Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?


  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
So Russia should provide the evidence that they must have as they are so sure Assad didn't do it?

Innocent until proven guilty not the other way round. The US is calling for military strikes against Syria so it's on them to provide concrete evidence to justify starting another war.
 
Last edited:
The UK is not one of the majority, the UK voted against military intervention because there is no evidence yet, Cameron has no right to vote against the UK's public opinion.

hopefully he disappears faster than bush did although I doubt we will ever see a politician for the people in our life time
 
The UK is not one of the majority, the UK voted against military intervention because there is no evidence yet, Cameron has no right to vote against the UK's public opinion. The poll on here also suggests the UK public is against military intervention unless there is a UN security council resolution.

No the UK voted against military intervention which imo was the right decision but we didn't give a reason. Personally I think George Galloway was correct when he said public opinion was against use of force because of the Al Quedas we might end up helping.
 
No the UK voted against military intervention which imo was the right decision but we didn't give a reason. Personally I think George Galloway was correct when he said public opinion was against use of force because of the Al Quedas we might end up helping.

I think you have summed up the majority of british public opinion on Syria very accurately.
 
Last edited:
and I'm sure if you asked most british people they would say that 400m would have been better spent paying off some of our national debt or something else like helping the homeless in our country.
if the arab countries could afford to pay for the whole invasion like kerry claimed then they can pay for the humanitarian aid too.

why does middle east problems always end up being a western problem? why can't the oil rich arab nations help each other out?

then again I'm sure western countries would rather keep them divided and weak
 
and I'm sure if you asked most british people they would say that 400m would have been better spent paying off some of our national debt or something else like helping the homeless in our country.
if the arab countries could afford to pay for the whole invasion like kerry claimed then they can pay for the humanitarian aid too.

why does middle east problems always end up being a western problem? why can't the oil rich arab nations help each other out?

then again I'm sure western countries would rather keep them divided and weak

Yeah good point and a good question. Remember Lawrence of Arabia.
 
Back
Top Bottom