Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 12:36 PM Mar 2013

US and UK public reject stronger military support for Syrian rebels

Source: Guardian

Americans and Britons are deeply sceptical about the idea of arming Syria's rebels and the possibility of sending western troops into the country, according to a bilateral poll.

Despite the escalating civil war, growing casualty figures and a rising tide of refugees flooding out of Syria, there is little appetite for more robust action than the current approach of providing "non-lethal support" to the rebels, the YouGov poll found.

There have been increasing demands on Capitol Hill to arm the opponents of the Assad regime or intervene more directly, and this week Barack Obama toughened his own rhetoric amid contested claims about Damascus using chemical weapons. But the new binational survey – produced for YouGov-Cambridge, the polling company's academic thinktank – finds US voters opposed to the idea of supplying munitions by a 29-point margin: 45% against to 16% in favour.

Identical questions were posed in Britain, where David Cameron has, with the French president, François Hollande, recently tried and failed to persuade the EU to lift its arms embargo. But the British public emerges as even more strongly against: 57% oppose arming the rebels and 16% are in favour.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/22/us-uk-reject-stronger-syria-support

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
1. Because the citizens of neither country can see why it's in their nations' direct interests
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 12:41 PM
Mar 2013

to do so. Pretty logical.

 

RedstDem

(1,239 posts)
2. wouldnt it be cool if the will of the people mattered?
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 12:51 PM
Mar 2013

ours and their leaders don't seem to think so......

lark

(23,003 posts)
6. The will of the people is not what's considered actionable in congress.
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:15 PM
Mar 2013

If it was, we'd have been out of Afghanistan years ago, would have 100% background checks on gun purchases, no assault rifles, social security would have a much higher cap, etc. etc. The only thing congress cares about is money and power and they get that by championing the 1% and fuck the workign class.

Pirate Smile

(27,617 posts)
8. Obama seems to be following it in Syria while lots of people in Congress & even his own cabinet have
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:23 PM
Mar 2013

been trying to get him to jump in. He keeps saying no.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
10. Not his current cabinet, it should be pointed out. Hillary, Panetta and Petraeus
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:36 PM
Mar 2013

wanted him to intervene with arms. I doubt Kerry does, Rice wasn't supportive of it last year, and I can't imagine Hagel supporting it.

 

John2

(2,730 posts)
3. Both Governments
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:01 PM
Mar 2013

led their countries into an illegal War. Neither of them can be trusted by their people. Over 600,000 Americans died in our Civil War.

 

Paul E Ester

(952 posts)
4. Jihadists from Syria rival al Qaeda threat, say UK police
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:09 PM
Mar 2013
He said small groups of Islamist militants, many who had travelled for training and to fight in places such as Syria, Yemen and Somalia, were forming at short notice and without the broader command and control structures that previously existed.

"The innovation that they are now creating has actually potentially made it just as dangerous, if not more so," he Osborne told reporters.

Britain's national threat level from international terrorism is currently assessed at "substantial" - the third-highest level of five, meaning an attack is a strong possibility.

That is one notch lower than it has been for most of the years following the 7/7 bombings, and there have been no deadly attacks by militants on the British mainland since then.


http://news.yahoo.com/jihadists-syria-rival-al-qaeda-threat-uk-police-174802375.html
 

John2

(2,730 posts)
9. I think you
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:32 PM
Mar 2013

get more informed on this current struggle by learning the biographies of the leaders on both sides. I can see the positions of both sides and this has been building up for decades and not just in a vacuum. There is a revolution occurring across the Middle East. It mainly stems from different ideologies about Islam. You have competing sects battling each other for supremacy. Most of the opposition are Sunni from countries with predominate Sunni populations like Saudi Arabia and the other side with mostly the Shia sect like Iran. And neither side is favorable towards Israel, which ever wins. Many of the leaders in the opposition practice Sharia. I read an article about a secret interview done with one of the leaders, that took part in the over throw of Gadaffi. He said in this interview that he was fighting in Syria, because he wanted Sharia Law implemented across the Arab World. The article stated he believed that was the true following of the prophet Muhammad.

Pirate Smile

(27,617 posts)
7. This tweet seemed pretty damn spot on after Levin came out for arming the rebels yesterday:
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:20 PM
Mar 2013

RT @abuaardvark:Rock like its 2002 RT @joshrogin Democrats,Republicans unite around criticism of Obama’s Syria policy http://t.co/9KUk8uS9TM

I've seen other people mention how they get nervous when they start seeing some "bipartisan consensus" re getting us more involved in the ME.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US and UK public reject s...