No. We've been puppets to as many American Regimes that i can think of. This a battle America want to have so let them take it to them. I'm sick of the butt licking between us and the yanks - lets see how far they get with only France as an ally and Russia backing the Syrians!
From Iraq, to Afganistan, where have we benefitted? Yes ok, tyrrants were brought down but economically on America benifitted and we lost thousands of decent people who for me went out and fought a battle with nothing to gain for them, their families or our countries.
What about our political ties with Russia? Should we risk being embroiled in such a messy conflict? Can it even be resolved through force ?
-------------------------------------------
No!
We can't afford a war but when the US will tell us to jump we will ask how high.
Syria is just one more step towards Middle East control for the U.S.
From Iraq, to Afganistan, where have we benefitted? Yes ok, tyrrants were brought down but economically on America benifitted and we lost thousands of decent people who for me went out and fought a battle with nothing to gain for them
----
great shout
You can go out all guns blazing but you're trying to force an ideology - just aint gonna happen
I don't think that anyone in this country wants us to enter the conflict in a physical way. The only people that seem to want it are David Cameron & other muppets.
yes, we should do something, but military action isn't going to help anyone. The USA seemingly just want another excuse to start a war.
As far as I can tell, Russia's stance has been "No need to military action, just hand over your weapons" - which so far we've seen very little evidence of who is using them!
Anyway, we've got problems like the badger cull to contend with here. I propose we kill 2 birds with one stone, and drop the badgers on Syria.
the people who are going to suffer either way (and are already suffering) are the Syrian people, especially the poor Syrian citizens
The fact there is so much talk and so little action shows how undecided they are and how little support they have.
There isn't any definitive proof that chemical weapons were used. Just the say so of the Americans.
Conflict leads to more conflict and the best thing the outside world could do on this one is try and get both parties to stop the conflict.
The reason why military action has been delayed/not used so far is that the Russians have a naval base in Syria.
This is a thorn in the side of the powers that be who want to take military action. Russians can use Syria as a proxy to further their own aims in the global sphere - see "game theory"
There isn't any definitive proof that chemical weapons were used. Just the say so of the Americans.
---
Remind you of anything else that happened around a decare ago?
I have a Syrian neighbour who claims that the US have been looking for a reason to invade for years. He believes that the original uprising was masterminded by the US and they have been giving the rebels weapons to fight against the Syrian government.
comment by King Of Britain ^^^^^^^^^ (Always pay your tax) (U18007)
posted 4 minutes ago
the people who are going to suffer either way (and are already suffering) are the Syrian people, especially the poor Syrian citizens
-----
This is true, same as in Egypt too. If the populous of nations kill each other, and stunt their nations growth... you have to look at who would benefit from that.
Remember a lot of global conflict is about resources and territory.
I have a Syrian neighbour who claims that the US have been looking for a reason to invade for years. He believes that the original uprising was masterminded by the US and they have been giving the rebels weapons to fight against the Syrian government.
---
Quite the conspiracy theory Though, it being the US, it's not too difficult a situation to imagine.
What would be mad is if we didnt back them but America pressed ahead with millitary force. The russian's arent exactly a friendly bunch - how would america react?
(think i watch too much 24 - Jack Bauer)
Jay - that's been Americas foreign policy for decades anyway.
It's nothing new.
The arms industry is massive, and as they hold a lot of sway in the corridors of power with ex senators and presidents on the pay roll (look at John Major on at Qinetiq) they need to find a home for these arms.
Like I asked "who benefits?" These guys certainly do.
the Russians are only interested in making money from the Syrians, and beleive me they make a lot
think i watch too much 24 - Jack Bauer)
-------------------------
Great movie that
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
On your 6 questions in order as they appear in the OP...
1. Assad... A nasty dictator for sure, but not the worst. The UK and US have a long history - that continues to the current day - of actively opposing democracy and backing, installing and supporting brutal regimes and tyranny.
2. No we shouldn't. We'd only be escalating the violence. There are better alternatives available, such as Israel mobilising forces along the northern border, forcing the regime to the south.
3. We have absolutely no moral authority whatsoever, for a host of reasons. Firstly, the US and UK are responsible for more death and destruction around the globe - in the name of self interest - than anyone. Since 1945, the UK has played a significant role - directly or indirectly - in the deaths of about 13 million people. For the US, almost double that figure. Furthermore, we have a history of using and supporting the use of chemical weapons. We supported Sadam's use in the 80's, we've used white phospherous and depleted uranium in Iraq (see Fallujah), agent orange in South East Asia... to name just a few cases. Bear in mind, also, that not only is the use of chemical weapons currently not supported by any evidence, but that even if chemical weapons use can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that it most likely *wasn't* used by the regime. Bombing would also be in breach of international law, though the US and UK repeatedly act outside the bounds of the law.
4,5,6 I'll conflate. There's interesting proposals on the table from the Russian's with regards to putting Chemical weapons in the hands others - ie, giving them up. Notice also that this "red line" on the use of chemical weapons only applies to the regime, and not the rebels.
We have lost far too many young lives in conflicts we didn't need to be involved in over the last 30 years. Please, no more.
------------------------
Aren't the Rebel fighters the Muslim brotherhood, who have links with Al Qauda? It's even reported that the level of extremism, is growing amongst the rebels.
After the Taliban, Russian war... Iraq, Iran..... Sometimes it's better to let it be.
Long term, It may be, again, a decision we regret,.
My opinion, stay well clear and sort our own problems out. It's not as if we have money to burn on such wars
My opinion, stay well clear and sort our own problems out. It's not as if we have money to burn on such wars
------------------------------
Try explaining that to the morons that run our gaff! It beggars belief sometimes!
well said RAP
how are ya btw... i see you are not sacked yet
Lefty that's Egypt
Although the Al Quida link is just myth.
King Of Britain ^^^^^^^^^ (Always pay your tax) (U18007)
-------------------------
When did 24 become a film?
We have lost far too many young lives in conflicts we didn't need to be involved in over the last 30 years. Please, no more.
----------------------------
You are talking about British soldiers, yes???
Sign in if you want to comment
Anyone Following the Syria Crisis ?
Page 1 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 10/9/13
No. We've been puppets to as many American Regimes that i can think of. This a battle America want to have so let them take it to them. I'm sick of the butt licking between us and the yanks - lets see how far they get with only France as an ally and Russia backing the Syrians!
From Iraq, to Afganistan, where have we benefitted? Yes ok, tyrrants were brought down but economically on America benifitted and we lost thousands of decent people who for me went out and fought a battle with nothing to gain for them, their families or our countries.
posted on 10/9/13
What about our political ties with Russia? Should we risk being embroiled in such a messy conflict? Can it even be resolved through force ?
-------------------------------------------
No!
posted on 10/9/13
We can't afford a war but when the US will tell us to jump we will ask how high.
posted on 10/9/13
Syria is just one more step towards Middle East control for the U.S.
posted on 10/9/13
From Iraq, to Afganistan, where have we benefitted? Yes ok, tyrrants were brought down but economically on America benifitted and we lost thousands of decent people who for me went out and fought a battle with nothing to gain for them
----
great shout
You can go out all guns blazing but you're trying to force an ideology - just aint gonna happen
posted on 10/9/13
I don't think that anyone in this country wants us to enter the conflict in a physical way. The only people that seem to want it are David Cameron & other muppets.
yes, we should do something, but military action isn't going to help anyone. The USA seemingly just want another excuse to start a war.
As far as I can tell, Russia's stance has been "No need to military action, just hand over your weapons" - which so far we've seen very little evidence of who is using them!
Anyway, we've got problems like the badger cull to contend with here. I propose we kill 2 birds with one stone, and drop the badgers on Syria.
posted on 10/9/13
the people who are going to suffer either way (and are already suffering) are the Syrian people, especially the poor Syrian citizens
posted on 10/9/13
The fact there is so much talk and so little action shows how undecided they are and how little support they have.
There isn't any definitive proof that chemical weapons were used. Just the say so of the Americans.
Conflict leads to more conflict and the best thing the outside world could do on this one is try and get both parties to stop the conflict.
The reason why military action has been delayed/not used so far is that the Russians have a naval base in Syria.
This is a thorn in the side of the powers that be who want to take military action. Russians can use Syria as a proxy to further their own aims in the global sphere - see "game theory"
posted on 10/9/13
There isn't any definitive proof that chemical weapons were used. Just the say so of the Americans.
