Off-Topic Looks like we are off to have another war.

Discussion in 'Lounge & Gossip' started by Ichiban, Wednesday 28th Aug, 2013.

  1. Ichiban Founder Staff Team

    England CJ Leeds
    Why does it have to be the UK and the US the first in waging wars BBC News - Syria crisis: UK to put forward UN resolution

    Why can the French and Germans or Spainish take up foreign policy as their duty ?. I can see another Afghanistan and Iraq in the making if we went there.

    WE SHOULD not get involved with this we haven't got the money. The US arm dealers will be rubbing their hands on sales of arms and ammunition its a nice cosy arrangement.

    Tony two face Blair lied to us,has Cameron got his facts right.. :Angry:
  2. StuH Top Contributor ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

    United Kingdom Stuart Lancashire
    France is quite keen so they'll probably chuck a bomb or two. As for everyone else, the simple fact is they don't have the capability to carry out the kind of strikes being proposed.

    Right or wrong? If it wasn't for the disgrace of the Afghan/Iraq war that warmonger Blair was so keen on then this would probably look like a very sensible option, in light of the above war then I think I'd been looking for far more lateral support.
  3. Robbie Valued Contributor ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

    England Robert Lancashire
    We should keep well out of it.
  4. earthsciencer1 Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Bob Wetherby
    Our leaders just cannot resist the posturing. Large elements of both sides of the conflict hate the West and while it seems cruel to say so then let them fight it out themselves, I say. The UN motion from the PM talks about protecting civilians but what about when one of the missiles that we are supposed to be launching misses its target and kills large numbers of them. Alternatively it seems that the Russians have provided Syria with advanced missile defence systems so quite a few could be intercepted and who knows where those would come down.

    And will firing some long range missiles actually do any good anyway? In Iraq it took weeks of continuous bombing to have any impact.

    The next thing would probably be an attack on Israel by some Syrian/Iranian group and who knows what that could lead to.

    Somebody said that leaders jump into wars far too easily because they are remembered for it by posterity.

    Just sheer madness in my opinion.
  5. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    Part of the problem is that we tend to pick and choose where we want to get involved - there is no consistency. Afganistan and Iraq, but not Rwanda or Zimbabwe? Or Tibet.

    If it really was about protecting civilians then the UN would need to be in countries all over the world...
  6. Doc Club Veteran ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    Matt Peterborough
    I understand that if (as expected to be confirmed by the UN on Thursday) Syria has used chemical weapons against its civilians then we need to do something, otherwise it's just giving them permission to do it again. However I am extremely uncomfortable that the US, UK and France are suggesting embarking on military action without the approval of the UN. Have we not learn anything from Tony Blairs invasion of Iraq 12 years ago?!? Also at a time when everyone is protesting about culling 5000 badgers because it's cheaper to shoot them than spend £1m on vaccinating them, how the hell can this country afford to spend billions going to a foreign land and exerting military force on a moral crusade. Isn't about time we let one of the other European step up to the plate for a change?!

    Camerons current strategy is to get the motion passed through parliament. Then go to the UN and say we, the US and France want military action. At which point they expect the Russians to say no and veto it. We then say to the UN 'well the Russians are always stand-offish and their view should be ignored. Then we get to go play 'blow the carp out of a foreign power' without a UN resolution. It's a risky strategy and I'm not sure if it will work. But I have a feeling unless someone categorically tells us all we can't then they're going to do it anyway.
  7. SpeedyGee Administrator Staff Team

    England Speedy Birmingham
    Mugabes probably killed more than 20,000 people but alas Rwanda and Zimbabwe aren't Muslim countries :Blink:
  8. rotation Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Because the Conservative party want other countries to notice them.
  9. StuH Top Contributor ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

    United Kingdom Stuart Lancashire
    Does the same apply to Labour when Col. Blair took Britain to not one but two illegal wars, costing countless lives and billions of pounds? By the way, what's the UN's peace envoy to the middle east view on this? Bomb 'em - tell you what Tony, you're consistent.
    SpeedyGee likes this.
  10. rotation Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Of course, although that was more about getting one person to notice 'Our Tony' than anything else. This seems to be an attempt to get other countries to remember that Westminster exists, and to borrow more money and get the country further into debt...
  11. MickyB Club Veteran ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    So glad he's lost the vote on this one. I bet all our poor soldiers were sitting thinking oh not another :tut: conflict that we have no chance of winning??
  12. RobB Club Veteran ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    Speedy do you really think we go to war with certain countries because they are Muslim?

    Turkey is a huge Muslim country and one of our allies. They want Syria dealt with.

    I'd be surprised if many people think the Taliban are a good thing. Shooting schoolgirls in the head because they want an education. Killing aid workers.

    Iraq was run by a madman who did invade a neighbouring country. The mistake the west made was not finishing him off the first time. That was really wrong.

