Syria (merged)

[Scottyboi]

Because of Russia's stance on this no one will do anything.
The yanks are isolated

Yep, I wonder what the reaction would be if this was Israel, America saying no and Russia wanting to intervene haha.

 

[Blue Hefner]

I think one of the main issues is that there is no 'face' of oppositition.

Are the Americans just going to bomb the chemical weapons factories and let Assad carry on killing his own people with conventional weapons or are the looking for 'regime change'?

Its a very tough situation esp with all the pictures of dead children on the news but I think any action must have an idea of how it will end

*this has probably been covered, that just my view*

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Israel doing their best to get things started this morning. Sniffing at the Russian fleets Radars by launching a couple of Rockets. Got the finacial markets moving too!

 

[BlueHammer85]

We cant as a nation lie about a country and its weapons of mass destruction and get involved but then turn a blind eye so to speak when it has been proven.

The vote and subsequent decision not to get involved has finally seen the end of us as a nation ever having any real say around the world or being taken seriously again.

As for parliament expressing the wishes of the people....that will be a fucking first and what a load of bollox. The vote was nothing more than self serving political games and showed the world what a set of twats we have in parliament.

Ashdown was 100% correct.

should we step in in thousands are being slaughtered by non weapons of mass destruction or chemicals ?

 

[AntiUnited]

Because of Russia's stance on this no one will do anything.
The yanks are isolated

Yep, I wonder what the reaction would be if this was Israel, America saying no and Russia wanting to intervene haha.

Lol we would nuke Russia before they even the attempt was made. its pathetic how much we protect that place.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

We cant as a nation lie about a country and its weapons of mass destruction and get involved but then turn a blind eye so to speak when it has been proven.

The vote and subsequent decision not to get involved has finally seen the end of us as a nation ever having any real say around the world or being taken seriously again.

As for parliament expressing the wishes of the people....that will be a fucking first and what a load of bollox. The vote was nothing more than self serving political games and showed the world what a set of twats we have in parliament.

Ashdown was 100% correct.

should we step in in thousands are being slaughtered by non weapons of mass destruction or chemicals ?

Oh do get off Skashion's dick, its embarrassing

 

[2sheikhs]

I wouldn't put up with that, Skash!!! Someone's just said your dick's embarrassing.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

I wouldn't put up with that, Skash!!! Someone's just said your dick's embarrassing.

He showed you it too?

 

[blueinsa]

We cant as a nation lie about a country and its weapons of mass destruction and get involved but then turn a blind eye so to speak when it has been proven.

The vote and subsequent decision not to get involved has finally seen the end of us as a nation ever having any real say around the world or being taken seriously again.

As for parliament expressing the wishes of the people....that will be a fucking first and what a load of bollox. The vote was nothing more than self serving political games and showed the world what a set of twats we have in parliament.

Ashdown was 100% correct.

should we step in in thousands are being slaughtered by non weapons of mass destruction or chemicals ?

Should we stand up against a dictator and regime that uses sarin gas against its own people?

Of course we fucking should.

Should our politicians behave in a morally responsible way on such an important issue instead of acting like 5 year olds, cheering and sneering at each other in a game of political point scoring whilst thousands are being murdered by sarin gas?

Of course they fucking should!

 

[Unknown_Genius]

We cant as a nation lie about a country and its weapons of mass destruction and get involved but then turn a blind eye so to speak when it has been proven.

The vote and subsequent decision not to get involved has finally seen the end of us as a nation ever having any real say around the world or being taken seriously again.

As for parliament expressing the wishes of the people....that will be a fucking first and what a load of bollox. The vote was nothing more than self serving political games and showed the world what a set of twats we have in parliament.

Ashdown was 100% correct.

should we step in in thousands are being slaughtered by non weapons of mass destruction or chemicals ?

Should we stand up against a dictator and regime that uses sarin gas against its own people?

Of course we fucking should.

Should our politicians behave in a morally responsible way on such an important issue instead of acting like 5 year olds, cheering and sneering at each other in a game of political point scoring whilst thousands are being murdered by sarin gas?

Of course they fucking should!

Its a good job the West has never used chemical weapons on innocent people or supplied any to dictators then turned their back when they used them...

 

[Skashion]

Should we stand up against a dictator and regime that uses sarin gas against its own people?

Of course we fucking should.

Should our politicians behave in a morally responsible way on such an important issue instead of acting like 5 year olds, cheering and sneering at each other in a game of political point scoring whilst thousands are being murdered by sarin gas?

Of course they fucking should!

If it was that simple then your stance makes sense. However, it isn't. Al Qaeda's affiliates Al Nusra are the ones who will gain from weakening Assad. It will prolong the war, and lead to more deaths, as a minimum. If it leads to Al Nusra winning, we're probably talking genocide. They've already threatened it, and they've already started committing massacres. Indeed, as many non-Sunni civilians have probably died at the hands at the hands of Sunni rebels and Al Nusra as Sunnis at the hands of Assad. Google 'Al Nusra massacres'. You can't wave a magic wand in Syria. Whatever happens, people are going to die. The moral course is to take the route which leads to the fewest deaths. To me, that looks like you leave Assad to it. A longer war, or Taliban II (now with Shiite, Christian and Kurds to subjugate and massacre), is not an answer to Assad's crimes. Morally the answer cannot be more deaths because we'll feel better about it because we displayed our concern with cruise missiles. Want to do something then support aid efforts.

 

[blueinsa]

Should we stand up against a dictator and regime that uses sarin gas against its own people?

Of course we fucking should.

Should our politicians behave in a morally responsible way on such an important issue instead of acting like 5 year olds, cheering and sneering at each other in a game of political point scoring whilst thousands are being murdered by sarin gas?

Of course they fucking should!

If it was that simple then your stance makes sense. However, it isn't. Al Qaeda's affiliates Al Nustra are the ones who will gain from weakening Assad. It will prolong the war, and lead to more deaths, as a minimum. If it leads to Al Nustra winning, we're probably talking genocide. They've already threatened it, and they've already started committing massacres. Indeed, as many non-Sunni civilians have probably died at the hands at the hands of Sunni rebels and Al Nustra as at the hands of Assad. You can't wave a magic wand in Syria. Whatever happens, people are going to die. The moral course is to take the route which leads to the fewest deaths. To me, that looks like you leave Assad to it. A longer war, or Taliban II (now with Shiite, Christian and Kurds to subjugate and massacre), is not an answer to Assad's crimes.

Of course it isn't that simple mate. My rant was more against the pathetic behaviour i witnessed last week during and after the vote.

Given your obvious knowledge on this subject mate, what aims do you think the US has in taking the military route? I would assume they know full well the implications it will have given the mess that Iraq and Afghanistan have become post military action and what influence has Israel got in all of this?

Is the long term aim Iran and the chance to go at them?

 

[Skashion]

Is the long term aim Iran and the chance to go at them?

They want Iran isolated definitely. Will we ever see boots on the ground in Iran? Probably not, that would be unutterably stupid. It's a huge place with some harsh terrain and the casualties would make Iraq look like a picnic. What they want though is an Iran scared enough to play ball, to bow their heads and lick Uncle Sam's sweaty testicles. You've also got to remember the huge power of the military-industrial complex in the United States. The amount of money which goes on military spending over there is incredible. Well over half a trillion dollars a year, and a lot more discretionary spending when the US is at war. More war, more money. Money talks big in the United States, try looking at how expensive elections are over there. That money comes from corporate donors, and a lot of it comes from the military-industrial complex. There's also a powerful organisation called the PNAC you should look at. See this PNAC report (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.webcitation.org/5e3est5lT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.webcitation.org/5e3est5lT</a>) from September 2000, it outlines the Neocon thinking. Iran is mentioned as a threat:

Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve,
retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.

 

[blueinsa]

Is the long term aim Iran and the chance to go at them?

