Should the US and UK intervene in Syria?

Well the UK & USA love a conflict, I cannot in my lifetime remember a year when we wasn't fighting somewhere in the world. So we'll probably go in regardless of what evidence is produced, whether we should or not is difficult to say, when you see dead children on mass lying in the street it's difficult to say we should stay out of it. But the innocent and children will always be caught up in wars, both the UK & USA should know this as over the years they've killed plenty of innocent people, which is normally reported as being caught up in the crossfire and being no more than an accident.
I think it is now time for the UK to take a step back from other countries problems after all it has nothing to do with us as a country. Secondly this country is making many of the forces redundant, through cut backs, we've got people out in Afghanistan, Gibraltar, Falklands and other distant places, we've got little in terms of warships, I'm not sure about the state of the air force apart from us having a red arrows display team so I'm guessing that as a country we're pretty exposed defense wise currently.
I also believe that if intervention into another country's civil war zone for humanitarian reasons is unavoidable then it should only be done under the banner of the United Nations and not another country trying to force it's will onto others.
My other main issue is, it's easy for our politicians from both the UK & USA to send youngsters aged 18-20 into war zones and then declare them 'heroes' when they come back having lost limbs or in body bags, but it is never the politician who has lost an arm or his legs....

Well it looks for once like MP's and the public are in tune with each other!

Looks like it time for other countries to step up to the International Policeman mantle

BBC News - MPs 'right to reject Syria military action' - BBC poll

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that shows Syria regime using chemical weapons. The whole story is just propaganda without nothing to back it up, all false claims like in Iraq. Also intervention will cause way more harm than good.

Oppose war, wage peace ... OK it's only a slogan but it's sensible advice.

Did you see the report over the weekend about the number of kids that have been killed, executed and tortured! Is it 2013 or 1941?


Not sure how intervention could do much more harm as the country slides into the abyss of anarchy. Personally I think this is exactly what the UN should be used for, an international united force to disarm all sides by force if required, then administer the aftermath. ie Provide military protection, policing, humanitarian support, with all members sharing the cost, while politics can sort out the long term future.

Letting a Country slowly destroy itself over the course of many years while all watch from our sofas doesn't seem a very 21st Century approach, regardless of the politics involved. The same way as non UN military intervention in Iraq from ropey evidence wasn't the way forward, with no plan with how to deal with the after affects. But you think we might have learnt some lessons after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, rather than revert to turning a blind eye and a few stern words approach.

Why can't we give the UN some teeth, merge it with NATO which seems a redundant organisation these days. There enough atrocities now on all sides to warrant intervention, or is there a statistic we have to get to before we are spurred in to action?

When there aren't any good guys to support why support one or other of the bad guys?

Agreed, the Syrian regime seems to have become a whole lot nastier than it was when securely in power (when there's a survival threat to the regime that's always the most likely outcome).

Personally, though, I can't see any benefit to the Syrians in the rebel coalition taking over. The coalition includes monsters such as Bin Laden and Taliban-style groups. They haven't any agreed aims or policies. If the coalition "wins" against their government they'll spend the next ten years tearing Syria apart as they fight between themselves. Israel might be happy to see that result but it won't be good for Syria or Syria's other neighbours.

Why not simply do what's possible to protect the innocents by insisting on safe passage for refugees, funding good quality, well-protected asylum in accommodation outside Syria and trying to help the neighbouring countries to remain politically, economically and socially stable?

Unfortunately who is going to do the insisting, and who will do the listening? Only a UN with force behind it could move in and protect the innocent, but then I suppose there is the risk of a multinational conflict with no clear aims dragging on.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't... and the torture and murder drags on...

Glad I'm not a politician (or syrian) and can just switch the TV off.

Agree with you on both points, Steve ...

I think ever since I had kids, I've turned into a complete soft ****! As soon as you hear about kiddies getting killed or in misery on the telly, it just makes me mad. Then all you hear is stuffy politicians waffling or useless UN representatives waving toothless mandates. Nothing seems to change, I guess we have to accept we live in a cruel world.

Ahh well, time for me to stop ranting!