    Assad has displaced more than two million people. 5000 a day are leaving the country. He is a murderous dictator and if it wasn't for the fact that Russia's only port in the Middle East is in Syria the UN would have a mandate to sort this out by now.
  13. TheDarkKnight Club Veteran ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    I usually like to steer clear on threads like this (on this and other forums!) because of the differing and emotive reactions it can propogate - I hope therefore this contribution is my sole and only post on this particular thread re Syria :Thumbup:

    If Congress ratifies a vote to launch a military operation(s) on Assad, then effectively, the US is siding and bolstering the likes of Al Qaeda and otherf anti-American groups in Syria who are looking (and failing) to topple Assad.

    Considering what they (Al Qaeda) did to the USA, this is sheer lunacy to effectively support the very group that did them and still does them harm.

    As for Assad, there is no crystal clear evidence he or his forces instigated the chem-attack. Just because the US State Dept says they have evidence doesnt make it fact. This evidence still hasnt been made public - or even privately to the UN (whatever boneless structure that stupid institution has). I have relatives and friends in Syria and right across fthe Middle East in every country you can name.

    What you see in the press is not fact. Its what they want you to see. Prime example - my close relative and two of his friends were hit in a roadside bomb attack several months ago (In Damascus, Syria). My relative and one of his friends survived. The other was killed. My relative is a Shia Muslim and his friends were Sunni and Druze/Druid. The perpertrators were part of the Al-Nusra/Al Qaeda group - the same group brutally lynching and killing people and the media chooses to ignore their atrocities since its way easier to focus on Assad.

    Im no fan of Assad - but look at Egypt where their so-called democracy brought in Mr Morsi, a right wing polit-terror chief that was recently ousted. I will conclude by saying that what you see in Syria is not what you think it is so don't make it out as if it is true or fact. There is a lot more to it than meets the eye and the media globally is doing a class A job of dumbing down people and avoiding telling them the reality of these so call Syrian freedom fighters etc.

    Be careful what you wish for in Syria.....if you need evidence, look no further than the balls up in Egypt but on a more murderous scale thanks to that Saudi-Qatari backing of terrorists like Al Nusra/Al Qaeda....
  14. RobB Club Veteran ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    I totally agree with you TDK, I don't trust the rebels either. I don't think a lot of our government does. But if it is proven that Assad had anything to do with the chemical attack, there has to be some form of action.
    No action would effectively give the green light to do it again.
  15. TheDarkKnight Club Veteran ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    IF being the operative word.

    As of now, there is no concrete proof of anything - and certainly not the bullsheet 1400-plus deaths that the US is barking on about. Where are these bodies then?

    And even if Assad did do it, WTF has it got to do with us, the US/France etc anyway? Who died and put "us" in charge over the affairs of other nations? We wouldn't tolerate it here - nor will Assad and the majority of the Syrians that support him either.

    The only people who want action are the terrorists because they havent the might to oust Assad. They thought it would be a walk in the park after seeing leaders in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt being deposed easily - Syria is not like those other nations and those rebels, and the West in general, has screwed up royally thinking it would be.

    Anyway, I digress....
  16. RobB Club Veteran ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    It's not the same because they have an amount of protection from Russia.

    The same as North Korea has with China.

    As for what has it got to do with the rest of the world. The world can not standby and allow someone to use chemical weapons against anyone.
    Using the word terrorists suggests you are quite pro Syrian.

    10% of the country are now refugees.
    100,000 dead seems a great example of a good leader.

    Why doesn't he step down and allow elections?
  17. TheDarkKnight Club Veteran ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    No disrespect to you or anyone else Rob, but I am a LOT more closer to what is going on there than you and a Joe Public/armchair viewers. I use that word "terrorists" to describe the Syrian opposition with merit.

    If you knew even 1% of what I do, you would designate them the same, if not worse.

    I don't recall "the world" doing a fat lot when Saddam used chemical weapons on the northern Iraqis, Kurds (Halabja) or indeed, when the West was backing him when he deployed the same chem-weapons against Iran, the effects of which are still prevalent today?????????????????????????? :Blink:

    And lets say for a moment, the Syrian opposition/rebels/terrorists are the culprits, how exactly will "the world" punish them?

    Thats just it - elections ARE due in 2014, but does the media report that? No.

    Anyway, I've said more than I should have on this thread and will leave it be.
  18. RobB Club Veteran ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    Sorry I should have said democratic elections. Not just elections.
    Why wait until 2014. How many more dead will he be responsible for then.
    Assad is a murderous dictator who needs to go.
    It took a while but Saddam did pay price. I already said not finishing him off the first time was wrong.
  19. Ichiban Founder Staff Team

    England CJ Leeds
    If Asad is saying its was the Syrian opposition/rebels/terrorists who released the sarin gas .. where did they get hold of it from ? it not like a the keys to the canatiser compound was fedex'd to the rebels personally by Asad?
  20. steve4536 Senior Member ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