Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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


  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
I don't think it will bring peace but its better than doing nothing.

why Syria though? there are places with much much worse suffering and death that have been going on much longer.

why the **** Syria and not them?

I it simply that you don't really give a **** about people just whatever happens to be in the news papers at the moment?
 
I'll be cheering every US missile.

Rain them down I say.

Rules are rules.

This is your view that I thought was blood thirsty and extreme, I'd be interested in any quotes you have of a similar nature from any of the yes voting MP's.

Raining down cruise missiles with high explosive warheads by the many hundreds will undoubtedly lead to thousands of civilian and conscripted Syrian deaths and horrific injuries, not to mention vital infrastructure, cheer away dude :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Agree, what a vulgar, uncivilized and utterly disgusting statement to make :mad:
As for the 'Rules are rules' :rolleyes: Yeah because the U.S and us are squeaky clean when it comes to abiding by international law and rules :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
So how exactly is the Assad regime now a threat to US interests?

The unfettered use of chemical weapons or other WMD in the Middle-East or anywhere else is a threat to every civilised nation's interests. Now that hasn't happened yet but since Obama made the use of CW a red-line, one might argue that allowing this incident to go unpunished makes the scenario above more likely.
 
Oh please.

They knew not to use CW and they've stuck two fingers and a blatant "come at me bro" up at that.

Do you have some inside knowledge that the rest of the world does not? Or have you just been chilling with Senator Kerry?

It's not that I don't disagree its a complete violation if the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its own people, but this isn't exactly a black and white issue, is it? To state that it is would be either totally disingenuous or just an exposure of your complete lack of understanding of the issue's complexities.

Going in all guns blazing is the easiest option. It's just a shame history has rarely proven it to be the correct or sensible option. All it does is appease a certain demographic who are rarely measured in their opinions.

Pretty sad really, but the sort of level we expect from you. How about we get back to the issue.

Sorry, what? Do I know you? Who are you again?

No, seriously, who are you and why are you speaking as if you know me? And who is 'we'? Your imaginary friends club? :confused:
 
Agree, what a vulgar, uncivilized and utterly disgusting statement to make :mad:
As for the 'Rules are rules' :rolleyes: Yeah because the U.S and us are squeaky clean when it comes to abiding by international law and rules :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Thanks, both for the ethical support and your sig pic but mainly for the sig pic:D
 
No, it really isnt and the fact you think theres a similiarity between WP designed for smoke clouds and Sarin (or some other chemical weapon) designed to kill large amounts of people really shows where youre coming from - and its way out there.

Yes it really is, WP was not designed for smoke clouds it just has the ability to be used that way, it was designed as an incendiary weapon like napalm and when it is deliberately used that way especially versus civilians it constitutes a human rights violation and a war crime.

P.S throwing tinfoil arguments at people talking logic and reason because you can't think of a decent argument is childish.
 
Agree, what a vulgar, uncivilized and utterly disgusting statement to make :mad:

Boo hoo.

Another poster incapable of accepting alternate viewpoints without having a brain fart.

I support a punitive strike against Assads infrastructure - many do, get over yourself. :)
 
I'm in 2 minds

the selfish part of me is glad government vote lost - less chance of future reprisals (terrorist attacks etc)

but the other part of me (in prob majority) feels like its wrong to stand by and basically say "not our problem"
 
Military action on Syria is not the answer.

All it will do is de-stablise an area that is already in turmoil.

Not to mention the traders will have a field day and make the most money they can by hiking crude oil prices.

In the end all it will do is kill MORE people and the rest of us will end up paying more for petrol

Both of which are extremely annoying.

Find a diplomatic solution ffs.
 
I'm in 2 minds

the selfish part of me is glad government vote lost - less chance of future reprisals (terrorist attacks etc)

but the other part of me (in prob majority) feels like its wrong to stand by and basically say "not our problem"

but we have been doing this for over 2 years...

It's not like it's a new civil war it was just ignored even when we were talking about libya.

there were a few more even worse civil wars in some african countries going on too that probably still are with much more deaths but no one cares
 
Back
Top Bottom