Britons overwhelmingly support US intervention in Syria - Polidicks

[url]http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/09/01/voters-tell-cameron-dont-bomb-syria-do-help-obama/[/url] [quote]Yet the poll finds no desire for the West to go soft on President Assad. We asked people whether Britain should help America if President Obama orders an attack and asks for our help. By huge majorities we want Britain to share intelligence information about Syria (by 70-15%) and to support the US at the United Nations (by 64-16%). By a smaller but still clear margin (48-31%), we would be happy to give access to Britain’s military base in Cyprus to US forces attacking Syria. More widely, our poll shows that opposition to British military action does NOT indicate – as some people fear and others hope – any wish for a doctrine of disengagement from the world’s problems. We posed seven different circumstances in which Britain might consider sending troops into action outside Europe. In every case, most people said we should definitely, or seriously consider, taking part – ranging from contributing to a United Nations operation (75%) to stopping “an unfriendly country acquiring nuclear weapons” (53%). [/quote]

um do we? [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] a lot of the people i've spoken to are against it

We do? Huh. Personally I'm still indecisive on the matter, though we should probably wait for those chemical tests to come through after the investigation before we start all these interventions.

The UK should only get involved if chemical weapons have been used by the government. However at no point should we support the rebels.

This isn't that surprising. I think the main problem people have with the situation in Syria is the (public) lack of evidence as to who did what, combined with both sides not being very favourable. There seems to be a growing amount of support for the UK (and the world in general) to do [I]something[/I] if it turns out Assad's regime did it. Looks like just a case of people (and MPs) not wanting to be duped again by a sexed up dossier.

Should've done something two years back when he first started murdering protesters, like we did in Libya to great effect. Too little too late.

[QUOTE=The golden;42066080]The apathy towards this is disturbing. Especially considering this is a direct violation of the Geneva Protocol which Syria is a member state of.[/QUOTE] it isn't like the united states hasn't repeatedly violated the geneva convention.

[QUOTE=The golden;42066080]The apathy towards this is disturbing. Especially considering this is a direct violation of the Geneva Protocol which Syria is a member state of.[/QUOTE] What about Gitmo???

Really? Well I personally disagree. People I have spoken to do not see the benefit of getting entrenched in another protracted war. For, I don't see how isolated strikes will help prevent the conflict and bloodshed from continuing? In any case, it is not just the legacy that was left behind by blundering into Iraq, it's the reluctance to intervene in a war that is multifaceted and much more complicated than a simple pro/anti democracy conflict. With Sunni v Shi'ite's, Christians v Muslims, America v China and Russia, there are many issues and many factions at play here, that do anything but indicate how, or what government could be set up with Assad being removed. A lot of people I have spoken to have said they would prefer to see humanitarian aid given to refugee camps, with peace talks being held to sustain a ceasefire. Not military intervention.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42066200]it isn't like the united states hasn't repeatedly violated the geneva convention.[/QUOTE] Geneva [B]protocol[/B] not convention. You might want to actually understand what you are talking about before you accuse someone of breaking it.

I still don't understand why no-one gave a damn when he started bombing people but as soon as he started using chemical bombs, everyone is up in arms against. It's a bit weird really.

I thought there was a poll that said that you guys don't want to get involved. But you want us to..? Color me confused.

[QUOTE=CaptainObvious1;42066775]I still don't understand why no-one gave a damn when he started bombing people but as soon as he started using chemical bombs, everyone is up in arms against. It's a bit weird really.[/QUOTE] Because Obama needed to show he was against Assad without actually doing something. So he made a "red line" not to cross with chemical weapons. And Assad stepped over it, meaning Obama now has to eat his words and figure out how to work with his bluff being called.

[QUOTE=The golden;42066080]The apathy towards this is disturbing. Especially considering this is a direct violation of the Geneva Protocol which Syria is a member state of.[/QUOTE] I still support intervention. It's just too late to really save anything. Yeah, it might help end it, but there's very little left to save. Yeah, we might get the rebels to win, if that's what we want. Yeah, the ones who get to rule the country might even not totally suck, but there's really no Syria left to rule when it's over with and done.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;42066833]I thought there was a poll that said that you guys don't want to get involved. But you want us to..? Color me confused.[/QUOTE] Fight for any cause that doesn't drain your own resources or kill your own guys.

