Britons opposed to involvement in Syria, finds YouGov

[-:Undertaker:-]

984353294700171264

This comes off the back of allegations that the Assad government has used chemical weapons. Now, I don't know about you but I don't actually see the huge horror over chemical weapons. At the end of the day, why is it so much more worse to be gassed than it is to be blown apart into bits or to be sprayed with shrapnel and die of horrific injuries buried in concrete? As thousands of Syrians have already done. Yet if 60 die due to chemicals that's an outrage.

In any case, Syria is not and has never been within the British sphere of interest - the only three great powers to have interests there are France as former colonial power, Russia and the United States. If Syria disintegrated into two, three or twelve statelets tomorrow it really wouldn't affect British interests in the slightest. Not our problem so stay out of it.

And then there's what is best for Syria itself. I don't see how bombing the regime - who aren't insane jihadists like the rebels and every other group bar the Kurds - in any way improves things for Syria. If anything, a quick victory for the regime over the Islamists would be the best outcome. Those who want to go into Syria need to be asked, what do they propose we replace the Assad regime with?

Thoughts? Are you for or against British involvement in the Syrian Civil War?

[Hannah]

I'm not so clued up on this, but would this have similar effects to the ones used in WW1/2 where it destroyed their bodies from the inside and they started gurgling and/or choking on their own blood from their lungs?

I don't agree with going out and using a bomb instead in any means, but if I had the choice of being blown up into pieces and a quicker death, I'd go for that over the suffering that some of the soldiers went through. I can understand why chemical warfare is a breaking point.

I can't understand why we ever get involved in anything any idiot like Trump implicates, however.

[FlyingJesus]

The issue with chemical warfare is that it's often designed to maim and torture the targets rather than outright kill them, which breaks Geneva Convention. What I don't get about this entire situation is why no-one - not even the Russians who are supporting them - has sat down with Assad and his cabinet to try working out just what the hell is going on. I don't like him and I don't approve of his methods at all, but he is technically the "rightful" leader of the country and as you say there's no sunshine and rainbows option to replace him.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Britain, America and France launch airstrikes on Syria overnight

985087423171432448

SHAME on our government, the US President and France! Using our military power to attack the Assad regime which is the ONLY non-Jihadist option fighting in Syria. An absolute disgrace. PM May didn't even have guts to go before Parliament and President Trump is playing out of the Bush and Obama handbook and ignoring constitutional rules on this that the Congress has the power to declare war, not the President.

985104846108971009

984960655257231360

985050691566821376

984986056213708800

Not one of them can answer the question as to WHO replaces Assad?

[ajs406]

Why would Assad use chemical weapons on his own people when he has basically won the war, its makes no logical sense. Risking the wrath of the west to achieve what exactly?

[alexxxxx]

nothing will come good from getting involved in syria any more than we already are.