Poll: U.S. foreign policy

This citizen journalism image purports to show two injured Syrian boys who survived a massacre in Mazraat al-Qubair on the outskirts of Hama, central Syria, Thursday, June 7, 2012. Photo: AP Photo/Shaam News Network, SNN

Should the U.S. intervene in cases of genocide, even if that means risking American soldiers?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
 

Comments

  • Colecala45

    I can’t believe there are people who want American soldiers to “intervene”. My answers is No,I think this whole Syrian revolution started by a group in side the their own Government. The U.S should focus in saving or paying for most of its debt. Enough with the spending already.

  • http://www.backstreets.com/ Paul Haider

    We should intervene only when Americans are at risk of getting killed; we can’t afford to protect any of our allies, and we have to think about the ways to generate revenues instead of wasting our taxpayer dollars.  War has not generated revenues for the federal government and its citizens since 1945; it is only the military contractors such as Halliburton that will financially benefit from risking the lives of our troops.  I thought that we were beyond that stupid mentality after Dickhead Cheney was removed from the White House in his wheelchair while appearing like Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life. 
    Paul Haider, Chicago

  • Edmund Rochford

    If it is genocide, as defined by the UN, then the UN is required to intervene to prevent it (per it’s charter). To date, the UN has avoided defining anything as genocide, at least while it occurred, to avoid having to take action (see Rwanda, Sudan, Cambodia, etc). The US only defines actions as genocide when it benefits us and where it costs us little (see defeated Nazi Germany) but not where we would have to go to war to stop it or bring the perpetrators to justice (see Soviet Union under Stalin, Chima under Mao, as well as the aforementioned Rwanda and Cambodia). It doesn’t matter if we should do it, the fact is that we won’t-ever.

  • Wanda Renee

    With the wording I say no but intervention can be done without using American Soldiers.  Intervention can be achieved using the UN (UnitedNations) – the organization is the main champion for genocide.  If they ask for American troops then we give them what they need, but they will also require other nations to participate in the endeavor of stopping such an heinous crime.

  • Brokermaw

    We owe it to other human beings the world over to work to obliterate genocide as promised decades ago. Never, never to let this happen again. And yet we stand by and let this happen in African nations, Bosnia and Cambodia. Come folks scream loud to keep this in the publics face.

  • Kyle Suchy

    The way I see it, national borders are transient and inconsequential; there is no long-term reason for a country to build up a strong military, except to prevent the violation of universal human rights when diplomacy and brokering fails. It is our duty as a civilized race to prevent ourselves, nationality notwithstanding.

  • Anonymous

    the U.S. needs to stay home and take care of it’s own people, haven’t we learned  that no matter what we do , we will come out with a black eye?

    if we want ASSAD gone make it so, scrub a  missile of any and all identifying marks  and park it on his head, I would be hard pressed to believe we can see his travels from the air,  with a drown, take out assad and the top leaders, then let the goverment do what they do best, lie thru the teeth and out other bodily orfices.

  • Anonymous

    the U.S. needs to stay home and take care of it’s own people, haven’t we learned  that no matter what we do , we will come out with a black eye?

    if we want ASSAD gone make it so, scrub a  missile of any and all identifying marks  and park it on his head, I would be hard pressed to believe we can see his travels from the air,  with a drown, take out assad and the top leaders, then let the goverment do what they do best, lie thru the teeth and out other bodily orfices.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Gradwohl/100000423341902 Eric Gradwohl

    this is a hard one, and as unpopular as this sounds, the USA should stay out of other domestic policies. As much as it sickens me to hear about an official policy of mas murder and ethnic cleansing, we must remember that when we go into another nation and bomb them in order to stop their policy, we are made to look like hypocrites, for example we bombed Serbia and Libia and is threatening military actions in Syria while we close a blind eye to the atrocities being commuted by Bahrain, Yemen and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in both the west bank and Gaza. We are also starting to persicute both are Muslim community and Latin American Community not to mention what we are doing to the African Americans and what we are still doing to the Native Americans who manege to survive our own genocide against them. How do we expect Syria or Iran to take us seriously when our Ally, Turkey, still denies the Armenian genocide and the Ethnic cleancing of Asia Minor or Anatolia of the Greeks who have lived there from about 1000 bce untill they were kicked out in 1921 by Turkey our Ally

  • Connie

    My initial response is, no, no way. It’s nothing but a quagmire and would be a difficult task. Then I think about the holocaust museum I attended and the images I saw. I also think about the images from Rwanda. How can we continue to turn our backs on people who are being annihilated only because of their ethnicity?

  • Anonymous

    American foreign policy, whatever it may be to an ordinary, dispassionate or much disinterested in foreign wars cannot be a perpetual penchant for bunch of rednecks and skinheads.

    Long gone are those days of “might is (more) right.” right wing (Christian) fundamentalist jaded jargon.

    America would be still America, “the greatest democracy in the (un)known world.”

    Why Americans want foreign occupation wars to prove their point of (world) view?

    Poverty, at home needs more (moral) action. economy ain’t getting any better, no matter who is responsible, president, Barack Obama or Ben Bernanke.

    Don’t even think that I am responsible.

    I got better things to do. Stay away from getting killed by cross (friendly) fire.

    …and I am Sid Harth@webworldismyoyster.com

  • Richard Pelto

    Maybe the better question would be: how often are we using the word “genocide” to provide an excuse for maintaining world-wide hegemony? And we do so selectively. Remember ignoring Rwanda? And maybe it would not have been an operable excuse to muster armies during the Hungarian uprising.