I agree with the need to provide training to troops however this request has come from the USA rather than through the UN which is why I only slightly agree
I think it might be the best course of action but cannot be entirely sure.
Difficult to know how and when to interfere
because sometimes its necessary to show that we are strong
troops deployed for training may be essential but the request for the traing was made by a third party
It has nothing to do with the British & they should not have got involved.
it was none of our business and didnt concern us
Why does anyone have to deploy troops to teach war games
The conflict is not ours - there is no obvious or direct threat to British interests in the region. Intervening in disputes not our own, at the behest of the U.S, has a history of not turning out well, and NOT contributing to peace or stability in the region.
I'm sure, in a similar situation, they would help us too, albeit a few years too late.
They would not of made this decision lightly so support there decision
let the countries fight there own battles
The issue doesn't directly affect the UK but it is part of global threats which may be better countered sooner rather than later.
It could be unsafe but still should be done
Available military should step in to stop humanitarian crisis
Unsure why they'd want to train up troops as they'd surely be able to use that against us?
Need to protect our freedom and protect democracy
It is not necessary fro the UK nor the US to get involved as local countries have already done so
It makes me uncomfortable, but provision of training seem probably appropriate
Violence is not the answer to everything, and that conflict had nothing to do with us, or threatened us in any way
I think we should offer support but only in training. we should not get involved otherwise
I think there is always a better alternative to military force, and we are lowering ourselves to the level of those we fight if we use force
It is an indirect effective way to give aid to the soldiers fighting against the violent group
We should concentrate on the issues at home
We would be providing training with little chance of our armed forces being called into action
I think this country has done enough damage getting involved in other countries problems
I don't feel that I have sufficient information to be able to form an opinion one way or the other.
It_ã_s a multinational operation and the UK is a major power to provide a leading role
I think it necessary to deploy troops and support this
Our troops are there to serve our country and if they get asked to deploy then that is the action they must undertake
It was right to join other nations, can_ã_t believe conservatives were against it
Don't really care, good to show that the UK supports such schemes but depends on the returns
I probably agree more than disagree bit would need to know more about this
Time to let Africa and it_ã_s nations fight each other, noth8ng has changed 8n the past 100 years and it won_ã_t if the world keeps 8nterfer8ng, let them sort themselves out, enough money food and assistance has been sent, it_ã_s jus5 a huge black hole, neverendibg,
I feel as though it would cause more tension
Each incident has to be decided on its own problems
Whilst I generally do not like the Conservative party, a governments decision has to be made by parliaments approval, if they vote for it we should support them, we cannot seconds guess every decision or nothing will happen.
I don't think anything is ever solved by force.  Diplomacy is better.
there are advantages in supporting the area's military so that they can defend themselves more capably but at what cost to the British taxpayer and to the army in general eg casulties
I think we need to not always deploy our troops unless it is in our interest to protect the country and keep the citizens safe
I dont think theres any need to deploy troops as it will send a message of war and our country doesnt want that which should be our decision since we are the ones who are living here!
Stop focussing kn other countries focus on Britian
We should contribute to international taskforces against terrorism (_ã–extremism_ã) given the international consequences/dimensions of this threat
should  let countries fight there own battles
We should share our knowledge and experience with other nations for the good of all people.
I need more information and time to consider both sides before coming to a decision either way.
I think they are right in their decision
If it is for humanitarian issues or genocide then all countries have a duty to stamp it out and protect those in dire need otherwise we should mind out own business
I believe it would help towards world peace.
We should help other countries where possible
It all depends on the conflict and if it threatens our countries security
It doesn't affect us. Why make our forces even more stretched out than they already are
civil wars in africa should not supported by deployment of uk troops,this does not eradicate these wars,diplomacy should always be used in the 1st instance and even then not really concern of uk
it's a really difficult issue and hard to know what's right
the situation had nothing to do with either GB or USA
because the troops are only training the other troops
It's for the purpose of long-term peacekeeping duties as the need arises. This appears a morally justifiable deployment.
improving social environment and maintaining social stability.
I think it's a good idea when used carefully
Supporting our allies is essential when dealing with rogue states
I just can't trust politicians anymore there usually a different motive behind things
Something I don't know much information that why I can't complain.
The politicians are very flippant when it comes to deploying our troops in conflict zones. I personally would like to see some of those Lilly livered wet backs go to a war zone because it is very frightening. We need to concentrate on defending our own home before we deploy to others homes!
I am inclined to have best trained personnel to minimise the risk of accidental casualties
Sometime a stronger presence is required to show how strongly you feel about something
This was an international threat that needed to be dealt with
Extremist groups need to be stopped. The more people involved in this the better.
i think the less things we get involved in the better for our overall security
I agree of the government's decision because the aim of this "deployment" is not combat itself, on the part of the British military, but to train troops of some West African nations. This should, in turn, help the fight against extremist groups, who have been a long-standing  problem.
I chose to slightly approve of the government's decision to deploy troops in this case because it is for training and non-combative. It will help the the people affected to support their own actions.
I tend to stick by their decision as they have the best means of deciding how to tackle such issues.
It is the use of tax payers money to support this so what as the uk get back from it. Also why is it we are to get involve in something that may not concern us the uk.
US is an ally, and reasonable to provide some support
Because people who hurt people or try to take to much control needs sorting out
I dont think its making good use of our military resources
again, a subject i know little to nothing about so hard to comment
Because the troops were train g up other countries' troops to up skill them to enable them to be able to fight their own battles.
I am slightly conflicted, as although I see the importance of deploying troops in most instances, I would prefer funds to be allocated to NHS services.
A strong mandate is necessary before starting military action
Not sure this affects world stability, we can't get involved in everything
At the end of the day we all need jobs and we need these men and woman to portect use when needs to be
I think British troops and the UK government shouldn't go into international conflict feet first following US interference
I am against the majority of warfare unless it specifically targets the UK. It breeds more violence.
I feel that by getting involved with other countries issues could put ours at unnecessary risk
Sometimes it is necessary to deploy troops, not just for conflict but for also helping nations after things like earthquakes and disease
We can join other countries if the need arises
We need to put a stop to whats happening
It_ã_s not a simple decision and depends on the issue
they should go into details before they make a choice
the troops would only be involved in training and therefore shouldn't be directly involved in the fighting
I don't know enough about this to make an informed decision
Governments must help each other to ensure global stability.
Would it solve the problem? Why do the US only want us when it suits them? Our armed forces can no longer rely on the support of their own government if their behaviour is subsequently challenged by the country they went to help, why put our men in this impossible situation?
In this situation, I think behind the scenes action would be more appropriate
I do not have the whole information on subject
did any other countries send troops if so do we have to do what the US says - they are not the United Nations
yes we need our troops to fight but always concenred for them
I approve of sending in troops to help the African troops to deal with things more effectively
It appears they do it too readily without exploring other peaceful options. Troops cost us money and harm people
The British military ranks among the best in the world and would be excellent at training troups in other countries.
I don't think Britain should put its troops in harms way for other countries as I think we need the vast majority of them
They went to protect even though it did not directly effect our nation
already answered this we should mind our own bloody business sometimes!!
To help other countries fight inequalities
its the right thing to do to protect the country
See previous answer [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]
I think it's good to train people in other countries, so they can defend there own country
If the need arises then it's important to deploy them to keep people safe
In some cases you have no choice but to deploy but sometimes its not necessary  and it dosnt concern us
I think we should help and support other countries who are in conflict and helping to train people to our own standards is a good way of doing this without  being directly involved in the conflict.
Providing training to other nations where we have specialism makes sense
we should try minding our own business for once!!
the government never learns from past mistakes, when we have waded in with our troops loosing many of them to wars that dont involve us.
When a job needs doing then they need to deploy
Because we should provide help  if we are able as it is in our interests for peace.
The troops need to keep this country safe
The help was needed so we should offer it
I would disapprove with the decision because it was something that didn't at all concern us or our security. However, I'm also fine with it because it did help stabilise another country. Due to these reasons, I'm now neutral
Bad situation which may be helped by intervention
unless mandated by the UN we should keep out.
Action is needed to stop extremist groups becoming too powerful and causing more violence/conflict
In the long run it might help end conflict if troops are well trained and effective.
helps promote peace and stop the fighting
we are British, and should look after the countries we call our commonwealth, as we took over there Countries and there for should do good by them. They didn't ask us to take over there Countries in the first place.
Help train troops to fight the enemy. Has to be a good thing
I think we should do more to try to help resolve situations them just go straight to military action. I think military action can just escalate already volatile situations and it_ã_s not always the answer. It should be a last resort.
If this is a multinational peace keeping force then our NATO commitment is we are part of it
Because its nothing to do with us and america always have to involve britain,,let them do it on there own
I don_ã_t know enough to make a decision either way.
This is traditionally what our Forces are trained for so they should be allowed to protect us
SHOULD ONLY GET INVOLVED IF SANCTIONED BY UN
I served for 24 years so am all for this
we should be more diplomatic , rather than deploying troops straight away
We need to stand up to terrorism and show them we will not be bullied anymore
We need all areas to be peaceful whatever the region.
I think they should concentrate on themselves
We should have a good reason todeploy troop
If it's a joint venture and we're signed up to that deal we've got to
Military training helps African countries to resolve their own problems.
delay troop deployment until diplomacy is exhausted
we should concentrate on our own country
Britain should advance its principles and humanitarian approach using the military if necessary
I generally trust this government to make the right decision
Every time we get involved aboard it end in tears We get no thanks but trouble in return. Most of  Africa is always at war or killing it own people and as far as see they seem unable to change!
I disapprove of military action unless it is absolutely necessary
I can understand more here that troops were needed
Educating other forces to fight their own battles as such is quite a good idea
More information needed before making a decision
Sometimes is not our business to get involved
same as previous comments about deployment [Should concentrate on Britain before getting involved with other countries
I can see the good and bad in these actions. Shouldn't interfere though.
I_ã_m not really that aware of this topic
If it's to assist in training only and no harm could come from it then it could be beneficial all round
I dont know if it is a good or a bad thing to deploy troops.  Their are consequenses either way
We should keep troops in the uk to protect us
For an international peace keeping force
I think it could be dangerous and the situation has nothing to do with us we are just sticking out nose in
Government decisions should be left to the people.
I do not know enough about the situation
We should not risk our troops for a nation that shows no respect
We shouldn't be ever-ready to rush in troops, but sometimes there is a need to intervene on humanitarian grounds
troops might help in maintaining the safety
Don_ã_t know enough about it to make a decision
I think Governments are to keen to send troops as a solution which usually ends up in an escalation of fighting.  It has been the case in the recent past that troops have been sent to a war zone without proper planning and without an exit strategy
Im sure you_ã_ve asked this [I don_ã_t know enough about it to make an informed decision.]
There is not a major risk to outside countries therefore the intervention of the UK may be a bit hasty
Well, happy for troops to be deployed in non-combat training environments.
if its in our interest but if its just another problem in another country then we need to leave well alone until asked
it is unfortunately necessary due to the problems in the situations that they are entering
WAN TTO KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
we should support regional efforts to deal with difficult situations
i do not feel the situation there is really our business
Although the UK and US should be setting examples as leading countries, they should not be interfering with politics in other countries
I dont like our country getting involved - even if only for training - in conflicts that dont directly involve us.
They need the resources which they had so why not
they have more information to base there decisions on than are generally told to the public (due ot security issues)
Providing Training, is a positive influence, not the aggression of actual military action
i think they should have had talks first
We have well-trained armed forces. It is good to deploy them in such circumstances to try to ensure a satisfactory outcome, without necessarily becoming directly involved with the conflict
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DEPLOY TROOPS WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO DO SO.
We are only training so I think that_ã_s good
If we send troops to train other troops in other countries this is a good thing. It means there are trained men if they are ever needed again
It_ã_s to help support and teach another group of people to protect themselves and help them build their future
It just depends on what it was that warented a deployment of troops, if it was something that was going to effect this country then yes, even if it_ã_s only a handful of troops.
We must all strive for peace wherever and however we can.
Need to take a stand against such things.
Depends on the circumstances & the degree of force
WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HELP OTHER COUNTRIES ESPECIALLY IF IT COULD BENEFIT UK OR REDUCE THREATS TO THE UK
I think people are too fast to act and strike before they can negotiate
Will this not happen, with or without us?
Troops shouldn_ã_t be passed from pillar to post
Seems a reasonable way forward that should achieve the desired outcome with least risk to UK forces
nobody will know if it_ã_s a good idea til they try it
it makes sense to help and it makes the world a safer place
All ways should be explored to resolve before British troops are deployed. What efforts have been made first
Again the decision was not taken lightly
The problem is specific and soluble, it isn't an open ended problem.
As with the other scenario we should keep out of the internal disagreements of other nations.  Our priority needs to be our country.  Successive governments have cut back military spending to the extent we are in a position that we can hardly defend ourselves or keep any sort effective military force so lets not waste money sorting out tin pot countries disagreements.  Keep out of it all, it is NOT our role to keep peace in other countries.
Terrorist forces have to be opposed.  They can't be allowed to grow without opposition.
We have plenty to worry about in our own country
Let Africans deal with their own problems.
I think that their can use the army for specific things
We have a responsibility as a civilised nation to play a part in the suppression of violent extremists in other parts of the world.It is a balancing act.Does our involvement focus the attention on us and bring us harm or does it prevent them from developing and keep them from our shores?For me a difficult question to answer but we cannot do "nothing".
I believe it is right to defend or beliefs and support the right of others to be free of tyranny or repressive regimes. We have a duty to support those less able to defend their rights on the world stage.
The question is too vague. Deploy where?
It is almost our duty to help developing countries with their military training - subject to their other affiliations
We should get involved with UN peace keeping
as before [If we are in a position to help we should]
I don_ã_t have enough information to make a decision.
If the facts are correct internation law has been broken and to stop further deaths would act to remove the threat
We need to help eradicate those who would harm our allies
I agree with the government to deploy troops, we are part responsible for helping people
Don't agree but depends on circumstances
I don_ã_t really Know, it_ã_s a decision which is hard to make but necessary
I don't believe military action in this case helps.  Stop selling arms to countries and these types of scenarios don't happen as much.
We should be able to defend ourselves against others and to help nations who are unable to help themselves against evil forces.
to supply non combat troops is ok, as long as it is to help in peace keeping which this scenario it seems it would.
The troops seem to be there for training only and as long as this is the case I would approve.
Another tough one, I don't really know the best option but I think it would put our troops and country at risk so leaning towards disapproval.
UK does not need to follow America,  the UK government should focus more on issues in the UK.
Diplomacy always wins patience not wars as war kills innocent people and creates more frictions
Diplomacy first, deployment as a last resort
If they need training to help them fight against bad things and we can help then perhaps we should
i don't think we should be sending people out to fight other countries, it puts their backs up and is likely to bring war back onto our country
I can see why they'd do it - something needs to be done and we should support what is right but risking the lives of our soldiers is something that should not be done lightly, and even more serious is the impact that armed combat could have as far as repercussion and even war go.
Again I will say it's not our fight why get involve...
One purpose of the British military is to support others and I slightly approve of deployment if it produces a positive end result.
The government know far more about the situation than the public
The situation as explained did not highlight risk of escalation - which would make the matter very different.
They government will be more aware of why the troops need to be deployed and we may not always know all the facts so they are generally acting in the best. Interests of the country
doesn't seem like we should be getting involved
The government would risk assess the decision on sending troops into conflicts therefore i back the decision
The government has more insight on the matter to naje a decision
Countries have to work together to make sure unjust circumstances are controlled for the safety_ã_s nd benefit of all
have to draw the line between right and wrong and offer help if needed
Because this wasn't a representative decision and if we are a democracy, we shouldn't have a politically biased representative group acting on decisions which will affect the whole of our nation.
The troops are there to provide training and not in an active combat situation
I_ã_m not sure enough and would need more information to be certain
In some cases it is acceptable to do this if it will help a situation
the extremists are dangerous so too right to pull our troops out
You would think that they know best. If we all stand together we can achieve more.
not sure bout certainty to deploy troops
I DON'T LIKE THAT OUR TROOPS ARE INVOLVED IN THINGS THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO BE
There needs to be unreasonable doubt before going in
Insm not 100% convinced that deploying British troops in this sutuation was wise.
They are supporting groups with weopenery which could layer on negatively impact the uk
I'm not really sure if this is the right way of thinking but it's what I believe to be the way forward
Once again I would assume they have more info than I had
I think we should help only if it is a terrorism matter.
To show force that the UK is not going to be taken for granted or taken advantage of and its interests threatened.
The US is led by a moron why should we follow them
They could easily be drawn jnto the fighting
Why wouldn't they deploy troops to countries that are the real threat - they never would.
I am a pacifist and therefore protest against our contribution towards violence where diplomacy might not have been fully explored.
