Poll: Do you support military action in Syria

Aiden Roberts · Sep 1, 2013

I've got to be honest I'm really struggling with my opinion on this.

Trying my best to see through any propaganda, considering potential repercussions of action or inaction and wrestling with the bigger picture of needless suffering of innocent people I really don't know how I feel about military action or not.

I'm frustrated with myself because I can't decide

I don't think we (UK) should be involved in a civil war in another country, especially militarily. I can't ignore the use of not only chemical weapons but any deadly weapon against your own people.

I do think we (UK) should be involved in promoting a peaceful solution but my understanding of peace is not necessarily transferable in different cultures.

I am unsure if a peaceful solution is achievable without military involvement from other counties including (UK) which I know is a contradiction.

I've yet to hear or see an alternative solution from anywhere which has the potential to solve this crisis in Syria.

In my mind it boils down to we act or we don't but what action I really don't know.

Your opinion frankly won't sway my own personal turmoil but I am interested in what you think as you are a diverse and generally sensible bunch here on Acorn.

Regards
Rob

martin-s · Sep 1, 2013

If it's a war crime, why not try it in a war crimes court?

Murray · Sep 1, 2013

I just have a tough time believing anything the government or media says.

+ Think of all the horrific things going on in other countries, places in Africa etc

Western leaders only seem to be moral and get a conscience when they have an ulterior motive.

websaway · Sep 1, 2013

You elect your politicians to make these decisions, with limited information it's difficult to form precise opinions on major international policy.
Don't beat yourself up over not having an absolute opinion I think it's to be expected.

Aiden Roberts · Sep 1, 2013

@martin-s I agree but the issue for me at this very moment in time is can the UK help stop these atrocities or will our involvement make it worse? If we can help should we?

We don't know for sure who's responsible but we do know it's happening.

@Murray Agree again, my concern is we can't police the world, we can't be sure of everyone's motives but that doesn't mean where we can do something we shouldn't.

MikeJDS · Sep 1, 2013

They seem to be going about this all the wrong way..
Whilst a lot of people seem happy by the UK decision as it appears democracy has prevailed by parliments vote, they are now closing down ANY further options + pressure on Assad & that's a big worry!

Yes it probably was not right to intervene earlier in the week. (I'd agree with that) BUT who knows about next week??
I think Cameron should have just delayed the Americans and waited for the UN inspection report (which is about 2 weeks away).
That would have slowed the Americans down + kept the pressure up on Syria.
What was the rush?

Now it looks like any pressure is coming off.
Putin looks better than Cameron or Obama.
+ Assad will feel he can get away with whatever he wants. I fear for the Syrian people.

-- The right decision, but totally wrong way of going about it.

retired_member32 · Sep 1, 2013

are you saying this is motivated by oil, tensions in the middle east will decrease production and increase prices.

I hope America and its oldest ally have fun in Syria.

tifosi · Sep 1, 2013

Too many times the UN has been found wanting, and too many times US/UK has pulled out the nato card and gone in. That was good for Bosnia & the balkans to settle that region but bad for the middle east.

The UK have got this right this time, we simply should not get involved in a sectarial bloodbath which would likely spill into Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq & probably Iran. Not to mention Israel!

Times in the past both Russia & China have vetoed the UN motions and the UK/US have gone in. It is time for Russia & China as major signaturies to the uN charter to account for themselves. It may mean delays in action and more death but the UN 'could' come out of this stronger. Global politics.

The simple yes/no/undecided needs the 'Only if the UN grows some balls' option.

Aiden Roberts · Sep 1, 2013

websaway said:
You elect your politicians to make these decisions, with limited information it's difficult to form precise opinions on major international policy.
Don't beat yourself up over not having an absolute opinion I think it's to be expected.

I know there's no simple or right answer. It's the moral dilemma that's frustrating me. It's easy for me to sit here in my safe home moralizing about people i'll never meet but I can't recall being this indecisive before.

Why would politicians start listening to us now? Is the result to not act what we are actually saying? What message are we sending to the world? By doing nothing are we saying it's not our problem? Are we saying we don't care? Are finances dictating our decision? What's the bigger picture?

and so many more questions....

Aiden Roberts · Sep 1, 2013

I genuinely don't think intervention is motivated by oil or any other resource for that matter (possibly naive) I know.

Human suffering on a grand scale is motivation enough, ordinarily "aid and education" alleviates suffering but on this occasion I fear it will be needed but ineffective. I do not think regime change or any other argument is relevant in this debate, my problem is if we can do something should we?

I know we can debate the detail but for me the bigger picture is should we try or should we do nothing regardless of UN. It seems to me this sudden outbreak of democracy is hiding a general demise in morality.