SIGN UP

Should we send troops into Syria?

Avatar Image
pdq1 | 17:17 Mon 12th Nov 2012 | News
14 Answers
http://www.dailymail....ed-Syria-warzone.html

As we are going on a humanitarian mission we may not need to fire a shot.

Didn't we hear the same when going into Afghanistan.

Answers

1 to 14 of 14rss feed

Avatar Image
No way should we be involved in sending troops to yet another shtihole in the sand to be shot and killed by this load of feuding tribes. Yes, it is terrible what is happening out there but its is not our problem. Let the Arab League or whatever sort it - but not us.
15:00 Tue 13th Nov 2012
we shouldnt even be thinking about it
we obviously havent learnt any lessons from our recent/current sorties.
With Israel, Lebanon and Iran in touching distance we certainly should not put our troops there.

Why is it always us at the forefront of trying to sort other country's problems?
We should not touch this with a bargepole, better they kill each other than we send our young me to die in another insoluble conflict.
No I don't believe it was even said that we "wouldn't fire a shot" in Afghanistan.
Was it?
But this is a different scenario entirely. It would be madness to intervene militarily in Syria, which is after all experiencing a civil war. I don't believe for one moment that that is an option.
However, on the other hand there are considerations such an containment of the conflict, as Sir David says, policing of humanitarian zones, and even just putting the frighteners on Assad and co.
It would be foolish to have no contingency at all. Military assistance in the long run, say after the current regime has been ousted, might be feasible.
It would plainly all be hugely risky however.
I do wish we'd mind our own business, and stop just saying "yes, sir, no, sir, three bags full sir," to the Americans, and traipsing along behind them like their poodle. We dug our heels in when the yanks wanted us to join in over Vietnam - time to dig our heels in again.
The middle east is a powder keg - more so recently than for decades. Leave it alone.
Note even the Yanks were resistant to going into Libya - perhaps they are seeing sense at last.
Wasn't it Reed, now chairman of Celtic FC, who said we might not fire a shot in anger In Afghanistan?
( Cynic mode ON) Have they got any oil? (Cynic mode OFF)
John Reid, Sandy? If he did then it's a quote to rival the famous last words of John Sedgwick :-)
Question Author
Quite right it was John Reid in the Labour government who said it:

/// the emptiness of ex-defence secretary John Reid's hopes in April of a three-year mission "without a shot fired."///
I think we ought to bring our troops home kick out the undesireables and pull up the drawbridge, until we get back on our feet.
Question Author
Atlanta to be fair I don't think Obama would like to go into Syria. But just the other day Cameron said we must be more independent of the US when it comes to defense matters.
no we shouldn't and the given reason why apparently we should is on humanitarian grounds, then surely that should be the UN. Or Red Cross if they fear people are in dire need.
No way should we be involved in sending troops to yet another shtihole in the sand to be shot and killed by this load of feuding tribes. Yes, it is terrible what is happening out there but its is not our problem. Let the Arab League or whatever sort it - but not us.

1 to 14 of 14rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Should we send troops into Syria?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.