As much as I spoke against the potential war with Syria, something does need to be done. After listening to the guy that was on The Amazing Atheist's channel a few days ago, something needs to be done to whoever caused this because of that chemical ban. The UN can't turn a blind eye to the chemical use. It could make things worse later. I do think the US was going about it the wrong way at first. It still boggles my mind that they ok'd Saddam to use chemical weapons. Someone needs to pay in Syria. Just worried that attacking could bring more harm to civilians (just as drone strikes in the Middle East.)

Yin wrote As much as I spoke against the potential war with Syria, something does need to be done. After listening to the guy that was on The Amazing Atheist's channel a few days ago, something needs to be done to whoever caused this because of that chemical ban. The UN can't turn a blind eye to the chemical use. It could make things worse later. I do think the US was going about it the wrong way at first. It still boggles my mind that they ok'd Saddam to use chemical weapons. Someone needs to pay in Syria. Just worried that attacking could bring more harm to civilians (just as drone strikes in the Middle East.)

Not to mention that if America, France and Britain do show force towards Syria then Russia, China and Iran will help out Syria. It puts a lot of peoples lives at risk, those that are in the middle of the warfare and those who are in other countries that are also fighting. so sooner or later WW3 might just kick in.

JSHueurgh wrote maybe because we do not want to be dragged into another useless conflict to make America richer ?

I agree with this. I think it's good we aren't intervening

I'm surprised the US have waited this long to intervene. There are a lot of people their that need help badly.

e_e wrote

Establish wrote By your logic, every country that isn't planning to attack Syria (pretty much every country except for the US and France) shouldn't be a member of the UN.

It's not that it isn't fine to use chemical weapons, but most other countries don't want another potential war on their hands.

The UK can and should do something.
Tackle one war now to save a lot more potential ones down the line.
A line in the sand needs to be drawn and Assad should be made an example of.
If it turns out that the rebels used Chemical weapons, sure we made the right choice.
It's the fact that the UK doesn't even know who did it and we've already pulled out that gets to me.

A democratic government should always try to make decisions that reflect how the majority of it's people feel on a particular topic, and even if the UK decides not to spend money and get into another potential war, it doesn't mean that they can't support the US and other countries who decide to attack politically. No one wants another "War in Iraq/Afghanistan" and while that may not happen, I think the UK is just trying to protect the best interests of the people, and not sink their money, soldiers, and time in something that it's not absolutely necessary for them to be involved in.

-LOST- wrote I'm surprised the US have waited this long to intervene. There are a lot of people their that need help badly.

That's at least what the media wants you to think.

I have no idea what's actually going on over there, but it seems like the media is feeding us lies. [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I don't even think the US even cares anymore;
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

-LOST- wrote I'm surprised the US have waited this long to intervene. There are a lot of people their that need help badly.

We've only stepped up when necessary, after the use of WMD's. I'm sure there are a number of charities who aim to help the estimated 2 million refugees that this civil war has produced, getting involved earlier would make it look like the US wanted to control the outcome of the war or even gain something from it.

firstly, the UK went to war with Iraq over something we didn't need to because it didn't effect us and many of our soldiers died because of this, why should we do this for Syria when its not affecting us.

Bombs kills people, bullets kill people why should chemical weapons be on a different level, they all still kill innocent people at the end of the day but these are not stopped, many countries use these and kill innocents but we don't go to war with them over it do we?

in syria the people rebelling against the government are the Sunni Muslims ( basically AL-Qaeda) and that's who america are helping, they are providing them with guns and weapons. how ironic is that? america want to help al- Qaeda which plotted a terrorist attack on them.

once america give them these guns and weapons, who's to say that won't attack america again

there is more i can add to this but it will take up too much and will get very confusing

this is the best this i heard

VisionaryMGMT wrote Well apparently [ Register or Signin to view external links. ] was hacked and this was the message that was displayed;
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I really don't know who to believe right about now.

Yeah the marines website was hacked.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]