I do agree slightly on the need to deploy troops however there are other options to consider as well. I also think this should be going through the UN as it is their responsibility to intervene following international law breaches
I would prefer them to stay out of it and just let those other countries deal with it themselves
I feel that chemical weapons are awful, and as the use of them is against international rules so I feel anybody who uses them should be held accountable and suffer the consequences of their actions.
I have no knowledge on the subject and its a pretty serious one to ask me about on a survey
Obviously want to help wi b overseas issues but it becomes the question of when is it out position to do so, and why should we be the deciders here
because chemical weapons always cross a red line
Still feels like we are being drawn into a conflict with little evidence other than hear say from US government
It has very little to do with the British.
everything has gone wrong in regards to discions made
It's not hurting us and we don't have the right
its not really our business but chemical weapons are pretty nasty an cause bad injuries
I dont agree that our troops should be fighting others wars and each country should look after their own ppl first
Well dude it has to be done some say the is a pain
I am fearful that these involvements in armed conflicts that do not directly affect us will sow trouble for us later on - i.e. that use of force (on whichever side) is likely to breed radicals hostile to the UK, and they will in future bring terror to the UK. It is also my belief/experience that these punitive strikes don't resolve anything. Violence escalates violence, and there is inevitable "collateral damage" - i.e. civilian deaths.
It's the government choice. I don't have s say
the use of chemical weapons anywhere must be stamped out asap and we should do everything to ensure this does not happen
They would only do this if they had done a full risk assessment so it must be necessary
let them fight it out amongst themselves
some force is required to encourage diplomacy
It's a similar question to your first one.  It is not clear-cut, but on balance some deployment could be justified to stop chemical weapons deaths.
To protect people from these weapons and make sure everything is safe.
chemical weapons is a fear for all countries and it's use should not be accepted even if it means deploying military to those places
Already answered this [Need to protect our freedom and protect democracy]
There is no need to deploy troops on the ground in this situation. There is no clear threat to the UK nor to its citizens. We should also not be the lapdogs of the US and should not take any action without prior agreement from the UN
Would like to be sure all diplomatic channels have been exhaustive and would only support use of force if UN-backed
Violence is not always the answer- you don't have to explode the chemical facility to get it shut down, there are other ways
use of chemical weapons is deplorable anywhere and the world should unite to stop it. however I think military action should be used with caution.
It is not our place, and meddling within foreign affairs never ends well
Can see both sides of the issue presented
We should concentrate on the issues st home
It_ã_s right to act but I_ã_m not sure why it_ã_s us and if it_ã_s the right choice to send troops
I would like to see us go through NATO , but if Chemical weapons are being used against a countries citizens, then an organised strike would need to be discussed and taken action on.
Don't think they should involve in other people's issues
Firstly, goodness knows how reliable the intelligence is or whether the USA were even telling the truth. Second, to go straight to a military strike seems foolish and aggressive in the extreme; out of proportion and asking for trouble. Much better to try diplomacy first and more likely to result in better relations with the nation in question in the future. Military action burns bridges.
A stance to this type of aggression has to be made to show it won_ã_t be tolerated
it depends on the situation - where to and why
I think we must stand together to fight this.
Troops are there to protect and serve our country in times of conflict
Chemical weapons are against international law and could be extremely dangerous
Don't think it's necessary for UK to get involved, not our business, could create enemies and more problems, government spending that might not have returns
It_ã_s a damned if you do and damned if you don_ã_t situation.  Escalation may or may not happen,   Lots of 8fs buts and maybes
It's a difficult situation. High levels of trade can hugely benefit the UK economy yet we don't know whether Africa will pull out of trade
Normally i'm for helping but the UK are liars and only engage in wars when it's in their interest.
there are disputed conclusions over the information which has been provided by the US so more information from independent sources should be obtained before committing to a course of action
I think we need mor evidence that chemical weapons have been used
Like i said previously, it should be our choice to choose as we are the ones who live in this country and we dont want war, which is exactly what deploying troops will do
Stop messing in other peoples affairs. Focus on this country.
It_ã_s the right thing to do.  We should be prepared to step in to prevent gross violations of international law and human rights, by malignant dictatorships
countries should fight there own battles
We should support other nations in opposing dangerous actions
We need to stop tyrants and without a presence or force there, other dictators will join
It is not up to us to interfere in other countries issues.
We should be sure of the facts before we deploy troops
I think it was the right decision in relation to world peace.
Because there may be innocent people in another country who could lose their lives or damage them because of inhumane actions of others.
If the allegations are true I think we should react to the situation
O just don't want our troops to be Canon fodder
We shouldn't deploy troops for no reason. Hey should be used to defend this country
military action doesn't necessarily succeed in diffusing the situation,plus would need positive confirmation that chemical weapons have actually been used and not just accept US word
It_ã_s the duty of wealthier nations and democratic nations to protect those around the globe who aren_ã_t in that position and eradicate chemical weapons usage
difficult issue hard to know what's right
Chemical warfare is illegal under international law, so must be stopped
Because I think its probably the best thing
We should not get involved in other countries when it does not effect us
chemical weapons should never be uses so I agree with the uk being involved as long as they have double checked the USA'S intelligence
The UK has a social imperative to act where fair and just
The Americans are dragging the UK into an unnecessary war. The British have no national interest justification for their involvement. Yes, chemical weapons are illegal so diplomacy through the UN should be conducted urgently - with a peacekeeping force to be deployed asap.
argcw st dherts hw rsdrg wesdfxgwrtfdhbrsf
don't know enough about it give a valid answer
I too question that US findings are credible
Because we need to be united as a country
Uk has to make.a stand against rogue states otherwise others will do the same
It could be lies like Tony Blair told us. It's probably a false flag to the dirty work for the bankers again
its unlawful so something has to be done
I want retired 65 years old. That enough
I deplore the use of chemical weapons and action should be taken to prevent their usage quickly, including military action to destroy stockpiles
I am all for diplomacy and negotiating however sometimes this is not enough
It wasn't the UK s main issue , there was only one report from the us who had acted and then reported . Where was the proof
Sometimes it feels like we're sticking our noses into other people's business.
We need to back up words with action when necessary
I don't generally approve of the military force that is so often used nowadays - but when it comes to an extreme situation like the use of chemical weapons, I can see why military intervention is needed. However, this doesn't mean that diplomacy should be ruled out altogether.
I chose to slightly approve of the government's decision to deploy troops as I agree that use of chemical weapons should be stopped wherever possible. However, I didn't fully approve as history has shown that intelligence may not be accurate in these kinds of cases.
Completely disagree with the use of chemical weapons
Because there is miss use of chemicals which could be harmful to everyone
important to prevent escalation and potential use against other countries too
Because governments cant use chrmical weapons
If priven they broke international laws regarding chemicals use then we should take action
its still undecided. i see both points of view and would need to hear more on the subject to make an educated decision
to keen to go poking their noses in other people's business
Because things had gone too far in the country using chemical weapons where Vivian's could have been hurt. However only agreed slightly as talking would have been better before this situation was arrived at.
I would prefer that funds would be allocated to NHS serviices.
A government ought to be very wary of taking military action and why it may be doing so.
Dictators should be stopped but it should be a unanimous decision among all NATO / un countries
Because there is no direct benefit for UK getting involved and I don't like the way we follow the US's military actions 99% of the time
Sometimes only the use of force is the answer
I can see the importance from a humanitarian perspective but I'd worry about the safety of civilians.
The US is an ally so we must help them for us to help us. But we need to have our own findings first
If the need comes we can join other countries
because we need to be cruel to be kind and stop what they are doing
I don_ã_t support military actions however, if this is done in coalition with other nations to protect other lifes might agree
some times they have not really got into enough before making a decision
Well we should be spending money in welfare of people inside the country at the end of the day thats public money
it would be the right thing to do  too many times we sit on the sidelines and let attrocities take place
We have no interest in this area of the world so why should we intervene
A strong message must be sent to the world that chemical weapons use will not be tolerated.
Difficult, I feel we should always support any country who intervenes to help people who are being oppressed but can_ã_t hel,feeling we are so small now we should be putting ourselves first and protecting our own first
I think the government should support other countries when necessary but as long as all other avenues have been pursued first
Whilst deploying troops should only be a last resort, sometimes you just have to deploy troops
Hope this is not another Blair type blunder,I.e. proof beyond doubt
we seem to be very quick to take action when the US says - what about the United Nations and how about the mad man that is in charge in US today - will we follow him without question?
It_ã_s necessary to protect our way of life
government is a hard topic to comment on iagre ad disaggree with alot of ther decisions
I think the people should support the Government in their actions regarding this kind of action by other countries to protect everyone
Because no other option was considered. Air strikes can kill innocent people.
Chemical weapons shouldn_ã_t be used and produced. So I feel we need to act before they become a common weapon source.
Deploying troops is the reason why we continue to have terrorists
because I think that if they is no other way forward then this is what they should do
Any country using chemical weapons is wrong in every way because of the devastation they cause, and if allowed to continue using chemical weapons then the problems could quickly escalate. The use of chemical weapons should be internationally condemned.
it's hard to say, the west has started many of these situations
I think its better for Britain if we do this
Chemical waned to be stopped at all cost for the sake of humanity
we should mind our own business sometimes!
i think there is always a reason to do this
Not always a good idea as it can affect other countries
Just because USA asks we needn't comply. We think we are a world power/player, it 's about time we realised we are second rate and needn't comply just because USA clicks its fingers
Chemical weapons should never be used and they should be stopped at any cost
If the need is there then they should deploy troops to help when needed
its hard to really approve or disapprove something like this. The actions that brought about deploying troops was very wrong and something needed to be done about it, but as always innocents suffer from the attacks and then from the actions of the deployed troops which no matter how hard you try to not to it still happens
It was put that the validity of the information given by the US might be questionable so I would want to have more information before deciding what is the best course of action.  However, I do think that the use of chemical weapons should not be allowed and think that if this is the case, then something should be done to stop this happening.
I would prefer options that didn't require boots on the ground
If the attacks were directly aimed at the uk then yes i would agree. But in the past we have followed the US into arguments and threats that have not been directed at the UK
When it_ã_s necessary and there is no other way then I agree with it troops do this job for this exact reason
Do not like chemical weapons they are a disaster waiting to happen.
The help is needed so we should offer it
Chemical weapons are illegal under international law. Had nobody taught them a lesson, then the matter could only get worse. However, I wouldn't trust America just like that without an investigation by an organisation like the UN
If the situation goes against agreed UN principles then it was the right decision
Need to know a lot more before making a decision.
Action could be beneficial by preventing chemical attacks, however could cause hostility against the US/UK and also escalate tensions in the country. Furthermore, destroying the chemical plant could have threatened civilian lives. I would need more information to have an opinion
This country need to learn from history.   You cannot fix thing by always using force.   The UK should start to think of itself as NOT the deputy to the American sheriff ( did you get my drift son???) and more innovative in their approach towards other countries that  do not have similar way of thinking.     This really piss me off big time, Wake UP....
I would hope that the evidence was strong that this had happened and that our troops could help. However I'm not sure the evidence is always correct. (weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist)!!!
Its the Countries own problem , in the major as every Country should do its best to look after its self
You need to stand up to people who use chemical weapons
I do think it_ã_s necessary to help in this situation as we need to stop people using chemical weapons, but I still think military action would just make the situation worse. I don_ã_t know what the right thing would be but I_ã_d want other options explored before military intervention.
I would need more information to come to an informed decision especially around the issue of credibility of the i tel
I need all the facts to make a true decision
Americans are complete liars they do things for there own means that only benefit them ,,they lied about saddam si they could take there oil
Because it_ã_s against the international law to use chemical weapons.
SHOULD ONLY GET INVOLVED TO AGREED BY UN
Chemical weapons should never be used anywhere
we need to keep doing what we are good at .....sorting out other peoples mess
If the law is being broken it much be enforced, however it should be clarified that chemical weapons were used before any action is taken
I don_ã_t know enough about the situation to make a thorough descision
Nothing else seems to be working and it_ã_s getting worse
It is the thin edge of the wedge when discussing dictators.
its not their business to invade and control other countries
They are a threat and need to be stopped
Why do we have to sort everyone else's problems out. Let them fight it out for themselves
Threat to world order. Wider regional implications. Threat to UK. Likelihood of CW use spreading outside country. Vital UK interest?
they state in question sounds rogueish that wouldn't respond to diplomacy
the government should concentrate our own country
repeated question already answered [this is a rather stupid question]
The use of chemical weapons can not be tolerated
The use of chemical weapons is against international law.
The government should uphold international law
Can't understand why anyone would disapprove as long as the evidence can be trusted
The usa only want us because we are the only fools that will do it what about the eu we only have subs with rockets so we can be there first line of defence if a war breaks out I do not trust the USA They have in the past just used us!!!!!
When there's a chance of diplomatic action and doubts on intelligence then milltary action shouldn't be used.
They always seem to act first and think after and deploy troops before thinking of other options
We have always been an ally with the US, but with Donald Trump at the helm I think we need to think a little differently to the past and decide for ourselves what I right, and think of the repercussions for us as a country.
Good and bad reasons for deploying troops
Because it sounds like Bush times making UK go to Iraq and now turns out that Bush had no evidence so UK should stop trusting the US
chemical weaponry should never be used, anyone using it deserves to be stopped, howver that happens
A thoughtful approach is needed and then a direct approach
The UK needs to determine when is necessary to deploy troops
Should concentrate on Britain before getting involved with other countries
I can see both sides of the argument, if something can be solved without violence then it should be but can be last resort if all other options have been tried
Sending troops out just means more aggression around the world keep the troops home to protect our country
Depends on the situation, but sometimes its the only voice that will be heard.
I think money could be spend better elsewhere we are getting involved in soothing that we shouldn't we are putting our security at risk
Not sure wouldn't like to play with people's life's to choose who to deploy.
I think we sometimes just deploy troops because the USA has
i don't know enoguh about it to make a good judgement
The USA needs to show more respect to it's allies if it were to ask them to cooperate in milatary intervention where uk interests are not at stake
Chemical weapons are the most cowardly of all and must be resisted
not sure what decision will improve the britian terrorism and safety
Any action could escalate hostilities in the area or toward s the UK.  However the use of Chemical Weapons which are prohibited by international law must be acted upon
I am always torn on whether troops exacerbate a problem
I don_ã_t know enough about it to make an informed decision.
I can see both sides of the argument but I do not have a strong feeling for either option so I would need to see more facts to decide which is best
Chemical weapons cannot be allowed but a bit nervous about the risk to ourselves personally
If the use of Chemical Weapons is confirmed. I would support a combat strike but not the deployment of troops on the ground.
They know what they are doing and I trust them
its putting our persons in the firing line when most of the time we come out and the problem is still there or worse
if we don't do much trade with them and it does not affect us then i think we should think twice about getting involved
they are informed on intelligence and best placed to make this decision
Have to support action against a Country using chemical weapons
was thinking about the people currently suffering
it was just going along with that idiot Trump and May trying to make a name for herself
Peace should be approached nonviolently at first, not just immediately move to dropping troops because you disagree with the method of murder that a military force is using.
I dont like the UK getting involved in conflicts that dont directly involve us
People tend to forget we live on Earth and not just a country. If a government is using chemical weapons against its people then it_ã_s up to country_ã_s like ours to step in and help
same answer as previously...obviously! [they have more information to base there decisions on than are generally told to the public (due ot security issues)]
I don't trust the government or their reliance on intelligence, more so following Mr Blair leading us to an unjust war in Iraq and Mr Cameron doing the same in Libya.
I think negotiations should be approached first
there may be other circumstances and events we dont know about
All countries have an obligation to act against breaches of international law. A pity some of them are not more willing
IF THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED TO DEPLOY TROOPS IT WOULD BE BECAUSE THEY WERE NEEDED.
We need to be a presence to commit to peace
I believe that the UK need to along with other countries put a stop to the use of chemical weapons
I agree that troops are necessary however a peace keeping mission would be a better idea help the injured. Find out what happened and then they diarmourment of chemical weapons less bloodshed. If force was necessary then so be it but you need to look at all angles first
You can_ã_t always be passifists, sometimes there_ã_s threats in the world that will only understand actions have reactions by using force to deter them
I don_ã_t know enough to make that decision.
I only slightly approved if ther was PROOF of said chemical weapons, if ther wer no proof then why should we send them.
Peacekeepers must do everything in their power to stop illegal abuse of the people.
Need to take a stand with issues  such as this.
say pictures of those poor children it is right we should  help
Again depends on exact circumstances & evidence
uncertain of the validity of the situation Interference can make matters worse
I feel like Britain tries to hard to maintain a _ãÄspecial relationship_ã_ with the United States, with no regard for the consequences of certain actions
we have to stamp hard on users of chemical weapons
WHILST NOT A THREAT TO THE UK USA ARE OUR ALLIES AND WE NEED TO SHOW STRONG FRONT AGAINST THIS KIND OF THING
The government is in a good state at the moment but it could definitely be improved.
US aren_ã_t that bright and have a tendency to jump to conclusions so support for their evidence needs to be strong
sometimes you have to step in and help others, by not helping you look like you agree with what is happening
Nations should unite to eliminate chemical weapons
These situations need to be considered carefully but I believe tgat in this case the action was justified.
The intelligence may not be trustworthy, rushing to judgement is a mistake as  evidenced by the differences of opinion in both parties.
I strongly believe that we should not interfere in other country's disputes and skirmishes.  To be fair the world is over populated and a few less people in areas of the world that are over populated could easily be viewed as a positive in reducing the population and improving their economies.
Its up to the government what they see best.
Always supporting the USA is not a good idea, especially with Trump there.
Chemical weapons should never be used or tolerated
Getting involved militarily will only worsen the situation.
The government can't keep relaying on their troops
again it is a problem that must be addressed.
Nations have determined that chemical weapons are inhuman and a danger to humanity and made there use illegal.Having done this you cannot then do nothing when the law is flouted.It is essential to prevent proliferation and ensure the law breakers are dealt with.
Silly to deploy in order to Impress the us
A United Nationsdetermination should be sought first prior to combined USA and UK direct intervention.
we need to show force when force is needed , in a world of full of violoence being the strogest is the only way to survive
The use of chemical weapons is against international law and civilised countries should use appropriate force to prevent it AND to stop it froming spreading.
I wouldn't go on the say so of Uncle Sam. Has the US been through the UN?
Not part of our countries back yard, but a deplore chemical weapons
If we are in a position to help we should
Interfering is only going to cause more conflict rather than solving it. It has already happened in the past
let them fight their own wars,leave us out
Why have troops if you not going to usr them WHAT ARE THEY FOR
I would need more information to know if it was a needed decision or not.
I would wait till I have all the facts before a dision
Chemical weapons should be banned in my view
I don't like the idea and sometimes I think the uk jump in too fast to make the decision although it also depends on the circumstances
I feel that any militarily intervention should be measured and in UK best interests
The use of chemical weapons can't go unpunished, otherwise the situation will occur again and again. We need to provide a deterrent to this kind of behaviour.
I disprove of dropping bombs on anyone, unless they pose an immediate risk to us.
It depends on which country and many scenarios, but sending in troops will have saved many lives.
Having been gobsmacked by the lies that Blair and Bush promulgated re Iraq I will never again believe anything that warmongers tell me.
I think further negotiations are needed before accepting USA's guns blazing approach.
UK does not need to go and interfere on other countries especially if America tells it
Leaders are mostly intent on causing wars and use false evidence illegal use if force.
Diplomacy first deployment as a last measure
I think it was good that Labour had more than one opinion. I would want to know more of what would be involved for the troops and the UK and what if any repercussions there could be before I could answer either way
because I don't think it's fair that we sort out other countries problems, we end up in the firing line in the end
It's wrong to use chemical weapons and we must show that we will not tolerate such actions
It's an impossible situation. Same as before. Risk doing too little and suffer, or meddle too much and spark something devastating?
Not get involved in other people_ã_s war
They're too keen to do this. They send them out without proper equipment, endanger them with budget cuts, and take them from their families.
It's nothing to do with us that country has no democracy and little to do with UK so why get involved and risk any future issues for this country
Literally it's not our fight, we have some more important issues to face. Pm should focus more on the citizens welfare before extending help to others.
I feel this is part ifbthe role of the British military and therefore skightly approve
Chemical weapons are harmful to more than just the target few
I did not enjoy making the decision. But again, the risk of escalation was not mentioned, but law was broken and a strike had occurred.
They made this decisions in the country best interests given the information they had
war never seems right, I'm sure there are other solutions
Any country with nuclear weapons should be stopped
The Americans could manage without our involvement.w ho are we or the Americans to police the third world.we have nothing to gain from this intervention
Counties have to work together to compact unjust action for the benifit of all.
I think I got mixed up with the terminology of 'deploy'...I thought it meant 'employ' in the previous questions. I am AGAINST engaging troops on the basis of a minority view. I am surprised Labour put our troops at risk.
Intervention to quickly is likely to create escalation
We cannot sit back whilst a bully butchers human beings for his own selfish reason. Diplomacy wasn_ã_t working and we can_ã_t ignore the actions.
its not my say whether we deploy troops or not
chemical weapons are dangerous so why should the uk get involved
is it really necessary they need to ask themselves or are they just agreeing with the majority.
seems like an obvious choice for the scenario
Fighting violence with violence will only prolong death and suffering rather than trying to fix the root of the problem. Also innocent people could be harmed.
I've never thought that force was a good move so I go for diplomacy although i can see that sometimes there is a need for deployment.
In this type of scenario inaction could be seen as giving the aggressor leeway to continue but I would like to think that our Government would make sure they had enough information to make the decision even if such info wasn't made public
Because it our business to get involved in war torn countrys that families get displaced and even ruined because of our weapons amd neglegence.
Use of chemical weapons under any circumstances is against my principled beliefs
There has to be a red line not to be crossed.
I'm not opposed to action but feel there other steps to go through first
Do not know enough on the subject to comment, but sounds wrong.
Many issues abound within the UK, such as homelessness and an underfunded NHS. We ought to fix issues within our own country before meddling in the affairs of others at the request of the USA.
the world needs to unite in standing up to countries that bully their citizens
The facts need to be checked to make sure this isn't another US attempt at intervening in conflicts that don't concern them.
These rogue States can't be allowed to unlawfully control it's citizens in this way.
As I previously stated [It would be nice to think that we would have back up from other countries if we ever needed it]
as long as they can implent military troops
chemical weapons were deplyed, cannot be condoned
As we have seen in the past with the USA's 'good intelligence' (*cough* invasion of iraq *cough*) it has been hokey at the best of times just so the US can get some oil
We should not interfere other country's problems
It's not really something I have a proper opinion on
One country cannot make this judgement. This is an international decision and so should go through the UN. We should not follow suit with the US because we feel a need to please them. Morally we should do everything in our power to prevent such an atrocity, but immediately resorting to violence is not the moral decision. The US are also currently showing a complete disregard for human rights and so have no authority to make the decision on this event.
I agree with deploying troops but it is not high on my agenda
situations like this put ordinary citizens in danger
I WOULD NEED MORE INFORMATION ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE i COULD HAVE A STRONG OPINION
We are right to protect civilians in other countries
The evidence seems biased and may not be reliable. As this evidence is the sole reason to enter into the conflict then it is paramount the evidence is accurate
I think the United kingdom gets involved too quickly. Especially when USA is involved
It would not be sensible for the UK or USA to discuss if I as a tax payer agree with why they choose to send our armed forces
Hopely government should think other way of helping internationally aside from sending troops
Its really not for us to get too involved but there needs to be something done to help the civilians
looking at it is logical to get involved if it contravenes international law.
Again this is a UN/ NATO situation. not country specific. Plus that small amount of trade with said country...we probably sold the chemicals to make the weapons.
Chemical weapons are very bad and needs to be stopped.
It is the use of chemical weapons that I find offensive and whilst I dont like that we have to interfere in other countries arguments sometimes it is necessary
We intervened in a conflict and lost a lot of personal and wounded personal and what did we really achieve the country is still in difficulties our troops helped for a while but now the help we gave has petered out
because the use of chemical and or biological weapons id an abomination and must be stopped
We shouldn_ã_t get involved in certain countries as problems are made worse
The deployment of troops depends on the situation you're presented with
A more serious scenario requires a more definite response, the ability of diplomacy to work in this one would be more limited, needing the military backup
It us needed as action hasn't been taken
We interfere with everything at the taxpayers expense.
If a government commits troops to a conflict we should support them if the chance of success is high
The use of chemical weapons is a line that should not be crossed
Need to be sure of facts and try diplomacy first
I think the UK should carry out own research on the US findings and see how correct they are, rather then just agreeing with them and going ahead without much thought on the consequences and validity. Plus there other ways this can be resolved in a diplomatic way
There Intel doesn't seem string enough to send it troops
I think it_ã_s important to help it times of need where innocent people are being killed
I don_ã_t think every option was explored before using force
It's a waste of tax payers money could be spent on something worth wile
chemical weapons are evil, every country must stand against it
It needs threats to The UK security to be taken away
I think we are right to do so,  but also worry if we should get involved
I don't think violence solves anything and innocent people get killed but think the UK need to do something.
The though that would make the decistion following analysis of the evidence
There has to be some sort of reasonable force to show countries that don't abide by the sanctions to be stopped in their steps. In theory I would rather like to see our country not involved but if it's the only solution then it has to be done.
Even though I disapprove, the government should not rule out sending troops. The reason why I do though is due to the fact that the U.A. has had a history of starting wars that last years on the pretense of a countries having deadly weapons.
the decision to deploy troops is not made by the citizens, but by those sitting in the government
Use of chemical weapons is wrong and people who choose to do this must be aware of consequences and should be brought down immediately.
I would only approve if there was more than enough evidence that they were using chemical weapons. Also I would only approve for a military strike, if they knew exactly where these weapons were being maked/stored. Not like the past failures like Iraq.
chemical weapons were used on civilians, and they are illegal. Syria neede to know we would not stand by and watch them kill innocent people
Surely there are more diplomatic options that should be explored first
This is a case of getting involved to the extent there will be loss of life. I cannot condone this
I don't have enough knowledge on this topic.
They could go on to use chemical weapons on a wider scale and it is unlikely diplomacy will work
We need To be strong to be in control of our destiny
They do it for selfish reason no need to make war where there isn't war
I have mixed feelings on this scenario .
I think it's important to help those in trouble but we can't always rush t help everyone
I just think it's difficult to know what to believe these days
We need to think for ourselves instead of following America
Even though Labour were divided they agreed that sending troops was neccessary and went along with conservative support for the US. I personally agree that Uk troops should join multi national forces in scenarios where chemical weapons are being used to stop the prolofieration of chemical weapons and protect human rights
why should our men and women fight for other countries
It is important to be seen to be doing the right thing and will stand us in good stead the long run.
Sometimes I like its necessary but Other time I don't think it is
like previously said, you need a strong army yourself, but you need to stay out of things which could end up taking a conflict into your country
As it is safer but seems too much but it is needed
If it protects us from nuclear fall out with russa then ok
We can't let nations use chemical weapons on their own people or any one else for that matter, if the situation got worse, then I agree we should send our troops in
we need more troops for the security of our country
Rules were broken so I understand the need to intervene in a certain way
i slightly approve because once the troops are deployed and the threat decreases, the troops are still keeping the country stable whilst the african government or diplomacy is being neutralised and most probably changed for another, in this time I think its more the UN's job to first employ the troops and the british soldiers could be called in for back-up
All other avenues  should be examined before commuting troops
Slightly unsure but agree if  the countrys people would be protected and helped
You have to help the vulnerable even if their lives do not affect you
This has every possibility of being yet another US led regime change move.
Why should our little country have to get involved?!
Because we have capability of armed response does not = we should use it. Diplomacy is superior. The US may have other reasons for armed response which aren't appropriate to UK. I stand against armed conflict and control of other countries, mostly.
You can_ã_t ignore bad behaviour so something needed to be done, but I would want to be careful about next steps
As it shows that we are going to hold those who are using them to account
These decisions are tough hard to come down completely on one side
I don't know enough about the subject to make an entirely informed decision.
International law should be followed and if violated with no form of resolution being made from the country using chemical weapons then more urgent action is needed. Countries with power shouldn_ã_t turn a blind eye to these issues and should help those who need it.
The country was breaking the teeth on these weapons
I would need to hear arguments in depth for and against before expressing an opinion
The use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity
I think the government should not get involved in conflicts abroad if we don't have too.
Need to stop in case of attack on our citizens but military action a last resort
Chemical weapons cannot be tolerated. We must take a stand against them.
I would have to see more news items on this going in depth on eBay current situations to theoeoughlh ensure a good decision. Hopefully a good decision would be made by the government
Sometimes hard decisions have to be made. Had we not reacted to the German invasion of Poland in 1939, the chances are that I would now be a German citizen
Answered already this is a repeat [sometimes it is the only way]
If the country has no ties with the Uk then it would be better to not be involved, the US can deal with the issue by themselves
already given an answer on this one [Have to be careful.  We don't have enough to go everywhere]
Use of chemical weapons by anyone, if proven, needs to be stopped dead in its tracks
Stick to diplomacy and not military knee jerk reaction
I approve of taking out the weapons provided no civilians would be harmed in the strike
same as before, negative impact on the country especially as we are not in the Eu anymore we dont really have backup anymore
We cannot allow am aggressive dictator to rule with weapons.
