Syria

so if we do go over there - who exactly do we kill ?

is there any source of news that is independent and accurate?

the only thing that is certain - if we get involved the way that we have pursued peace in the last 10 years - even more innocents will die

oh no - there is in fact one other certainty - the powers that be will drip feed us with whatever "facts, lies and stories" it wants in order to justify the actions that for their own political ends they have decided to execute.

We are unfortunately blind and cannot really have a balanced opinion, i love the comment posted earlier, look at the results and work backwards.

I cant forget that the american way of waging war in iraq was to take over the biggest most powerful bombs it possessed in order to stop a man from using a weapon of mass destruction and no one saw the irony
 
original guvnor 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".
Click to expand...

my sentiments too on the UN. they will still be having a meeting to decide which biscuits are politically neutral enough to have in the meeting to decide if they should have a meeting
about this.

Im sure they do great stuff but it just seems to take them ages by which point too many have died.

its a doozie for sure as nothing is right.

one thing is it seems like experts are pretty sure it was chemical attack and not a hoax. in part this has been from the number of bits of media/social media/video etc that can be found. the one on the bbc was bad enough but other are worse. whoever did this is playing a very high stakes game if they are trying to entice the west into a fight.

chris you are right about being blind. that is why the team that goes to assess what happened needs to be unilaterally backed and totally independent.
 
This isn't in any way comparable to WW1 or WW2. Nobody has invaded anyone else... Though it would seem we are contemplating - yet again - doing exactly that. Oh, but hold on - because we're the Good Guys with the upstanding morals its ok, right ?

If you want to compare it to the world wars, how about this - the US plus entourage go into Syria, a bunch of middle eastern states decide they really don't like the constant threat of being invaded by the US, so they take action themselves in response - Iran lets off a nuke or two at Israel, maybe Egypt for good measure too (since it's military is also funded by the US), and hey presto - WW3.

Something needs done, I agree - I am not saying we stand aside and say 'its not our problem'. But do you know what ? Really, it isn't.

Moan all you like about the UN - but saying it is useless does not mean the US can do what it likes 'because there's no time to wait'. Maybe the UN needs fixed before we go fixing everyone else's problems...
 
chris g said:
so if we do go over there - who exactly do we kill ?

is there any source of news that is independent and accurate?

the only thing that is certain - if we get involved the way that we have pursued peace in the last 10 years - even more innocents will die

I cant forget that the american way of waging war in iraq was to take over the biggest most powerful bombs it possessed in order to stop a man from using a weapon of mass destruction and no one saw the irony
Click to expand...

No the irony is that more civilians are reputed to be already dead in Syria than died during whole the Iraq war and the insurgency that followed.
 
Bing said:
This isn't in any way comparable to WW1 or WW2. Nobody has invaded anyone else... Though it would seem we are contemplating - yet again - doing exactly that. Oh, but hold on - because we're the Good Guys with the upstanding morals its ok, right ?
Click to expand...

Nobody is advocating invasion Bing. Just trying to stop chemical weapons being deployed on civilians. There is very big difference.
 
original guvnor said:
chris g said:
so if we do go over there - who exactly do we kill ?

is there any source of news that is independent and accurate?

the only thing that is certain - if we get involved the way that we have pursued peace in the last 10 years - even more innocents will die

I cant forget that the american way of waging war in iraq was to take over the biggest most powerful bombs it possessed in order to stop a man from using a weapon of mass destruction and no one saw the irony
Click to expand...

No the irony is that more civilians are reputed to be already dead in Syria than died during whole the Iraq war and the insurgency that followed.
Click to expand...


Im sure the key word there is "reputed" just like the "reputed" wmd

just like every detail that the press feed us is "reputed" to be true. Lets face it - even with independent reviewers, we will be kept in the dark and fed whatever lies are deemed suitable and we cannot possibly know the truth of this or any situation.

Actually - there is one truth we may discern, if we get involved, its because the politicians think its a vote winner, if we dont, then they dont.

