Syria (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Samo
Well-Known Member
You feel really strongly about this NOPM business right Nick?
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
I think the politicians should use economic sanctions first, nopm if you like, only kidding Nick, seriously no i don't think we should get involved, yet, as the proof isn't conclusive but i do think that whoever is responsible should be hung.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
We should wait for the UN.
We should also take a smaller part in any escalation like other EU nations.
We should also take a smaller part in any escalation like other EU nations.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Any land that needs decontamination should involve Ccfc and Tescos.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
100000 dead, millions displaced in the most recent experience where we allowed those with power to kill, rape, mutilate defenceless groups of people in Europe in the 90's. We doing nothing again?
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
I have never agreed with any government trampling over its people or any other country being "invaded" by another. And I'll be very controversial as well: the Spanish should claim back Gibraltar and the Falklands should be Argentinian.
Nick
Administrator
Want my thoughts on this well here goes........
This thread should be in the 'off topic' forum. You should know better Nick
Damn I thought I had!!! Damn phone, moved it now
M&B Stand
Well-Known Member
Any food that needs to be distributed to refugee's should be supplied by Compass
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Before we start even contemplating giving Gibralter away...we should demand the Spanish set an example by giving Ceuta & Melilla up to Morocco, & the Argentines should give up their claim to Antartican territory. If we got to that point we should then let the people decide just like we are doing in Scotland...we bend over backwards to pacify others.
As for getting involved in Syria - it's bugger all to do with us...let them have their wars. It seems it's almost acceptable...bar a few disapproving harrumps for these Governmets to shoot bullets & fire shells at their iwn people - but chemical weapons are a no-no?! we either get stuck in & do it properly ourselves like times gone by, or leave well alone. If it's loss of oil supply our governments are really concerned for, & we want or need it so bad, then we should just come out & say it then do the Empire building thing again...or pay the going rate for the stuff based upon supply & demand.
VegetableSamosa
New Member
With America, Russia and China getting involved and arming the various sides, what's the point in the UK getting involved too? It's just be a waste of money with no discernable results. The Americans can do it without us.
That being said, if we want to get involved and look to be helping then why not help the refugees in Turkey and surrounding regions, maybe in the country itself. No other country is doing this on a large scale and it is somewhere we can actually make a noticable, tangiable difference and differentiate ourselves from the superpowers throwing their weight around for their own gains. Syria, and the Middle East, would be better for not having another drawn out war and millions of refugees/future terrorists.
It's got to the point where there are so many rebel groups you can't choose their side because they don't stand for one thing. I'm not saying Assad is right, but they have a government and state in place, they don't seem to be the ones using the gas and it would be the best bet for stability. Maybe say we'll peacekeep whilst free and fair elections are held (and observed by the UN). That way we support the country without picking sides and hopefully Syria is left in some sort of decent state.
However, if we do send in troops, I will support them and obviously wish them the best. Living in Colchester, I've had my run ins with Squaddies, but they're great guys and it's a ghost town when they leave.
TL;DR Help refugees, don't have a fight. Help protect Syria as a state without picking sides.
That being said, if we want to get involved and look to be helping then why not help the refugees in Turkey and surrounding regions, maybe in the country itself. No other country is doing this on a large scale and it is somewhere we can actually make a noticable, tangiable difference and differentiate ourselves from the superpowers throwing their weight around for their own gains. Syria, and the Middle East, would be better for not having another drawn out war and millions of refugees/future terrorists.
It's got to the point where there are so many rebel groups you can't choose their side because they don't stand for one thing. I'm not saying Assad is right, but they have a government and state in place, they don't seem to be the ones using the gas and it would be the best bet for stability. Maybe say we'll peacekeep whilst free and fair elections are held (and observed by the UN). That way we support the country without picking sides and hopefully Syria is left in some sort of decent state.
However, if we do send in troops, I will support them and obviously wish them the best. Living in Colchester, I've had my run ins with Squaddies, but they're great guys and it's a ghost town when they leave.
TL;DR Help refugees, don't have a fight. Help protect Syria as a state without picking sides.
Last edited:
Marty
Well-Known Member
No way should we get involved with Syria, It seems to me that the likes of William Hague can't wait to get us involved.
I know this may not be a popular view, but somethings not quite right about this chemical attack. With Americans stance on the use of chemical weapons and the UN chemical weapons team visiting, I can't see how Assad would be stupid enough to carry out something like this now. A rebel attack like this would bring the help and support they need.
I know this may not be a popular view, but somethings not quite right about this chemical attack. With Americans stance on the use of chemical weapons and the UN chemical weapons team visiting, I can't see how Assad would be stupid enough to carry out something like this now. A rebel attack like this would bring the help and support they need.
I don't think we should give a penny more to another power struggle in a middle Eastern country ! The opposition to Assad will turn round and resent us sooner or later anyway, especially if they are being sponsored by the Iranians. I think we should sort out our own problems at home first thanks !
