How many dead Americans would an attack on Syria be worth?

[David__77]

No one seems to be talking about that fact that there could actually be US deaths resulting from any attack on Syria. How many would this be worth to you?

22 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	0 US Deaths - I oppose US attacking Syria
	19 (86%)
	0 US Deaths - I support attacking Syria, but US deaths are impossible
	2 (9%)
	100 US Deaths - I support attacking Syria unless there are more than 100 US deaths
	0 (0%)
	1,000 US Deaths - I support attacking Syria unless there are more than 1000 US deaths
	0 (0%)
	10,000 US Deaths - I support attacking Syria unless there are more than 10000 US deaths
	0 (0%)
	It doesn\'t matterhow many US deaths it causes - I support attacking Syria
	1 (5%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Scootaloo]

1. US deaths, Turkish deaths, Israeli deaths, Iraqi deaths, Lebanese deaths, and oh yeah, SYRIAN deaths

[David__77]

2. That's right too. Of course the US would be killing Syrians.

But they seem to forget the cost at home. I've yet to see, in my lifetime, the US troops dying for a just cause. Lots of lives and families destroyed though.

[Brigid]

3. Put me down for "none."

This is not going to end well.

[David__77]

4. I agree.

Seems like there is (I dare say a minority) people on this site who DO want an attack against Syria. I am really curious what cost is too high for them.

My father was in Vietnam and made it out, unlike almost everyone in his unit. But it doesn't take US "boots on the ground" for Americans to die as a result of a war from afar. I hope people realize this. No, I don't think they do, and someday people's minds will be blown.

[tkmorris]

5. How many dead Syrians is it worth to NOT attack?

And by the way, that is the exchange rate on American lives to Syrians? 10-1? 100-1?

I am not advocating an attack. I just hate when arguments get framed this way. It's silly.

[David__77]

6. Syria belongs to Syrians.

I think we should stop giving arms to terrorists. That's the best way we can save Syrian lives.

[anneboleyn]

39. Thank you op, my thoughts exactly

[MADem]

7. No Americans will die, unless they hit their head and fall down after they push the button to launch

the cruise missile.

There will be no "boots on the ground" so please stop whipping up that false construct.

[David__77]

9. We will see... I think there might be a surprise.

But point taken - "no US deaths possible" from starting a war against Syria.

[MADem]

13. We aren't "starting a war against Syria."

We, and UK, and FRANCE, and Turkey, are going to give a nasty ass bully a beat down, and take away some of the tools that he uses to hurt innocents.

The goal, no matter what you hear from people with a lot of invective and no proof, is NOT "regime change." Put that out of your head.

I would urge everyone who is busily spitting, foaming, and swearing about this matter, and imparting false information that riles up those who are a bit shy on the facts of the matter, to read up on the Yemen Scenario for Syria.

The United States of America supports that solution. I do as well.

The hyperbole I've seen on this issue, most of it as a consequence of not KNOWING the President's and State Department's viewpoint, is nothing short of astounding.

So much heat, so little light.

[David__77]

15. Missiles = war.

I'm quite sure and would demand the US treat such attacks against the US in the same manner. No, of course the elites want to manage a "clean" regime change that keeps the army and police, etc. Not possible, period. The blood-thirsting takfiri terrorists want to kill every single infidel in Syria. Their only option to live is to support the Syrian government - and they do! My solidarity with Syrian Christians, Alawites, Sunnis, Druze, who stand firm against the salafist terrorists. This think tank nonsense is crap.

[MADem]

19. Because you say so? Sorry. You're wrong.

It's not war until war is declared.

If you don't like it, too bad.

You didn't read up on the Yemen Scenario, did you? Obviously not, from your response to me.

Go on, be brave and learn a little something!

It's not "think tank nonsense" either--it's supported by the majority of the government actors in the region, and beyond.

No "regime change" -- just a change in Top Dog. It worked in the Yemen!

[David__77]

21. Yemen is very, very different.

You cannot decapitate the Syrian state and establish a peace accord on that basis. I disagree with that legalistic interpretation that war only = "declared war."

[MADem]

31. No one is saying "decapitate" the Syrian state--they're saying give it a close haircut.

The entire regime structure stays in place--except the person of Bashir Assad.

He goes. Everyone else stays.

It's a very simple construct. Bashir is perceived as an impediment to peace. He's also a brutal murderer.

A few days of smashing up Bashir's toys is not "declaring war." It's giving a bully a taste of his own medicine.

[progressoid]

29. We haven't declared war since 1942.

A minor technicality that doesn't stop us from bombing the fuck out of anybody we want to.