The concept that a UK or US government cares about ANY innocent people in ANY country enough to spend a single £ is just lunacy. We may feel that its a terrible shame (and we all do), but no government will raise a finger for anything less than power, votes or money and human suffering is none of those things
 
That old chestnut about the politicians. Haven't you worked out yet that we get the politicians we deserve? Guess what - you get the chance to vote them in or out. If you don't like what they do then do something about it. Politicians are self-serving, prone to corruption and lies just like the rest of the society are. Nearly half the electorate can't be arsed to vote and probably about three quarters of those who do probably have no idea of the manifesto they are voting for.

I'm sure it wouldn't be "reputed" if you were denouncing something the Americans had allegedly done.
 
You may feel that you get the politcians that you deserve. Has it escaped your attention that they don't seem to be much different - ever? Voting one self serving non identity for another has yet to solve any problems at home or abroad.

I personally believe we need a completely different system, but thats another story.

I cant work out from your last sentence whether you think i am pro US or not and to be clear with you; I think that ALL politicians from EVERY country lie and EVERY fact provide by them or their supporters can only be classed "reputed" until it can be validated.

My biggest problem is that its impossible to validate the facts - whether its your data point about innocent deaths in 2 locations or who discharged chemicals.

And without facts we cant really make good decisions, but its not in anyone's interest to empower the public with truth
 
As a nation we get the politicians we deserve. Without question.

Isn't it a bit naive to expect certified exact facts about something like casualties in a civil war? You have to come to the best conclusion with the information you can verify. It's not a perfect science. Nor is the majority of the rest of life. What do you suppose we do? Do nothing because we can't be 100% certain? We'd never achieve anything or do anything.
 
original guvnor said:
Bing said:
This isn't in any way comparable to WW1 or WW2. Nobody has invaded anyone else... Though it would seem we are contemplating - yet again - doing exactly that. Oh, but hold on - because we're the Good Guys with the upstanding morals its ok, right ?
Click to expand...

Nobody is advocating invasion Bing. Just trying to stop chemical weapons being deployed on civilians. There is very big difference.
Click to expand...

Fair point OG - nobody here is advocating invasion, and I get that deploying chemical weapons anywhere at anyone is abhorrent. I guess where I'm coming from is that we've heard the kind of language being used by the politicians before, and there is a certain amount of inevitability about the potential outcome based on recent history.

As for commenting on the politicians themselves... Staying away from that, but I agree we get what we vote for. I just hope Cameron et al are more considered and open about the whys, wherefores and objectives of whatever decision is taken than our last government was.
 
original guvnor said:
As a nation we get the politicians we deserve. Without question.

Isn't it a bit naive to expect certified exact facts about something like casualties in a civil war? You have to come to the best conclusion with the information you can verify. It's not a perfect science. Nor is the majority of the rest of life. What do you suppose we do? Do nothing because we can't be 100% certain? We'd never achieve anything or do anything.
Click to expand...


I wonder how much harm we would have wreaked had we waited for certainty.
 
chris g said:
original guvnor said:
As a nation we get the politicians we deserve. Without question.

Isn't it a bit naive to expect certified exact facts about something like casualties in a civil war? You have to come to the best conclusion with the information you can verify. It's not a perfect science. Nor is the majority of the rest of life. What do you suppose we do? Do nothing because we can't be 100% certain? We'd never achieve anything or do anything.
Click to expand...


I wonder how much harm we would have wreaked had we waited for certainty.
Click to expand...

You'd say not as much I'd say more. We'll never agree.
 
No we shouldnt intervene.

Iraq invasion and intervention was based on lies.

The "Thin Red Line" was crossed by the Al-Qaeda "freedom fighters". The Syrian seized chemical weapons were used on their own people fired by means of missles...not planes.

The reason being to allow American and Nato intervention to help a losing side in a civil war. Or in simple terms a False flag attack.

Assad had no reason to use chemical weapons, he is clearly winning the war.


