Your Vote ATS'ers: Attack or Not To Attack Syria for Alleged Chemical Attacks on its Own Citizens?

Originally posted by Scorchio
I wish some-one would say yes so that we'd have some-one to pick on.

reply to post by twfau


Not that I'm defending Assad or the civil war but how many people do you think Assad killed that warrants genocide?

Of course the answer is "no," but that's no challenge. I'm trying to think of some way that it could be acceptable. Now there's a challenge.

Could this work? We know that Iran has claimed they will go absolutely berzerk if we attack Syria, including kidnapping and raping Obama's kids. (How they'd get access is beyond me. Oh, wait a minute, his Muslim Brotherhood appointees. Problem solved.)

So, we launch a few missiles designed to kill a couple of camels, and threaten more. Iran goes crazy and takes some kind of action. The US says "AHA!" and destroys Iran's nuclear facilities and anything else we can reach.

No, I don't know how any other nation would respond, but flattening Iran would certainly give everybody pause for a few days.

Hey, just a thought experiment.

Originally posted by ItDepends
Thanks Everyone for responding thusfar:

From Page 1:

Attack:

NO: 19

Yes: 0

From Page 2:

NO: 16

YES: 2

Non-committal: 2

Current Tally after 2 Pages: 39 Responses

Attack:

NO: 35

YES: 2

No Comm: 2

Thank you all for taking the time to provide your input!!

Great comments and some very thoughtful considerations being contributed, Thank You!

Page 3 Tally:

Attack:

NO: 17

YES: 0

Total Count of Polling after 3 Pages:

Attack:

NO: 52

YES: 2

Non-Comm: 2

Thank you all very much!! Definitively 'NO' at this point. But, again, I commend the many who have added additional thoughts and comments. It is pretty obvious that people feel strongly and have strong feelings for them!!

Note: Some comments are just that, which is ok, There have been just 2 that I have considered 'non-committed' and they were on Page 2! (non-scientific polling, but it's your vote!!

reply to post by Swills


I'm not sure there has to be a particular number, as genocide can be the 'intent' to destroy a particular group (ethnic, racial, national). A definition from wikipedia (because it's late night and I'm tired) says it can include "killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intendeded to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" You'd hope that if the ICC could get the go ahead, they'd be able to find evidence of intent without the need for millions of deaths.

I wonder how many idiots on here would be happy if the police taser and beat them based on an alleged crime...

PS: I'm a "no".

I say no. It's not our war.

If the petrodollar fails so will America... if attacking Syria is what is needed to keep the petrodollar afloat... so be it!

It's a dog eat dog world... and we will get ours but for now.... give'em hell while we can!!!

\m/ (>,

reply to post by twfau


Well then, who is he harming? Are you saying he killing civilians? Is he committing genocide because he's fighting rebels AND foreign fighters AND terrorists?

A good definition of genocide is to look at Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung.

Nope and being a Nobel peace prize holder, he should hang his head in shame.

I say...NO...to striking.

Let's face it.. if the U.S. does strike... more innocent lives will be lost; and that is just not right.

I think the U.S. should help more with humanitarian aid; help with the healing and housing of the Syrian people.

In case you have not heard:

In interview with Charlie Rose, Assad says he had nothing to do with attack

In an interview with Charlie Rose in Damascus Sunday, Syrian President Bashar Assad denied he had anything to do with last month's chemical weapons attack that killed thousands of Syrians, but would not confirm or deny his regime has chemical weapons, Rose said on CBS' "Face The Nation."

Source

The interview, Assad's first with an American television network in nearly two years, is scheduled to air on "The Charlie Rose Show" on PBS Monday — the same day President Barack Obama is scheduled to sit down with six different television networks, including PBS, to make his case to for a U.S. strike against Syria.

Additionally:

According to Rose, Assad again suggested Syrian rebels may have had something to do with the Aug. 21 attack on the Syrian people. He denied he knew there was a chemical attack, Rose said, and added that there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion judgment. Assad, he said, told him there is "no evidence I used chemical weapons against my own people."

Perhaps I'm being naive, but when someone is tried for a crime it doesn't mean they're already guilty. But there is evidence from a variety of sources (I'm sure of differing reliability) of massacres having taken place in Syria against 'pro-democracy protestors' by the government which should at least warrant an investigation.

No!

reply to post by ItDepends


Nyet .

reply to post by ItDepends


considering we dont even have all the facts at this point

HELL NO

No. And I still want to see the proof they claim to have that Assad was behind the gas release. I believe it was the rebels.

reply to post by ItDepends


No, Nein, Nyet. Non...etc.

Nope.

The guy that Obama pretended to be when he was running for president, would grasp the simple logic that bombing Syria now will cause exactly what he is says he wants to prevent from happening. The loss of - innocent life, dignity, and the chance for a peaceful solution. But that guy doesn't exist.

What's strangely ironic and perhaps hard to believe, but his word still carries some weight. If he would come out tomorrow and tell the world that they were wrong to rush it and that he would fully support any effort to solve this crisis peacefully, it could have a ripple effect ...

Another poll for what the chances are a miracle will happen ?

No! The U.S. should not strike Syria.

Feel free to use my vote (No!) in the future for all wars that the TPTB fabricate or fantasize about.