Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
arctine said:
I think my question is, can't we be outraged at both the killing of civilians and then also the fact that chemical weapons were used?
Click to expand...

We should be outraged at the indescriminate killing of civilians, The method by which they are being killed should not determine our moral decision on whether it deserves our attention or not.

Is the use of Sarin really morally different from hacking them up with a machete, or burning them in their homes, or hanging them in the street, or bombing them with conventional ordnance?

A war crime is a war crime and how we determine our response should not be dependent upon the type of weapon used to murder or the objectives or motivations of the faction employing such weapons.
 
Very happy with the result in parliament, hopefully this will be the turning of the tide on British foreign policy.

British politicians thank you, for once you managed to keep your pants on when horny america came calling...
 
Devlish said:
Well the UN were on the ground, we had taken part in that decision. The fact they decided to lock themselves into their bases and refuse access because they were worried about getting their white and blues dirty whilst half a million people were killed says more about the UN than it does about the UK.

So lets wait and see what they do this time, we seem to think thats best.
Click to expand...

Apart from the stock condemnation the UK PM and Foreign Secretary did zilch.
Hypocrites.
 
still lolzing at people saying we shouldnt do anything because we failed to do anything in the past in other countries - what a ridiculous point of view!

thats arguing for more interventions not less!
 
Amnesia said:
Yes we should help Assads forces fight the terrorists but cameron wants to go the other way.
Click to expand...

Because Assad's regime is friends with Iran's regime.

The reason team amerika wants to go in now is because it's secretly funded rebel army is losing against assad's brutal army, which is bad for israel.

They now want to send in the jets to finish assad off because they can't seem to do it using their original plan, hence this humanitarian crisis.
 
Whilst I'm strongly against the UK and US bombing Syria, most likely making the situation worse and have argued that case all thread long, lets make no mistake, Assad needs to go.

He is a brutal dictator, he is suppressing the majority and he is guilty of many atrocities. It's high time the middle east sorted it out for themselves, Turkey/Saudi and other neighbouring countries need to step up and deal with it. The extremist elements of the rebels need to be curtailed, the legitimate opposition need to be strengthened and minorities protected once the regime has fallen (protecting the Alawites, Christians and Kurds). Providing the neighbouring countries with the means to handle it would be a good start.
 
Craterloads said:
Whilst I'm strongly against the UK and US bombing Syria, most likely making the situation worse and have argued that case all thread long, lets make no mistake, Assad needs to go.

He is a brutal dictator, he is suppressing the majority and he is guilty of many atrocities. It's high time the middle east sorted it out for themselves, Turkey/Saudi and other neighbouring countries need to step up and deal with it. The extremist elements of the rebels need to be curtailed, the legitimate opposition need to be strengthened and minorities protected once the regime has fallen (protecting the Alawites, Christians and Kurds). Providing the neighbouring countries with the means to handle it would be a good start.
Click to expand...

The Turks have been busily butchering their Kurds for decades. There are Kurds in Syria. Creating chaos in Syria will only create more problems for Turkey.
 
Craterloads said:
Whilst I'm strongly against the UK and US bombing Syria, most likely making the situation worse and have argued that case all thread long, lets make no mistake, Assad needs to go.

He is a brutal dictator, he is suppressing the majority and he is guilty of many atrocities. It's high time the middle east sorted it out for themselves, Turkey/Saudi and other neighbouring countries need to step up and deal with it. The extremist elements of the rebels need to be curtailed, the legitimate opposition need to be strengthened and minorities protected once the regime has fallen (protecting the Alawites, Christians and Kurds). Providing the neighbouring countries with the means to handle it would be a good start.
Click to expand...

And how do you propose this happens ?

A direct military intervention with boots on the ground provided by the West is a disaster waiting to happen and its unlikely that the Arab league would agree to such a mission or even plan and take part on one themselves.

Providing the neighbouring countries with the means to sort it out is also dangerous, besides one of the nieghbouring countries already has the capability of making that entire region unhabitable for the next few 100 years should it chose to deploy its arsenal.

based on previous form Western powers aren't exactly winning hearts and minds when it comes to middle east interventions, not only with their home electorate but accross the entire middle eastern region.

They need to tread carefully to prevent the usual mistakes they have made over the last 2 decades.
 
Their civil war is pretty pathetic, why doesn't the whole country come together to topple either Assad or the FSA.

Their war will never end the way they're going, its all out war or nothing..
 
gettothechopper said:
aaand in the real world you cant do everything everywhere, politics, budgets, amounts of forces, practicalites and lots of people being isolationists doest really make that nice and lofty point of yours even remotely possible
Click to expand...

I agree, you cannot, but our Govt. tries to pretend they are occupying the moral high ground when it suits them. They only make themselves look stupid and hypocrites.
 
do_ron_ron said:
I think it is a case of if you claim the moral high ground then you have to be consistent.
Click to expand...

Yeah but also you got to weigh up what you achieve from intervention. Going to war costs lots of money, risks lots of political ties with certain nations, and ultimately puts our guys on the line.

You have to be selective where you go otherwise everything is wasted.

It would be nice to save all the world from suffering but you can't.
 
wildman said:
And how do you propose this happens ?

A direct military intervention with boots on the ground provided by the West is a disaster waiting to happen and its unlikely that the Arab league would agree to such a mission or even plan and take part on one themselves.

Providing the neighbouring countries with the means to sort it out is also dangerous, besides one of the nieghbouring countries already has the capability of making that entire region unhabitable for the next few 100 years should it chose to deploy its arsenal.

based on previous form Western powers aren't exactly winning hearts and minds when it comes to middle east interventions, not only with their home electorate but accross the entire middle eastern region.

They need to tread carefully to prevent the usual mistakes they have made over the last 2 decades.
Click to expand...

I agree the west shouldn't put boots on the ground, I'm suggesting a middle eastern force backed up by NATO or the west providing assistance. That way the people of the area would be behind it. Highly unlikely though, rock and a hard place.
 
Well you need to back a side that can win decisively otherwise afterwards things go down the swanny as they can't hold the country together.

But then how they treat the new minority who is out of power becomes a problem.

The notion of live and let live dies hard in the middle east.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom