Syria

I say get in there.

Stop pretending there is a moral dilemma.

Just saying.

^^ What he says...

Based on the fact we got in there in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and are now being targeted by there extremist Islamic groups despite helping them I say sod that.

We dont help them and they'll get pee'd off with us, we do help them and they'll get pee'd off with us. Dont help and save the expense, we'll still lose but not as badly as getting involved.

Remember both the Sunni and Shia muslims when not fighting each other tend to attack the non muslim west.

I say stay well out and stop providing assistance to the muslim extremists who are currently attempting to gain control of the whole country (sorry, "liberate" it) whilst crying about being persecuted victims.

The real helpless minorities in Syria have already been pretty much wiped out by this mess and those few left will be in an even worse situation if the "insurgents" do gain complete control.

I say "get in there", with Afghanistan winding down where will I go for my summer holidays next year?

another ex colonial mess - the history of Syria is so typical of most of the middle east where we used to be envolved

Who voted us to be the World Police?

Keep well out of there, we (UK / Great Britain) are no longer the World's Police. There is so much needing to be done at home before getting involved where we don't belong.
If there is any action it should be an International force under the auspices of the United Nations and that doesn't mean sending Team America in.

Stay out of it. Syria is of little value to the west, so at a selfish level there's no justification.

And then who do we support? The government thugs? The resistance army thugs? The Islamic revolutionary thugs from Jordan who are starting to stick their oar in militarily? All the groups are guilty of reprehensible behaviour, all have war criminals among them. Whichever of these 3 groups prevail will bring anew and dark chapter to the history of this country.

And what's the moral mandate? Would we have been happy if Syria had started on us because we put troops on the streets of Ulster to quell revolutionary activity?

There is no strategic, moral, military, economic reason to stick our nose in, and those with even short memories must surely be able to see what a cluster f**k Libya turns out to be.

Leave it, let them get on with it. If we're going to stick noses into every tin pot banana republic that's unpleasant the need have been in Zimbabwe 3 decades ago, or even supported the Smith government when it declared UDI. If we're going to start butting in to countries just because the leader is a toaster then there's a long list of much more worthy targets in the queue ahead of Syria.

If we go into any country to sort out their internal squabbles we should be annexing them and taking whatever resources they have as a thank you.

i.e. **** them, or **** them.

Good idea. Britain has a strategic shortage of sand and kebab stalls right now.