How many civilians killed by chemical weapons in Syria would justify outside military intervention?

[Renew Deal]

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	No amount of civilians killed by chemical weapons is enough to justify outside military intervention (No war, support peace, more war isn't the answer, etc.)
	2 (50%)
	1 is too many. We should have bombed Syria months ago
	1 (25%)
	1000 civilians killed by chemical weapons
	0 (0%)
	10,000 civilians killed by chemical weapons
	0 (0%)
	50,000 civilians killed by chemical weapons
	0 (0%)
	100,000 civilians killed by chemical weapons
	0 (0%)
	500,000 civilians killed by chemical weapons
	0 (0%)
	1,000,000+ civilians killed by chemical weapons
	0 (0%)
	Not sure
	1 (25%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[NoOneMan]

1. Maybe that depends on how many civilians we all intend to kill in such military intervention

[RC]

7. Dead is dead.

Does anyone really think they care how they are killed, whether they are killed by chemical weapons or bombs and bullets? They are still just as dead. You can suffer just as much from the bombs and bullets, as from any gas. Why are the bombs and bullets considered more humane? They are not really.

Instead of sending military supplies, send food and medical supplies. That is what this is about anyway. The influx of Iraqi refugees WE caused when we illegally invaded Iraq, over ran the available help.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. They are dead. I am reasonably sure the idea of justifying anything never crosses their minds. n/t

[Renew Deal]

3. That makes no sense

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. You asked "How many civilans killed would justify..."

I've seen no evidence that the dead make any justifications. I would have written, "How many deaths from chemical weapons would justify..."

But, to me it is not the number of dead but the use of Chemical weapons indiscriminately in war against a civilian population that justifies military action. It has been illegal since 1925 for good reason. There are some things up with which we should not put.

Had the combatants stuck to strictly conventional warfare, I would have decried the violence but not supported intervention. As deplorable as civil war is, it is an election using bullets instead of ballots. The people were given no choice.

I support a limited strike.

[Iggo]

4. How many civilians are you willing to kill to teach Assad a lesson?

[Renew Deal]

9. Those are the questions that need to be answered

Particularly for Obama, Kerry, Hagel, etc.

If Obama looks at what Clinton did in Kosovo, approximately 500 people were killed to end a war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_during_Operation_Allied_Force

In Rawanda where there was no intervention there were 500,000 to 1,000,000 million deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

Clintons views on Kosovo were shaped by Rawanda. Obama has argued during his campaigns that the US has a moral duty to act. Up until now he hasn't really kept that promise.

[MrMickeysMom]

13. That's more to the point... eom

[JaneyVee]

5. Perhaps Obama's reluctance at earlier intervention allowed Assad to get get meaner?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Ours or theirs?

Because if we degrade Assad enough then AQ takes over the country and gains his resources, military -- and WMD.

Then what?

[Renew Deal]

10. I suspect that the US plans to take advantage of any intervention to go after Al Queda

And degrade the Syrian military. I don't think this is just about chemical weapons. It sure wasn't in Libya.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. So we would be fighting a 2-front war in the same nation while pretending its only 1 war

Dreadful

[Renew Deal]

12. That's my opinion

Maybe three front war. Chemical weapons, US enemies, Syrian military

[Hippo_Tron]

16. How are we going to do that without ground troops?

Furthermore, lets say we did commit ground troops. How likely is it that this will go any smoother than our previous two wars?

[Renew Deal]

18. Same way we're doing it in Yemen, Pakistan, etc?

[Recursion]

14. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that's the wrong question

Military action is justified when it has a likelihood of increasing US and regional security, and isn't otherwise.

[Renew Deal]

19. That's a potential answer to the same question

It can be argued that allowing Syria to use WMD's makes the world a more dangerous place and harms US security.

[blueknight]

15. i dont

give two fucks about syria. Its not our job to police the world. Have we learned nothing?

[dionysus]

17. while i wish the US would stay out of this, there's a cognitive dissonance in the stance that says;

1) if we intervene, we're warmongering criminals, look at all the innocents the US will kill!

while at the same time saying, in a nutshell;

2) fuck it let the Syrians slaughter each other, we're for peace..