General Discussion

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts) Mon Sep 9, 2013, 08:50 AM Sep 2013

Would you support a military strike against the Syrian government if it had UN approval?

11 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	Definitely
	2 (18%)
	Probably
	3 (27%)
	Maybe
	3 (27%)
	Probably not
	0 (0%)
	Definitely not
	3 (27%)
	I would support a military strike against bullshit polls!
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote!
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would you support a military strike against the Syrian government if it had UN approval? (Original Post) el_bryanto Sep 2013 OP

This is a great idea for a poll. MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 #1

A military strike has one result. joshcryer Sep 2013 #2

Voted "Maybe" b/c international law says only the U.N. Security Council can HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #3

Well yes - and also those determined to let Assad murder his own citizens in peace. el_bryanto Sep 2013 #4

I stand with Sabrina1 on this question (don't have the link to her eloquent OP handy). There HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #5

Ask me that after LWolf Sep 2013 #6

+1 nt Javaman Sep 2013 #7

As you phrased your question, "Yes". Just, not by us. We shouldnt be involved. stevenleser Sep 2013 #8

Syria is not our problem no matter what the UN says nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #9

That would make it legal under international law, but I would still morningfog Sep 2013 #10

Nope. Brigid Sep 2013 #11

The Responsibility to Protect is a UN initiative adopted in 2005. pampango Sep 2013 #12

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)

1. This is a great idea for a poll.

Reply to el_bryanto (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 08:52 AM

Sep 2013

Thanks.

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)

2. A military strike has one result.

Reply to el_bryanto (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 08:53 AM

Sep 2013

HardTimes99

(2,049 posts)

3. Voted "Maybe" b/c international law says only the U.N. Security Council can

Reply to el_bryanto (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 08:53 AM

Sep 2013

authorize military action against a sovereign nation in the absence of an actual attack or imminent threat.

Good poll though and nicely frames the issue for all the ignorant warmongers on this site.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)

4. Well yes - and also those determined to let Assad murder his own citizens in peace.

Reply to HardTimes99 (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 08:55 AM

Sep 2013

For the record I do oppose Obama bombing Syria with or without congressional approval.

Bryant

HardTimes99

(2,049 posts)

5. I stand with Sabrina1 on this question (don't have the link to her eloquent OP handy). There

Reply to el_bryanto (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 09:00 AM

Sep 2013

are established procedures for addressing alleged crimes against humanity. Sadly, uniliaterally bombing soverign nations on a hunch is not one of those procedures.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)

6. Ask me that after

Reply to el_bryanto (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 09:08 AM

Sep 2013

I've seen the reports and read the wording of the UN resolution to use force.

Javaman

(62,531 posts)

7. +1 nt

Reply to LWolf (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 09:14 AM

Sep 2013

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)

8. As you phrased your question, "Yes". Just, not by us. We shouldnt be involved.

Reply to el_bryanto (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 09:23 AM

Sep 2013

We need to sit the next 25 or so of these out and let the international community become adept at dealing with these issues.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

9. Syria is not our problem no matter what the UN says nt

Reply to el_bryanto (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 09:24 AM

Sep 2013

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

10. That would make it legal under international law, but I would still

Reply to el_bryanto (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 09:27 AM

Sep 2013

oppose it as bad policy. Not only do I think it is illegal without UN, I do not think it will improve anything either way.

Brigid

(17,621 posts)

11. Nope.

Reply to el_bryanto (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 10:01 AM

Sep 2013

I am not supporting this war. Period.

pampango

(24,692 posts)

12. The Responsibility to Protect is a UN initiative adopted in 2005.

Reply to el_bryanto (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 10:36 AM

Sep 2013

It should only be invoked by the UN but, when it is, we and other countries should support it.

Neither the US nor any other individual country should be the world's police. That does not mean that there does not need to be an organized global force such as this (that would be nice but human nature is not such that we can go without police) just that it needs to be in the UN not the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

Reply to this discussion