---
Remind you of anything else that happened around a decare ago?
posted on 10/9/13
I have a Syrian neighbour who claims that the US have been looking for a reason to invade for years. He believes that the original uprising was masterminded by the US and they have been giving the rebels weapons to fight against the Syrian government.
posted on 10/9/13
comment by King Of Britain ^^^^^^^^^ (Always pay your tax) (U18007)
posted 4 minutes ago
the people who are going to suffer either way (and are already suffering) are the Syrian people, especially the poor Syrian citizens
-----
This is true, same as in Egypt too. If the populous of nations kill each other, and stunt their nations growth... you have to look at who would benefit from that.
Remember a lot of global conflict is about resources and territory.
posted on 10/9/13
I have a Syrian neighbour who claims that the US have been looking for a reason to invade for years. He believes that the original uprising was masterminded by the US and they have been giving the rebels weapons to fight against the Syrian government.
---
Quite the conspiracy theory Though, it being the US, it's not too difficult a situation to imagine.
posted on 10/9/13
What would be mad is if we didnt back them but America pressed ahead with millitary force. The russian's arent exactly a friendly bunch - how would america react?
(think i watch too much 24 - Jack Bauer)
posted on 10/9/13
Jay - that's been Americas foreign policy for decades anyway.
It's nothing new.
The arms industry is massive, and as they hold a lot of sway in the corridors of power with ex senators and presidents on the pay roll (look at John Major on at Qinetiq) they need to find a home for these arms.
Like I asked "who benefits?" These guys certainly do.
posted on 10/9/13
the Russians are only interested in making money from the Syrians, and beleive me they make a lot
posted on 10/9/13
think i watch too much 24 - Jack Bauer)
-------------------------
Great movie that
posted on 10/9/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/9/13
On your 6 questions in order as they appear in the OP...
1. Assad... A nasty dictator for sure, but not the worst. The UK and US have a long history - that continues to the current day - of actively opposing democracy and backing, installing and supporting brutal regimes and tyranny.
2. No we shouldn't. We'd only be escalating the violence. There are better alternatives available, such as Israel mobilising forces along the northern border, forcing the regime to the south.
3. We have absolutely no moral authority whatsoever, for a host of reasons. Firstly, the US and UK are responsible for more death and destruction around the globe - in the name of self interest - than anyone. Since 1945, the UK has played a significant role - directly or indirectly - in the deaths of about 13 million people. For the US, almost double that figure. Furthermore, we have a history of using and supporting the use of chemical weapons. We supported Sadam's use in the 80's, we've used white phospherous and depleted uranium in Iraq (see Fallujah), agent orange in South East Asia... to name just a few cases. Bear in mind, also, that not only is the use of chemical weapons currently not supported by any evidence, but that even if chemical weapons use can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that it most likely *wasn't* used by the regime. Bombing would also be in breach of international law, though the US and UK repeatedly act outside the bounds of the law.
4,5,6 I'll conflate. There's interesting proposals on the table from the Russian's with regards to putting Chemical weapons in the hands others - ie, giving them up. Notice also that this "red line" on the use of chemical weapons only applies to the regime, and not the rebels.
posted on 10/9/13
We have lost far too many young lives in conflicts we didn't need to be involved in over the last 30 years. Please, no more.
------------------------
posted on 10/9/13
Aren't the Rebel fighters the Muslim brotherhood, who have links with Al Qauda? It's even reported that the level of extremism, is growing amongst the rebels.
After the Taliban, Russian war... Iraq, Iran..... Sometimes it's better to let it be.
Long term, It may be, again, a decision we regret,.
My opinion, stay well clear and sort our own problems out. It's not as if we have money to burn on such wars
posted on 10/9/13
My opinion, stay well clear and sort our own problems out. It's not as if we have money to burn on such wars
------------------------------
Try explaining that to the morons that run our gaff! It beggars belief sometimes!
posted on 10/9/13
well said RAP
how are ya btw... i see you are not sacked yet
posted on 10/9/13
Lefty that's Egypt
Although the Al Quida link is just myth.
posted on 10/9/13
King Of Britain ^^^^^^^^^ (Always pay your tax) (U18007)
-------------------------
When did 24 become a film?
posted on 10/9/13
We have lost far too many young lives in conflicts we didn't need to be involved in over the last 30 years. Please, no more.
----------------------------
You are talking about British soldiers, yes???
Page 1 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9