[MADem]

30. Well, there's this...

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

And we aren't going to "bomb the fuck out of any BODY" -- we're going to bomb the fuck out of Assad's STUFF....the stuff he uses to poison people.

[progressoid]

33. Still not a declaration of war.

In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the "War Powers Resolution". This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be deployed without a formal declaration of war.

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

[MADem]

34. Your link makes the point--a compromise was reached. A deal was struck. Argument done.

We're not declaring war on Syria, so there's no need for a "declaration of war." You don't have to concern yourself.

No troops will be committed to engage in battle. No "boots" will find themselves "on the ground" in Damascus. No service personnel will be deployed anywhere in Syria for any amount of time. No reports to Congress will be required.

So, no need for a War Powers Resolution.

[progressoid]

35. Excactly, no need to declare war.

That's the point, there never has been a need to declare war. Repercussions and blowback be damned.

[MADem]

36. The "repercussions" are a result of al Assad's nasty habit of gassing his citizens in an attempt

to also gas the insurgents living among them.

Any "blowback" he feels--and he will feel blowback-- is a consequence of his own behavior.

[progressoid]

37. Yep, because our military interventions are always successful and without consequence.

[MADem]

38. Well, no one is claiming that, but this is a strike against property, not people... nt

[anneboleyn]

40. ?? Honestly that a very fine line to draw. "People" are very likely to be injured/killed

if we start bombing "property" in Syria. I don't think the line has ever been drawn that successfully.

[MADem]

41. If they're not standing next to those bunkers, those runways and those aircraft, they should be OK.

If you live next door to an ammo storage facility, maybe now is a good time to go visit relatives or friends who live some distance away.

[Gravitycollapse]

44. You're actually quite wrong. A missile attack would be an act of war.

Whether or not we declare war is, in essence, irrelevant.

We are following the predictions made by the correlates of war very closely.

Standard model: Threat of the use of force -----> Display of force ------>Use of force ------>War


US against Syria: Denounce ----> Threaten action (threat) -----> Shifting of military assets (display of force) -----> ???



The next steps are fairly predictable:

Military strikes (use of force) -----> War




That is how it works.

[MADem]

52. This is a targeted action to eliminate a threat. A war requires two or more players engaging

on the field of battle. This is going to be a one-way beat-down.

It's like taking the bully into the back alley, beating him up, and telling him Stop. Gassing. Those. People.

He knows what's coming--he's probably moving shit like crazy. And we've probably got a satellite with eyes on him.

[Arctic Dave]

12. LOL.

And we'll be in and out of Iraq in a few weeks.

Only a rube would think it ends after the button is pushed.

I'm not sure if you are a hunter or not, but anyone who is, knows that the work just begins once you pull the trigger.

[MADem]

14. You need to stop foaming at the mouth, and read post 13.

You might learn something.

[David__77]

17. The only ones frothing at the mouth are Syrian terrorists after eating their human prey.

Of course they get their cutlery from France, no doubt. If the US is so interested in such a solution as you claim, they would pressure the terrorists to, like the Syrian government, agree to sit for unconditional political talks.

[MADem]

25. You need to stop babbling about terrorists and read about what the solution entails.

Clearly, you've not done that, because if you had, you'd realize that a new player needs to "fleet up" as regime leader in order to make any talks--unconditional or otherwise--possible. The government of Syria will NOT change--the leadership will, though.

Bashir isn't about to sit down and talk with anyone--he'd rather dip into the sarin stores and poison people. He doesn't want to negotiate with anyone, he wants to kill them all. And he does not want to leave the country to his VP--he wants to retain power, the monster.

And the Russians don't want to offer him asylum--so much for that friendly relationship.

But he'll be boxed in soon enough that if he doesn't step down on his own, his own associates will give him a shove, unless they want to be overrun themselves.

USA has been trying to persuade Bashir to embrace a political solution for some time, (see this article from THREE MONTHS ago: http://www.arabnews.com/news/452543 ) a fact you want to apparently ignore because it does not suit some oddball framework you have in your head. The time for wheedling is done; this asshole needs to be told he can't get away with wholesale slaughter, and if you don't like that, too damn bad for you.

[David__77]

26. The Syrian government has long ago agreed to unconditional talks.

It the insurgents who will not do so. They demand surrender in advance of "talks," which is of course meaningless. If there were to be a coup against Assad, it would be to prevent him from fleeing. I don't think you understand the stakes for minorities in Syria. Assad cannot be allowed to resign or flee. His associated would much sooner kill him. The surging terrorists - yes TERRORISTS - want to annihilate all of them. Syrian Christendom is at stake, among other critical parts of the Syrian national fabric. This is why so many Syrian-Americans in fact support Assad.

