How many dead Syrians is an acceptable number in order to topple Assad?

[rug]

How many Syrians should be killed in order to stop Assad from killing Syrians?

[rug]

6. No, it asks how many Syrians are you willing to kill to get rid of Assad.

[LittleBlue]

11. I misread it then

Somehow I interpreted toppling Assad as intervention

My bad

[rug]

12. No, it could have been phrased better.

Reading it again, yours was a fair interpretation.

[David__77]

2. The US should stop supporting al Qaeda and al Qaeda-allied terrorists.

That's been a big part of the problem. Without this intervention, the terrorists could be routed and a peace accord established.

[David__77]

3. We should take those billions and feed and clothe every poor child in the USA.

...

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. Obama won't use military strike to oust Assad

Obama won't use military strike to oust Assad

So unless that policy changes, the answer is none since that isn't the stated goal.

[rug]

16. I bet you believe in unicorns too.

[Agnosticsherbet]

18. I'm an agnostic as to the existence of Unicorns.

When I see one with its head in a virgins lap, I'll accept it's existence.

[RZM]

5. Estimates are that 80-100K have died so far

That number will keep going up with or without Western intervention.

[Link Speed]

19. I find it amusing that this estimate is endorsed by MSM while...

the Johns Hopkins(?) estimate of Iraqi casualties was, basically, dismissed out-of-hand.

[bobduca]

23. Foreign atrocities we see when we want to attack...

Atrocities committed by us in foreign lands? NEVER seen or heard of em.

[morningfog]

30. So, what is your answer to the question posed by the OP?

How many is acceptable for the US to kill to topple Assad?

[RZM]

43. I don't know

I have no idea how many would die due to Western bombs. I don't know how much longer the war will go on. All I do know is that the killing will continue for the foreseeable future no matter what.

My preference is that the war stop so Syria can heal. But you can't stop a war by hoping. If Western intervention could cut the war short and save lives in the long term, that would be great. But it's not clear that would happen. It could make it worse and lead to further instability in the region.

If I were the president I would be torn and probably leaning towards not interfering. But I won't be shedding tears for Assad if he does get the boot.

[denbot]

7. How many Syrian dead would be necessary to act?

Seriously Rug, at what point would you advocate intervention?

[rug]

9. I don't think military intervention will fix it.

At best, it replaces the problem. At worst, it exacerbates it.

[Bake]

10. More importantly, who replaces Assad?

Al Qaeda?

Seems to me there are two sides to this civil war, and neither one is all that friendly to our interests.

Bake

[Agnosticsherbet]

31. I think the Syrian people should decide that.

Many of them seem to be fed up with an Alawite dictator. I think they have the right to determine who is next. I felt the same about Egypt. It did not bother me that the Muslim Brotherhood took over (briefly), even if they were philosophically opposed to a lot of Western Concepts of Freedom. I don't think the military should have overthrown the government, nor be going about the business of killing its citizens.

I keep seeing this Al Qaeda meme. It's beginning to look a lot like Bushmas around here with all the Al Qaeda boogiemanery. If the people want an Al Qaeda affiliate in charge, it should be their right to put them there. The age of handpicked middle eastern dictators should be over. They can pick their own now.

[Bake]

44. Fine. Let them get rid of Assad themselves.

We don't need another war.

Bake

[NightWatcher]

8. We're not toppling Assad, just degrading his capabilities

And thus ensuring that the two sides slug it out for years with high casualties. This isn't going to be Libya, no matter how they sell it to us. I'm guessing it will look closer to the first Iraq war where our engagement was responsible for unknown numbers of dead Kurds and other native tribal types.

[Scootaloo]

13. That's not even a difference.

By "degrading his capabilities" we are operating on behalf of assorted insurgent groups seeking to depose him.

That is, our action is an effort to topple Assad.

Though I agree completely that our ultimate goal is to keep this civil war going as long as possible -I have no doubt that if some insurgent group gets the upper hand, we'll target them as well in our "war on terror."

[leveymg]

38. I think the home game version is called "Wheel of Terror"

And, some of the viewing audience may have a chance to be contestants! Just mail a stamped, self-addressed envelope to Lavant Wheel of Terror care of your local station, and you may be invited to be a member of our studio audience with a chance to compete for Big Prizes!

[Recursion]

14. Wrong question. When does toppling Assad make US and the region more secure?

There's not some magic number of deaths line. The action would improve security or not.

[rug]

15. Was it insecure 29 months ago?

[Recursion]

20. Yes; the civil war is 29 months old

It's also the last outpost of Ba'athism, which would all things being equal be a great thing to have disappear from the face of the earth.

That said, all things are not equal.

[rug]

24. Let's see.

I take it you concede Syria was stable enough 29 months ago that there was no need for war.

Then the civil war against Assad began.

As a result, the region is now unstable.

Ergo, destroy the Assad regime.

BTW, Ba'athism was in power as they ordered dessert, was it not?

[Recursion]

36. Huh?

You seem to be excessively moralistic here, as if it matters which side is "right" or "wrong".

[rug]

42. "Excessively moralistic"?

If you think opposing yet more wars is excessively moralistic, you have summed up in two words exactly what's wrong with U.S. foreign policy.

[leveymg]

34. I suppose you prefer the Muslim Brotherhood or Salaafism? Because a combination of the two is the

most likely immediate successor to the Syrian Ba'ath Party.

I can guarantee you, even the Israelis will miss the Assad family

[Recursion]

35. That would be a stupid thing to suppose

As I said "all things are not equal"

[leveymg]

39. The point, all things being equal, still stands.

The regime change operations unleashed across MENA by Madam Secretary and the former DCI are an ever-growing disaster. This is only the latest mutation. What's next?

[HolyMoley]

17. OP asks trick question

No trick questions...

[Cleita]

21. Zero.

A suggestion was made today that we, the Russians and everyone who is supplying all sides with weapons stop, a ceasefire ordered and then the UN should make all sides take a seat at the negotiating table to forge a peace and perhaps a new government. It works for me.

[riderinthestorm]

25. [phone]. nt

[cry baby]

27. I think it's worth a try, Cleita! Something must be tried. nt

[Cleita]

40. Unfortunately, it's not up to us but the PTB.

I hope for once they do the right thing.

[JaneyVee]

22. How can we be sure the next Syrian leader won't do the same?

[rug]

26. Can't. Look at Egypt.

[NuclearDem]

28. Syria doesn't exist in a vacuum.

It's become a proxy war. What Korea and Vietnam were for the US and USSR, Syria is for Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Thousands will die because Iran and Saudi Arabia want to bloody each other's noses and expand their influence in the region.

[cry baby]

29. The humanitarian in you asks this question. It must be asked. nt

[NoOneMan]

32. What's the Syrian to American Exchange Rate at these days?

[backscatter712]

33. Don't forget the follow-up question:

After we blow however many people into fine red mist to topple Assad, will the government (or armed gang) that takes over afterwards be any less violent or nasty?

Will the Syrians be better off after Team America completes the mission?

[OmahaBlueDog]

37. Only the Syrian people can answer that question

It is not a question Americans can or should answer, IMO.

[Corruption Inc]

41. The real question should be "how much money will be made by the empire of war?"

The answer to your question is millions of people are acceptable "collateral damage" as long as our empire's propaganda networks can keep inventing lies to make it look justified.

Sadly, the warmongers only care about money at this point.