[QUOTE=Godflex;42066288]People I have spoken to do not see the benefit of getting entrenched in another protracted war. For, I don't see how isolated strikes will help prevent the conflict and bloodshed from continuing? [/QUOTE] The goal isn't to help either side, the goal is to make it clear if you use chemical weapons the world will come fuck your shit up, so don't do it. Which is what making a bunch of strikes with cruise missiles or what not should accomplish.

[QUOTE=ironman17;42065672]We do? Huh. Personally I'm still indecisive on the matter, though we should probably wait for those chemical tests to come through after the investigation before we start all these interventions.[/QUOTE] if you want to be for intervention then be for intervention, people have been being killed for 2 years now, bombs being dropped on civilians constantly, people on both sides dying left and right just because "ooh chemical weapons so scurreh" are used doesn't suddenly mean something should be done if you wanted to help these people then you should've helped them before it got this far in the first place, but please don't pretend like you care suddenly when the big ol' bad chemical weapons are used

Where do these people in Britain that support this live? I don't think I know anyone that would agree to intervention

[QUOTE=JerryK;42066916]if you want to be for intervention then be for intervention, people have been being killed for 2 years now, bombs being dropped on civilians constantly, people on both sides dying left and right just because "ooh chemical weapons so scurreh" are used doesn't suddenly mean something should be done if you wanted to help these people then you should've helped them before it got this far in the first place, but please don't pretend like you care suddenly when the big ol' bad chemical weapons are used[/QUOTE] Especially when more people have died via bullets than chemical weapons in this conflict.

[QUOTE=Jsm;42066740]Geneva [B]protocol[/B] not convention. You might want to actually understand what you are talking about before you accuse someone of breaking it.[/QUOTE] i do, that's why i said geneva convention and not geneva protocol.

How about not doing anything and just let the idiots kill eachother.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42067027]i do, that's why i said geneva convention and not geneva protocol.[/QUOTE] But no one is talking about the Geneva convention?? [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=CasualJoe;42067041]How about not doing anything and just let the idiots kill eachother.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's a good idea, lets stand back and let it turn into genocide (because that's where its heading). It worked so well in Africa right.

I could [b]swear[/b] I saw a thread that said the opposite. It makes me very paranoid.

[QUOTE=Adbor;42067069]I could [b]swear[/b] I saw a thread that said the opposite. It makes me very paranoid.[/QUOTE] Against British intervention, for US intervention. They want something done, but don't wanna do it themselves. Lazy fuckin' cunts.

[QUOTE=Jsm;42067060]But no one is talking about the Geneva convention?? [/QUOTE] people are talking about international law. should someone be compelled to follow the geneva protocol but not the geneva convention?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42067375]people are talking about international law. should someone be compelled to follow the geneva protocol but not the geneva convention?[/QUOTE] Nations should be compelled to follow all international laws but the argument that because someone didn't comply with a law they cannot enforce or criticise people for not following other ones is a little silly IMO.

[QUOTE=Riller;42067079]Against British intervention, for US intervention. They want something done, but don't wanna do it themselves. Lazy fuckin' cunts.[/QUOTE] That's the greatest thing about European governments; they themselves don't want to get involved with a conflict and insist that the US go teach the bad guys a lesson. But as soon as the US involves itself there's nothing but bickering and blaming the US for the world's peace problems because it tries to police the world. Make up your fucking mind and have some goddamn consistency for once. My opinion: Fuck Syria, it's a wash and it's not going to get any better--with our without intervention. The way I see it there are two possible outcomes: 1: Assad loses and then Al Qaeda picks through the remains and instills their own terror driven regime. OR 2: The US/World involves itself, Assad loses, and then Al Qaeda picks through the remains and instills their own terror driven regime. As unfortunate as it may be we have accept reality; Syria is doomed and will take a long time to repair itself--which ultimately shouldn't be a concern for the US Government or its taxpayers.

Why is it that they criticize us on everything we do, but when it comes time for action they just defer to the good ol US

I don't support anything remotely syria apart from leaving it alone... as do nearly all my friends so, who took part in this poll?

[QUOTE=frozensoda;42067633]Why is it that they criticize us on everything we do, but when it comes time for action they just defer to the good ol US[/QUOTE] [i]It's not our problem[/i] [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] All the major world powers want to do something, but nobody wants the backlash from doing something. And thus international law never gets enforced unless it directly benefits them.