So would you support UK military action to damage the Syrian ability to make such chemical attacks?
In fact, if there is word a chemical attack is imminent, would you authorize the use of force to stop them?
I certainly would, chemical attacks should not be tolerated and definitely not if they are likely to harm civilians.
The question should be should we have gone in in the first place
Personally i dont believe it is something we should have involved ourselves with. Its something i have asked many times on here. Who is the greater threat to the British Isles, Assad or ISIS and Al Qaeda? Honestly cannot answer your question. My view is that if ISIS is the threat, and we get told it almost everyday by the media, why didn't we go in and help destroy these terrorist ****s?
Had we stayed out we wouldnt be discussingthis right now. So should we have gone there in the first place. No!
Like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.
You have to question whether western support has helped esculate the situation and help prelong the war.
Libya is still in an absolute mess and has all but dropped off the news since Ghadaffi fell. There are still people dying, Sudanese people who have attempted to flee their own civil war and have been captured and enslaved. NGO's have ships in the Med Sea to pick people up cos the country is so unstable. The country has gone back years. Thats not progressive.
Its not just one sided though and again that annoys the absolute hell out of me.
Im not anti British.
You also have to question the reasons behind the wars also. It is not only just to change leader.
Do you honestly believe the Queen invited Assad for a cup of afternoon tea, or do you think there was more to that meeting?
Also, why would a monster like thay be able to get so close to the Queen?
Plenty of questions to be asked, plenty of things i have attempted to point out.
I know im not good at it, and my bluntness pisses people off, but my intentions arent bad. Never have been.
Tried to answer that as best i can
