Poll: Most French favor UN-authorized military intervention in Syria

[News_Editor]

Poll: Most French favor UN-authorized military intervention in Syria

2012-02-10 22:20:54 GMT+7 (ICT)

PARIS (BNO NEWS) -- A narrow majority of French people would support a UN-authorized military intervention to end the bloody crackdown on protesters by the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to a poll released by the French Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP) on Friday.

In a survey of nearly 1,000 people, pollster IFOP found that approximately 51 percent said they would support military intervention in Syria if it was authorized by the United Nations. Of those, 17 percent said they would strongly support such an operation while 34 percent said they would somewhat support it.

Since mid-March last year, pro-democracy demonstrations have spread across Syria, resulting in a fierce government crackdown which has left more than 7,000 people killed. The Syrian government claims violent acts against protesters are being carried out by 'terrorists dressed as soldiers,' but international observers have rejected these statements.

The support in France for military intervention in Syria is considerably greater than it was for Libya, where the regime of Muammar Gaddafi also launched a deadly crackdown on pro-democracy protesters. A UN resolution led to military intervention in Libya with NATO forces establishing a no-fly zone and carrying out hundreds of airstrikes against Gaddafi's forces.

The IFOP poll in March 2011 showed that approximately 36 percent of French people supported military intervention in Libya, but only seven percent of them voiced strong support. A majority of 63 percent said they were against UN-sanctioned military intervention in Libya, which eventually led to the death of Gaddafi and protesters taking control of the country.

But while French may support a UN-authorized military intervention in Syria, only 38 percent said they would be in favor of French forces being involved in such an operation. Approximately 62 percent said they would not favor French forces being involved in military intervention.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-02-10

[chuckd]

Any guesses who the French would like to see do the heavy lifting?

They want military action but don't want their military involved in that action. From the article...

"But while French may support a UN-authorized military intervention in Syria, only 38 percent said they would be in favor of French forces being involved in such an operation. Approximately 62 percent said they would not favor French forces being involved in military intervention. "

[GentlemanJim]

But while French may support a UN-authorized military intervention in Syria, only 38 percent said they would be in favor of French forces being involved in such an operation. Approximately 62 percent said they would not favor French forces being involved in military intervention.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to intervene then send in the forces. Funny how this exposes the true nature of the majority of people in that country. "We want intervention, but we don't want to lose our men and women doing it, so send in the yanks, the Ozzies and the Brits and anyone else who will join the party". Memories of WWII anybody?

[gopnarak]

Any guesses who the French would like to see do the heavy lifting?

They want military action but don't want their military involved in that action. From the article...

"But while French may support a UN-authorized military intervention in Syria, only 38 percent said they would be in favor of French forces being involved in such an operation. Approximately 62 percent said they would not favor French forces being involved in military intervention. "

means:

If you or anyone else wants to do the "heavy lifting" - the French will not veto against it.

[GentlemanJim]

Any guesses who the French would like to see do the heavy lifting?

They want military action but don't want their military involved in that action. From the article...

"But while French may support a UN-authorized military intervention in Syria, only 38 percent said they would be in favor of French forces being involved in such an operation. Approximately 62 percent said they would not favor French forces being involved in military intervention. "

means:

If you or anyone else wants to do the "heavy lifting" - the French will not veto against it.

Sadly with the silly little set up of the Security Council it only takes one veto by any of the permanent members.

I am unsure whether French opinion polls should be threatening the lives of more US. British and Coalition servicemen. If they want action then put their money (Military) where their mouth is.

[maidu]

With or without UN Security Council plurality, won't make much difference in Syria.

Military intervention by outside countries will be like pouring petrol on a fire. The Middle East is too far removed from being able to elect decent fair-minded people to run their countries. Do they have any in the wings?

I'm surprised other cities in Syria don't rise up and make a big fuss to support their brethren in Homs. Ok, maybe not surprised, because they don't want to be beseiged and bombed, as Assad's thugs are doing to Homs. Still, weapons and force is the only way that changes come to the Middle East. I have a feeling the insurgents aren't going to prevail in Syria, regardless of outside intervention. Why don't other Arabs intervene to try to and protect civilians? Why is it always western powers that have to consider that option? Are fellow Arab countries too weak militaritily or are they too weak morally to intervene? That's the message we're getting. Compassion and dynamic action (for good) reside in western countries, if we're to interpret what happens in such scenarios.

China is awol. So is India, Indonesia, Brazil. Why is it always up to the N.Americans and Europeans (sometimes the Aussies) to try to set things right in troubled places such as Bosnia, E.TImor, Kuwait. Have all the other countries been neutered?

