Straight question on what you want: Should the West now reject military action unless there's a direct threat to the homeland?

Absolutely neutral inquiry. Regardless of your politics, do you want the West to stop getting involved in foreign conflicts unless there is a direct threat to our homelands?

by The Commentator on 7 September 2013 12:59

We said this would be neutral, and it is. So, we're not giving any preamble whatsoever in substantive terms. Using Syria as the obvious news peg, there's a clear debate now about whether Western countries usefully can or should get involved in any foreign conflicts or situations whatsoever, using our military, except when there's a clear and present danger to the homeland.

Remaining neutral and to the point, this does not ask you to consider whether you favour diplomatic and/or economic/aid-style approaches to international engagement.

The question is purely about military means.

Here is the question:

Unless the homeland is directly and immediately threatened, are you opposed to the use of military action by the US and Western allies?

Please leave answers in the comment section below, and/or on Facebook/Twitter. Feel free to dispute the premise, of course.

UPDATE: Thanks to all, but we can't possibly respond to the volume. Be aware that we are grateful for your responses in all social media formats, and we will use them to formulate our thinking....

blog comments powered by Disqus