Is there anything at all that Assad could do that would make you support US military intervention?

[Nye Bevan]

Say he massively escalated his use of chemical weapons and it was indisputably confirmed by the US inspectors? Launched a clear and systematic genocide of the rebels? But assume for this poll that whatever he does is confined to Syria.

5 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes. If Assad went far enough I would support US military intervention.
	4 (80%)
	No. No matter what Assad did, I would never, under any circumstances, support US military intervention.
	1 (20%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[morningfog]

1. If he attacked us, here in the US.

[Nye Bevan]

2. So say he set up Auschwitz-style extermination camps.

Systematically murdered thousands of people per day.

We should still do nothing?

[woo me with science]

4. And if monkeys flew out of his butt.

Butt monkeys would be a real problem.

[Nye Bevan]

17. Ha! There's always a funny side, isn't there? (nt)

[woo me with science]

23. No, the attempts to rally us into another bloody war for profit

are not funny at all. The sickening, stale propaganda bids aren't funny. They're not funny to the taxpayers whose cities are crumbling and schools are being closed and social services cut and paved roads being replaced with gravel, and they're especially not funny to the people who will be slaughtered.

The war propaganda has no credibility anymore. We know this putrid script by heart, so spare us.

[Petrushka]

27. Amen!

[HappyMe]

28. Oh the drama!

Nobody is rallying anybody. Some here are just trying to shut down any discussion of the ME issues be squealing 'propaganda'.

This is a discussion board.

[woo me with science]

30. Assaults with cruise missiles are pretty damned dramatic.

Calling out blatant pro-war talking points is not "shutting down discussion." You were able to post that nonsense you just posted, right?

So get off the damned cross.

We have heard this garbage over and over again, and we have history to show us where it *really* leads. The war propaganda has no credibility anymore.

[HappyMe]

36. Not on any cross.

Just saying that running around howling 'propaganda' at every post where someone asks a question, doesn't add anything to a discussion.

[woo me with science]

38. The way to fight propaganda is not to engage it, but to identify and expose it.

This country can't afford another corporate war for profit. We have a surveillance state to dismantle.

[HappyMe]

40. I'm not entirely convinced that a full blown

war is going to happen in this instance.

We have the sick, poor and elderly to care for. As far as I'm concerned, that comes first.

[bowens43]

16. why would it be up to us? BTW Godwins Law, you lose.

[Nye Bevan]

20. "Not our problem" is certainly not an uncommon reaction. (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

34. How can I "lose" when I am not arguing for any particular viewpoint?

I am merely asking a question.

And BTW, those DUers who love to respond "Godwin!!!!! You Lose!!!!" whenever anyone uses a WW2 analogy are not as clever as they think they are.

[HappyMe]

18. It would have to be something extreme like that.

Even then, careful thought and consideration first. The ME is never a cut and dried question and answer situation.

[atreides1]

19. We did nothing in WW2!

Hitler had the camps running long before the US got into the war...and if I recall my history it took an attack on the US to finally get into WW2!

And even as the allies were bombing German targets, they didn't seem overly concerned about hitting the rail lines that were still taking European Jews to those camps!

[Nye Bevan]

21. I wish we had bombed the railway lines (nt)

[wandy]

22. I'll go with you on this one...........

I never have understood why we feel we need to be the worlds policeman. These people are not even US friendly!
A direct, provable attack on US soil. In that case even the nuclear option would be justified.

[Nye Bevan]

25. If they were "US friendly", would your attitude change at all? (nt)

[wandy]

32. Possibly if they were Canada. I'll try to explain........

At the moment WE have our own problems. WE have hungry children. WE have an infrastructure that is falling apart. WE are the only advanced nation that does not provide some form of universal health care.
It would be as if one of you're own family were desperately ill. Rather than spend what little you can afford to help them you wonder around town spending those limited funds trying to impose you're ideology on others because they have abused their pets.

It would be nice to "save the world" but at the moment I think we need save ourselves.

[leftstreet]

3. Is there anything our Leaders could do to make us trust their words?

They've been making shit up as justification for aggression for ages

[Nye Bevan]

8. Hans Blix signing on would be fairly persuasive, for example (nt)

[Arctic Dave]

5. Invade and occupy two countries while

systematically bombing six others.

[woo me with science]

6. The propaganda has no credibility anymore. nt

[The Stranger]

7. Assad isn't the only factor involved in determining foreign policy.

So the question contains a false assumption.

[KamaAina]

9. Order chemical weapon attacks.

As far as we now know, the CW that (likely) was used was by some unit commander who promptly got slapped down by the Defense Minister. Hardly a reason to start WWIII.

[markiv]

10. I'll support it when YOU enlist

until then, it's just chickenhawktalk

[Nye Bevan]

15. You'll support it under what circumstances? (nt)

[dkf]

11. Perhaps....but I haven't seen it yet.

If he systematically exterminated a particular race like what the Germans did to the Jews, then yes. Short of that probably not.

[bowens43]

12. I am not opposed to intervention, I am opposed to US intervention.

[geek tragedy]

13. Nope. And, there WILL be genocide in Syria within a decade.

Eventually, numbers will win out in Syria--never bet against math--and the Sunnis will win, and the Allawites/Shiites will lose.

And when the Allawites lose, they will all lose everything.

And we will do well to not interfere with that process, just as we are doing well to not interfere with the Allawite's brutal suppression of the Sunnis right now.

Build a virtual wall around Syria, and contain the fire there until it burns itself out.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. became one of the strongest military powers in the world and began launching invasions of numerous

allied countries while setting up an industrialized extermination program in order to eradicate ethnic/religious minorities. Or if he launched a full scale military attack against U.S. sovereign territory while simultaneously invading several countries.

[Egalitarian Thug]

24. Given a sufficiently lengthy time-line, everything is inevitable. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

26. If "everything" includes "world peace", I hope you're right (nt)

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. Be careful what you wish for.

[cali]

31. Not under the current circumstances in Syria

Military intervention will not help the people of Syria. The rebel forces are also responsible for atrocities.

[Nye Bevan]

35. The question does not address "current circumstances".

The question concerns hypothetical future circumstances.

[cali]

39. huh? that makes exactly ZERO sense

the civil war will continue to rage and that's what I meant by current circumstances. If you're question is about something outside of that reality, you should specify.

[Nye Bevan]

43. Well.... I thought the question was self-explanatory.

Sorry if it was not clear enough.

[stevenleser]

33. Anything? That opens up far too great a list of hypothetical possibilities.

The short answer is 'no'. He would have to attack another country, i.e. somewhere outside his borders at this point for me to start thinking about supporting military action against him.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Do you feel that it was right for the US not to intervene in Rwanda? (nt)

[cali]

41. that's an uninformed comparison, to put it very nicely

Read Romeo Dallaire's book.

The genocide in Rwanda could have been stopped before it started.

This is more like Clinton lobbing missiles at Iraq during the 90's.

[Dash87]

42. Attacking US allies or the US, attacking trade routes, ordering foreign terrorist attacks.

[Nye Bevan]

44. BTW I find it interesting that 8 DUers chose to pass

on what is really a clearcut "yes" or "no" question.

[LanternWaste]

46. I'd imagine the under the circumstances of the Assad regime,

I'd imagine the under the circumstances of the Assad regime in the here and now, many people may believe that the clearcut nature of the question is actually ambiguous at best, or even disingenuous at worst... which they may also find "interesting".

[Capt. Obvious]

45. If he gives away the ending of Breaking Bad