Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
Has the UN team announced there findings yet? If yes what was there conclusion? if no then how can anybody be against the decision of Parliament if they have no idea what actually happened?
 
sanaxe1 said:
Has the UN team announced there findings yet? If yes what was there conclusion? if no then how can anybody be against the decision of Parliament if they have no idea what actually happened?
Click to expand...

no one cares about UN... I remember there was a case when US messed up pretty badly and all UN members decided to impose sanctions on America but American vetoed the sanctions... Pretty amazing stuff...

UN said there are no chemical weapons in Iraq no one gave a damn, they are just there but no one cares about them.
 
dowie said:
the only similarity is that you can loosely refer to them both as 'chemical weapons' - aside from that there is no comparison

WP use in warfare is still legal - yes it is very dubious to use it in civilian areas and they shouldn't do that - but its in no way similar to the use of nerve agent - you're comparing a weapon that produces hot smoke and causes nasty burning with one that can wipe out all life in a large area rapidly and indiscriminately. Aside from the use of the word 'chemical' to describe them they're not really comparable at all...
Click to expand...

The use of WP against civilians isn't dubious, its clearly against the protocols laid out for these kinds of munitions:

Article II spells out the substantive prohibitions. The main aim of this Article is to protect
the civilian population in the vicinity of the conflict zone from being targeted, and
suffering from the effects of the attack. It includes four main prohibitions. Firstly, under
Article 2(1), it is prohibited in all circumstances “[…] to make the civilian population as
such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary
weapons.”151 This prohibition mirrors more general bans on targeting civilians under
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and under customary international law
Click to expand...

Secondly, Article 2(2) prohibits in all circumstances “[…] to make any military objective
located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary
weapons.”152 This broad prohibition against attacking a military object153 within a civilian
concentration154 with air-delivered incendiary weapons has been criticized for being too
restrictive. It could potentially immunize a military objective from attack by air-delivered
incendiary weapons, in a situation where such weapons may be the only appropriate
means of attack.
Click to expand...

Thirdly, under Article 2(3), it is
“[…] prohibited to make any military objective located within a
concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary
weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such
military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians
and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to
minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to
civilian objects.”
Click to expand...

I'd say that's pretty black and white considering the frequent use of prohibited, followed by the circumstances surrounding its prohibition.
 
Lazder said:
no one cares about UN... I remember there was a case when US messed up pretty badly and all UN members decided to impose sanctions on America but American vetoed the sanctions... Pretty amazing stuff...

UN said there are no chemical weapons in Iraq no one gave a damn, they are just there but no one cares about them.
Click to expand...

Governments might not care about the UN if it underminds them. But why would people on a forum Not care what the organisation who's sole job it is to find out what happened say?
 
I'm just hoping it doesn't ruin our ties with the US. I kinda like em and when I visit there I want my free entrance to theme parks with my military ID lol.
 
sanaxe1 said:
Governments might not care about the UN if it underminds them. But why would people on a forum Not care what the organisation who's sole job it is to find out what happened say?
Click to expand...

because that's not the organization job or even their intent.

they're role iun this is purely to decide if sarin was used, not who used it.
 
Tefal said:
well innocent until proven guilty applies to nations just as much as individuals.
Click to expand...

I am not for or against blowing of Syria. If it can be adequately proven that the Syrian government used CW then a measured response should be made. Currently I think this is what is still missing. Smashing up a sovereign nation on the grounds that 'well it could only have been 'x' regime who could have done this, is a serious act of lunacy.

However I will still support my views that any other nations with transgressions against the same set of protocols for warfare also need to be held to account.

The rules should apply equally to any military that steps over them, that's why these protocols exist, to protect civilians.
 
Lazder said:
I actually feel proud since we supposed to be "democratic" society where citizens decide the fate of our government course and thats what has been done.
Click to expand...
Think you misread my post or didn't read my earlier posts. I'm delighted with what happened in Parliament. It's apparently rare when parliament actually aligns with public opinion! :)

I was referring to DC's gung-ho shoot and ask questions later attitude, and that Britain seemingly punches above its weight on the world stage. Like we always have to get involved. Guess that's a consequence of our 'special relationship' with the US.
 
Mixed feelings about the commons vote.
I think it should be down to the UN, but time and again the UN has been shown to be a spineless pointless organisation.
The world is to small and we are to far along just to let people/countries do what ever they want. The world needs policing but that should be by the UN, not us/uk or others but as a joint venture. It was also to early for any vote to take place, wait for the UN report at least. What is a few extra days going to do.

There's also what do you do, assuming UN report comes back that they were used and there's strong evidence, I think cruise missile/air strike on military warehouses/bases would be a proportionate step as well as issuing arrest warrants for war crimes. The other side seems just as bad though, so there is no long term easy way out.

But I think the atitude by many that its happening in another country, we should just sit back and watch is totally wrong. It's one planet and it needs a world police.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
But I think the atitude by many that its happening in another country, we should just sit back and watch is totally wrong. It's one planet and it needs a world police.
Click to expand...

Why dont we get involved when Israel goes bonkers on palestines and gaza?? It seems the "world police" is very corrupt and only "polices" in countries there is return on investment...

Open your eyes, look how many wars there are in Africa where women are raped and kids are killed and yet no one gives a damn, its not even on the news, casualties that are happening in some African countries in their countless revolutions would put Syria,Libya whatever to shame.

North Korea kills far more of its own citizens than Syria, if we would talk over the lifespan of north korea existence we would be into millions murdered by the government... do we go launching rockets at them?? no. They still put prisoners into gas chambers and test chemical weapons on them like rats, do we care? no.

Do we care about Syria?? YESSS, a country where majority of the population supports bashar al assad and where the "rebels" are damn al-queeda.
 
Last edited:
I am over the moon that the government had lost both votes and David Cameron must go. I hate him. I had phoned up the MP the day before to raise voice my angry and furious against David Cameron and disagree with him. I told the MP, the whole heart of British public doesn't want any war and I have to say NO, NO WAR please. So, I am very pleased my vote was against him to say NO. Well done MP's.

I expecting USA President Obama will pulled out as well because UK isn't going there now. Thanks godness!
 
Glaucus said:
But I think the atitude by many that its happening in another country, we should just sit back and watch is totally wrong. It's one planet and it needs a world police.
Click to expand...

This, 100%.

It's not about Syria, it's about sending a message that using chemical weapons will not be tolerated by the rest of the world.
 
I fail to see the moral difference between killing a child with a bomb, a bullet or a chemical weapon? Are we seriously putting a value on a child's life according to the method in which they are killed? I would say they are all equally unacceptable and if we have a moral obligation to stop one, then we have a moral obligation to stop them all.
 
Castiel said:
I fail to see the moral difference between killing a child with a bomb, a bullet or a chemical weapon? Are we seriously putting a value on a child's life according to the method in which they are killed? I would say they are all equally unacceptable and if we have a moral obligation to stop one, then we have a moral obligation to stop them all.
Click to expand...
Indeed, focusing on the method of delivery for murder seems to be missing the point somewhat.
 
Well thank god for common sense prevailing. I still expect the government to try and get round it somehow but the worst seems to have been averted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom