Will Britain's absence have any significance in Military Intervention against Syria?
Well, it looks like we (the British) will not going to war.
Earlier today, MP's in Great Britain's House of Commons voted against using military intervention to stop the crisis within Syria, subsequently preventing the Prime Minister siding with the United States and declaring war. With Germany also out of the picture it currently leaves only France to join the US in any military action.
Do you believe that the UK's absence will have any repurcussions on the proceedings? Will the U.S lose legitimacy in the justification for war as their closest ally abstains from any conflict?
Yes
Side Score: 4
|
 |
No
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
|
I think the US or should I say the present government may have trouble justifying intervening in Syria without the backup of other countries, especially after Obama said he would be withdrawing troops from foreign wars I don't think the American public will be happy with him sending them out to a new one Side: Yes
However, if Obama is disliked at the moment a successful war could seriously boost his popularity and even leave him with a good legacy. I have a feeling that is all he needs to care about at the moment, since he cannot get re-elected he just wants to make sure he's remembered in a good light. Side: Yes
|
"Nope. The USA are too powerful. If any other country defied the UN and went to war anyway then they'd be heavily sanctioned and potential risk being the subject of military action themselves. But of course the USA can do whatever they want." This will be the first time in recent years in which the U.S will have entered a military conflict without British military support, the UK is a member of the UN Security council and their absence may greatly reduce American influence there. Also, in the recent discovery of the American NSA having infiltrated the United Nations, the UN may not go too easy on the USA this time around. Side: Yes
|