[Steely Dan]

With or without UN Security Council plurality, won't make much difference in Syria.

Military intervention by outside countries will be like pouring petrol on a fire. The Middle East is too far removed from being able to elect decent fair-minded people to run their countries. Do they have any in the wings?

I'm surprised other cities in Syria don't rise up and make a big fuss to support their brethren in Homs. Ok, maybe not surprised, because they don't want to be beseiged and bombed, as Assad's thugs are doing to Homs. Still, weapons and force is the only way that changes come to the Middle East. I have a feeling the insurgents aren't going to prevail in Syria, regardless of outside intervention. Why don't other Arabs intervene to try to and protect civilians? Why is it always western powers that have to consider that option? Are fellow Arab countries too weak militaritily or are they too weak morally to intervene? That's the message we're getting. Compassion and dynamic action (for good) reside in western countries, if we're to interpret what happens in such scenarios.

China is awol. So is India, Indonesia, Brazil. Why is it always up to the N.Americans and Europeans (sometimes the Aussies) to try to set things right in troubled places such as Bosnia, E.TImor, Kuwait. Have all the other countries been neutered?

I think the Arab league showed their true colours when they sent their farcical monitoring group to Syria headed by the man responsible for the Sudan genocide. Actually the OIC are more preoccupied with trying to ram their own blasphemy laws past western judiciaries than they are with human life and liberty, hence their opposition to the Sudanese president being presented to the Hague to stand trial. This brings us full circle to Syria where the Hague are now after the top bods there.

[necronx99]

With or without UN Security Council plurality, won't make much difference in Syria.

Military intervention by outside countries will be like pouring petrol on a fire. The Middle East is too far removed from being able to elect decent fair-minded people to run their countries. Do they have any in the wings?

I'm surprised other cities in Syria don't rise up and make a big fuss to support their brethren in Homs. Ok, maybe not surprised, because they don't want to be beseiged and bombed, as Assad's thugs are doing to Homs. Still, weapons and force is the only way that changes come to the Middle East. I have a feeling the insurgents aren't going to prevail in Syria, regardless of outside intervention. Why don't other Arabs intervene to try to and protect civilians? Why is it always western powers that have to consider that option? Are fellow Arab countries too weak militaritily or are they too weak morally to intervene? That's the message we're getting. Compassion and dynamic action (for good) reside in western countries, if we're to interpret what happens in such scenarios.

China is awol. So is India, Indonesia, Brazil. Why is it always up to the N.Americans and Europeans (sometimes the Aussies) to try to set things right in troubled places such as Bosnia, E.TImor, Kuwait. Have all the other countries been neutered?

Other Arab countries don't want to intervene because to a T they are all brutal dictatorships or medieval monarchies/theocracies themselves.

[Scott]

Your opinions are most welcomed, but let's try to keep remarks about the French people within forum rules.

Maidu, I might add that one of this morings SMS's from Thaivisa mentioned that the fighting in Syria had spread to Aleppo (sp?).

[maidu]

This is the first I heard about another Syrian city being besieged. It could be good and bad news. Good news because it shows support for Homs - bad news because more innocents are getting their lives (and city) destroyed.

Weird that the old-fashioned (dare I say Biblical) method of besieging cities is getting a refit, thanks to Assad and his cronies. What's next, catapulting diseased horses over stone walls?

In a strange aside, I feel sad about Syrian soldiers who are compelled to follow orders - to kill their countrymen and women and children. I wouldn't doubt, one of the untold stories of this confilct, is many soldiers trying to flee or disobeying/disputing orders, and then getting sumarily shot by security forces.

[Jingthing]

Of course the western interest in support of the rebels in Syria, which is turning into a civil war, can be seen in a much broader context of what is happening in the entire Middle East:

http://www.washingto...6Q_story_1.html

Iran vs. the West

Underpinning the struggle for Syria, however, is a far older battle for supremacy between Iran and the West, Sunnis and Shiites, Arabs and Persians, which appeared to have been suppressed by the popular clamor for change that erupted across the Arab world last year but which now has resurfaced as a key dynamic driving the competition for power.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Not sure about military intervention, but there are clearly ways around sanctions (via Iran):

Haaretz exclusive: Syria documents show Iran helping Assad to sidestep sanctions

Documents leaked following cyber-attack by hacker group Anonymous, show Tehran has given Assad more than $1b in effort to overcome oil embargo

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-syria-documents-show-iran-helping-assad-to-sidestep-sanctions-1.412353