They want Iran isolated definitely. Will we ever see boots on the ground in Iran? Probably not, that would be unutterably stupid. It's a huge place with some harsh terrain and the casualties would make Iraq look like a picnic. What they want though is an Iran scared enough to play ball, to bow their heads and lick Uncle Sam's sweaty testicles. You've also got to remember the huge power of the military-industrial complex in the United States. The amount of money which goes on military spending over there is incredible. Well over half a trillion dollars a year, and a lot more discretionary spending when the US is at war. More war, more money. Money talks big in the United States, try looking at how expensive elections are over there. That money comes from corporate donors, and a lot of it comes from the military-industrial complex. There's also a powerful organisation called the PNAC you should look at. See this PNAC report from September 2000, it outlines the Neocon thinking. Iran is mentioned as a threat:

Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve,
retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.

Interesting point re defence industries and it would be enlightening to see just how many politicians both sides of the pond have a hand and financial interest in participating companies?

 

[Skashion]

Interesting point re defence industries and it would be enlightening to see just how many politicians both sides of the pond have a hand and financial interest in participating companies?

It's a lot, I'll go and find you some info and post later but I've a few errands to run. Something interesting though. This is a long-term issue. This is Eisenhower's farewell address (final speech as President) in 1961, and he chose to use it to warn about the military-industrial complex:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY[/youtube]

 

[stonerblue]

should we step in in thousands are being slaughtered by non weapons of mass destruction or chemicals ?

Should we stand up against a dictator and regime that uses sarin gas against its own people?

Of course we fucking should.

Should our politicians behave in a morally responsible way on such an important issue instead of acting like 5 year olds, cheering and sneering at each other in a game of political point scoring whilst thousands are being murdered by sarin gas?

Of course they fucking should!

Its a good job the West has never used chemical weapons on innocent people or supplied any to dictators then turned their back when they used them...

innit...

 

[Gelsons Dad]

People keep using the "we did bad stuff once or failed to act when bad stuff happened so what right do we have to intervene now" argument.

This is utter nonsense. Two wrongs do not make a right. They make twice as much wrong and the prospect of more!

By failing to act we are turning a blind eye to the use of an horrific type of warfare. It takes billions to make a nuke, it takes only the will to make sarin. Allow this to go unpunished and you give a green light to all those who previously held back from using these indiscriminate weapons.

It is also rather narrow minded to use the perceived consequences of action in Syria as a reason to allow this to go unchecked. There is the rest of the world and it's future to think of too. So just as failure to react to African genocides is no reason to not act now. Failure to act now could well be the catalyst for future genocides and then are we to have the same debate?

"We didn't do anything when Assad gassed those kids so why should we intervene now x has wiped out a town with one juicy airburst"

I don't know what the appropriate response should be but I'm fucking glad some people care enough to try and do something.

 

[Ducado]

People keep using the "we did bad stuff once or failed to act when bad stuff happened so what right do we have to intervene now" argument.

This is utter nonsense. Two wrongs do not make a right. They make twice as much wrong and the prospect of more!

By failing to act we are turning a blind eye to the use of an horrific type of warfare. It takes billions to make a nuke, it takes only the will to make sarin. Allow this to go unpunished and you give a green light to all those who previously held back from using these indiscriminate weapons.

It is also rather narrow minded to use the perceived consequences of action in Syria as a reason to allow this to go unchecked. There is the rest of the world and it's future to think of too. So just as failure to react to African genocides is no reason to not act now. Failure to act now could well be the catalyst for future genocides and then are we to have the same debate?

"We didn't do anything when Assad gassed those kids so why should we intervene now x has wiped out a town with one juicy airburst"

I don't know what the appropriate response should be but I'm fucking glad some people care enough to try and do something.

Well said

 

[Skashion]

Still no-one's explained to me why I should care more about deaths caused by gas than those which aren't. Anyone going to try or am I going to have to assume there is no answer?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Still no-one's explained to me why I should care more about deaths caused by gas than those which aren't. Anyone going to try or am I going to have to assume there is no answer?

It's not the deaths Skash, as you well know. It's the use of an horrific and indiscriminate weapon which has been banned by international agreement due to the potentially apocalyptic consequences of it's use. We've seen what delivering it from aircraft can do in Iraq and now we've seen what small quantities delivered by rocket will do. Google what a 500lb airburst would do over a densely populated area if you want to know why I can differentiate between failing to act against savages beheading innocent kids and psychopaths gassing people. The prospect of escalation is unimaginable.