Britain is planning to join forces with America against Syria within days

[Kardan]

But let's say that the Syrian Government genuinely did conduct these chemical attacks - what would air strikes achieve? even if you disable the Syrian airforce, the ability to launch chemical attacks remains as they weren't launched from the air anyway. And also, wouldn't disabling the air force of the Syrian Government make the use of chemical weapons to a desperate and collapsing regime more likely? I know if I were in a situation that was getting worse and I had chemical weapons - I would certainly use as my last resort just as Britain would have done the same in the event of a German invasion in WWII.

And then there's the question of, if you do cause Assad to topple - who takes over? what happens to Syria? the idea that bombing the country will solve anything is astounding ... I mean, what is the objective of such an airstrike?

Personally, I wouldn't know what the 'correct' cause of action would be if it were the government, but something would need to be done. You are probably totally correct that airstrikes wouldn't achieve anything.

My view is simply this: If I was living in Syria and my government were launching chemical weapons, I would pretty much accept anyones help - and considering the US, UK and France are some of the biggest powers, it's our duty to step in when something's wrong. As I said before though, a large part of this is dependent on who is launching the attacks.

As for your last point, who knows what will happen afterwards. But surely (if it were the government), Assad being gone is a better thing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

...considering the US, UK and France are some of the biggest powers, it's our duty to step in when something's wrong. As I said before though, a large part of this is dependent on who is launching the attacks.

Is it? so is it your own moral duty to step in, or the duty of other men your age? or is that just politician-speak?

As for your last point, who knows what will happen afterwards. But surely (if it were the government), Assad being gone is a better thing.

Is it? i'm not sure about that - the minority groups of Syria, particularly the Christians, disagree with you that Assad being gone is a better thing.

[Kardan]

Is it? so is it your own moral duty to step in, or the duty of other men your age? or is that just politician-speak?



Is it? i'm not sure about that - the minority groups of Syria, particularly the Christians, disagree with you that Assad being gone is a better thing.

I reckon it's our country's duty to go and step in given the position we are in. Personally, I wouldn't, no

And about Assad, I'm speaking purely on the Chemical weapon attacks/No chemical weapon attacks. I know I'd rather have no chemical weapon attacks.

[myles]

why cant i as a british citizen have a say in this

[Kardan]

why cant i as a british citizen have a say in this

We elect our MPs, and our MPs said no...

Or do you mean a referendum sort of thing? I reckon that would take a long time to set up

[Ardemax]

why cant i as a british citizen have a say in this

Because if we gave everyone a "say" in everything going on we wouldn't get anywhere. Your "say" is with your MP who is acting on your behalf in Parliament.

[myles]

Because if we gave everyone a "say" in everything going on we wouldn't get anywhere. Your "say" is with your MP who is acting on your behalf in Parliament.

bnp?

just kidin i dont know who i would freakin vote