Sky Blue Dal
Well-Known Member
Toche!! I agree... I smell a rat... It all a setup in there plan to invade Iran. If they do go in, then mark my word it will not be a walk in the park like Iraq was.
CaMoron better be prepared for more than just body bags coming home. Then again, he's the PM and will have the best security protection tax payers money can buy whilst we the British tax payers are sitting ducks.
What I want to ask is where is the evidence that Assads regime used chemical these weapons. It is known fact that the rebels also possess chemical agents. Only recently a number of these rebels who are majority foreign insurgence were intercepted by Turkish officials carrying toxic chemical agents. How do we know if an undercover chemical factory run by the rebels was hit during the Syrian air raids. We have evidence only from the rebels who are losing the war and in desperation to get a upper hand at any cost.
Another question for people with short memories is where is the evidence that Saddam had WMD??
VegetableSamosa
New Member
Thing is, they are doing it differently this time. They're putting it to a vote in the Commons after all attempts to get a UN resolution fails (which they will) and after the UN Weapons Inspectors have published their report. The decision won't be made in private on the basis of made up facts, but our MPs will decided based on public evidence. Bear in mind, they didn't do the vote today (29/08) because they knew they would lose it and they are not using emergency powers like Obama will do. This shows that they are actually not that eager to rush into another war. It should be different to Iraq in this respect, however I agree that the war will not be easy and our efforts should be elsewhere, like I said in my last post.
I dislike the Tories as much as the next guy and I hate to admit this, but Hague has made the right decision (in my mind) doing it this way. In fact, it's probably the only thing the coalition has done right. Unfortunately, no one trusts politicians.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
It's Politics...there is usually a rat involved.
Probably right in your
comment - there will be a SISU style umbrella strategy in place for achieving "stability" in the region.
GASP
...not much of a walk in the park for those who were killed or injured/traumatised. I think I understand your point though.
...aha, there's one rat!
...err there was sufficiently convincing evidence of WOMDs before the Iraq invasion.
...is it?
Are the "majority foreign"? Or are you believing the media (fatal error beyond the headline of almost any story...by paragraph 2 speculation usually kicks-in). Also, can/should we take the "Turkish officials" word? Is their word better than Syria's or US's word?
...we don't know that, & we will have to wait an indeterminable time for it to be uncovered if that was the case.
sky blue zam
Member
especially when soldiers are getting made redundant. why does the pm and the yanks think its a good idea to stick their nose into other countries business all the time. sooner or later it will all go wrong especially with the chinese and russians getting involved.
just stay out of it and save money at the same time
VegetableSamosa
New Member
That's exactly what it means.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
""It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."
So...just to emphasise...It is CLEAR...THE BRITISH PEOPLE, does not wish to SEE British military action. He gets that & the government will ACT ACCORDINGLY.
So act accordingly with what specifically? Parliamentary reflection of the view of the British people? America's decisions/actions...hiding our military involvement so that we do not SEE it? Or, undertake covert action at home, or in Syria, to turn opinion around to what the government wants to do?
So...just to emphasise...It is CLEAR...THE BRITISH PEOPLE, does not wish to SEE British military action. He gets that & the government will ACT ACCORDINGLY.
So act accordingly with what specifically? Parliamentary reflection of the view of the British people? America's decisions/actions...hiding our military involvement so that we do not SEE it? Or, undertake covert action at home, or in Syria, to turn opinion around to what the government wants to do?
spwaverley4916
Active Member
quite right trouble is its the condem that listens to what the the US president says - so i tend to think that we will end up supporting whatever the usa does - either up front or behind the the scenes
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Too often has the expectation been from the US that we will blindly follow them into ill advised invasions of the Middle East to retain the 'special relationship'. What of all the other nations we support who exhibit scant regard for their own citizens' welfare? If the Yanks want to bomb the hell out of Syria and go in all guns blazing then let them-just like Iraq and Afghanistan this is not our fight but this time at last common sense has prevailed.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Well, its prevailed for now....
...but I believe the strategic position of Syria with regards Suez canal & all the oil pipelines to the Med & into Europe via Turkey etc. is too bigger prize to resist....
...And all the global multi-nationals such as G4, Haliburton, Serco, Academi etc. etc. will be lobbying like fuck for intervention......
Intervention = big money contracts.
...but I believe the strategic position of Syria with regards Suez canal & all the oil pipelines to the Med & into Europe via Turkey etc. is too bigger prize to resist....
...And all the global multi-nationals such as G4, Haliburton, Serco, Academi etc. etc. will be lobbying like fuck for intervention......
Intervention = big money contracts.
Just for a little balance on this.....Securing many British (company) owned oilfields will protect us from (even more) fuel hikes. The major investment that always comes at the end of any war to repair/create infrastructure will typically go to those that helped win that war.
We are talking big money here. Money that would save jobs or maybe even create a few.
It a very fine economic arguement..Ask Kellogg Brown and Root
We are talking big money here. Money that would save jobs or maybe even create a few.
It a very fine economic arguement..Ask Kellogg Brown and Root
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Would you be happy with our soldiers dying for more oil?