Syria (merged)

[lust overlord]

Markt85 I know you are a wum now.

Either that,too lazy to read the thread,or needs leading by the nose.

 

[Ducado]

As Skashion so eloquently keeps trying to point out, U.S and U.K. military intervention would see a massive escalation in violence. Every 'Jihadist' in the world will want to fight against them.

Why would every Jihadist fight against them? The Jihadists in Syria are fighting against Assad (your getting your groups mixed up)

We can argue about none intervention till the cows come home, but it looks like it is going to happen, I think the thinking is that any intervention may well hasten the end to the civil war and thus prevent it getting any worse, sure there is the risk that it may escalate, but maybe just maybe Governments don't want Lebanon part 2 right on the doorstep of Europe and the Middle East, but a conflict that would be much worse

I am not really into making dire predictions about the outcome, because we don't really know what is going to happen, perhaps it might be better to wait and see how it all turns out, and if the end result sees a quicker end to the civil war it will be a good thing.

 

[Skashion]

Been watching the Parliamentary debate for the past few hours. It really has been at a dreadfully low level of debate. These fuckers are making decisions, really?

 

[Rascal]

Been watching the Parliamentary debate for the past few hours. It really has been at a dreadfully low level of debate. These fuckers are making decisions, really?

I could not watch Comrade, we are going to war again without mandate nor public support.


Fuckin democracy my fucking arse

 

[Skashion]

I could not watch Comrade, we are going to war again without mandate nor public support.


Fuckin democracy my fucking arse

I'm not sure actually, though the government need not actually consult Parliament in order to to intervene. Most people who have spoken are against and it seems there's enough scepticism on both sides of the house to defeat the government, along with Labour's position, that there may be a government defeat on the cards. It's just been a very simplistic debate. For instance, whilst it has been mentioned a couple of times - that the government cannot pretend it isn't intervening in the conflict, as it is trying to claim neutrality, there has literally been ZERO discussion of the consequences of that. The discussion has been on whether the missiles or airstrikes will directly cause casualties. That's far from the main problem. That's barely an issue compared to how many lives will be lost by prolonging the conflict or damaging Assad so badly that Al Nusra gain the upperhand, Britain potentially has the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands on its hands. A few hundred from air or missile strikes is a drop in the ocean.

 

[East Level 2]

Just a thought: Do we (the UK) have a chemical weapons industry?
We certainly have a conventional weapons industry. Obviously I'm not suggesting that is why use of chemical weapons is crossing the line.

 

[DavidSilvasLeftFoot]

Been watching the Parliamentary debate for the past few hours. It really has been at a dreadfully low level of debate. These fuckers are making decisions, really?

I swear Galloway and gerald kauffman were the only one's that was actually arguing against intervention altogether. I didn't really see anyone else arguing against it. Seeing as though the government only has the support of 11% of the population they're far to eager..

 

[Ducado]

Just a thought: Do we (the UK) have a chemical weapons industry?
We certainly have a conventional weapons industry. Obviously I'm not suggesting that is why use of chemical weapons is crossing the line.

We do not posses chemical weapons

 

[GrumpyFrog]

I don't think any of the 5 perm members of the security council want to see a regime change but some might like to see Assad step away from leadership. The alternative is too unpleasant to countenance.

However US/UK/FR will feel they must react in some way to the use of chemical weapons. Again, the alternative is too unpleasant to countenance.

FWIW I expect to see missile and/or SF ops specifically targeted at the chem weapons stockpiles. This response will be seen as appropriate & proportionate, without giving undue assistance to the rebels.

 

[Skashion]

I don't think any of the 5 perm members of the security council want to see a regime change but some might like to see Assad step away from leadership. The alternative is too unpleasant to countenance.

However US/UK/FR will feel they must react in some way to the use of chemical weapons. Again, the alternative is too unpleasant to countenance.

FWIW I expect to see missile and/or SF ops specifically targeted at the chem weapons stockpiles. This response will be seen as appropriate & proportionate, without giving undue assistance to the rebels.

This post is too unpleasant to countenance.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

I don't think any of the 5 perm members of the security council want to see a regime change but some might like to see Assad step away from leadership. The alternative is too unpleasant to countenance.

However US/UK/FR will feel they must react in some way to the use of chemical weapons. Again, the alternative is too unpleasant to countenance.

FWIW I expect to see missile and/or SF ops specifically targeted at the chem weapons stockpiles. This response will be seen as appropriate & proportionate, without giving undue assistance to the rebels.