[MADem]

27. I just provided you a link that proves otherwise. You didn't have time to read it.

You clearly aren't letting facts get in the way of your dogged insistence.

No one is proposing a "coup" against Assad, the idea is that he steps down voluntarily and his VP steps up, preserving the regime under new leadership. Assad then goes off into retirement to some place that will take his murdering ass (and as I said, his good buddies in Russia do NOT WANT HIM).

[David__77]

28. I read it. I don't agree with it, and don't consider it "proof."

We disagree about the facts in play. We will see how it plays out.

[Cha]

49. I know.. so many damn "whipping the mob into a frenzy" posts..

And, look at them being whipped.. boy howdy!

If it weren't so pathetic it would be funny.

[jessie04]

8. Better question..How many thousands of innocent Syrians will die from continuing chemical weapons?

nt

[David__77]

10. Go ask al Qaeda.

They'd be in the best position to give you an answer to that.

[Scootaloo]

43. Just last week you were advicating for the Egyptian junta

even as it slaughtered over eight hundred Egyptians, maimed a thousand more, and instituted military rule through the country. Now that liquidating its primary political opposition is done, al-Sisi's junta is targeting leftists, union organizers, gays, and foreigners.

Now you're here advocating for Islamist militias and insurgents that have slaughtered tens of thousands, against a secular regime, and are calling for action that will prolong and worsen the existing civil war.

Jessie, why is it you seem to advocate whatever position ends up with the most dead people?

[LostOne4Ever]

11. Horrible topic

I OBJECT to the very idea of trading one life for another. No one life is more or less valuable than another. Every life is precious and the very idea of trying to determine if or if not a war is worth it by measuring it by some arbritary number of American lives is disgusting.

Thousands if not millions of people are going to die whether or not we get involved. If we do get involved we need to make sure its for something worth sacrificing an undeterminable number of lives. Not for financial gain, or appearances, or pride. We should do it because it is the right thing to do.

I don't think this conflict meets that criteria. As I see it all we will do is trade one form of tyranny for another or create a situation of endless civil war and terrorism. War should not even be considered till every peaceful means has been exhausted...and even then it should only be considered reluctantly.

[HardTimes99]

42. +Infinity! - Best response I've read. Bravo! - nt

[Link Speed]

16. This will be "War" by Remote Control, an electronic invasion

There is simply no way that the US will put boots on the ground in a country with a viable military.

Hell, we got shut out in Iraq and Afghanistan, for dog's sake.

There were no Afghani forces and Iraq's were a three-ring circus, a car full of clowns.

[arely staircase]

18. the poll ignores american military hegemony in such cases

Assad's regime could be wiped out with little if no loss of American life. it is beside the point.

[David__77]

20. OK, so are you OK or not OK with "little to none" US deaths?

And it's interesting, so if people are OK with this, then all it takes is the credible threat to kill thousands of Americans for that support to collapse. It's not so hard, I hope people realize. Syria has modern anti-ship weapons, etc. Shit happens. No one expected 9/11 either. Too much hubris in this country.

[arely staircase]

23. my concern is that the excercise of american force

would put in place a Taliban/al Qaeda type regime. but the US is capable of taking Assad out within 30 days with the loss of possibly a few pilots, maybe with no loss of American life.

[David__77]

45. That concern is well-justified.

This is not some abstract "punishment," it is an intervention into a civil war. On one side of that war is al Qaeda and allied friends of terror.

[wild bird]

24. Not one drop of American blood, not one American life is worth an attack on Syria.

Hasn't our country given enough already? If it needs to be done, let those in the ME take care of it.

I am so sick of us being the world's policeman, NO FUCKING MORE WASTED AMERICAN LIVES.

[whatchamacallit]

32. Soldier's lives are an expendable resource to chicken hawks on both sides of the aisle n/t

[cali]

46. This isn't about dead americans.

gad.

[Scootaloo]

47. Well, the sort of people who want war generally can't be expected to give a damn about Syrian lives.

[David__77]

50. Not yet.

...

[Quantess]

48. I am especially interested in hearing what the chickenhawks say.

How many other Americans' lives is it worth?

[idwiyo]

51. Can't wait for Coalition of the Willing (tm) consisting of Obama, Cameron, Hollande, and Erdoğan

lead by example and hit the ground in Syria wearing their comfortable boots.

PS How about a question that asks how many innocent civilians is it OK to kill to justify a war.

[B Calm]

53. I don't have the stomach for another stupid war!