Syria vote...

[london_red]

No, but there have been a number of polls.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/syria-crisis-not-send-troops-2232398

I know, I just think on big policy decisions like this there should be a more formal gauging of public opinion on the matter. As there should have been before we went into Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's not just about sending troops, the Parliamentary vote yesterday was on a motion that a strong humanitarian response was needed that may, if necessary, require military action.

In the yougov polls referenced in the article you link to, 77% supported sending humanitarian supplies and less than half those polled were against military intervention limited to using aircraft and missiles to enforce a no fly zone.

[ChinaWhitenRed]

Something needs to be done over there. The world cant sit back and let Assad continue to attack his own people, the pictures from the chemical attack were horrific.

Does there need to be military action? Definitely IMO, but from a selfish point our view, just not involving our troops.  Hopefully that is what will now happen.

I may be a bit un-PC here, but the way us westerners think about killing each other is totally different to those who think nothing of blowing themselves up in a crowded street, flinging chemical weapons around, machete attacks killing 1/2 million in a couple of weeks etc etc etc. Do you think any military intervention will stop this kind of action which has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years? I personally do not think any intervention from the West will do any good. In the good old days before internet and instant news we wouldn't have heard about these things and more importantly would have done nothing about it when we did eventually hear about it.
Look at Egypt, they got rid of some despot in a "people's uprising", had fair elections to vote some religious nutters in and then less than a year later disposed him, banged him up and released the previous despot form jail!?! And we are giving these countries "Aid"?!
Why should we have to try and force our morals onto these countries when it is all too ovbious that they do not share the same morals as us? "Eye for an eye" "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" for example.
Leave them to it.

[iffy]

Why should we have to try and force our morals onto these countries when it is all too ovbious that they do not share the same morals as us?

I agree that the important question is whether we can 'do any good'. But it's generally accepted that US drone strikes in Northern Pakistan have killed hundreds of innocent people, and dozens of children. I'm not sure the "west" has the moral high ground here.

[Loobug]

I don't pretend to understand the whole picture but I would assume that politics being what they are, the 'no' vote today could easily change to a 'yes' vote later if the situation changed. Ignoring the situation isn't the answer, we are fortunate in our society to have a level of stability / safety which we take for granted. If no one came to the assistance of others in need we'd all be worse off ultimately. I agree we should be sharing this responsibility more often however!

The difficulty in this situation appears to be that direct military to remove the chemical capability is possibly one of the only viable options. Sanctions only hurt the people you want to protect and arming the rebels is probably supporting Al Qaeda..

I wonder how many of the 'no' votes were grounded in the fact that most people believe we can't afford to act from a financial viewpoint.

[herthab]

I may be overly cynical but I can't help thinking that a large percentage of the no votes came about  less due to our elected representatives acting in accordance with public opinion and more because of the unmitigated fuck up that was the Iraqi invasion.
The main point for me is how governments cherry pick which international problems to get involved in. Use of chemical weapons is an international crime, which calls for intervention. Our government, like most, has zero credibility.

[ron dodgers]

I use them, frequently.

[Ticker45]

Unfortunately this "civil war" was left to rumble on far too long as both the Russians and Chinese for whatever reasons kept saying the West should keep out of it.

It was known that chemical weapons were held by Assad (as they did not sign up to the unilateral agreement banning them) and so he uses them (as far as the intelligence goes). So now what, surgical strikes eventually against the plants that are known to exist is much too late, and no doubt many more people will die.

Whoever "wins" and takes over will seek retribution over their supposed enemies as still happens in Iraq, Libya, Egypt etc. etc., and unfortunately the tribal mindset of the Arab world will work that way for many years to come.

British options were limited, people did not want to see our soldiers put into s**t situations once again on the whim of politicians, but neither do we wish to see wholesale slaughter as is currently happening. God only knows what the answer is just glad I do not have to make that decision.

  

[leefer]

Nope it's on here!  Would have been a disaster if we had jumped in. Cameron has shot himself in the foot with this.

Dont agree,think he came out of it well to be honest.

He asked the Government for a vote...he got the result and we don't go to war.

A bit ironic that the Labour Party poo pooed it considering they rushed in head first last time round.

Harsh lessons have been learned.

[london_red]

Dont agree,think he came out of it well to be honest.

He asked the Government for a vote...he got the result and we don't go to war.

A bit ironic that the Labour Party poo pooed it considering they rushed in head first last time round.

Harsh lessons have been learned.

Bang on.

[jonny72]

I'm all in favour of military action to prevent innocent civilians being killed, problem with Syria is that once again military action is all about regime change. Having a vote before they knew if chemical weapons had been used and by whom was stupid, should have waited until they had all the facts.

Personally I'd like to see UN forces being sent in with a clear message to those fighting....keep it between yourselves and we'll leave you alone, start targeting civilians or us and we're coming for you.

[Dostoyevsky]

Assad has presided over a relatively stable and tolerant nation for decades. It was only when our shadow government - whose interests certainly do not chime with that of the British people - along with the covert agents in control of US foreign policy began instigating strife by sponsoring foreign mercenaries to destabilise that nation, that this shitstorm was created in Syria.

Thank fuck the British - to my great surprise - have finally shown themselves wise to the same old tried and trusted methods to prosecute war against an innocent nation. Our "superiors" have engineered this conflagration and the brutal consequences are of their making.

I DON'T for a millisecond believe that Assad's "regime" would gain any advantage from perpetrating this chemical attack, at a time when huge strides have been made to counter gains made by the Islamic fundamentalist rebels. Furthermore, at a time when weapon's inspectors had just arrived in Syria. The tide of this war is on Assad's side.

THEY MUST THINK WE'RE FUCKING IMBECILES.

Conclusion- Rebels, who would have no compunction about sacrificing innocents lives for the objective of drawing Western forces into this maelstrom, acquired/were provided with the means to perpetrate this vile act.

IT IS TOOO FUCKING CONVENIENT

[Saxondale]

I blame shrewsbury.

[Abrahammer]

I've missed these conspiracy theories

[Dostoyevsky]

Notice how, after the parliament vote yesterday, the British Bullshitting Corporation went into overdrive showing us heart string tugging images of alleged government airborne attacks. We were treated to a reporter saying that he could sniff "napalm-like" substances in the air - and he is qualified to make such a conclusion, how? Then we had the staggering propagandist attempt at showing scenes of chemically burnt individuals staggering by themselves into a make-shift hospital - this had all the hallmarks of Micheal Jackson's Thriller video. A guy with shredded jeans sways into picture - depicted more than once - with what would appear to be horrific burns- curiously unaided by those nearby. Anyone with those wounds would be screaming in agony, but there he is, straight out of the make up room, making the most of his appearance infront of a Worldwide audience. Then we have the female British volunteer medic who took wooden acting to another level, descrying the Western world for their inaction. Pretty penny for her no doubt.

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT. There is some sinister shit at play here.

[Dostoyevsky]

This engineered conflict has been raging for 3 years, and yet the BBC scum only now bombard us with emotional blackmail. I for one won't jettison my conviction that the Assad "regime" is fighting the noble fight against murderous usurpers from without who are being clandestinely bank rolled by a cabal who couldn't give a dam about "democracy" or "humanitarianism"

WELL DONE BRITAIN, but now the gears are in full motion to test your resolve. Stand firm against this filthy propaganda campaign by our compromised mass media. The SYRIAN people are shit scared of these rebels who our ruling elite are championing.