I believe this is good as a preventative tactic.
we need to get involved when things are wrong
It is important to first verify the chemical weapons as to whther it really occured.
Verification of evidence should be thorough before the deployment of troops.
On occasion when national security and lives are in danger
Just told you earlier ["The UK seem to like to get involved in matters that shouldnt be an issue to them. The UK has been independent and should remain that way and should not be influenced by other countries in any way shape or form and thus this incompetency leads to deploying troops]
Such a hard decision as there's no real fight answer
governments like this have to realise they can't just do what they want
Stop causing more terror. Just find some peace. Why should people fight against other people it makes no sense. Because around 90% of these casualties caused by conflict are innocent civilians.
Would prefer deplomacy, but force may have been appropriate
it's not right chemical weapons were used
It is difficult to know if it is the right action to take
If it contravenes international law then it's a valid reason
The USA goverment has allways had a hidden agenda behind every conflict they take part in. There has been a agreement between big defence companies to fund senator and politicians  in order create a conflict where ever into boost there defence contract in both of the countries.
Again, if help is needed then I agree, though appreciate that people are risking their lives
The use of chemical weapons was prominent in my mind and that the country would not become a democracy
I'm honestly a bit lost. A little ill, sorry
Chemical weapons are hideous and their use has to be condemned - not merely verbally, but by action
It is not up to us to interfere in a country that is unlikely to have an impact on us, and to put our own personnel at risk
No obvious region for us to get involved
don't know enough about the situation to agree or disagree
To be risking yet more lives, intervention in an area where the West attempt to _ãÄfix_ã_ the situation
Sometimes I think its the correct choice, other times I thinkthey just send these young men to their deaths for no reason
We should stop interfering in the internal affairs of foreign countries. It has got us into a lot of trouble in the past and we are still suffering the consequences of interference in Iraq, Libya and Afganistan to this day. Why give Islamic terrorists the excuse they want to attack us?
The weapons could be used on us and the country should be punished in another way from r breaking international law
It's not rocket science. USA is not interested in the well being of any other but themselves. They have a gain. We get screwed and innocent people suffer.
Past history shows that support of the us by the uk is not based upon the best or most accurate intelligence; it will take a long time for Iraq to fade in the UK collective memory. Why support the US if we cannot count on them to support us - partly, but tit for tat is not a good basis for allies/alliances to thrive.
You've already asked this [Depends on circumstances ]
Goverment do as they please. We can have an opinion but that wont be noticed or even considered
the U S A government is big enough to stand alone
BECAUSE I AM NOT CERTAIN IF THEY ARE BEING HONEST
i would like to find a diplomatic response if possible.
It's not are war . And the fighting is causing people to flea homes and have no where to go . I know I would not go any where there is a war.
There should have been no intervention what so ever without discussions in parliament, May has taken it upon herself to destroy this country by cuddling up to the likes of Trump and yet is holding talks this week welcoming guests to tell them as to why they should join the EU, the woman is a dangerous hypocrite.. If May says something should be done the chances are it shouldn't be..
I am a quaker and pacifist, I believe military action and deaths can almost never be justified; there must always be another way
There are lives being taken for no reason
again we should always make sure about the facts
I don't trust the us or conservative government to do what's right
If it is necessary then it should be done
You_ã_ve already asked me [We need to protection]
Because the use of chemical weapons is a huge breech of international law and many lives would be lost if it was allowed to continue
I don_ã_t know enough about the subject, I have no opinion
If it helps protect us then he's but the USA is a bigger country so why can't they do it alone
Not our problem Let other countries with interests in the country act
As allies support is always required. We would want an allies support when the time is right
Is there a realistic chance of improving the situation by military action?
im not convined there are people bombing their country.
Not happy about deploying troops but government has more knowledge so must know what is approapriate
Well I am not sure weather we should sent troops in or not
We have not got enough troops to look after Great Britain, never mind helping other nations.
Shows England will not just sit back and watch things happen around them
I disapprove because I don't using troops on the ground would be the answer if a diplomatic solution cannot be found, could drones not be used.
For one, the Labour party as it is now would not do such a thing unless they had an incredible reason and the Conservative party would not be divided as they seem to be constantly after war for their own financial gain.
We are basically bowing to the will of the US
I am a normal citizen who doesn't have the whole picture and could never wish to. The government have a swathe of advisors and are mos lovely to get it right, despite past errors. I'm not a politician.
I think we should stay out of conflicts that do not involve us at the moment as ou milatery is underfunded
same as previous answer [yet again we are focusing on other countries rather than looking at the MANY issues that are being faced by people in this country]
I would need to know more about the situation to approve or disapprove
The entire world should rise up against the use of chemical weapons for any reason
There are other ways of resolving conflict.Deploying troops and starting wars isnt the answer.
The use of chemical weapons needs a robust response. It is against the law and we need to deter future use (it may affect us)
Would be good to help people, but would worry about putting our own troops in harms way.
chemicals in any conflict is a big no no, and yes force must be shown to rid this planet of nasty chemicals
I don't like ware and I think it should be finished
Chemical attacks are wrong and need to be stopped
see previous answer to same quesiton [Why should they go? no issues certain countries just going to make problems that ain't their]
this sort if intervention should be done by the United Nations
Qns raised by the reference to intelligence reliability
military intervention in the past hasnt been perceived to be effective so I'm somewhat wary of it
I remember the weapons of mass destruction debacle when we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction had been found.. but then it transpires that people lied about that and many were needlessly killed.
The violence against the rebels and ultimately those caught inbetween is unacceptable, especially considering the abhorrent methods
It is unfair that these people have nobody help them
It's rarely the right solution to the problem
Would need to know more information before I form a opinion
the fact the uk had no trade does not detract from the illegal use of chemical weapons
I don_ã_t think that sending out troops in every time there is a disagreement. The military should be used for its purpose, we shouldn_ã_t continually get involved in situations that didn't get caused by us
No country should be able to do something illegal without punishment. Feel that it is important to stand with other countries particularly the us
They only thinking about their own decisions
We rush in to intervene need diplomacy through un
We need to help and stop it from happening again a lot of people could die from it
It shouldn't be the immediate reaction and would need indisputable proof that this had occurred before troops should be deployed
It's none of my business to decide - they must have had a good reason
Have the government been give a true account or is it made up to justify going to war eg Iraq
It's a "no-brainer" ; we cannot accept chemical warfare by anybody.
I believe the \government has the countries best interests at heart and somewhat trust their decisions
Nations should act to uphold the rule of law.
I think it's in our general interest regarding UK security.
I think that where innocents are completely vulnerable it's fair enough to clamp down
The country who originally deployed chemical weapons were breaking laws according to the us but the us shouldn_ã_t have gotten involved because of that because they could risk starting a war.
Troops should be deployed only with UN backing
Being opposed to chemical weapons even though they do not directly affect us will increase our credibility on the world stage.
cause its always the uk who has to get involved with sending troops out to different courntys we should just stick to our own counrty and look after it
I would need more information before committing troops for a long time.
Shows all nations that we believe are actions are right and justified
I think that USA is a great allie, however, I do think that we always follow what they say when we should base everything on evidence that we have and not just rely on what others tell us.
Chemical weapons are illegal under international law. Everyone is aware that this is the case and it is appropriate to stand by this and see that the offending countries are held to account
We're always quick to deploy without considering blowback. Libya great example...involved but ruined country Iraq saw nation fall into insurgency
The use of chemical weapons in any scenario is abhorrent and should be stopped
It needs to be nipped in the bud and sorted asap
again the govt are more party to what is happening and i feel in a conflict situation you have to trust the govt
a war is a war with it being chemical weapons slightly more serious again if it is in the interest of britons to deploy troops then do so if not then don't.
Well for Me I feel that as we are not being targeted then why join forces
I can understand the reason for bith so find it difficult to say. I will have to go with what the government do as that's why they are in power.
The country had committed an illegal act and therefore intervention should be made, however, is it fair that countries will only act quickly against another country when they won't suffer in trade etc.?
We shouldnt be going to war just because another country says they have this and that.
I do not know enough of the background information
Chemical weapons were used which are globally banned
No point having international law if it is not enforced
Troops deployment should always be a last resort after all other channels have been exhausted
More destruction could be cause by the intervention
Very personal question and prefer not to answer in a survey forum
Not sure what use they would be in this scenario
If there is clear evidence that there has been a chemical attack then we should attack them but only if there is no danger for the chemicals to release into the air once we have attacked them also if there is still a chance of diplomacy then military action should be last in this case
I believe that the government would ultimately act in the best interests of the nation and would not enter into warfare without considering the options
The US is our friend and if the government agrees unilaterally to deploy troops to assist with the removal of danger then we have to join them.
Once again we are faced with despotic regimes who think they can get away with murder.
The use of chemical weapons should never be tolerated and support given to help prevent it but other countries that appear to break international law all the time such as Israel are not held to account so I think we need to ensure all countries that commit such acts against their neighbours or their own people should be stopped
No big thoughts, just seemed a reasonable option
It is chemical weapons and the air strike is purely to take out the facility tjat is producing the chemicals so i have no issue woth this being carried out
on balance it appears the right decision with the balance of MPs in favour
There are so many resolutions unsolved in the world or negatives that have to be addressed and to obtain a peaceful settlement action needs to be taken before escalation could well occur.
I don_ã_t agree in our troops being put in that sort of danger
It seems that the US has decided to go and want the UK alongside to help legitimize it actions. I would prefer a more worldwide response via the Untied Nations. I would also wonder at the credibility of the US information. It would not be the first tine that the US went chasing the "$". Finally I would want to know what they hope to achieve. How could they/we ensure that when we leave what would be left will be better than what was already there. The US are great at going in with lots of high tech weapons but slink away when the US body bags start arriving.
I think some troops should be deployed initially until the situation on the ground has been fully assessed by those deployed.
The country need more troops as it is so why deploy
if it can stop something as terrible for everybody as chemical weapons from being used, then that would be for the best
Anything that involves chemical weapons has to have a response
Same question, nothing I could change but could make a point for both sides
We must support allies and use of chemical weapons is abhorrent
Showing force in response to a chemical weapon attack sends a string message that this will not be tolerated. But troops will be at risk and in harms way, and innocent civilians in the country will probably be affected too, however much care is taken to avoid it.
we shouldn't get involved in other countries conflicts
It was a choice as the chemical attack could have also affected civillians and were they being held by the rebels
cant let dictators continually run African nations and destabilize the region.
International law was violated therefore something had to be done.
Military action is not always the answer, but should be an option if needed
I believe as a modern country we have a duty to support our allies and to uphold international law
No one really likes war.  But in a war situation innocent people get murdered, so perhaps intervention is necessary sometimes  but with a caveat that plans are created before intervention to put the local people in charge of their own country and not leave a political vacuum
The uk like the us is not the worlds policeman. We cannot and should not try to inforce democracy on anybody! Some countries are not ready for democracy, and the people do not want it! You only have to look at what has happened in Iraq, libia, Egypt and Syria to see the results!
has no bearing in britains interests, we should stay away from any issues, and u.s findings are debatable
I don_ã_t think it_ã_s up to us to have an opinion
it depends on whether or not it will be done properly.
Like I said before we should keep our noses out of other country's problems unless it will directly affect this country
We have to defend our freedoms and those not strong enough to defend themselves
We don't do much in the way of trade so by not getting involved we are not losing much but are hopefully keeping our citizens safe
The use of chemical weapons can never be condoned and must be punished by whatever means possible
Diffucult to make assesmentnwithout worry if retaliation
Cannot really say a lot about thus subject
I would like to know more about the situation. Were we the only ones that deployed troops? If so then we shouldnt have done it
use of chemical weapons no trade implications USA leading way
we have to defend ourselves. if labour gets into power there will be no armed forces or police and Corbyn would be still be saying we need to do more to help the terrorists
Would want more info first on the validity of the evidence
The use of these weapons is bad so a stance against them needs to be taken
It has used chemical weapons so they.need to be held to account - but by means of force?
We must uphold international law or the world would soon collapse into caos and possibly world war
The thing is we never really get to know ALL the facts and we don't know if they are actually facts. So many things are open to interpretation, a report by persons we don't know if we can rely on, the full info isn't available to public, the press and news don't know enough, they are all biased in one way or another. All we know is what they tell us. It's better than the propaganda that some of the repressed countries are fed, but it still isn't the whole story. All we can do is judge by the facts that we're told are facts....and if we think we are threatened by chemical attack, then what are we supposed to do? Just let them carry on? Develop warfare that can be used to attack? Again I am torn. Part of me says it's none of our business, just keep your nose out. The other part says we have to protect ourselves and stick with the big countries that we may need on our side in future.  Garhhh, I don't know. I think I understand politics and then something comes to light after the event and I think Oh god did we do wrong ?
Why not introduce UN sanctions on the African nation for its violation rather than taking military action based on questionable intelligence?
They were somewhat in the right to do so
Intelligence has not always proved to be reliable source so evidence  should also be sought
Using our countries resources when it does not affect us Also acting on us findings
I dont think the UK should be ready to follow the US's lead as Donald Trump only cares about what is best for the USA.
Would need to know a lot more about this conflict before answering
Again don't know alot about the troops so don't have a full opinion
Because it can be invading if we aren_ã_t needed
If their was enough support then I would agree with deploying troops.
It may not directly effect our country but any use of these weapons could end up directly effecting us
Your heart says it is the right thing but previous intelligence lies make you question
because it actually depends on the conflict
Because we have a duty to help people who need it and chemical weapons should not be used. I would want to think someone would help us if the same happened and we needed help
DICTATORSHIPS AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE VERY VOLATILE
Our troops should be deployed when necessary
The UN should spearhead action in this situation. Failing that. western democracies must make a stand
I think.more could've been done to resolve it diplomatically
its very hard to say with out hearing  more depth
I think it's better to work in concert with other countries and use organisations like the UN for international matters like this
i dont think we should keep getting involved just because the states say, its like we have no mind of our own, we as the british people should vote
I feel that Africa has the potential to cause danger with these weapons and with the government not being strong there it could lead to dangerous and flippant situations. The country's people suffer enough already.
there are no excuses for chemical weapons and any suggestion of their use, assuming based on sound intelligence, should be approached and dealt with in a robust way, if diplomatic attempts fail then force is necessary
this country is under threat at the moment
It is essential that these threats are destroyed
It should be a last resort, but we should do it from time to time to let other countries know we could still do it successfully.
No business of the British to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation according to the United Nations own charter.
I think it's a bad choice because the UK and US are really close but when it comes to crime and war it can cause major circumstances to happen in various countries
I don't think getting involved is necessary at this point
Violation of International law. Have to show by force that this can't happen again.
If the UN is unable to handle the situation then the UK will need to get involved
If it_ã_s gong to prevent an evil dictator in his tracks then so be it
we cant put troops everywhere. stretched as it is.
a dangerous situation can only be helped with help
THE ILLEGAL USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS JUSTIFIES THIS RESPONSE
because there is not enough info to decide thar
The deployment of our armed forces in any situation should be a last resort
we need deter use of force against us with a show of force
I_ã_m not sure what the questions asking. Deploy troops in relation to what?
I believe in this Government so must be swayed by their decisions.
AS A WORLD, WE NEED TO UNITE TO STOP "ROGUE" LEADERS USING THIS DISGUSTING OUTLAWED WEAPON
The human race should take care and look after each other
These decisions belong to an elected government
IF THEY USE CHEMICALS ON THEM THEN THEY WILL USE IT ON OTHER NATIONS AS WELL NOT GOOD TAKE THEM OUT
If it was morally just and legal then you must act rather than do nothing
Again, sending the troops doesn't solve the issue. Look at Americas recent history.
Great British gets invoved in too many conflicts which id rather the parties invovled could sort out without intervention
as before [depends on the circumstances but agree if necessary]
if the country is in violation of international law, then it is for the UN, and NOT USA, to lead in the matter.  What is the UN involvement??  Why should we follow the USA without any confirmation of what has happened in relation to the chemical weapons?
We do need to try and stop country's using chemical weapons but I'm not altogether happy to be putting our troops at risk
Don't like the thought of are people dying
I_ã_m a pacifist. Diplomacy is important in today_ã_s world.
we keep being told that diversity is good. Therefore, we as a nation should not decide for other countries what they should or not do within their own country. The USA and brittain don't have a monopoly on knowing what is right for its citizens. Nor do we have the right to hold a moral high ground on other countries positions
Would want to be sure it would have the desired effect
There'll be a lot more to it than given in the example.
Coz they shouldnt get involved in other peopls' business
I worry that we just do the USA's bidding. Whilst I agree we meed to get rid of chemical weapons I do not feel we should be interfering in other countries' affairs too much.
it good possibly affect our nation so would be brst to try to protect
i need to do further research to form an opinion
I only slightly approve because- I think it's good to keep our men on there toes and also to keep trump on side. Loyalty is the best trait to have. - I only approve slightly and not greatly because I don't think the chemical weapons attack would affect Britain.
It's our duty to help other people if we can, but only with the full and accurate information.
as a show of force and solidarity with USA
no one has the right to be the worlds policeman so unless it threatens u.k interests i do not agree with airstrikes/bombing to be first course of action,
Will the UN act? If no and the USA are consistent in their approach and it is not about oil but humanitarian then dialogue before military action is preferred as civilians are always the ones to suffer in the long term.
I don't think that the UK should just go ahead and deploy troops on the USA's say so and should at least first make enquiries into the validity of the claims.
I'm really not sure what I think of the issue
I think we only do it to appease the US who seem to think they rule the world even with that idiot in power
We need to rid the world of these types of regimes
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS, I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES OF GOOD AND BAD
I believe it was right to do something. My hesitation is that the USofA were the ones deciding, not the United Nations which concerns me.
It always seem heavy handed to send the troops in at the first sign of trouble, our armed forces aren't big enough and with not enough kit for everyone it not a fair battle
I have attached my r for your reference and hope to hear from you you soon inshallah as I am I expected meant to be in
A necessary action when chemicals are involved
Don't believe war is the answer in any case.
chemical weapons are abhorrent and something must be done
no one should use chemicals on human being
It is the only thing that could be done in that circumstance.
I don_ã_t agree sending people out to fight
It is never right to use chemical weapons
They chose to be troops but they should still get a choice
Because it seemed like the right thing to do.
There must have a good reason for the mp to do this
sometimes a stand is needed against behaviour that is unacceptable - this is one of those times
They needed to be stopped and the fact that they are not a big contribution to our economy helped me approve
Any contravention of international law needs dealing with
it does not effect the uk we shouldn't get involved
i think that is the most effective measure in a situation like this
We need to be sure before we risk British troops. Intelligence has to be confirmed.
I can see the need but there's too much involvement of British troops overseas
what the governments to me are senseless at times
Events in syria I think requires intervention
As stated earlier. [I think by deploying troops it can make issues escalate more quickly and unnecessarily.]
I think that there is a responsibility to help protect innocent people in any country at risk of being attacked by chemical weapons,  however, I feel very nervous about replying troops in other countries
I can see both sides of the argument, sometimes it is necessary, but sometimes it is not our fight.
This is a difficult question to answer without more informatio but I would generally be in favour of Britain supporting the United States in such a situation.
It shows the rest of the world we take the issue seriously.
It causes more war and puts us in danger
Deployment of troops in this case is justified because a serious crime has been committed which could endanger lives.
Dangerous behaviour needed to be addressed
I don_ã_t know much about the Subject questioned
if chemical weapons are used in conflict then it is unlawful and must be acted on other wise other countries will think there will be no retaliation if they use chemical weapons
we have no involvement with the country in question, we are acting on intelligence that may be wrong, incorrect or exaggerated and before jumping in with the usa we should look into things in greater detail before acting impulsively
We need to show the world we cant be a push over and show that we are powerfull
I thought it might be an appropriate response to what had happened in that country
It's no business of the UK to get involved. The US doesn't own the UK and the UK shouldn't follow them blindly. They should wait to see what the UN come up with first rather than help take it into their own hands.
any use of chemical weapons has to be put down, whether it affects uk or not
I think if you are in a position to do something in those situations you should
If chemical weapons are involved and ultimately deployed, we're all doomed so we need to stop it immediately. However the pacifist in me who hates war is torn
Chemical weapons are terrible, but I do not trust the current US administration. Should the US be the world's police?
WE SOME TIMES NEED TO USE OUR MILITARY WHEN PEOPLE ARE BEING KILLED BY DESPOTS
There how to be other way to solve the situation
We have a Moral Duty to Support People Under Duress
I am not so naêve as to imagine government would take any notice of what I thought
uncertain due to unreliability of USA information
Breaking international law has to be punished otherwise the laws would be frequently broken. For such a drastic action, the evidence that the chemical weaponry was used must have been very credible
Why do we have to deploy our military, yet again at the behest of the USA. It never goes well, and we as a country are dragged into conflict with no public support
To help prevent the use of chemical weapons
I think we should think carefully how to approach this difficult situation.
Our troops shouldn_ã_t be killed because of what USA says
To use on human or animal or anywhere anyone is the worst and cruelist thing ever.have to be prosecuted
Are am not sure how it benefits the country
A very difficult decision as it depends on trusting the accuracy of US intelligence and no other independent nation has verified the chemical attack. At the same time, a strong message must be sent that any chemical attack is completely unacceptable
US Intelligence sources have proven wrong in the past and need to be verified.
If any nation is truly interested in helping another nation to behave humanely they should by example. Is important to make it clearly known how strongly they disapprove the use of chemical weapons. If they don_ã_t listen the use of force is unlikely to change their mind and may make the situation worse
I don't feel like we need to get involved
It needs public and Government consulation before considered.
I don't know enough i depth to make.a.formal decision
sadly it just has to be done these days, we need to support America and other countries in war
Our government are all in agreement that this is the best option
they spend too much money abroad when people in the uk are struggling
I would need to know more to have a judgement
Even though we do not have high levels of trade with Africa, it does need to be put down as chemical weapons is a violation of international law.
Fighting never helps.  Costa Rica does not have an army and I would like to see that worldwide.
not our problem let someone else deal with it.
I approve of ehat they are trying to do, just the method may nit be the best
Because the government saod we need to. Trust them.
If democracy can_ã_t be reached, it_ã_s futile putting lives of our troops at risk
Although I don't agree with war, I do believe that we need troops to be there to support other countries in times of need.
Illegal war with Iraq. Approve some, disapprove others.
The government has little choice but to take action and with the situation in Africa they (African government) are not going to listen to reason or consider a polite request!
If people are suffering we should get to know the details and help if necessary. I prefer nonviolent methods though.
The war on Iraq comes to mind. Where's the proof?
A PEACE KEEPING FORCE ON THE GROUND CAN DO A LOT OF GOOD
The UN should cope with this sort of problem
Diplomatic solutions and sanctions should be employed first, with permission of the United Nations
Asked me this earlier [To protect our country ]
I believe it can be solved by other methods
I don't think muscle achieves long lasting resulyd
any involvement would not necessarily prevent the same from happening again. the solution would be ; a covert operation to assassinate the dictator, and then to provide help to set-up a democracy.
Things should be done diplomatically to solve this issue without resorting to violence first hand. The government uses troops as a disposable power forgetting that they are human with families.
Do not get involved with any conflict, it allways bites you on the arse.
should always be willing to deploy troops
If you mean deployed to another country, then it's to help our safety,  but if deployed here, it's obviously for theirs
Ther is an assumption that these chemicals will be used as a weapon. US have jumped thr gun and put the UK in danger of future retaliation
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THOROUGH RESEARCH IS DONE BEFORE DEPLOYING TROOPS. WE SHOULD NOT JUST FOLLOW THE US
The use of chemical weapons sounds excessive but was it the UK's job to stop it?
i would like support from another country
As it's none of England's buissnes what a another country does or how it runs it's country unless they have been specifically asked to be involved
Similar actions have lead to mixed outcomes in the past
Stay as one & let the rest make their own doing
zvxbbccb kggssfsg ggetwsg khfxbxb kjfhddv
How certain are the US about their information, who provided it.  What other reasons might the US have for wanting to deploy troops in this area.  Is there no other course of action that would be effective, e.g. sanctions.  We should not jump just because US says we should.
The UK must maintain its strong ties with the US, so Deploying troops of a small but  notable size seems right
Air strikes don't involve troops, so am more content with this. But armed conflict is never the first port of call.
Same reasons as before [We constantly punch above our weight and we no longer have the resources because successive governments have reduced our armed forces and ability to respond far too much.]
This country did not affect the UK in any way. If the US wanted to get involved that is their decision and their army is large enough to handle the situation themselves. By getting involved we are putting our own country at risk of backlash and starting something much bigger. There are also other feuds and issues we are part of that need attention before we use all of our resources to attack this one.
disagree with conflict, naturally side with Labour
I feel like the U.S military always ends up killing a lot of innocent people when they do stuff like this.
i think if it is not our war we should not get involved in it
already answered this [these troops help protect this country and others to,our troops are the best in the world and know how to handle themselfs and everyone else]
It is not in our national interest, it's not our business and we should not be using our troops to police other nations
Because you have to confirm the information
It is the right thing to confront new aggressors at an earlystage
It has Sod all to do with us, led into another shit storm by the Americans. Let's get out and leave them to it
it would be a good idea to deploy troops to bring the situation under control.
No one wins in war all they do is blow up things and then build them again to blow up another and all the while the fighting carries on
ALL AFRICAN COUNTRIES COULD STAND ON THEIR OWN TWO FEET IF IT WASN'T FOR A FEW DICTATORS STEALING ALL THE WEALTH OF THE COUNTRY
I think it_ã_s bad that the first thought is military action
How reliable was the intelligence, was it necessary to use force without trying a diplomatic solution
No international intervention is needed. Sanction yes but no army
Comparing to Syria. Something needs to be done not 100% supportive of deploying troops but if all else has failed it's better than nothing.
I am not for it but understand why the government would be
america has probably more interest in the country for it/s own ends
Sometimes countries have to fight their own wars without intervention, on the other hand innocent people died
Morally we should intervene where chemical weapons are being used on innocent people however part of me worries about our own troops getting killed in combat in a country we aren't involved with.
They never hurt anyone and it got rid of the weapons so it_ã_s a win win
I can understand both sides of the argument
Not my place to say but in any case depends in the severity of the situation
Too much information need to be  considered
It sounds like it was necessary, but I don_ã_t know enough to comment for sure.
It doesn't feel right but the government is screwed anyway
Those who use chemical weapons (as distinct from just smoke and tear gas etc) need to be brought to account
I do think that force is sometimes necessary when other means have failed
It would seem fair and legitimate to be involved in this as human life is being endangered. This is something we should protect.
Because it sounds like a dangerous country. It's not good that a dangerous country has nuclear weapons
we have to stop what is happening in unfortunate countrirs
we can not allow the use of chemical weapons to be tolerated no matter what the reason.  we owe it to the victims to make sure those responsible are punished
As the use of chemical weapons is against international law it is right that there should be retaliation. However there should be checks to make sure that the information from the US Intelligence is completely accurate before getting too involved, to avoid putting British troops in harms way unnecessarily.
I don't believe everything I read in the papers.
If the country shows no sign of becoming a democracy there is little hope of making any progress on the chemical weapons issue
I would prefer to negotiate before sending in troops
NO discussion in the House of Commons. Murdering ^^^^^
depends on when you are talking about - question is a bit ambiguous
Meeting force with force does not seem like the right way to resolve things. Further, the way in which we wage war is ineffective and hurts civilians more than governments.
We should always stand srong to other countrys that want to desroy our way of life. alongside supporting our friends in America. Proceting our people from terror and desorying there evil
There is no provision in international law for unilateral military action. The appropriate response is to work through international institutions and, where possible, impose targeted sanctions against individuals held responsible.
I don't see that killing people with chemical weapons is particularly worse than doing so with other weapons
Deployment of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity and must be punished by the international community
Sometimes countries need to back each other up
The use of chemical weapons must never be allowed to happen.
It depends on threat and situation but violence should be last option for sure.
Chemical weapons should be a line that can't be crossed without consequences. However, any intervention should be balanced against the civilian lives it will cost, and sanctions and asset freezings many be more effective than limited strikes
Because in the end it_ã_s only going to lead to another war
While it seems like the likely solution to the problem, direct military involvement should only be considered in the most dire of situations. If it is straightforward genocide that has signs of accelerating then something must be done for the sake of humanity. However rarely is a situation so clear. The world as a whole needs to have a look at itself, and do what's right for humanity. If this includes worldwide intervention against a country that is surely better than one or two powerful nations policing the situation.
I don`t know enough about the situation to make a proper informed decision
It is important to ensure international laws are upheld, however i am against deployment in this situatuon when targeted strikes would suffice.
Labour's leader always seams to opt out of anything military action or intervention I don't think he would make a good leader for our country so do not think he would make a decision that troops go
It's not the government that's on the front line
it causes missery & hatred for all involved there as got to be a better way, we need to find that way
If we are all united we stand a better chance together
More evidence and investigation is needed to ensure the facts.
It_ã_s always better to have too many troops that way we are prepared
Not enough information to properly decide, but I'm leaning more on the side of Labour
The mentioning of not having any trade with that county seems sinister.. The use of Chemical weapons is wrong and should be stopped, but I can't help but think this is just a front for america / England to rob Africa some more, it all seem to noble for belief, why don't neighbouring country's intervene why must UK / USA be the White Knights of justice.... its definitely a front to get the resource, or perhaps to keep Africa out of the  super nation race. life just doesn't go like that, there is a definitely a ulterior motive!
the deployment of troops in the given case solved nothing, nor was it designed to. The deployment was to worsen the situation just at the point when real peace was on the cards. It is profitable to continue war in that region. The ultimate aim is regime change and establishing dominance in that area. This is nothing to do with "humanitarian" aims and more to do with globalisation and colonial aims.
I don't know enough about the situation.
are troops are only used to bail out America...
I feel to deploy troops it should be a last resort and something that is considered and pick apart in all options, of course understanding that time scales could impact, but thought should be given before making a rash decision.
Illegal use of chemical weapons needs to be curtailed but evry channel must be explored before armed force is used. Armed force has led to a vaccuum being formed in a country after the conflict, causing destabilisation as other groups attempt to take advantage of the situation
I don't fully understand so I can't comment
The same as before really. As Long as we have the troops to spare then we should help out.
it seems like a really complex issue which a decision isnt to be made lightly so i reckon their decision is good
Military action should be reserved for defence or direct threats on our country.
Need more information. Holding response pending better evidence.
I believe we should do what we can the stop the use of chemical weapons
use of chemical weapons is unfair and cruel, and to accept their use would set precedents for other countries to use them too
These interventions destabilize countries and get a lot of people killed and displaced indirectly and are not a long term solution.
It's hard to know what the consequences of deploying troops will be
I think putting ppls lives at risk should be a last case scenario
We need to make sure other countries also help and deploy troops
i just think this is the only option left
Because there are enough uncertainties for us to get involved unnecessary.
As I_ã_m unsure weather it_ã_s a good idea or not
I REMEMBERED WHEN TROOPS WERE SENT TO IRAQ AND NO CHEMICAL WEAPONS WERE FOUND.
In most recent times, yes, there may have been some reason for using military force, for example in Iraq.  These are rare specification situations, but I guess their category is different.
We should sort out our own country first
Deploying troops is and has to be a last resort and a decision not taken lightly.
The use of chemical weapons is barbaric, inhuman and goes against international law, therefore it is morally right that the international community takes action against any regime that uses them. If regimes use chemical weapons without military action taken by other countries, this will allow these regimes to use these weapons with impunity, and chemical attacks will continue into the future. If we attack them for using chemical weapons, dictators will hesitate to use them. Also, these strikes will not be directed at civilians and will be specifically targeted at the chemical weapons sites themselves, therefore this should not provoke too much of a backlash but will send a clear message to the evil dictatorship. Though I approve overall, I hesitate to 'strongly approve' as this African regime, as unpleasant as it is, does not appear to directly threaten the UK.
I think we should back others and would expect the same in return
Better if we got support from other Nations as well, not just the States i.e. Canada,France, Denmark
Britain must be strong and be seen to be strong
Just my first reaction to the case you laid out
It is important when democracy is at stake and a country is using chemical weapons on its own people to intervene
We need to support others around the world.
It is the right thing to do, but international organisations such as Nato or the UN would be better placed to lead. It needs to be a global response rather than a US or UK response.
I feel joining US in such catastrophic thing is not good for UK. Use of chemicals is highly inhuman
we have no business in deploying troops overseas to conflicts involving groups we know nothing about
Allowing a country to break the rules about the use of chemical weapons would be seen by them as a sign that they could do so whenever they wanted, and would give them the go-ahead to break any other rules that they wished to in the future.
Was nothing to do with Britain and we had no links to them and could put as at risk by being involved though I understand that chemical warfare would be distasterous for the world and many innocent people
Didn_ã_t have enough proof to make a judgement.
Already answered yhis [Not overly comfortable with it]
I think we should be zero tolerant of the use of chemical weapons, including using force where necessary. However I think all diplomatic options should be a priority and force should be a last resort
It is a violation of international law and should be held to account
as we shouldnt get involve in other countries isputes, it should be sorted ipolmatically an not by force
I think something needs to be done but I"m not sure we should rush in by sending troops, it worries me that more innocent people will get killed and it could escalate further
My own family were arrested, tortured, imprisoned and many murdered by regimes that were allowed to 'get away with it' - most of the mass murderers were supported by the British Labour Party and Trade Unions. Any democratic (civilised?) nation has a moral duty to stand up for the oppressed, even if it means going against 'the party'. Moral integrity should be greater than political indoctination.
Because in the end, I think it causes more harm than good, especially to civilians that live there.
The use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and evil and the perpetrator needs discouragement from further use but also needs to be weakened militarily, physically and economically
The use of illegal weapons should be challenged, within reason, whenever possible. This challenge of course may involve the use of force.
Necessary to defeat illegal chemical weapons.
I_ã_m not fully informed and therefore can not determine support one way or the other
There is no clear proof of wrong doing. We shouldn't get involved till we know for sure
I think force sometimes is the only way to win
In this situation it is appropriate to deploy strong measures
Sometimes the government needs to take hard decisions and they deserve the public_ã_s support
If it's not our battle then leave alone.
I would tend to think labour will never agree on the use of force as the party is divided. However I could not strongly support this given the limited facts
Need to stand up for ours and other countries
How will bombing the facility effect the environment
Approve as attacks were only made on chemical weapons factories not civilians. Disapprove as I believe the UK shouldn't get involved in overseas conflicts.
I do not wish us to get involved in other countries problems, even if they are acting illegally within their own boundaries If larger more militarised countries (like the US) wish to get involved, fine. But don't see how we can afford to be involved in terms of our armed forces and the resultant terror attacks for interference
It's not our war. If you try to stop a fight in the bar room both the idiots turn on you. Having joined forces tio finish with you they go back to fighting each other. Remind you of Iraq, by any chance?
I dont agree with troop deployment but i have no say.
That the intel is questionable means that they should hold off until it can be verified
Don_ã_t send the troops for the sake of it
While I approve of supporting our allies and this is targeting facilities not people, I would want definitive proof before getting involved
I really don_ã_t know where I stand on this
I'm not sure. It depends on the situation.
We should have all the information before proceding
We have learnt in the past that just because the US says someone is using or has a certain type of weapon, doesn't mean they have. This is a decision for the UN or NATO. US government's can't be trusted. Also, the rebellion that is being attacked may be rebelling against a fascist dictatorship. In which case, let them rebel.
Innocent lives will be lost over a debatable decision
The use of chemicals is disgusting. There should be no need to use them in this day and age
Already answered. [I think it shows a united front in terms of working with other countries. However it is something that needs more in depth thought. We need to work with other countries to help but at the same time need to consider whether it is best for that country.]
It again is our traditional protecting policy
Because it's the ring thing to do, and to stand with and trust our allies.
Only if it's absolutely necessary so not to put people on harm for no good reason
we are always getting involved in other countries but i realise we have to side with the US
It's a difficult one, I think the use of chemical weapons is a terrible thing but why can we not rid the country involved of it's leader/dictator who is responsible for sanctioning the use of these chemical weapons
I agree that chemical weapons should never be used and should be erradicated
We have joined in other "  wars" which have led to an escalation rather than settling the matter.
The other country had chemical weapons that are illegal according to international law. I would say that this means it is fair to disarm them of their weapons so that they can do no more damage.
Force should be the absolute last resort when all else has failed
It would not be in the UK's interest to get involved when there would not be any benefit and it should be left to the United Nations to determine the appropriate response rather than just one or two countries.
If we can help In saving people's lives then it's a good thing!
Decisive action. Evidence of a clear aggression and contravention by the perpetrators
The use of chemical weapons needs to be stopped, but the military strikes were very sudden and had not been talked through. It would be better to find ways of directly removing from power a dictator who gives the order for chemical weapons.
There is not enough certainty that the chemical attack has happened.
in some areas it is only right we deploy troops to help stablise areas
A wealthy and 'civilised' nation should not be sitting back and letting atrocities happen.
"US Intelligence Sources" doesn't exactly fill me with certainty after Iraq. I just wouldn't risk it without verification from the UN.
i think that they should gather evidence first and plan around the safety of the civilian population
We shouldn't interfere in other countries problems
We shouldn_ã_t be dictated to by the United States let alone by a muppet like Donald Trump
I think  we need to learn to keep out of stop interfering in other countries issue to benefit USA
Not sure whether it_ã_s the right response
Chemical weapons should not be used under any circumstances and a strong message would have been sent but diplomacy should have been tried first
The use of chemical weapons is abhorent and forbidden under international law. A strong (military) response, in partnership with the US, seems entirely appropriate.
Going on past knowledge, the US has been wrong in similar scenarios and have embroiled us in conflicts that are still on going today. I think an independent validation of this is required rather than just going along blindly with the US who seem trigger happy.
Because it is sometimes necessary to support other countries or defend ourselves
i chose strongly approve because we can't let people use chemical wepons
I think first and foremost they should try and reach a decision based on negotiating rather then going all guns blazing and only use milltary as a last resort
If it is neccessary to help the citizens of that state
We are already involved in other conflicts and no longer have the manpower to be as effective as we used to be
some situations are so serious that armed intervention is the only answer, this is one of them
IT SHOWS THAT BRITAIN STANDS UP FOR WHAT IT BELIEVES IN, WHICH IS THE DISARMAMENT OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
Deploying troops may sometimes be necessary to help others and help the country but sometimes it can cause harm
i feel that sometimes we get involved in conflicts where we shouldn't
Diplomacy is the priority rather than spreading further conflict
I don_ã_t follow this news so don_ã_t know enough about it to have an opinion
WE ARE TOO EAGER TO GET INVOLVED IN SUCH MATTERS
this is important to defend our interests
I'm sure people more qualified than i am made an informed decision weighing up all of the risks
I_ã_d only approve if it was really necessary and all other avenues had been discussed
we have nothing to do with this country so shouldn't be wasting money by getting involved
its a dangerous thing and must be nipped in the bud
we should not get involved in other peoples wars
The illegal use of chemical weapons has to be stopped and as the UN tend to be a waste of space it is down to us to lead by example
need to show force to some people to stop them attacking us
I think they are needed and it is a good idea to do so.
We need them on duty incase something wrong happen
Firstly if President of USA was Trump I would not believe anything he said not would want this country to be an ally. Any action of this kind should come through the United Nations not USA.
Ultimately there will be a teasonthe governemebt chose to do this
Join with alkies to show cant use chemical weapond
I think if deploy troops you will fire a lot of people up
Chemical weapons should not be used, but it has little impact on the UK so I'm not too bothered.
Intelligence not always correct. Situation not a threat to UK. Was not a NATO or UN operation.
Because a peaceful solution is always the best way. If one could be found
MORE AND ABSOLUTE PROOF IS NEEDED BEFORE ACTION
It was very interesting good nice to wmeet
Not our fight. Let international law sort it out. We usually make it worse and drag on for years. If someone has broke the law arrest them and get it done quickly.
If the African country in question is far away from democracy and does little trade with the UK then I see absolutely no reason for us to stick our noses into such a backward, ill-functioning state. This is more or less describing the circumstances surrounding the Iraq way of 2003, which, as we now know, was built on lies. The idiot Tony Blair didn't dare to not do as he was told by US President Bush.
We domt need to spend money ( which we dont have) on bloody wars
Orher countries battles that we should not be involved in
Because one day we might need there help
NO TOO DEEP ACTION JUST A SUPERFICIAL ACTION
Chemical weapons have a very high probability of harming civilians. Although there is lack of trade with Africa and they're not in the UN, the VALUES of the UN should not be restricted to merely members of the UN but the world. These values should be enforced wherever it is happening, in order to help populations
The UK would need to take a stand against the illegal use of chemical weapons.
Deploying troops could escalate tensions further with other countries becoming more involved with the conflict.
I do not approve getting involved militarily and prefer diplomatic solutions
Cze_„_, ale nie wiem czy to jest to, _e nie ma problemu. pozdrawiam. w sumie
Same reason as before. I don't trust political decisions as often they aren't evidence based even if they say they are. I also don't trust the word of America
The idea of chemical weapons is unnerving and sounds like it has the potential to devastate communities
I have a strong anti-chemical warfare feeling but I also the UK has a duty to help and protect other people against evil and destructive powers when we can. I have a fear though when we make these unpleasant decisions to take up arms to help others the left back home will immediately attack our troops for being there, thus weaking our position and turning what should be a swift policing action into a long drawn out struggle involving loss of lives.
Not our problem, sometimes leaving local forces to settle issues is enough.
We need troops to stop British territories around the world being rolled over so a stand has to be taken somewhere
i think we have to stop bullies and stand up for those countries that have less power than us.  i only slightly agree though as i am terrified of it turning into a war which will effect us directly.
Not sure on the topic as I said last time
The nations of the world have to stand up for UN decisions
The government will do what it wants regardless of my opinion
Its getting involved in things it shouldnt
I feel if people were vulnerable and not treated fairly and wanted UK help to support British troops could be deployed
War is not the answer to this. This will kill even more people. Completely disagree
it not right to have the troops there we should mind our own business
i dont think its was a good idea especially as we have no deals with them
The world needs to stand upto whats right
Sometimes I think our country is seen as a bit of a pushover, we need to put on a stronger front.
We don_ã_t know fully how it will help us
Chemical weapon usage should not be shown any kind of soft treatment, it must be dealt with quickly and effectively.
I don't see why the UK has to always get involved so deeply.
The use of chemical weapons should be strongly acted upon. If a weak or no response is forthcoming, the. It sets a precedent for the whole world in terms of what is deemed acceptable and as a world citizen we should take action even if we are not directly impactedat this time.
they would only deploy for a good reason
We are putting our soldiers lives at risk for another country's internal problems and Its not our fight.  we should not interfere with other country's civil fights.
i want clear evidence and to attempt diplomacy before troop deployment. this should be a last resort.
Again we must in my opinion stay firm allies with the US. Chemical warfare is a direct violation and needs to be addressed immediately as it could cause awful knock on effects to not only that country but many others.
Without more precise intelligence, cannot say.
Not sure we have all the facts but weapons that can spread are never a good idea
I feel we don't have enough info on which to act in that way
If we needed assistance we would be more likely to get it. Overall peace and security is important for world peace so it needs to be united
Was there genocide taking place - if so yes deploy troops to help assist and save people but this isn_ã_t clear so not sure what the goals were
There isn't a need for our troops to get involved
because we need to stop people who think they can rule and do whatever they want and kill people
a tricky one they need to be stopped but without violence
chemical weapons are indescrimiate killers and so the use of force is called to try and stop this happenng again
We would be need to be sure of the intelligence
Would like much more information first. Do not approve of being led by USA. This does not directly threaten us, Would want to get involved if at all via UN
I'm fed up with Britain thinking it should be punching above its weight
Only if it works I see no point in striking a second time of they continue doing it. Sanctions are better.
On things like this that are an international crime then the people who are doing it need stopping no question of a doubt.
It_ã_s too much to ask, with troops already deployed
same as last time [if they sent them as peace keepers then it's a good idea for those that need the help, however I can see why it would upset people of that country]
we don't have to use our army in matters that have nothing to do with our nation
It was the right thing to do because chemical weapons were being used on innocent people
I disapprove for two reasons. One, because I don't believe in trying to force democratic values on non-democratic regimes. It's unjust and futile. Two, because the country in question has little-to-no involvement with the UK, we have no real right or claim to be there applying force, the situation notwithstanding.
We should not be interfering in other countries affairs or wars - we should mind our own business and not be an international police force
It is not our war and it has shown over the years that the threat of terrorism has increased since we try to fight it by invading other countries
Encouraging violence again, by destroying it they weren_ã_t preventing anything
The scenario description played down the influence of the UK in the country concerned and the value of that country_ã_s importance. Despite US requests, we should decline.
It is essential that ensure our territories are protected
Only slightly approve because it is not directly impacting us as UK citizens but there were obviously benefits to this decision or it wouldn't have been made.
Bombing a chemical weapons facility is unlikely to result in regime change on its own, which must be the ultimate aim in this scenario, however if, even in the short term, it saves the lives of innocents, it must be just a small act in a more comprehensive plan to remove the aggressors from power, via diplomatic/economic pressure, right up to assassination of the regimes upper echelons and replacement with either native moderates or a UN/British/US led government
It's not our fight, it's not our intelligence. So I would be wary of committing troops even though the use of chemical weapons had been used. The Americans have got ample resources to manage the problem
Force is needed to get rid of the chemical weapons
i agree something should be done to help these people but we can never win we just aggravate the situation it seems to me
For many undemocratic 3rd world countries, diplomacy will not stop them behaving as they wish and force is the only option
It is necessary to stop the use of chemical weapons
I would want more information e.g. would there be a long term threat to other nations. We cannot afford to support everything the USA wants us to join in. It should perhaps be a matter for the UN or NATO.
Again I have no idea what I_ã_m talking about
Again not enough info for an informed decision
I think diplomatic efforts should be explored before sending in troops
In a democracy the majority win whether I agree or disagree and the government is answerable to the people not the other way round which I feel government_ã_s these days fail to recognise.
It's Important we get our facts right as we have got it wrong before. If the information is correct then not just America and uk but the UN show led be involved
the chemical weapons plant needs destroying, and talking about it will not help
we should have the right bto defend ourselves indirectly and directly
lots of people might die because of this
This puts our troops lives at risk for an issue which seemed to have been at worst on hold. Diplomacy would have served better.
We need to concentrate on our own country before
while no threat to this country if allowed to do this who knows woh will be next
They have to protect our country_ã_s interests but we don_ã_t want dragging into a war that doesn_ã_t involve us
they murder their own people , so need to be murdered
It_ã_s not fair on the troops and we need them to protect our country
The use of chemical weapons should always be stopped
I think both sides need to be explored in more depth. It_ã_s easy to say that we will join forces and use force against these countries but sometimes it feels unnecessary
We can't just March into countries at the drop of a hat whilst relying solely on US intelligence,  which I would question any way. We have to think of the lives of our troops. But I understand the need to help the people who have been attacked too
It is important to act against the manufacture and use of chemical weapons, especially by unstable states.  It is also important for the UK to support the US in international affairs as far as possible
Human rights should be the same for everyone,because we don't do business with this country it doesn't give them the right to slaughter their own citizens.We do need to stand together to make changes
I just wanna was a nice one and a nice r you know what about it
there are situations when we must show our strength as a nation, but it can lead to further conflicts
We shouldn't be so keen to fight other countries battles, risking our troops and the likelihood of encouraging a war with others
A sharp shock to show this can't happen again
this should be stopped as it is against the International law and they need our help
We as a strong First World power need to maintain order and the rule of law in other nations - regardless of the outcomes.
Because chemical weapons are not allowed
In this case we need more support from the United Nations to take action unless there is clear proof.
Let the UN sort it out , enough of our population have died over the years fighting a cause that was nothing to do with us Let the wogs kill each other, I don't care
The action prevented further use of chemical weapons.
Can bring the problems and terrorism here
Difficult decision because fighting fire with fire can be the worst thing but sometimes you have to have to show strength to not be walked over
It's more likely to be in the best interests of the US rather than the UK
Taking down a dictatorship is different to watchdogging an area. This is an opportunity to build in that area and secure new allies while removing a monster.
We have in the past gone into conflict with America and just make a bigger mess than when it started
Not sure as deploying troops can lead into further problems such as how long will they be out there for and to what costs as well.