Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
scorza said:
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.
Click to expand...

you mean in the same way that Israel do not allow UN inspections of their nuclear capabilities and are not signed up to the non proliferation treaties thus making them a threat to civilised nations, or is that different because the US carry a veto that will protect Israeli interests.

You can't have a rule book that you like to throw around if you casually forget about it when it does not suit.

There are a lot of people spouting media populist propaganda without really understanding that region at all.

I know I am grinding on Israel a lot, but they really are a case in point of why there is such distrust of the west with reagards to middle east policy and involvement.
 
I'm glad that we aren't getting involved in military action as our economy just can't afford it anyway. Cruise missiles aren't cheap, neither is the logistical nightmare of deploying the troops and vehicles necessary to even fire them in the first place.

Can see this escalating quickly, which no one wants either.
 
wildman said:
You can't have a rule book that you like to throw around if you casually forget about it when it does not suit.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

We aren't going charging into Africa are we? And there are certainly a lot terrible crimes committed there every day. Yet we sit by and let that happen.

The Syria issue has been mis-handled by the media so badly that it makes my blood boil. Things in the Middle East aren't as simple as "lets go kick their ass because they used Chemical Weapons"
 
Glad you said 'at the moment'
800,000 -- 1,071,000 people were slaughtered during the Genocide in Rwanda and the 'world police' :rolleyes: stood by and did squat :mad:

Let's not kid ourselves, glory hunting ****eron doesn't give a flying **** about the British public so don't pretend you give a toss about the Syrians!!

Syria is the last stand for Iran, It's Iran's oil that is being played out in the long game here. Even though Iran has democratically elected a more moderate leader, the US and her allies are determined to effect regime change in both Syria and Iran. Take both those countries out and the Middle East falls into line.

Since 9/11 we've been complicit in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent humans. We should be ashamed.
 
Last edited:
Given the way we have been mislead by our govt in the past I have to say no. Diplomacy is the only way to stop this conflict, and don't forget Syria has some powerful allies.

Horrific though the conflict is do we really know what is going on?
 
RDM said:
No, Syria is about the worst conflict currently going on at the moment.
Click to expand...

Mexico's drug/social conflict runs it a close second and the Congo has it beaten by over five million dead, not that it's on UK news very often despite dragging on for over a decade and having huge set piece battles in the early years when they had the manpower.

It's also the conflict that bankrupted Zimbabwe, they had over 25,000 men there at one time, backing the side the US didn't at great cost.
 
Why do America call anyone that's used weapons of mass destruction terrorist nations? What sort of weapons will America be using to attack them FFS? Weapons of minimal destruction? :rolleyes:

Can't keep their weapons in their pants for more than 5 minutes.
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Glad you said 'at the moment'
800,000 -- 1,071,000 people were slaughtered during the Genocide in Rwanda and the 'world police' :rolleyes: stood by and did squat :mad:

Let's not kid ourselves, glory hunting ****eron doesn't give a flying **** about the British public so don't pretend you give a toss about the Syrians!!

Syria is the last stand for Iran, It's Iran's oil that is being played out in the long game here. Even though Iran has democratically elected a more moderate leader, the US and her allies are determined to effect regime change in both Syria and Iran. Take both those countries out and the Middle East falls into line.

Since 9/11 we've been complicit in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent humans. We should be ashamed.
Click to expand...
The thing is, we can do something about it.

Like the Green party or not, they would not have gone into all these wars, that's something I'm pretty confident about.

You are bang on the money about the regime chance, that's the real objective - Syria is simply the gateway (due to it being the closest ally of Iran).
 
And whilst all this is going on the Sudanese government has begun again to commit genocide in Darfur :(
Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered over the last decade in Sudan, the west has pretty much stood by and done nothing :mad:
 
Last edited:
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
And whilst all this is going on the Sudanese government has begun again to commit genocide in Darfur :(
Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered over the last decade in Sudan, the west has pretty much stood by and done nothing :mad:
Click to expand...

Are you arguing for or against interventionism? You seem to be doing both so not entirely sure.
 
If Blair was in charge still, I wonder how many of those people who voted against for labour would have voted for military action... can't prove it, but I bet most of them voted for their leader, and not their better judgement, otherwise a lot more would have voted against it.

Also Cameron is daft, he should have waited a few more days, until their was more conclusive evidence, it may of made the difference.

tqfp.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom