well. This all seems to be isolated to the executive branch -- the same ones who fucked up Benghazi.
  • by SoupGuru (723634) on Monday September 09, 2013 @11:34AM (#44797929)

    If you gas 400 children and many more other innocent adults, people should be lining up around the block to smack you in the mouth. Other nations should be ashamed of themselves for looking the other way.

    Does it suck to get involved? Absolutely. Do we have a clear side we can support? Nope. Will it be messy? Absolutely.

    I guess I feel an obligation and a duty to make sure no backwater leader feels weapons of mass destruction are an OK response to a regional conflict.

    It's always somebody else's problem until it's not.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09, 2013 @11:39AM (#44797991)

    How is it that the method of killing merits a greater response than the quantity of those killed? North Korea, for instance, kills tens of thousands of innocents per year and imprisions hundreds of thousands (most of whom die a slow and painful death of starvation and disease). I guess Kim is safe so long as he doesn't gas a few hundred?

  • Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by war4peace (1628283) on Monday September 09, 2013 @12:00PM (#44798321)

    So why would you impose your Western point of view onto a population that is at most apathetic towards your existence?
    The "we care about their well-being and therefore we bomb their country" is old and wrinkled. The MOST I would agree with is total cessation of trading with said country. "We don't agree with your internal actions so we stop trading with you" is fine, it's your decision as a country. But dropping bombs onto their heads is despicable.

    Internal matters are internal matters.

    Finally, if some US states decide they want to revolt and civil war ensues and a party uses chemical weapons in a situation - what would you say about the UK, Russia, China starting to bomb USA ground because hey, "you used gas and we need to show you the light at the end of the tunnel by force".

    Whenever someone thinks "we should bomb them for this reason!" - they should be ready to stand by the "they should bomb us for the same reason" approach. With this in mind... should the USA bomb Syria for this reason?

  • Poll Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cro Magnon (467622) on Monday September 09, 2013 @12:02PM (#44798365) Homepage Journal

    You realize that the "Where's Syria" option isn't exclusive with any of the others. :)

  • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Monday September 09, 2013 @12:10PM (#44798481) Homepage Journal
    Obama has already pretty much declared that we aren't going to bomb Syria. Not in words, but in actions. He handed over the issue to Congress, as Congress was demanding--thus insuring that the current intractable gridlock will prevent him from having to take an unpopular action. Don't forget that Congress already had a full agenda planned out with their manufactured crises (filibuster for the Continuing Resolution, and of course the Debt Ceiling), they don't have time to deal with a real crisis.
  • Re:Absolutely not! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by compro01 (777531) on Monday September 09, 2013 @12:41PM (#44798917)

    The German Government confirmed over the weekend that Assad did not authorise the use of chemical weapons. This information was obtained via intercepted communications between Assad and presumably factions within the Syrian military.

    Great, that gives us 3 possibilities

    1. The Germans are wrong and Assad did authorize the attack.
    2. The rebels have gotten their hands on chemical weapons.
    3. The government of Syria has lost control of their chemical arsenal.

    2 and 3 are not necessarily mutually exclusive (Rebels might have stolen the gas from the Syrian military) and I personally find those possibilities considerably more worrying than 1.

  • by istartedi (132515) on Monday September 09, 2013 @12:55PM (#44799127) Journal

    How is it that the method of killing merits a greater response than the quantity of those killed?

    Your question is tantamount to "Why should war have rules?".

    The rule against chemical weapons is simply a subset of "rules of war". These include rules for the treatment of POWs. Because of these standards, a lot of GIs came home from the European theater who otherwise wouldn't have. Likewise, it would have been a lot more convenient for the US to just neglect or gun down Axis POWs, or napalm the whole area during mop-up operations rather than accept surrenders. Etc, etc.

    So. If war has rules, either you enforce them or war has no rules. Most reasonable powers, even some unreasonable powers like North Korea realize that a no-holds-barred street fight could lead to something like 20% survival rate with a bunch of unhealthy people trying to rebuild after victory vs. 90% survival after victory.

    Aside from the cold rational incentive to follow rules of war, they are also deeply rooted in something like chivalry. At least, that's what the West calls it. The East and other areas have different names and different codes that historically allowed different things. For example, Japanese didn't view surrender as honorable during the WW2 era, and that caused a lot of problems. I'm not picking on Japan here. I'm simply pointing it out as an obvious difference between different cultures having different rules. I'm sure there are some rules the Japanese had for conduct in war that were kind and gentle in some way. One of the most universal rules of war used to be "don't kill women and children". Modern technology has made that impractical as an absolute; but the nature of chemical weapons is such that they can't be easily confined to the target zone.

    Anyway, to answer your original question. It's because war has rules designed to limit its scope in various ways, and chemical weapons are outside those limits.

  • Re:Absolutely not! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dgatwood (11270) on Monday September 09, 2013 @01:16PM (#44799479) Journal

    In other words:

    4. Assad no longer has control of his military.

    I think it's only a matter of time before he is deposed from the inside.

  • by SoupGuru (723634) on Monday September 09, 2013 @01:47PM (#44799991)

    I saw some forum poster (probably at Fark) summarize it thusly:

    The guys that made it out of WWI after the air bursting artillery, watching wave after wave of fellow humans get mowed down by machine guns, soggy trenches, bayoneting a few people, the screams of people dying on the wire in no-man's land, trench foot, disease, gangrene... the guys that made it through all that drew the line and said chemical weapons were too barbaric.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09, 2013 @02:13PM (#44800353)

    Iraq is an Iranian puppet, as is syria. Your bush hating rhetoric is obsolete, incorrect, and leading you to the wrong conclusion here.

  • by MikeMo (521697) on Monday September 09, 2013 @02:24PM (#44800491)
    For me, it's like this: you're sitting in a nice restaurant, minding your business, when some guy starts up arguing and fighting with his wife and yelling at his kids. Now, it's none of your business, but it's sure uncomfortable.

    Then, he up and smacks her, and starts hitting his kids. And then does it again. People yell at him from around the restaurant, but noone does anything else, and he smacks her again.

    So, do I/we have a responsibility to stop the guy? I mean, the family spat is none of our business, right? But when he starts hitting the wife and kids and won't stop, don't we have to do something? It's not about taking sides or figuring out who's right or wrong in the spat or what the outcome for me personally would be, and I'm sure as hell not a cop, but I just have to stop it. Even if it means violence.

    It's just the human thing to do.
  • by sgbett (739519) <slashdot@remailer.org> on Monday September 09, 2013 @02:33PM (#44800611) Homepage

    You gonna fire cruise missiles at his ass, and take out all the innocent people at the surrounding tables?

  • by paavo512 (2866903) on Monday September 09, 2013 @02:34PM (#44800617)
    U.S. is the source of effectively one-party regime, pointless wars and worldwide spying. If that's what's called "actual democracy" I am not sure I want this so much any more. Even Russia does not seem so bad any more in comparison, not because that Russia has got any better lately (it isn't), but because U.S. has turned a lot worse.

    If you really want to find some democracy, you should look in Switzerland. By some reason it is not so eager to send bombers to other countries, I wonder why that might be.

    PS. Communism is not a danger at the moment, and socialism a la Sweden does not look so bad.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09, 2013 @02:38PM (#44800695)

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Who the fuck has given the USA to decide what's moral?

    BTW : LOL. The USA bombs either to destroy Commies (50-80s) or Muslims (90-today) or to get oil.

    Where were the morals in Ruanda or in Zagreb?
    Was it moralistic to use Agent Orange or Napalm in 'Nam?
    Was it moralistic to use weapons of mass destructions (freaking Nukes) in Japan? 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.

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

  • Re:Absolutely not! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperTechnoNerd (964528) on Monday September 09, 2013 @02:56PM (#44800985)
    And either side would have not problem killing us.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09, 2013 @08:17PM (#44804013)

    You FUCKING idiots nuked civilians.

    No Pearl Habor can justfy that.
    NOTHING can.

  • by night_flyer (453866) on Tuesday September 10, 2013 @08:16AM (#44806589) Homepage

    and we do nothing... chems are used (we still don't know who) ,killing less than 1500 and we must "stop" him?

    why would Assad, while winning the war risk getting the international community involved by using chems?

  • FIne, but ..... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by King_TJ (85913) on Tuesday September 10, 2013 @10:19AM (#44807683) Journal

    As you even admit in your post, the drought in Syria was POSSIBLY caused by Climate Change. That's a theory, but there's no way to be sure. It could also just be one of the droughts that has plagued nations for centuries, at random times and places?

    I'd agree with most of what you said, except your summary seems completely misplaced to me..... Turning the Syria crisis into just another reason the world needs to address Climate Change? Umm, no. For starters, Syria clearly mishandled the situation with their crops and farmers in a MASSIVE way. There's no excuse for creating a Civil War over the fact that there's a water shortage. Treating farmers coming to the cities for assistance as subversives and arresting them?? Yeah, THAT would really fly in most civilized parts of the world!

    Climate Change or not, countries will have hardships and natural disasters .... It's just part of life. If they're incapable of handling them in an appropriate manner, they should expect uprisings and overthrows.

  • Re:Absolutely not! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by XcepticZP (1331217) on Tuesday September 10, 2013 @04:30PM (#44812341)
    Care to provide us with some links regarding that? Simple google searches didn't yield much about George Bush being tried in the Hague.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

 



Forgot your password?
Working...