Syria
- Thread starter TitanTim
- Start date
No.
9/11 was 12 years ago, and we are STILL in Afghanistan. Somehow we managed to get stuck into Iraq too. Time out, let them sort their own mess, we have enough problems without spending billions more on a conflict that has no direct bearing on us. Oh, and at some point some nutter out there is going to press a big red button and fire a nuke, at which point all hell will break loose. That scares the s**t out of me.
9/11 was 12 years ago, and we are STILL in Afghanistan. Somehow we managed to get stuck into Iraq too. Time out, let them sort their own mess, we have enough problems without spending billions more on a conflict that has no direct bearing on us. Oh, and at some point some nutter out there is going to press a big red button and fire a nuke, at which point all hell will break loose. That scares the s**t out of me.
Woots said:
Oh come on - if that's the case why have we not been deployed on a war footing throughout Africa for the last 20 years, like we have been in Afghanistan ? Because they don't have the oil... Nothing to do with any moral stand against massacre of civilians...
I think we did a good job in Libya? (Where? I hear you ask)
I would like to fix all of the worlds problems, I think removing the Assad regime would help fix a tiny problem, but then there's a hole left and no one to fill it. (Apart from that, I can't see how intervening would lessen the body count)
I think we have enough problems at home that we should be dealing with before we start looking elsewhere (unless the government plan on fixing unemployment by building more bombs, tanks and aircraft)
EDIT: how do we know the video footage is real, in that it hasn't been created by a government to get international/public backing for a military strike
I would like to fix all of the worlds problems, I think removing the Assad regime would help fix a tiny problem, but then there's a hole left and no one to fill it. (Apart from that, I can't see how intervening would lessen the body count)
I think we have enough problems at home that we should be dealing with before we start looking elsewhere (unless the government plan on fixing unemployment by building more bombs, tanks and aircraft)
EDIT: how do we know the video footage is real, in that it hasn't been created by a government to get international/public backing for a military strike
No we shouldn't go. Yes there is human suffering. Yet at the same time. When the citizens get tired of it they will do something about it. Look at what the rag tag barely organized American colonies did to the most powerful nation on earth.
One must remember that starting with the Vietnam conflict. The military while in a theater of war has been micromanaged by politicians that haven't the faintest idea of how to win a conflict. The modern politician declares "war lite" and tries to manage it into a stalemate.
Before we (the west) got involved in Afghanistan. Russia had been there for 10-15 years. We in the west showed up and took the following tactic. The enemy of my enemy is now my friend. With that in mind. We gave weapons to the mujha haddem (sp) who ended up being radical Islamists. In the end after supplying those radicals with weapons. Was it any surprise to anyone that they turned them on us.
Unfortunately the middle east was set ablaze long ago. Try about the time of the treaty of Versailles when the Ottoman empire was carved up between the English and French. Who then set about making new lines on paper maps. Then installing one supreme leader in each new country to manage people who had been under tribal rule for time immemorial. It was destined to fail and blow up in our faces. The politicians of the time certainly didn't care. As they figured the failure wouldn't happen during their term.
So while I feel bad that innocents are dying in a battle for power. At a certain level. I don't really care. Because after the west helps those who are suffering at the moment. Those that we helped WILL pick up arms or preach hatred for those of us that helped. The fairytale story of pulling the thorn from the lions paw and thus making a friend of a former enemy. Is just that. A fairytale. We in the west haven't figured out that it's a made up story. And is very untrue.
One must remember that starting with the Vietnam conflict. The military while in a theater of war has been micromanaged by politicians that haven't the faintest idea of how to win a conflict. The modern politician declares "war lite" and tries to manage it into a stalemate.
Before we (the west) got involved in Afghanistan. Russia had been there for 10-15 years. We in the west showed up and took the following tactic. The enemy of my enemy is now my friend. With that in mind. We gave weapons to the mujha haddem (sp) who ended up being radical Islamists. In the end after supplying those radicals with weapons. Was it any surprise to anyone that they turned them on us.
Unfortunately the middle east was set ablaze long ago. Try about the time of the treaty of Versailles when the Ottoman empire was carved up between the English and French. Who then set about making new lines on paper maps. Then installing one supreme leader in each new country to manage people who had been under tribal rule for time immemorial. It was destined to fail and blow up in our faces. The politicians of the time certainly didn't care. As they figured the failure wouldn't happen during their term.
