Syria (1 Viewer)

[SkyblueBazza]

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

Well if we look at the cash we might save by ridding ourselves of any further changes or regimentation of the marvellous/ridiculous H&S...maybe we could offset the cost of losing the big money you mention. In H&S & NHS we go to amazing lengths & costs to save/prolong lives. So maybe we can save/prolong more lives overall (UK & Syrian) by avoiding fighting over money & oil?

 

---

[VegetableSamosa]

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.

The treaties surrounding Suez mean that the only vessels that cannot pass are those carrying hazardous materials listed by the UN and Warships of a country officially at war with Egypt. All others can pass (and quite frankly, who would stop them with the American 5th fleet in the region). Suez is safe, especially as America is providing "aid" to the Egyptions.

Furthermore, Assad wants to keep those pipelines; he won't bite the hand that feeds. The threat is from the rebels attacking them. So, security could be provided there, but it hasn't been a problem yet.

Those companies will get contracts from the Americans, regardless of Britain going in.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Would you be happy with our soldiers dying for more oil?

Strange one this...it seems costs associated with keeping individuals alive is much higher than the cost of losing them due to battle.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

The treaties surrounding Suez mean that the only vessels that cannot pass are those carrying hazardous materials listed by the UN and Warships of a country officially at war with Egypt. All others can pass (and quite frankly, who would stop them with the American 5th fleet in the region). Suez is safe, especially as America is providing "aid" to the Egyptions.

Furthermore, Assad wants to keep those pipelines; he won't bite the hand that feeds. The threat is from the rebels attacking them. So, security could be provided there, but it hasn't been a problem yet.

Those companies will get contracts from the Americans, regardless of Britain going in.

So this debate is seemingly suggesting that Parliament made the right decision as we all appear to accept that any intervention is merely to protect oil & money...people dying from chemical attack is simply a convenient (or maybe even manufactured!) excuse to intervene?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

So this debate is seemingly suggesting that Parliament made the right decision as we all appear to accept that any intervention is merely to protect oil & money...people dying from chemical attack is simply a convenient (or maybe even manufactured!) excuse to intervene?

That's what it was in Libya and Iraq.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

That's what it was in Libya and Iraq.

I wonder if its a case that the Politicians think we are collectively stupid...or are we almost completely cynical?

 

[skybluefred]

Britain is a not very well off tiny Island Nation. Why should we continually go and fight other Countries wars.
We cannot afford it.

Why do we keep giving Billions of pounds a year in foreign aid, We cannot afford it,and in a lot of cases the Countries that receive it are richer than us.

Why do we keep sending our armed forces in to foreign lands to die when it's nothing to do with us.

By the very nature of we Brits if anybody attacks us we will defend ourselves to the last,we have proved this over centuries and we will continue to do so.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Britain is a not very well off tiny Island Nation. Why should we continually go and fight other Countries wars.
We cannot afford it.

Why do we keep giving Billions of pounds a year in foreign aid, We cannot afford it,and in a lot of cases the Countries that receive it are richer than us.

Why do we keep sending our armed forces in to foreign lands to die when it's nothing to do with us.

By the very nature of we Brits if anybody attacks us we will defend ourselves to the last,we have proved this over centuries and we will continue to do so.

Well...we have to consider that by doing nothing the International community is sending an, all be it unintentional, signal that it's okay to use chemical weapons. There's quite a number of despots out there that will take it that way...& use them!
Although its an unpleasant way to go, the result is no different to that of a land mine, nuclear or scatter-bomb attack when it comes to pretty indiscriminate killing.

 

[VegetableSamosa]

So this debate is seemingly suggesting that Parliament made the right decision as we all appear to accept that any intervention is merely to protect oil & money...people dying from chemical attack is simply a convenient (or maybe even manufactured!) excuse to intervene?

Oil, money and influence in the region, yeah. I don't doubt that chemical weapons were used, but I don't think it was by Assad.

Bit of background here on my views in this thread. I study International Development, which is looking at what makes strong or weak governments and economies in developing countries and how international interaction affects this; basically the conditions necessary for growth and to become a "first world country". I look particularly at Africa and the Middle East. At the moment, I'm deciding whether or not to take it to a Masters level in the Army, or whether to do my masters in International Journalism.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Well...we have to consider that by doing nothing the International community is sending an, all be it unintentional, signal that it's okay to use chemical weapons. There's quite a number of despots out there that will take it that way...& use them!
Although its an unpleasant way to go, the result is no different to that of a land mine, nuclear or scatter-bomb attack when it comes to pretty indiscriminate killing.

It's interesting how the international community would seemingly have no issue with a regime shooting or whacking its civilians round the head but if some nerve gas enters the equation it's suddenly unacceptable and an invasion is the only way to fix it. Nerve agents like sarin are very easy to make with basic chemical training and facilities so chances are the rebels will have them to use too.