Here are the results of our last poll on military interventionism abroad. From the total number of votes, it is clear that far fewer of you than usual were prepared or felt able to express an opinion either way. However, of those that did do so, a majority were at least in favour of the principle of intervening to prevent genocide or to defend the human rights of others, even if not everyone agreed whether the conditions for intervention had been reached in either Sudan or Zimbabwe. I wonder whether anyone thinks such an approach should be taken to protect the freedom of those protesting against two decades' oppression by the military junta in Burma...?
|In 2000, British troops salvaged the UN operation in Sierra Leone. Should we now take military action in either Darfur or Zimbabwe?|
|Yes, both. 36% (8 votes)|
|Only Sudan. 5% (1 votes)|
|Only Zimbabwe. 27% (6 votes)|
|No, neither. 32% (7 votes)|
|Total voters for this poll: 22|
Make sure you take our new poll on the review of self-defence legislation.