This post is too unpleasant to countenance.

Which bit do you disagree with?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Just a thought: Do we (the UK) have a chemical weapons industry?
We certainly have a conventional weapons industry. Obviously I'm not suggesting that is why use of chemical weapons is crossing the line.

We do not posses chemical weapons

But we have a history of development and one of the worlds leading institutions for understanding the properties of chemical weapons and defence against their use. You could say we have a chemical weapons defence industry.

google dstl and Porton Down for further info.

 

[paphos-mcfc]

I don't think any of the 5 perm members of the security council want to see a regime change but some might like to see Assad step away from leadership. The alternative is too unpleasant to countenance.

However US/UK/FR will feel they must react in some way to the use of chemical weapons. Again, the alternative is too unpleasant to countenance.

FWIW I expect to see missile and/or SF ops specifically targeted at the chem weapons stockpiles. This response will be seen as appropriate & proportionate, without giving undue assistance to the rebels.

This post is too unpleasant to countenance.

Any missile attempt on Syria would be used as propaganda. Syrian government would claim innocent lives were lost. blah, blah.. If anything, I say bomb fucking Russia. I hate the cunts. Not only that, but they would then not be able to sell weapons to Syria. They're still on some sort form of contract to sell to Syria. (My arse)

 

[80s Shorts]

Just a thought: Do we (the UK) have a chemical weapons industry?
We certainly have a conventional weapons industry. Obviously I'm not suggesting that is why use of chemical weapons is crossing the line.

We do not posses chemical weapons

But we have a history of development and one of the worlds leading institutions for understanding the properties of chemical weapons and defence against their use. You could say we have a chemical weapons defence industry.

google dstl and Porton Down for further info.

In a literal sense Ducado is possibly correct. However, every chemical weapon agent that can be weaponized will be being "researched" in our facilities. With the technology available to us it is a very short step to owning chemical weapons.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

We do not posses chemical weapons

But we have a history of development and one of the worlds leading institutions for understanding the properties of chemical weapons and defence against their use. You could say we have a chemical weapons defence industry.

google dstl and Porton Down for further info.

In a literal sense Ducado is possibly correct. However, every chemical weapon agent that can be weaponized will be being "researched" in our facilities. With the technology available to us it is a very short step to owning chemical weapons.

We have no intention of weaponising. We abandoned that aim in the 50/60s

 

[Chancy Termites]

Been watching the Parliamentary debate for the past few hours. It really has been at a dreadfully low level of debate. These fuckers are making decisions, really?

I swear Galloway and gerald kauffman were the only one's that was actually arguing against intervention altogether. I didn't really see anyone else arguing against it. Seeing as though the government only has the support of 11% of the population they're far to eager..

UKIP are opposed:
http://ukip.org/newsroom/news/851-ukip-opposes-intervention-in-syria

UKIP is strongly opposed to the government's attempts to once again police the world. The Syrian conflict is complex and as with any foreign conflict, not a simple case of good vs. bad.

The Prime Minister seems to be basing his willingness to intervene on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. But the UN weapon inspectors are yet to have completed their work in terms of establishing who carried out this attack.

Britain must learn the painful lessons of the past and not rush into another foreign intervention. Any intervention must carry with it a full mandate from the United Nations rather than a desire by western nations to meddle abroad.

Moral outrage has never been a good basis for war. Even if attacks carried out lead to the fall of Bashar al-Assad as the Coalition and Labour seem to be hoping for, what follows?
We know that the rebels contain extremists who support radical Islam and are steadfast in their opposition to the values we hold dear in this country. For them to topple Assad and take power would be disastrous.

And what reaction will Russia and China have to our intervention in Syria? This conflict could spark a much wider, disastrous and bloody battle.

Perhaps it would be better if we used some of the money that would be spent on this military exercise on aid and relief for the the Syrian population who are suffering.

UKIP doesn't believe in needless foreign adventures that don't directly affect us as a nation. Civil wars are nasty, unpleasant and cruel. But that doesn't mean that we should get involved and increase the bloodshed.

 

[west didsblue]

Parliament has voted against military action.

 

[scotty123]

Cameron defeated by 13 votes, sense at last, keep our fuckin snouts out

 

[kaz7]

Parliament has voted against military action.

This will be interesting to see what cameron will do now

 

[Chancy Termites]

Parliament has voted against military action.

I imagine it will go ahead anyway. Cameron wants to kill brown people just like Blair did and I doubt democracy or morals will stop him, just as it didn't stop Blair.