I believe that all countries should work together to stop militant countries and their wrong doings
The situation needs to be looked at in other ways before deploying troops and having the possibility of killing innocent people.
As long as our troops are only there in an advisory/ provide training to make the African nations forces at least have a chance to be affective
It would be nice to think that we would have back up from other countries if we ever needed it
I don't have enough information to decide
i think it was worthy to try and intervene
Other countries will try to control us if we sit back
In terms of military intervention, the toppling of governments has caused massive instability within the country. For example, whilst he was an evil man, Saddam Hussain at least kept Iraq relatively stable
Shows that we are not a weak nation and that we can stand alone and vigorously protect ourselves against aggression.
Not something I have a proper opinion on yet
non intervention causes more problems in the long term than attempting to ignore such conflicts, as syria proved. i think the uk needs to be more committed to oversea s action
The phrasing of deploying troops implies a stronger military action that the detail gave. I support the training of another countries military if they have requested it and if they have shown to not be abusing their position within their country. Again, I strongly disapprove of taking international action at the behest of the USA instead of the UN where international decisions should be taken.
from the text i don't know enough about the situation
To train other troops in a necessary conflict is a better solution than using our own troops to directly interfere in another countries affairs
Along decision to get the best from resources.
Theyver all come together as one and everyone's agreed it's for the best
It was for a rightful cause where a country was in need of help
It is for our government and leaders of the armed forces to make decisions based on facts. We should not be required to know all the details but our armed forces need the  eat equipment available
They should only send the troops in order just to trained the other countries troops to protect there country itself. Once they ate trained well they should let british to go back home..
It didnt sound that risky of a situation
It is not a clear situation a percentage of troops should be deployed.
it depends on the circumstances at the time
I think those type of situations the UN should be the one involved not specific countries as it often goes very bad - Sudan being a good example.
I think in this day and age, we do need extra support and backing from the troops
It always depends on the circumstances and each situation needs to be looked at
I know our troop are trained for combat and they are willing to die foe their queen and country but that leaves families without a father mother son daughter ect
because as long as it does not place our troops in a place of danger, training other troops to be effective to assist a country in its place n the world order is good
Don_ã_t have enough information to make a decision
The deployment of troops always depends on the situation and how it develops
It's a hard one why put our troops in danger for something that's not out problem but you can't let chaos rule
There is value long-term in assisting in the stability of other countries so long as we do not try to force our beliefs onto their citizens, even if we don't necessarily agree with their way of doing things
America asked and we said yes. Has no impact on our country and again probably cost the taxpayer millions.
Because it is a training role rather than front line.
nothing wrong with assisting but this must be carefully done to ensure that there isn't an extremist organisation being fuelled. We can see how the US and UK have destroyed the middle east by stupid decisions which later back fired and created chaos for the civilians
We can not let dictatorship run a country or it could increase
I don_ã_t think the the USA deploys troops for always the right reason I also do not think they are honest about their reasoning. I would be happy helping certain countries including the USA but I feel that all the information needs to be upfront and honest.
We should be looking after ourselves not other people
The government are trying  to help a country defend itself from trouble so this is the right thing to do.
We are a small country that has its own needs at home where money could be better spent
if they are in apposition to help, they should
If the threat could spill into mainland Britain should be taken away by whatever means possible
Just answered this question [Do what's best for U.K. ]
Unsure as tobenefits as may produce a  better workdforse whichin turncound dominate the area
I feel that this is not a chemical threat to us and that other countries governments should be more responsible for their own problems
Innocent people get tortured Its horrendous to think of what is happening to people currently like nerve agents ect.
I still don_ã_t understand it as I_ã_m not a political person really
The reason why I only slightly approve is because I would prefer to avoid violence at all cost but there are situations where countries are suffering and it is the residents who suffer the most and our country should help
The amount spent on deploying troops can be utilised at home to better the lives of the UK citizens
When sometimes things are not resolved by negotiating, one has to use force
By giving them some military training & expertise so they can protect their country, I believe this is a good idea and as a result, it would strengthen relationships.
if we are asked for help we should go to help protect civilians
I dont think its need us to get involved and could be handled in another way
Again I'd like to see other options explored first
I am never happy that British troops are send out to police the world, but know that sometimes an actual presence is necessary
We are supporting a coalition of countries by training them and not being actively involved
I would want a great deal more background to this problem before I totally made up my mind
It seems to be of little cost to the British Army however I on the whole disagree with wars/militries to begin with
Cause more aggression than is needed and also puts more lives at risk for selfish reasons
I do not have an opinion on this matter.
I think it is important to help those in danger
We keep sticking our noses into other people's business
It's not right that we send troops to train other troops to do the bidding of the US. We need to make the decision if we support the US first before that happens
we shouldn't send our men a women to fight other countries battles
It is necessary to show a degree of force to deter aggression and be ready in all cases.
I am against wars, and definitely like Iraq etc where you need(ed) to stay away from. BUT you NEED an army at any time in case of being attacked yourself
What to die for a country who let them out homeless after then no
What a lot of jargon speak in plain English please
It's better to be safe than sorry sometimes
deploying troops does not solve everything, these are our people that the government sneds out, without the soldiers best interests at heart. they dont always consider the consequences of wasting valuable human lives
LET THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES, SORT THEMSELVES OUT, SHOULDN'T BE OUR CONCERN.
Unsure how I feel about the use of troops, don't like conflict and worry it would make things woree
You have to help those that can not help themselves
All too often "little wars" in all parts of the world run the risk of becoming a US v Russia war by proxy.
It's up to Africa to deal with Africa's issues
We should not just follow US foreign policy, it should not be UK policy. Too much money is spent on our forces, when more humanitarian needs should take priority. It is problematic to interfere in this way particularly in developing countries
Because I_ã_d want the country to know who they were educating to ensure that the extremists weren_ã_t given additional help unknowingly.
As we should help those who are willing to help themselves and share our knowledge
Support is necessary but unsure that needs to be a public show of force
Because this is a much bigger issue to keep world peace.
Our countries help was needed and should be provided if we can afford to
It is important to support these actions
Again, I would have to hear more of the arguments to come to a decision
We should help those countries combating extremism
I don't approve of us getting involved in conflicts abroad when its not our place to. I think let other countries of the world get involved.
Not directly affecting UK citizens and so should be an absolute last resort
We should share our expertise with countries who are trying to do the right thing.
If the people had requested help and other countries were willing to assist and not just us, then yes it is the right thing to do
I know little about the particular situation but I help to elect a parliament to make decisions which through ignorance I am unable to make. The fact that government and opposition actually agree, I feel on balance it was the correct thing to do.
It depends on how many troops and the extent of damage that they would cause, if it causes a lot of damage then I would disagree
I will be in to resume watching if the time y
My husband is in the army and wants to protect our country they sign up to protect and if they have to they will
Have to be careful.  We don't have enough to go everywhere
Need to show the world that if we consider it necessary, for any reason, we will use force as a last resort to keep  or attempt to, keep the peace
This is solely based on US interest and doesn_ã_t benefit the UK in any sorts. If the US wants military action then they should do it themselves and not spin their way through UK dirty politics
Although I support in principle, I also don't want British troops placed in harms way
no need to get involved with beef thats not ours, it can lead to negative impact on the uk
will not listen other countries then have to go in
A collective collaboration which unites nations, is always a good option.
How can an ordinary person fully understand the political and diplomatic background?
i think we have a chalenging time so yes
i just dont understand why we would it nothing to do with us
There are other diplomatic options available.
It could be a good or bad idea depending on the situation
Its about providing capacity building to fight the security situation. It will help them be prepared for the worst.
Deployment of troops should not be the first resort
troops were training, not getting directly involved
Don't really understand it so hard to have an opinion.
Not our business and not always the answer
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
some times they don't need to be deployed when they are and other times they need to be deployed
I would prefer peaceful negotiations where possible
Using them is un-neccesary. Peace is needed actually. The UK  need to stop supporting the US and help fix the chaos they helped cause in the Middle East.
got to fight conflict in the world because it can get worse for everyone
you do not want to be thought of as a push over
If we think about how much money we have put into defence, it would mind boggling in numbers, what we could have done with that the media never talks about but only election numbers
If help is needed and there is a genuine reason for it that could lead to a positive outcome I can see the benefit of such direction
I thought how both sides were in agreement.
I never believe it is the right course of action
We shouldn't have our heads in the sand and think if we ignore the world's problems they will go away. We need to stand up to bullies - whether in the playground or internationally
We have the skills to help other countries to develop their fighting power, and as long as the role for our troops is advisory, I see it as acceptable
depends what situation but i think we need to show our strength in certain situations
Risking lives yet again for peace in a corrupt country
I am less opposed to providing non-combat training missions, although I have reservations about any interference in foreign countries as it always comes back to bite us.
It_ã_s technically nothing to do with us but if it were the other way round and our country needed help I would like to think other countries would assist
Because they are a bunch of selfish greed8idiots whom karma will come back and take its course 70 times more painfully to each and every one of the goverment trash
It isn't decided on the national interest.
Important to maintain western influence in Africa in view of growing Chinese activity. Good that Africans are involved in the security of their own continent, even though US is pulling the strings..
Like i stated before goverment do as they want, i think the troops do a great job but its our goverment that put them in risk
if the main point of deploying troops is training why not train the soldiers in a neutral country and keep our soldiers out of the firing line
FEEL SORRY FOR THE TROOPS EVEN THOUGH IT IS THEIR JOB
i would always prefer a diplomatic response.
If we hadn_ã_t intervened, bin laden and the like would still be in power dictating to their nations
Because it has nothing to do with UK . And USA always stick nose in . Where ever the oil is . The God they worship is gold .oil. drugs.
The issue was discussed by Parties without May taking it upon herself to decide for everyone, the troops were sent in on the grounds of training and not to be directly involved in the conflicts.. Matters that involve our country should be discussed in parliament which for once it was..
I do not believe military intervention is ever justified or necessary, and I believe British and US forces getting involved in the business of other countries almost always ends up worse than the original situation
ilike the fact that they need to be sure
I would not approve of military intervention usually but if the Labour government is the same party as now I.e. Jeremy would trust his judgement
Because something should be done and perhaps troop presence would help calm things down, but otherwise diplomacy should be paramount
Government usually acting in country's interests
Same point as before. Help was requested by an allie. We would want the same level of help when we really need it
Lasting solutions are best provided by the country involved itself. Helping them to prevent an obvious wrong is the correct thing to do
It is not for our government to get involved in situations where 1. we arent asked for help and 2. where there could be terrible consequencwes for Britain.
Government decisions are well debated so trust them to make the decision
dont know enough about it to be sure my opinion is vcalid
It's not are fight most of the time and its are soldiers that get hurt
I am willing to agree with the direction the government goes.
As said before. It shows other countries we are there and that if needed
Putting at risk troops lives, they should take a behind the scenes non combat role
I haven't recieved enough information to make an informed decision. I don't have a good knowledge of the conflict and couldn't comment until I do, whether the government deemed it a good idea or not.
It is purely for reasons of meddling in other countries' internal conflicts and jumping to the tune of the US
Training happens by many parties and countries. Where training is necessary, I think it should be lead by and primarily be done by the main instigating party, but not exclusively as strategies are often the result of multiple ideas.
if the government thinks it is important then it must be
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 it before I approve or disapprove
I would imagine that the parties involved took the decision after serious deliberation having all the facts and relevant information at hand at the time
Nigeria is a commonwealth nation. Its only fair that the uk supports it when need be.
We should support the UN in providing multi lateral forces
they have to make a choice for the country
It's good to help others in need, and this is a job where they won't be front line to the conflict just supporting, so a safer way of offering assistance
if they can offer help to stop this sort of thing happening then its for the good yes.
it is just something that i believe to be right in this world. every one is different
It's the best response because it protects all of us
Proper training is more controlled to help the cause
I don't think peoples views are taken into consideration
srthsrthsrt hsrthsrth srth srthsrt hsrt rt hrth
Why should they go? no issues certain countries just going to make problems that ain't their
why should the UK provide personnel for training other countries when we don't have a big military budget
Agree that british troops should be involved, though question as dto the extent. Should they be more than behind the scenes?
for non combat roles purely for training I think this is an effect strategy
Nervous about getting involved in out of country conflicts - our involvement has historically been used as an excuse for us to be targeted by terrorists.
Strengthening forces in underdeveloped countries will aid in the prevention of radical groups which thrive in such countries
If they were asked for help it should be given
Military action is rarely the answer and often just makes the situation far worse.
We shouldn't get involved with matters that do not involve us
They were asked to provide training but it was not clear why troops were deployed
In this case I think that involvement is necessary. It_ã_s one of those times when we need to try and help
I feel that this was something that Africa should have dealt with rather than risking the lives of British men.
They do not make the decision with thought
I'm not keen on the use of troops UK recent history of greeting involved in other countries  militarily is very poor more diplomacy needed
To help others show force and that we won't be bullied
government is in agreement but feel all countries should contribute to training
I have not been presented with enough facts.
Although I approve of deplomacy; I also strongly belive that a firm military back-up is required to re-enforce our point of view.
i am sure they would make the right decision, we put them in charge of our country and should let them get on with it
Countries should operate together in their mutual interests.
Because we have enough on our plate already in regions that are of interest to us
I think that it is important that they stopped the extremism but don_ã_t really agree with the use of military to do so. Obviously this was the only real solution at the time though, so I am neutral about this choice
Keeping on good terms with the USA by supporting them is necessary for them to continue to back us up.
let other countrys do more instead of the uk all the while
Feel the incident might be extended if not dealt with at this stage.
I feel we have a moral duty to help people less well off than we are and if we help them to help themselves then I am all for it.
Our presents with troops on the ground when used as a last resort to  back our foreign policy shows that we are committed to do as we say and reinforces this measage to all other nations.
We always send out troops in and they do an amazing job, but as soon as we pull them out, it goes back to how it was.  Countries own governments need to take responsibility for their own issues and get rid of all the corruption that they have and be for the people and not for just their own personal gains.
I'm not haopy about it due to risk, but I can understand why. It's sometimes a necessary evil
I approve of supporting countries to resolve their own problems or problems with their neighbouring countries. However I am not fully approving in this specific example as there are other countries that are closer, larger or within the same continent that could have sent troops rather than the uk bearing the cost
It always goes wrong when involved in Africa due to ineptitude and corruption of host nation
There is no reasons given to justify the action
They should be responsible for their own training.
the govt have more information than me, i trust them to do whats right considering british soldiers lives are on the line. i feel if deployed then we have to give our full support
the uk should think if it is in their interest to deploy troops if it isn't don't go through with it
I don_ã_t see that it has anything t do with the U.K.
again the government are undecided so they make the decision they think is best for the people and country. That doesn't always mean that it is though.
Depends on circumstances, whether conflict is likely to affect UK in some way, and whether all alternative strategies have been exhausted
The government was asked to become involved in the situation in one way but the judgment was subsequently made that its role should be different. This should surely be based on the assessment of the situation and the judgement that this action would support other countries and their overall aim and should be respected as such. However, it has also be the case where the decision to become involved in such matters has been questionable and for perhaps different aims than those stated. It is therefore difficult to fully support a scenario like this when there is a lack of clarity around who is making the decision and why.
Because the people they are training could become our enemy and in effect the government could be helping a nation that is wanting to train for war
Only for training purposes no combat role
To avoid further destruction more military force should be involve
It's hard to tell without more information, however I feel we were being pushed into supporting the USA for its own end
In some cases were things are thought clearly and there are no other ways of solving the conflict we should help out but as long as there is a way to defuse the conflict with other means we should follow that
Once again it is better to diplomatically become involved rather then deploy troops endangering lives.
We have to counter naked Extremeism by force, these people will not listen to reason and therefore should eradicated.
If it helped quell extremists it was worth it
I think we should be ready for war at anytime
I'm sure it was not a decision made lightly and although I hate that are troops have to be put in danger but that its necessary
No big thoughts, just seemed like a reasonable response
It depends on the situation. In recent years troops were not deployed for the right reasons I believe
I feel our input here is unwarranted and not something we should be using our troops for, if these armies are part of a collective then those countries should be doing the training
its widely supported across parliament, non intervention just training, so risks are relatively low
I agree with Government decisions as they have most usually turned out to be the correct decision.
The U.K. is going to do what it feels is best. No ones going to change how troops are deployed
It is a multi nation operation with an achievable end
Labour government in the past have shown that they cannot be trusted in anything.
Why deploy from what I read and hear, they are not enough. If anything Government need to employ
i prefer the behind the scenes way because i think violence can be avoided more that way
It_ã_s not something I could change so don_ã_t really have an opinion on it
There was not enough information to make a definitive answer
We should support our allies but think our soldiers are too stretched
Normally, I wouldn_ã_t like to deploy troops unless absolutely necessary. However, our troops are some of the best so well placed to provide training, and this will be a non-combat role so it shouldn_ã_t put them at too great a risk
I dont think we should be using the army when diplomicy might work
To be honest it's not such a bad thing to do .At the same time to what extent do our troops train them. That they dont turn on our countries
Humankind must help humankind, whether they they be from a different nation or not. Extremists and the like need to be rid of as soon as possible.
Looking after people should be the first option
Providing training to help stop extremist groups could stop having to provide troops to sea with the extremists in the future
I'm just going to use the same reply as stated in the first scenario [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]
I am not happy with the idea of deploying troops in Africa, even for training purposes. Africa should be left to sort out it's own problems through united nations african troops
Africa is not directly connected to the uk, but for the greater good this was probably a good decision to fight extremists
it depends on whether it is fully justified.
We should keep out nose out of other country's problems, too many of our gallant troops have died for no good reason
Sometimes it can be dangerous to deploy troop other times it can be useful
Again we have to fight extremism everywhere
Unless it directly involves our own citizens we should keep out
not a situation we should risk our armed forces on
It was the right thing to do but also not
we can not let terrorists win. We need protecting from these idiots. It is all religion that should be banned worldwide as this is cause of all this mess
While the troops are only training the West African soldiers and not directly involved in the fighting, dealing with extremist organisations in today's world is like fighting a hydra - for every head you cut off, two more grow back in it's place.  Until the governments of the world start to realise that the battle is more about psychology and resources than troops and guns, it will be a losing one.
We need to give assistance to other countries who are unable to fully control a sityation
we get to involed in other peoples problems
Need to consider Nd exhaust all ptjer abenues first
These are international obligation we must honour
I really can't say what I believe in these circumstances. To generalise about something....how can I possibly say when I don't know the facts or it's all hypothetical ? I have to say my first thought is to just keep out of it, why are we poking our nose in, just let them get on with it. Just get involved if it has an affect on our country. We can't keep losing men and losing money on other people's wars. Let them kill each other. If we help them we get the blame, if we don't help them they say we don't care.  Sick to death of people fighting. Sick to death of humans. Feel more sorry for the animals being destroyed. That's how I feel about things now.
The government's deployment of troops in some scenarios has been both unnecessary and illegal in the case of the invasion of Iraq under Tony Blair. If conflict doesn't directly involve or affect the UK there is no need for us to deploy troops and that is the case in most scenarios.
It does not effect our people or country
We are a nation that Seeks the help others and as long as it_ã_s done without prejudice or expectations of something In rerun
Again using our resources and let when it does not affect ys
Other places in a minority needs support
We should only deploy troops if affecting world peace and we should not follow the USA's lead.
Difficult to decide as not enough information-
I don't know the full situation so I have not formed an opinion and know very little about the armed forces
Because it_ã_s basically taking charge of another country
If top politicians have evidence to say this is required, than I would suppot the action.
If we can help these countries to deal with their issues themselves then at a later date it should serve us well
If we are able to assist in training and help democracy then of course we should help
I don_ã_t think troops should be deployed
Because as long as the information was looked at properly and we really were helping the people who were being repressed..i think we have a duty to help people even of they don't live in our country
IT IS A GOOD IDEA AS LONG AS BRITISH TROOPS DO NOT GET HURT
We don't always need troops to be deployed to solve a situation
I always think the diplomatic option would be best
let Nigiera sort it out, why should we send our troop to fight for them?
If the multi-task force is to be effective it may well need training from other countries
Because it_ã_s involving other people but could also be helpful
because we should not be getting involved and getting ourselves in the firing line with terrorism like we are now
I don't know enough to agree more to this as more fighting can cause even more distress to an country and the innocent people involved. But it also needs to be stamped out and the right military training could eradicate this.
I don't know enough about the issue to have an opinion
Maybe it could be done in a different way
As long as they are there only to train and advise, and not fight.
More lives taken for the government stop using innocent  people. People should learn to get on
Because its a good decision coming together and agreeing on each others opinions
The involvement was less physical, the issue in Nigeria needed to tackled and a local effort was required. Teach a man to fish and all that.
Put innocent lives in harms way. Not our fight.
The British army is one of the best in the world, they will be able to offer excellent training.
sounds like help is needed and we can do this
DICTATORSHIP CAN DESTABILISE A REGION SO TRAINING SOLDIERS TO COMBAT THIS IS JUSTIFIED
can not make that decision based on one paragraph
If America wants the troops trained then they should be the country to train them and take the cost of it, not the British tax payers
Agree with comment shouldn't put them in harms way
Again I_ã_m not sure what this questions asking
I believe one needs to know more about the reasoning behind it.
It doesn't affect my life as long as the job gets done
Ditto [These decisions belong to an elected government]
I don_ã_t know enough about it and haven_ã_t heard about it
Sending in the army shows that we can't think of better ways to solve problems.
I wish everyone would get on and respect each other, to fight is something I don't believe in.
Involved in too many conflicts in the past
depends on the circumstances but agree if necessary
we should consider the cost implication and whether we should be deploying troops to an area in which we have no interest or influence; the UN should be involved and we should be supportive of their seeking a solution without deploying troops in the beginning
If we are only giving help with training thats O.K,but not to join any physical fighting
Because u never know if your loved ones are going to come home but I know they are fighting for this country.
It_ã_s good to offer aid but only when absolutely necessary
There are points for either side however all should exhaust talks first
same reasons as before. [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]
Don't think its always the right thing to do and would like to consider alternative actions first
i believe it is an important thing to do but not desirable
It_ã_s scary and can cause more problems
I'm in two minds which is why I only partly agree
I am very suspicious of the government's motives. they seem to see military action as something they can do to garner public support (eg Falklands) so I innately distrust their decisions.
Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the uk
don't have enough information to make a choice
i don't have a problem helping a democratic countries fight against armed insurgents as long as it's a limited an advisory and training role
From what I understand the British troops will be supporting these West African troops but for what cause I do not understand.
As a training gesture it is perfectly acceptable
We shouldn't put our troops in danger if our country is not threatened
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE BEST THING TO DO IS
In this situation, we are passing on years of experience to enable others to defend their country against an enemy. I don't agree we should do it to support the US global agreement, simply we should do it because it is right to.
It is a necessary action to ensure peace
Don't believe in going to war. It costs too much money to the tax payer. And should not get involved in other countries business.
too quick to send our own troops in, haven't tried all diplomatic routes first
It is a positive action.  Just to sit back and do nothing is giving in.
We need to be able to show that we support causes and that may mean having t use force to defend our ideals
Because it shouldn't be completely up to us
They_ã_ve chosen to be troops but then again they should still have a choice as it_ã_s their life
Jointly country can solve issues effectively
Because training them. Innocent people getting killed and also serve the British government money
don't know enough about the situation to make a decision
I get that they need stabilised but don_ã_t necessarily believe we should put our troops in danger
If both uk governments agree then it should be the right line to follow
the most effective way to make a difference
It seems appropriate to offer additional training if local nations are contributing troops
I can see the possible need but think the UK is too involved in putting its troops in other countries.
the government always want to interfere with other countries and it just seems unfair
I think by deploying troops it can make issues escalate more quickly and unnecessarily.
The extremist groups in question may have been and continue to be responsible for heinous crimes against innocent people. Deploying troups helps the African countries to defend themselves
because I can see both sides of the argument
I am generally in favour of helping people who are being oppressed but Britain has more important things to worry about than what is happening in Chad, a country that it has had little to do with in the past.
If they are willing to help then let them join forces
It shows the rest of the world that we take the issue seriously.
I think assistance from the UK would help West African troops to enforce order, which can only be a good thing in the long run.
I don_ã_t see why the uk have to be involved in everything, endangering our troops
if it was to just train the other country's troops and not to get involved in the fighting then i think it is a reasonable request and it should be approved
this is more complex and actually not as straightforward, it is a co-alition so it is coming from a stance of agreement with more countries than just the individual, i would be torn on making a decisive decision in haste
We need to show strength with the rest of the super powers to deter countries acting in the manner they do
They can help train the fighters in Africa for the future so they can better deal with huge problems such as extremist groups without need for outside intervention
Since they are not doing any direct fighting, or killing, and are just helping the cause behind the scenes, this sounds like a good idea
Do Not Use Britains Army In Conflicts That Are Not A Threat To The UK
There wasnt an awful lot of info to go on however I'm sure there is sufficient military training in the african countries who were actually involved. It depends aswell how imminent tge threat is
Seems reasonable to provide support and training
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BEING KILLED AND NEED HELP
it depends how much uk security is under threat
We have a Moral Duty To Help Peoplewho Are Oppressed
I am not so naêve as to imagine the government takes any notice of what I think
What happens when our troops are needed here and are spread thinly over the world. More are needed at home
Been asked by an friend nation to provide assistance. If the information suggests it's a necessary action then we should support them
I am not sure what we should do for the best.  We need a debate about it before any type of intervention.
British Troops shouldn_ã_t be killed because USA wants uk to intervene
Killing lives and doesn_ã_t better anyone
I would favour a training role rather than a combat role in troop deployment for such purposes
Don't want put army in risk in another nations problems
It is not typical of the Labour Party but I believe it to be the correct decision.
Don_ã_t think it solves the problem as it often just ignites hostility in the perpetrators and can lead to more misunderstandings. People on both sides are not always told the truth and the facts of a situation are not always clear.
I can't make a decision about that topic.
Because lots of countries were in agreement
It has to be done as a last resort, for defensive and protective purposes, not to invade
I have already answered this [sadly it just has to be done these days, we need to support America and other countries in war]
Troops are skilled and trained for all situations and can adapt their style
The same answer to the previous situation.[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.]
Theres normally a better way than just sending in troops risking british lives.
I think they're trying to do the right thing, but maybe their methods aren't the best
Not something we should be getting involved in
Because we need them to fight for our country
I think we need to deploy troops regardless of whether fighting is happening, as they can normally be peace keepers amongst countries.
we have enough going on in our own country
There is no other choice but to deploy troops otherwise there is no resolution.
I think we should help others who are suffering but would prefer nonviolent methods
MILITARY FORCE HAS TO BE USED IF IT IS USED AS A DEFENCE MECHANISM BY COUNTRIES
We could exacerbate the disturbance rather than help
we generally rush into conflicts without cause
Although the troops were not deployed directly but only to help train another countries army, it still is interference
Didn't necessary put them at risk good reputation
not sure if this is the right thing to do.
I assume all scenarios have been considered before final decision
we should stay out of foreign conflicts that have no direct consequences to this country.
We get too involved when it isn_ã_t our fight
You  have  to  show  force to get a better  deal
The U.K. can support the US actions at home without deploying troops and putting them at risk of harm. The US just seems hell-bent on war.
Depends entirely on the circumstances, impossible to generalize.
It depends on who's safety is in question
If we are not willing to aid other nations in their hour of need, who will be there to help us? Also we are not human if we allow people to butcher each other and not offer help when needed.
I don't think what would be the quickest solution, logically, is always the best
AS LONG AS ENOUGH RESEARCH IS DONE AND WE ONLY TRAIN THEIR PEOPLE AND DO NOT ACTIVELY GET INVOLVED IN ACTION OURSELVES
It is OK to provide training but they don't need to be put on the front line
I think it would be better to have an international armed forces representing all nations to deal with such issues.
if we needed help we would want someone to come to our aid
Again England should stay out of such matters unless it is a united thing where USA middle East Asia  Europe are all standing together and getting involved
I will take some photos of your website and see if
It is hard to judge without knowing more about the conflict
world security have to move forward to a high level
Why is it always the US who decide we should deploy troops for this purpose.  The US is becoming a military dictator to the world.  I would want to know more about the situation before agreeing.
Any way to assist in the defeat of terrorism is worth it. It also provides opportunities for further treaties, understanding and opportunities for British business afterwards
I think the UK needs to show a strong hand to the world. But just enough, not more than is needed, as what happened in Afghanistan
I am sure the relevent bodies have reviewed the request.
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.
I think aid in Nigeria may be necessary but the USA have the supplies to do this. I also believe that if a disagreement arose there would now be three countries involved which would make a treaty, agreement or peace much harder to settle.
I feel like I don't have enough information about this issue to approve or disapprove
if it is not our war we should not get involed
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
Same answer as before [It's not my job to make these decisions ]
It's not our business and is costing our taxpayers money to support the US in this
It is often right to support our partners internationally t achieve the result we collectively think best
No one wins wars all they do is blow things up just to rebuild them again ready to blow up another day and all the while the fighting carries on
BETTER THE FIGHTING IS OVER THERE THAN OVER HERE
In certain circumstances, where a country needs assistance to defend themselves against violent extremism, it seems appropriate to assist in certain ways, such as training their troops.
We shouldn't interfere with other countries, especially the ones where there's no business for the UK.
It might work and have the desired effect
Providing training to support other countries in protecting themselves is much better than having to get involved when they have failed.
If it is what is needed then I back the government
Some countries need help to train their military and I believe we have one of the best
Violent extremism should be stopped but I would be slightly uneasy about British casualties.
I feel troops know what they have signed up to so they sould take the fight to where the problem is to try and keep the problem away for the uk
Its good to help others but may also attract those to the UK causing hatm to us
Don_ã_t know whether we should get involved
I don_ã_t know enough about the situation to comment.
It is Stone Age I still find it hard to believe that we have to rely on force and the army to help people no matter where they are
Events sometimes have to have troops to keep the peace
If the Government has decided on the best advice that this is necessary then I support the Government, but that paragraph given would only have been a starting point for me to look into all aspects of the matter further
Deploying troops is fine as long as it is justified
Chad is a terrible country with horrible problems. I think it's important to stop the problems at the source there rather than face the consequences of people from Chad fleeing the country in the millions and heading for Europe
Why not. We have the best trained troops and it is good to help other nations.
I would have to research it more but if they are fighting for a good cause then I think it's good. Like nazi German the British weren't directly affected but what they fighted for was a good cause.
It is protecting our homeland and safety
there is a time when politicians need to lead and take the difficult decisions, there is far too much abdication of responsibility by the democratic process, complex decisions with complex underpinning knowledge should not be fostered on the General Public to influence decisions because of a lack of objective information giving and a low level of expertise in the voting population
it is important to provide assistance to regions that are finding it difficult to eradicate any threat to its security.
I don_ã_t really understand like I just said
They should certainly help in training and helping the African soldiers but I don_ã_t necessarily think they should get involved with the actual combat unless really necessary
Again o woud like to have deep discussions
They provide the arms to the 'opposition'. Our Govt is full of shit- liars, every single one of or MPs. I hate them- self serving bustards.
we need to provide help for the civilians who have no other resources themselves
I don't know enough about the situation to have a stronger opinion, but I am generally anti-military action for religious and ethical reasons.
I would only like it to be used as a last resort
I agree because there are terror groups that need totaly desorying.
I_ã_m for and against on the governments decision
Its not our problem - let them sort it out themselves
It won't change anything, it will only create more chaos.
It is of no concern to me really.  The troops are training local forces so should not be in harms way.
We should only get involved or it affects us or human rights
Assuming the action has broad international approval and is legally justified, it may be a reasonable use of the UK_ã_s resources to provide assistance to a multinational force.
I'm not sure that encouraging more militarism throughout the world is the best way to solve international problems
It was part of an international deployment alongside troops from west Africa
I feel that sometimes a show of force is the best and only option .
Sometimes coming together with others is needed
I believe it is the correct thing to do in the current climate
I think we put our troops through so much already.
Intervention is a really difficult balance.
Because it_ã_s only going to lead to another war
In this situation a majority of nations agreed that action was necessary. This contrasts to the situation where one or two nations stepped in out of their own prerogative. However the situation still needs to be considered carefully, as an escalation that leads to more deaths is ultimately a dilemma.
why are we getting involved in something in Nigeria
As far as deployment goes, i am against it as a point in principal. I do beleive that sometimes it is important to support other countries when their own forces are inadequate.
Because the devastation that was caused loss of life  to innocent people and children
it should be left to those countries to sort out their own
Because it's not there family that's fighting
like i said previously we need to find a better way than to troops on the ground and put there lives in danger
We have the best training so it's important to train others in what we know
The expertise of British forces would help the country to be more effective in protecting their country.
I feel as though I need more information to make an informed decision.
dk enough about it and am not interested
it is interesting to note that all these african conflicts are usually over natural resources and who has control over them. Take libya and Iraq. If they had no oil, there would have been no conflicts. The west has a lot of say and leverage and is willing to deploy troops to this or that side which benfits the west. In most case the deployment casues more problems. The issue lies with the west's imperialist foregin policy of bullying and domineering other countries over resources.
It gives us faith that our troops are protecting us
answered this question previously [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.]
the brish troops expertise would assist the multi-lateral forces in their mission and help ensure that the loss of life is minimised
It's to keep us safe and do a job that needs doing
I think it depends on the situation and what other issues may need our forces. I think it_ã_s good we work with the us to assist them with this but we have to balance out the cost to our economy and forces
I dont think they need to get involved in something that isnt relevant to them and could put their citezens at harm
I think the military should be mainly used for defensive purposes.
Seems to be more evidence supporting action.
We need to have a place in the world to try to improve the lives of all people. Our expertise is respected globally. We don't always need to get involved in hostilities but we can provide a peace keeping force and pass on our expertise
i would need to know more detail about the extremists before committing to an answer, but at least in Africa there is slightly more logic due to less religious factors
The extremist group in Nigeria is a ruthless group which needs to be eliminated.
they are there to train local troops, this should help stabilize the situation as regional powers have grouped together fight.
I AM WORRIED THAT IF WE DEPLOY TROOPS OTHER COUNTRIES WILL  NOT HELP THIS HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST
sometimes force is the only thing left to achieve security
I don_ã_t think it_ã_s right to keep sending the troops out.
I DID NOT THINK THE SITUATION WAS BAD ENOUGH TO SEND IN TROOPS
Well, I think there are a certain number of situations where this is applicable, but they surely are rare.
Sound like in this instance its right to side with America
It seems that the troops won't be doing much direct fighting with the terrorists, the role is more about the UK's armed forces strengthening and empowering the West African nations' troops. Another reason I approve is that terrorism must never be allowed to gain a foothold in any region, it has to be 'nipped in the bud' as the situation could become even deadlier and even more widespread in the future. Furthermore, the UK is being supported by the US, the world's biggest military power, therefore increasing the chances that the mission will be a success. However, I do not think I 'strongly approve' because ultimately this military action is in a part of the world relatively far from the UK and any action always has a risk of military casualties or fatalities.
Ditto to my last answe [Just my first reaction to the case you laid out]
It was an important time and necessary to do
I think that we need to support other people around the world.
It was to support a multinational task force already in place so a concerted effort.to support rather than take direct action.
I;m not sure what they are trying to achieve but meddling with US political affairs
I dont believe that troops should be deployed unless British citizens are at risk from harm.
They decision to 'deploy troops' doesn't specify exactly what the troops role would be. I agree that they should only provide behind-the-scenes training for the multi-national force and not be placed in harm's way.
Because it would be better for a bigger cause of world peace and will never undeeestimate how other countries can return the favour and help Britain in the future
I approve of the idea generally, but don_ã_t understand why the US are the ones asking us and not the joint African organisation
Reading the situation, the UK government should put in every effort to help/prevent the suffering - and any further encroaching of terrorist groups
not enough information provided to the public
We should look for a diplomatic solution
not our business to get involved in other countries problems unless we have been asked specifically by that country
I would need more information before making my mind up
OK so long as they are not involved in conflict but just training and advice
As previously stated, we have a moral obligation as a democracy, as opposed to socialism/fascism, to protect those who are weaker or being oppressed - please say this to the Corbyn who has supported most of the world's mass murdering regimes
A strong united deployment is sometimes necessary to deter further aggression
The training role appears important in preparing a multi nation task force of African nations in defeating a dictatorship.
Conflict in other countries has no real interest for me as it_ã_s jyst more unnecessary violence
im not sure, but feel I want more details.
We are too quick to put are troops lifes at risk before trying other things first. If the mps had sons in the forces they wouldn't be so quick to put them in danger
I think ot os n8fe to help pther countries
That there are advantages and disadvantages  in either scenario and it was a balancing exercise
It requires a strong united front to prove to the rebel_ã_s that they cannot get away with it
Is it really necessary for our protection as a country to get involved
Helping to train other countries to train them, might help their cause in the future, if they can be trained.
Innocent people get caught in the cross fire
We don't fully understand the situation in West Africa. Sending in soldiers might make the situation worse, and the soldiers may also die.
we are getting involved in other countries politics
Chad/Northern Nigeria/ Boko Haram all messy. OK to send British troops as advisers/trainers but I would not like to see our troops there
I agree with both approaches, diplomacy first if at all possible but not to commit troops etc to get involved in possible conflict
Seems there will be minimal action or danger for the British troops in this decision
I feel it is right to support and aid our allies
I don_ã_t really know where I stand on this
If that's whats necessary and we are in it for the good then its worth deploying troops. It's got to be for everyone's best interest.
I think that the decision should be focussed with alliances just as the I'm and NATO before getting into something ourselves
I don_ã_t know enough about it to comment
If it has been sanctioned by the UN then it is likely legal. It is also helping out other countries trying to stabilise problem areas in their region. However it should be a last resort.
Getting involved in things that don't need to be addressed. We don't have anyone strong enough to run the Country to make these decisions
It's a hard one to answer, it all depends on the price situation
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.
If asked for help it is better to give it to the USA
I'm torn between the end to help others in danger and the risk we place the UK in by meddling in business that does not directly effect us
Both governments are agreed on the matter, and they have obviously studied and are aware of the details better than me.
Only if its absolutely necessary so not too put people in harm
Because this government constantly intervenes in wars that are nothing to do with us. We should only help if there is a team effort from multiple countries
We sometimes have to help other countries in thisi way but we should be very careful and consider all options and outcomes before doing so
Other local nations are also involved is intervention by a remote nation needed.
To give a professional training to the Chad troops
To train people is ok but not to send our troops to fight !
Extremist groups should be stopped but the government must be careful not to send troops to areas where innocent civilians are living.
Not sure if the Army can be of real help in this situation
Better to be training than commit to fighting
They are supposed to be providing training rather than taking part in operations
Again if we can help saving people and giving them a better lifestyle!
Don't believe this was altruistic. Think it was a commercial decision
It depends on how bad the situation in Nigeria was. If the extremists were violating human rights, i.e, committing genocide, rape, torture, then it is necessary for troops to intervene. If this was not the situation, but there was political turmoil, then diplomacy is the best option.
There is cross-party consensus that it is necessary, and the "cause" seems just.
it is important that areas are well protected
I don't understand the situation and it's implications
As they are there in a training capacity, and not a combat capacity, there is nothing wrong with them being there.
I do not have enough information to give an authoritative answer
We should let other countries get on with their own problems
I don't know have a strong opinion about that
If it is solely for training purposes and not a statement of warfare than it can only help that countries defences
Military intervention is not often needed and makes the situation worse
I think there are other ways than sending in troops
We are helping promote peace in a troubled part of the world.
I think that if it's help a group of countries against such a threat in their region it is a good idea. It will also help improve relations.
Because we need to protect ourselves and Help others
i chose approve because it is the right thing to do
For the sake of security if it needs to be done then so be it
I'm not sure I understand what they actualy want to do in this situation
The troops would be able to help the people of that country
support for a fight against extremism is right
Military Forces should be used as a last resort
THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TROOPS FOR VERY IMPORTANT REASONS,AND THE SOLDIERS NEED TO BE THE BEST THEY CAN.
I am not fully aware of the situation going on so I do not have any thought one way or the other
it's a long way from home, and I cannot really see much of a benefit here
whilst the security may be improved the wider costs of this action may cause further instability within the region.
it is important that dictators or those people who terrorise and kill innocent get stopped fast
I'm sure there was a valid reason as i dont think the decision would have been made lightly
It has to be a good reason to deploy them and only done when all attempts at negotiating have been exhausted
it is not a topic which really has a great deal of personal meaning to me
it is not our problem we should keep out
We have often used our troops to help train other countries forces which helps to give them both the skills and discipline required to help there own country
support in training role beneficial to world peace
We cannot spare the troops or the budget
The enemy is one that needs combating and not a sovereign state, the main impetus and troops are provided by nations  immediately concerned, the British Army role is a training one which will be very useful in maintaining effectiveness,
Think decision is doen to what the government feels appropriate Public eont have a say anyway
I don_ã_t think troops should be deployed ,as I said before it stirs people up
If we can stop terrorists in their own countries then they might not attack us in our own countries. Showing strengths makes us strong.
Because I believe that they need help to be trained to fight extremists.
DIPLOMACY MUST COME FIRST AND REAL EFFORT MADE AND THEN THREATEN
Hi _È«¾ was your time for your birthday and I
Too soft and drags on too long. Better to bomb all the terrorists and end it quickly and send a message to the rest of the world.
I dislike having to see my drippy country doing exactly what the US tells it to do. All countries around the world have had thousands of years to improve themselves so why are Europe and the US so advanced compared to the rest? I see no reason for Britain to keep getting involved with bickering, backward little countries, most of which cannot even be described as 'nations'. If they must keep on fighting I would let them get on with it and only intervene if Muslims become a dominant force. Islam is not good for the world.
Cost too many lives and invrease violence
They send our soldiers to fight other countries battles
It's non of there business expecall when boycotting the UN
Hopefully we don't but if we need there help one day I hope they help us
Although it is beneficial to have international ties and support international troops, it may not always be the best option to get involved so directly especially with the given scenario. If the country in question already has troops responding, the UK being involved seems a bit futile (unless there is a specific reason). I'm in favour of international aid and development etc, but not when it has violent intentions which risk harming civilians and generating a backlash in this country
UK troops were not being asked to fight only train soldiers. This would help to stabilise the violence in the region.
Depending on situation everyone different
You have to be very careful when deploying troops to a war zone. It could escalate tensions further afield.
The deployment of British troops in a non combat role is effective in addressing the conflict
Co s_ycha„_, a ja mam to gdzie_ na pewno jest na rzeczy i tak jest w porz„ódku i nie ma, to ja mam to gdzie_ na pewno
We don't need to get involved in Nigeria's violence problems.
I'm not keen on interfering in other countries not because i don't believe in helping but because I think often our decision to get involved is more political or for our own gain than through moral compass
Sometimes action such as deploying troops is needed when talks etc haven't succeeded
dont see why it is always the british that go in first usually with the us
Conflicts abroad that affect us need sorting
We have a historic relationship with Nigeria and on their Independence Day  we made a commitment to them to assist in any problems they had with aggression.
Don_ã_t know much about the dispute in question
this seems like a good argument for deploying troops really
It would help with the African soldiers fight against evil
I think military action is very interesting of an issue, I think if the situation was dire enough I would back it 100% but I think that most of the time we aren't in the right
It_ã_s not really my place to have an opinion
If deploying UK army can support other countries for.fairness and peace so be it
that is what the goverment are there for
so much money and peoples time is taken up to be honest I think that all to often it is expected of england because of links to usa
Uk should not follow blindly what United States is doing in other countries.  It should be decided by the mps voting if Uk military go or do not go.
i think id need longer to think about it than required now. and probably more information
As previously stated I think our country needs to put on a stronger front.
We need to support other countries to gain their support
I think supporting countries against extremist behaviour is very important,
Im torn between giving our expert help and getting too involved.
Doing their part in an international group to get rid of an extremist violent organisation. Their presence has been requested and they have the necessary skills and expertise to be able to assist.
the government would only deploy if there was a need!
not something that really interests me so am not well informed
teaching them how to fight for themselves will hopefully reduce the need for other countries to intervene in their fight, therefore saving the lives of our troops. I feel extemely sad to think that men are losing their lives for another country's fight.
this was part of multi national decision making without direct conflict
It_ã_s more of a cutesy to the us. Hard to say if these troops will be in undue harm and line of fire. It_ã_s a balance of how much value the U.K. will derive from the exercise as opposed to endangering our men.
It enabled local countries to fight their own battles whilst in keeping with our own values without fighting on the front line ourselves. It is a more long term approach
Traiing people to be suelfsuffiicen tis a good thing as the requirements for us should diminish
I feel it would help support the situation
If it makes the world more secure in the long run I think it should
We as a nation do not need to get ourselves involved in other countries problems putting our people at risk
I think we should take care of matters closer to home
I_ã_m unsure as I would hate any harm to come to the troops if it could_ã_ve been avoided
this was to a training exercise to help under developed countreis who do not have this expertise
Sometimes besieged and persecuted communities need help
none combat training role very useful for effectiveness of our forces, is multi nation but just us and US
Why are we involved . The African nations should sort it all out without our involvement
I am not really fully informed about it. How can these forced fight against extremists in Nigeria if they are in Chad?
I slightly approve as I believe that the UK should make their presence known on the front line but on the other hand I believe there must be another way to resolve a conflict
We need to help improve their chances of survival
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
this has nothing to do with us as a nation, we should only focus on our national matters first rather then getting involved in other nation's problems
I think it is important that we help sort out warring nations but then I don_ã_t think ordinary, innocent people should risk their lives
It seems that in this scenario diplomacy alone wouldn't be effective in ensuring the safety and happiness of Nigerian citizens. I take an entirely pragmatic and realistic stance, and therefore approve of the use of military action by the UK.
We should not be involved in other countries wars
Encouraging violence, not a good solution
It was appropriate in the circumstances. This survey has already exceeded the forecast 10 minute duration by over 100%: much more and I_ã_ll close it.
It is for the purpose of protecting British territories abroad
The parties were unites on the decision and it's not like the conservatives and Labour to agree on something so it must have been a good idea.
our troops would not be employed in a combat situation, it would, as the scenario explained, be a 'behind the scenes job'.  However i feel that Britain is at risk of simply jumping to attention every time the US wish get involved in other countries' affairs. We should be massively expanding our own military capabilities so that we can once again be a global superpower, and not have to rely on anyone else for defense of innocents or of ourselves. We should have the capability to effectively repulse Russian aggression.
I think I agree that training troops in foreign countries is more acceptable than sending in troops to fight in a conflict that has nothing to do with us.
we should not get involved it will come back to bite us in the end
The troops are not going into combat and are supporting a coalition of countries troops to suppress a dictatorship
Our involvement was unnecessary as West Africa and the US were already involved
It should be a matter for the UN or NATO we should not be taking action with just the USA against other countries. If there is any point at all in the UN they need to take a proper role in the world. If they cannot they should be disbanded and we can stop pretending we have a solution.
I_ã_m not very political so I have no idea tbh
I don't feel we get enough info to know what is really going on to know what is best to do in the situation and have little confidence in those that do
As long as we are empowering people to take charge of their destiny by educating them, it shouldn't be a problem.
Depends in what context the government makes that decision. If it_ã_s to deal with civil unrest of a criminal intent or to protect then ok but if it_ã_s to control and coerce a democratic protest then I don_ã_t agree with the use of our armed forces.
It helps with diplomatic relations and diplomacy and better safeguards
The same as before, we need to look at the evidence first [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]
we have a right directly or indirectly to defend ourselves
Lots of people might die because of this
It_ã_s important to keep UK on the top level in front of other countries
it was good decision based on good arguments. deploying army is never easy
It can put our own troops at risk, but long term more lives would be saved and relations would be strengthened..
They give a statement of the UK power and authority
afganistan and irac look how they turned out but bosnia much better
It doesn_ã_t affect us but obviously the government think we should get involved
we should not be sending any , but some is ok to help
I answeee this question in the previous box [It_ã_s not fair on the troops and we need them to protect our country ]
To help in a background and provide assistance
It was to help a greater cause and I think the best decision to help the alliance
Sounds like it's the right thing to do but I don't know enough about it in depth
We are a small nation let other countries get involved
I believe we have a moral duty to help.other human beings no matter where they live. But I also accept that we need money in this country for our own citizens too
It is in the UK's interests to suppress extremist organisations and it's particularly in the UK's interests to work with the US and other NATO countries on enterprises such as this
Unless the government are all agreed then troops should not be sent
Yeah I_ã_m going home now I_ã_ll be there soon I_ã_ll call you you soon as soon you can get them done
im caught between two arguments and can see good and bad points to all views
We should not risk our troops lives in business that is nothing to do with us
They will be able to work behind the scenes diplomatically
its hard for me to give an opinion as I don't really understand
They are only training people so no one needs to know
depends why they are sending troops in, if it concerns us then yes
The world needs strong leadership from democratic countries.  They need to show smaller countries that they are willing to help when they are in trouble.
They should know what they are doing wether right or wrong they will do what they want to
Keep our noses oê_t of other people's business
The scenario didn't mention any other interventions being attempted. If possible the exploration of non military resolution would be preferable.
Our history in Africa  means that we still have responsibilities there.
African task force is more suitable. Intervention risks inflaming the situation
While I agree that there are situations that need people to step in and help, this country is going through so much trouble right now that our focus should be on sorting out problems at home. We're continually hearing in the news that the current welfare situation has led to people freezing and starving to death over here, yet that situation is in place to save money... which is then spent to go to another country and sort out a problem for them. While the flow of money isn't quite that simple, it does means that our people (not our soldiers, our citizens) are dying so that people elsewhere don't have to. And that means that the government isn't acting on behalf of the people of this country as they were elected to do.
If we are not involved in the fighting and only showing military organisations certain aspects of training