In January 29, 2013, Britain’s most popular Daily Newspaper, in its online version Dailymail.co.uk published an article titled:

U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’

A few days later they pulled the article.

What the reason was for the deletion remains unclear. The article was published at this URL:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

There exists a cached version of the article which can be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

Wake up people.
 
I'm not advocating killing, invasion, war, a repeat of Iraq. None of that stuff.

If the UN conclude that the Assad regime have used chemical weapons on civilians (in order to stay in power and keep rebels living in a state of fear) - I'm saying that if all NATO member countries agree; I would support NATO taking out Assad's weapons capabilities, thereby stopping the regime killing more civilians.

Nobody wants a repeat of Iraq. Nobody wants troops on the ground. Controlled strikes against key targets, such as weapons depots, military airfields etc - yes.

If it all backs down, and no more civilians are killed - then we don't strike.

However, surely there's a point where action has to be taken? How many more civilians need to die? 2,000? 10,000? :(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
original guvnor said:
I wondered how long it would take for the conspiracy theorists to turn up and blame everything on the Americans (again).
Click to expand...

Usual sniping comment of no value...go back to sleep gumbo.
 
Adamski said:
I'm not advocating killing, invasion, war, a repeat of Iraq. None of that stuff.

If the UN conclude that the Assad regime have used chemical weapons on civilians (in order to stay in power and keep rebels living in a state of fear) - I'm saying that if all NATO member countries agree; I would support NATO taking out Assad's weapons capabilities, thereby stopping the regime killing more civilians.

Nobody wants a repeat of Iraq. Nobody wants troops on the ground. Controlled strikes against key targets, such as weapons depots, military airfields etc - yes.

If it all backs down, and no more civilians are killed - then we don't strike.

However, surely there's a point where action has to be taken? How many more civilians need to die? 2,000? 10,000? :(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What if the rebels used the chemical weapons on their own people....would you support Assad in tackling the "freedom fighters"?
 
I think once we have facts (not here-say), action should be taken to stop the perpetrators killing more civilians


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hah this thread..

A few points..

I don't care who you are, or what your opinion is.. 100k civilians dead? someone needs to do something. fact. There are snipers shooting at children on a daily basis in parts of Aleppo.

I know a few Syrian nationals, who happen to live in London but basically all send money back to Syria. They say it's now a case of neither side is better than the other, Assad was terrible, but now there's Al Qaeda mixed in with the rebels the majority civilian body supports neither. Assad needs to go, but leaving the country without leadership and government for the likes of large global terror organisations to take hold is not an option, and would likely lead to a worse situation.

Air strikes seem pretty pointless, the evidence so far suggests chemical weapons were fired using Iranian shells, they're not dropped from air assets.. so bombing airfields and military bases is largely useless... unless you bomb them all, and assume they never have any weapons outside military bases.

The French and the Arab League (oh you need to buy more oil Mr Obama?) are sat back poking 'The West' (UK & USA) to do something, unwilling to step in themselves. The only good outcome would be UN peacekeeping intervention, or at least NATO - but the UN has allowed 100k deaths so far, and no evidence they collect from weapons inspectors will prove who launched the weapons (don't forget.. this could just be Al Qaeda setting off bombs) so i doubt they'll do anything fast enough.

The US can't be seen to be arming rebels much more than they already are as they're essentially giving guns to Al Qaeda, so the CIA have been lightly orchestrating this through the Saudis and Jordan, with wedges of ex-Chechen conflict equipment. Equally with Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, China all backing Assad we can't do anything Iraq style.

At the end of the day, i don't want the UK involved in any more conflicts than we have to and i really think the UN needs to do something, but i'm not happy that 100 thousand.. one hundred thousand.. people are dead, and nobody has done a thing about it. If we do nothing, the death toll WILL rise, no plan will ever be perfect and without unwanted casualties but we may be able to do something to stop this.

With regards to the Daily Mail conspiracy theorist.. you made me chuckle, but i guess if you think there's any truth to it, ring the journalist!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom