Britons overwhelmingly support US intervention in Syria - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Jsm;42067570]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] would you think that a police officer who murders people should be enforcing laws on murder? isn't that a bit hypocritical?

The difference being that a police officer is a single person, not a giant force with millions of people in it. When that police officer makes a mistake like that it can all be put back to him because he's a single person. When one person in a giant machine makes a bad call and it gets people killed, there's no reason that should invalidate the whole force because of the mistakes of another person out of millions. Getting civilians killed is hardly a thing that is done on purpose, don't make it out to be one. But hey, if there is a military out there capable of doing anything worth the time in Syria who has done literally no wrong, well, start writing letters.

If it was a choice between that police officer and no one doing anything then yeah I might have to support him

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;42067589]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. [/QUOTE] Denmark is eager as hell to get involved, but our expeditionary air force consists of one C130 and six F16s. Not exactly impressive or anything that'll do much.

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;42065654]um do we? [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] a lot of the people i've spoken to are against it[/QUOTE] Lots of people are against us intervening. Most people would be indifferent over the sharing of the UK's Cyprus base with the Americans or intel with have on the Syrian Civil War. It's remaining neutral while still supporting our ally in a non-combatant role.

If we're going to do anything, I'd rather we focused on humanitarian efforts rather than picking sides in a war that is not ours.

[QUOTE=smurfy;42067832]If it was a choice between that police officer and no one doing anything then yeah I might have to support him[/QUOTE] so you would let a murderer stay on the force because you are scared that no one else could enforce the law?

[QUOTE=DaMastez;42066904]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] The situation is hardly black and white like you suggest. Chemical Warfare is illegal under international law. And so, it was the crossing of this 'red-line'. Why is it illegal? Obviously, because of its indiscriminate nature, its ability to effect future generations, and the 'inhumane' (as opposed to what I've always wondered, humane explosives?) manner in which it completes the objectives of the side that deploys it. Therefore they are going in, supposedly, because of its illegality and its immorality. What is the ultimate purpose of this act? It is not just to prevent the use of chemical warfare, because seeing it like that ignores the context in which such a law was made. The objectives of the UN are to facilitate socioeconomic and civic progress in the world with peace being its overarching aim. Preventing the use of chemical warfare is undertaken to help maintain peace and prosperity. Therefore whilst you may (naively) say that there are no sides supported by the U.S.A or France, you must surely accept , that the prevention of Chemical Warfare is in place is to help the citizens of Syria. If this is the case, then this measure is inadequate, and that was the point of my message, that the goals extends beyond the prevention of chemical warfare. Kerry talks about the accountability that statesmen have on the international sphere, and the rightful punishment of their illegal acts. This is undoubtedly true, but what of all the other violations that Assad or even the the insurgents, equipped and funded by wealthy Qatari, have committed? Nearly 100,000 have died as a result of this war, the majority of which has been caused from conventional warfare (bullets, explosives etc). Yet Congress debates on whether to send isolated strikes in the hopes of preventing what has caused only a tiny fraction of the deaths and injuries in this war. That is not to suggest that they shouldn't acknowledge their deaths, or downplay the viciousness of it. And it is certainly not going to ignore the good in preventing the deployment of chemical weapons. The point I am (hopefully) getting at is that it is not going to ensure peace given the mode of war and the vast amount of factions interested in this conflict. This isolated strike feels like a way of administering their power over a minimal aspect in this conflict which tries to appease the anti-action group by highlighting its removed nature, that wont conclude in the mobilization of troops. At the same time, it tries to appease the pro-action group by boasting of its moral and legal duty to punish those deserving of it. All the while this gives no guarantee that it will benefit the Syrian people, further the goal of peace talks, or remove Assad from power.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42066200]it isn't like the united states hasn't repeatedly violated the geneva convention.[/QUOTE] We can't violate something we never signed onto.

Personally, I'm for intervention, provided we have SOLID fucking evidence that the Syrian government did it. If we don't ENFORCE a chemical weapons ban, then there effectively IS no chemical weapons ban. So my only question is, what have we got telling us that this is the case?

Why do they support the US going in? So they don't have to?

Personally, I think we should figure out who did what before we put on our boxing gloves and punch a Syrian in the jaw. We'd start some serious shit if we just blindly swung around. [QUOTE=Mr_Sun;42070501]Why do they support the US going in? So they don't have to?[/QUOTE] Now you're catching on! :v:

I honestly didn't expect this to backfire on Ed Millipede so much. Thought most were against action.

They want to distract the Amuristans so they can take their colonies back