So while I feel bad that innocents are dying in a battle for power. At a certain level. I don't really care. Because after the west helps those who are suffering at the moment. Those that we helped WILL pick up arms or preach hatred for those of us that helped. The fairytale story of pulling the thorn from the lions paw and thus making a friend of a former enemy. Is just that. A fairytale. We in the west haven't figured out that it's a made up story. And is very untrue.
teamemmenracing said:
+1
So true... Our opinions are so bias to what the media and politicians spin us... I personally think its their mess, who are we to say we know better to sort it out.
Its just a shame whichever cowardly side is targeting the innocents to get agenda forward
Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk
Bing said:
That's a good point and true. East Timor, Rwanda, Zimbabwe etc. However that lack of leadership and force for justice amongst previous political generations doesn't strengthen the case for doing nothing this time. As I said above - there was no oil in Srebrenica but we acted in the end, after waiting in vain for the UN to act, because there was a civilian massacre perpetrated on ethnic grounds.
I don't think we should put troops on the ground, declare war or anything like that. What we should do is make sure that both sides in this conflict understand there will be a consequence for using this type of weapon. That we will not stand by and watch innocent people massacred.
original guvnor said:
This is the important bit for me.
The intervention is an attempt to save civilian lives, but it only takes one "misguided" guided missile from the West to cause civilian casualties, which would ruin everything. Political suicide.
The fact of the matter is though, a it's the right thing to do. Governments are installed by the people to look after their best interests and maintain the peace. When the government then gasses it's own people, then it's pretty obvious that they have to go. The lessons have to be learnt from Nazi Germany, and the line in the sand has to be drawn and enforced somewhere.
I could do with cheaper fuel prices.. send the boys in!
In all honesty tho, we (Brits) shouldn't get involved in this. We're still dealing with the Afghan mess.
However, someone should get involved - perhaps time for someone else in the UN/NATO should step up to the plate and allow us to fill the "supporting" role.
However, as a Gibraltarian, I definitely think we should kick those bloody Spaniards into touch
In all honesty tho, we (Brits) shouldn't get involved in this. We're still dealing with the Afghan mess.
However, someone should get involved - perhaps time for someone else in the UN/NATO should step up to the plate and allow us to fill the "supporting" role.
However, as a Gibraltarian, I definitely think we should kick those bloody Spaniards into touch
the only use of troops should be to facilitate an independent scientific party to asses what was used and how it got there. who are we to police the world. if we were to bomb the airfileds etc then it could be seen to be siding with the rebels if we do nothing then that's just as bad. one thing for sure tho whatever needs to be done needs to be done with international backing unlike the last time.
even if we did enforce some sort of no fly zone or dirupt air space some bloke will just be roped into walking in with it strapped to their chest or the party that did it would figure out how to launch it in a rocket etc.
even if we did enforce some sort of no fly zone or dirupt air space some bloke will just be roped into walking in with it strapped to their chest or the party that did it would figure out how to launch it in a rocket etc.
Lets just be clear. The UK declaring war on Syria is a stupid idea that no sensible person here would suggest.
However, a combined NATO effort to stop atrocities, I would be inclined to support.
If you see a defenceless old lady getting a kick-in from a 17yr old ned in the street - do you shrug your shoulders and walk on? "It's her problem...." I might be in the minority, but I'd step in and help
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
However, a combined NATO effort to stop atrocities, I would be inclined to support.
If you see a defenceless old lady getting a kick-in from a 17yr old ned in the street - do you shrug your shoulders and walk on? "It's her problem...." I might be in the minority, but I'd step in and help
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Adamski said:
A voice of reason at last!
I think the short answer is no
I heard Cameron talk about moral imperatives over libya
I heard lots of people talk and justify Iraq - and the deaths that the US and UK caused in Iraq were horrendous
Im not convinced that there are no innocents being murdered in Libya, Egypt, Iraq or Afghanistan - and our brand has suffered horribly, the costs are astronomical and no one thinks we were in the right
I listened to the Syrian foreign minister today and he gave me no confidence, he seemed to say that we were all just in league with Isreal and that any involvement from us would be met by defence by them and support by russia
I cant help thinking that any action has to be local to where the impact of the action is being felt. Perhaps the neighbouring countries should be involved. I would say the UN should earn its keep but in all the recent theatres the UN continually makes the case for its disbandment in my opinion.
I heard Cameron talk about moral imperatives over libya
I heard lots of people talk and justify Iraq - and the deaths that the US and UK caused in Iraq were horrendous
Im not convinced that there are no innocents being murdered in Libya, Egypt, Iraq or Afghanistan - and our brand has suffered horribly, the costs are astronomical and no one thinks we were in the right
I listened to the Syrian foreign minister today and he gave me no confidence, he seemed to say that we were all just in league with Isreal and that any involvement from us would be met by defence by them and support by russia
I cant help thinking that any action has to be local to where the impact of the action is being felt. Perhaps the neighbouring countries should be involved. I would say the UN should earn its keep but in all the recent theatres the UN continually makes the case for its disbandment in my opinion.
I don't see what NATO has to do with this situation at all. I agree with Dom - who are we, or the US, to police the world ? A defenceless old lady in a street in my country ? Sure, I'll wade in any day of the week. That sort of action threatens my country and the morals we live by as a nation, and is unacceptable. But this doesn't directly affect our national security, so whilst someone should take some form of action it shouldn't be the same old suspects doing it without the consensus of the rest of the developed world. If any organisation has the remit to get involved then it's the UN - it's their job to sort this sort of thing out, not ours. Irrespective of their recent failure to do so - which may have been lessened if we and the US and the French etc. weren't so committed on our unilateral fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Oh, and talking of the 'developed' world... Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps all this unrest is just a part of the Middle East countries growing into themselves, much as we in Europe and the US and the developed far eastern countries did centuries ago ? We can't tell these people who they should be and how they should behave by force - they need to figure it out for themselves, with perhaps some guidance from the UN.
I am sick and tired of us sending our (ever dwindling) armed forces off into the teeth of conflicts to die for causes that are essentially those of the US. If we can't afford to maintain those same armed forces, how can we justify any sort of action overseas, away from our borders, against a sovereign nation that has no direct bearing on our existence, when frankly money that is supposed to be going towards our economic recovery ends up being diverted to such action ?
Oh, and talking of the 'developed' world... Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps all this unrest is just a part of the Middle East countries growing into themselves, much as we in Europe and the US and the developed far eastern countries did centuries ago ? We can't tell these people who they should be and how they should behave by force - they need to figure it out for themselves, with perhaps some guidance from the UN.
I am sick and tired of us sending our (ever dwindling) armed forces off into the teeth of conflicts to die for causes that are essentially those of the US. If we can't afford to maintain those same armed forces, how can we justify any sort of action overseas, away from our borders, against a sovereign nation that has no direct bearing on our existence, when frankly money that is supposed to be going towards our economic recovery ends up being diverted to such action ?
sp3ctre said:
Only one article, but there's plenty other info online :
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes
Apparently every terrorist killed in Pakistan 'costs' 49 civilians. Great job Uncle Sam
I dont think the west can really economically afford to intervene either.
With the growing American deficit and only our economy slowly picking up the last thing we need it for us to meddle to escalate this further... although someone told me all the previous super recessions resulted in War :?
All 5 permanent UN nations (including Russia) will need to back any action - The Assad regeme and Iran have already warned any meddling with be regrettable - us taking sides will inevitable bring Russia and China to support Assad.
Interestingly enough Edgar Cayce predicted in the 1930's that if there was a world war 3 it would be in either, Tunis, Egypt, Libya and Damascus!
With the growing American deficit and only our economy slowly picking up the last thing we need it for us to meddle to escalate this further... although someone told me all the previous super recessions resulted in War :?
All 5 permanent UN nations (including Russia) will need to back any action - The Assad regeme and Iran have already warned any meddling with be regrettable - us taking sides will inevitable bring Russia and China to support Assad.
Interestingly enough Edgar Cayce predicted in the 1930's that if there was a world war 3 it would be in either, Tunis, Egypt, Libya and Damascus!
Bing said:
It's a good job we didn't have a UN before WW2. Imagine the hand-wringing that would've gone on when Hitler invaded Poland. We'd still be deciding what to do now if it had existed back then.
I don't think anyone is talking about taking sides here. It's up to Syrians to decide ultimately but when one side has massive military might and weapons of mass destruction that is uses against its own civilians it is morally wrong to stand aside and say "not my problem guv".