Guest MattP Posted 22 August 2013 Posted 22 August 2013 I agree, but we can't stand by and do nothing when faced with the scenario we saw yesterday. Well if that's the case we also need to be in South Sudan, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Nigeria, Somalia, Mexico, Pakistan, Yemen, India, Uganda, the Congo, Libya, Guinea and many more. I'm not up for it though. Even more so to help another country be thrown into the hands of more fanatical Islamists.
The God Emperor Posted 22 August 2013 Posted 22 August 2013 Well if that's the case we also need to be in South Sudan, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Nigeria, Somalia, Mexico, Pakistan, Yemen, India, Uganda, the Congo, Libya, Guinea and many more. I'm not up for it though. Even more so to help another country be thrown into the hands of more fanatical Islamists. also the financial costs. people are already moaning about government cuts, sticking our noses into another foreign conflict isnt going to help that.
ADK Posted 22 August 2013 Posted 22 August 2013 Both sides are as bad as each other really. It's terrible for the good people who are trapped there but I'm not sure what can realistically be done about it.
breadandcheese Posted 22 August 2013 Posted 22 August 2013 Well if that's the case we also need to be in South Sudan, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Nigeria, Somalia, Mexico, Pakistan, Yemen, India, Uganda, the Congo, Libya, Guinea and many more. I'm not up for it though. Even more so to help another country be thrown into the hands of more fanatical Islamists. In my opinion, there's a difference in that none of the conflicts listed above has seen the use of chemical weapons on civilians. I certainly understand the reticence to intervene in a civil war where both sides are pretty repugnant as I share that point of view, or at least I did up until yesterday. I guess the question to ponder is do you have a point at which you feel you have no choice but to intervene? I'm genuinely interested in different people's responses as to where people feel compelled to act. Would it take routine chemical shelling of civilians? A particular death toll (hundred thousand, half a million, a million, etc)? Using chemical weapons against other nations? Or is there nothing that would spur you to intervene? For me, I've reach my limit and think a coalition should be formed to create safezones within Syria, where civilians can shelter, whilst the civil war rages on in other areas of the country. No sides taken, no favouritism shown, just demilitarised areas where civilians can stay without fear of attack. Should the zone be attacked, the forces guarding the safe-zone have permission to respond. It can be even set-up with Russian assistance. it's not a perfect plan, but at the moment, the reality on the ground is worse.
Nick Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 Disappointed with this thread. I was hoping to watch some historical Syrian video footage and then in a 'Question of Sport' - esque manner attempt to win the points.
Guest MattP Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 In my opinion, there's a difference in that none of the conflicts listed above has seen the use of chemical weapons on civilians. I certainly understand the reticence to intervene in a civil war where both sides are pretty repugnant as I share that point of view, or at least I did up until yesterday. I guess the question to ponder is do you have a point at which you feel you have no choice but to intervene? I'm genuinely interested in different people's responses as to where people feel compelled to act. Would it take routine chemical shelling of civilians? A particular death toll (hundred thousand, half a million, a million, etc)? Using chemical weapons against other nations? Or is there nothing that would spur you to intervene? For me, I've reach my limit and think a coalition should be formed to create safezones within Syria, where civilians can shelter, whilst the civil war rages on in other areas of the country. No sides taken, no favouritism shown, just demilitarised areas where civilians can stay without fear of attack. Should the zone be attacked, the forces guarding the safe-zone have permission to respond. It can be even set-up with Russian assistance. it's not a perfect plan, but at the moment, the reality on the ground is worse. I think your safe zone thing is a very good idea and if there is a possibility it can be done I would support it. Nothing would spur me to intervene when you have a possibility of helping people to power who will damage a country, if we go against Assad we march Alqueda, the Mujahadeen and Al Nusra into a position of power, that would be scandalous for any country. I don't see why people get drawn up on "chemical weapons" If we go into a town and massacre a thousand people with guns we stay out but if its chemical we don't? I don't understand that.
James. Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 In my opinion, there's a difference in that none of the conflicts listed above has seen the use of chemical weapons on civilians. I certainly understand the reticence to intervene in a civil war where both sides are pretty repugnant as I share that point of view, or at least I did up until yesterday. I guess the question to ponder is do you have a point at which you feel you have no choice but to intervene? I'm genuinely interested in different people's responses as to where people feel compelled to act. Would it take routine chemical shelling of civilians? A particular death toll (hundred thousand, half a million, a million, etc)? Using chemical weapons against other nations? Or is there nothing that would spur you to intervene? For me, I've reach my limit and think a coalition should be formed to create safezones within Syria, where civilians can shelter, whilst the civil war rages on in other areas of the country. No sides taken, no favouritism shown, just demilitarised areas where civilians can stay without fear of attack. Should the zone be attacked, the forces guarding the safe-zone have permission to respond. It can be even set-up with Russian assistance. it's not a perfect plan, but at the moment, the reality on the ground is worse. Safe zones are a good idea but in a conflict as complicated as Syria it is feasible? Is there any historical precedence for that sort of action? Something absolutely should be done though. One of the most crippling factors in this war is the enormous flood of refugees going into neighbouring countries like Lebanon. My wife was in Lebanon near the start of the year and again a few weeks ago with work and saw a marked difference particularly in Beirut in terms of the number of Syrian refugees living there. As a result of this crime has increased but more importantly relations between the various sections of Lebanese society are put under significant strain with a new influx of people. There is a real possibility that the war could spread into Lebanon, particularly with Hezbollah openly supporting Assad.
Guest MattP Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 There is a real possibility that the war could spread into Lebanon, particularly with Hezbollah openly supporting Assad. Baffled me a little this, when you read the aims of the Hezbollah you would think they would be neutral in this or if pushed would probably be backing against him. Looks more a political decision rather than a ideological one, no doubt to the funding the group recieves from Syria and Lebanon.
ADK Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are all interlinked. It's a bit of a mess really and Christians in Syria have traditionally got on ok with Assad. I think the closest conflict I can think of would be the one in Kosovo? With the Serbs being backed by Russia and the Muslims being backed by the West. I'm not totally sure how that was policed in the end but we seem to have managed to avoid either a bloodbath or starting world war 3 with the intervention there. It might even be that the west is privately perfectly happy for the Iranian backed regime in Syria to be embroiled in a civil war for several years, it weakens both countries.
Guest MattP Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 Don't we just generally back the fanatical Muslims now whatever?
Danizen Posted 25 August 2013 Posted 25 August 2013 http://topinfopost.com/2013/07/01/u-s-planned-to-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-on-syria-and-blame-it-on-assad
breadandcheese Posted 25 August 2013 Posted 25 August 2013 http://topinfopost.com/2013/07/01/u-s-planned-to-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-on-syria-and-blame-it-on-assadThis was the subject of libel. The daily mail got sued for printing this story. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jun/26/daily-mail-syrian-chemical-weapons-libel
The Year Of The Fox Posted 26 August 2013 Posted 26 August 2013 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23838900
ADK Posted 26 August 2013 Posted 26 August 2013 Great, lets spend money we don't have on yet another military intervention to install a radical fundamentalist Islamic regime in the middle east.
Rincewind Posted 26 August 2013 Posted 26 August 2013 This was the subject of libel. The daily mail got sued for printing this story. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jun/26/daily-mail-syrian-chemical-weapons-libel The mail printed something that wasn't true?
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 26 August 2013 Posted 26 August 2013 Interesting to me how we all look back with fondness at how 'we' saved the world from Nazism, yet nobody's really keen to aid Syria and Libya was met with very mixed responses. Surely WW2 was just as much about humanitarian causes as it was maintaining our own safety and sovereignty? Good post. "Finners". Most worrying for me is the actual use of chemical weapons, which are evil, and reflects Assads' character. Is it right or wrong to interfere? I really don't know. Get rid of one dictator, and up jumps another. On the basis of chemical weapons being used, I probably lean towards favouring some form of military action.
lavrentis Posted 26 August 2013 Posted 26 August 2013 Hague is a war mongering ****. Where is this proof that this was done by the Assad regime, why was Hague desperate to appoint blame prior to investigation?
bovril Posted 26 August 2013 Posted 26 August 2013 Further proof that the Cold War never ended, they just had a long half-time and changed the sides round a bit. Why do you think we supported Kosovan independence over Serbian sovereignty? Why do you think the EU were so keen to integrate ex-Eastern Bloc countries? It's all at the behest of the US. They want to pick off Russian allies as quickly as possible, especially with the emergence of China.
Jon the Hat Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 So the UK will propose a resolution to the UN security council, which Russia and China will Veto, the Attorney General will rule that an attack is legal if it involved major NATO powers, and the US, UK and France will launch an initial attack using cruise missiles. Depending on the reaction, this may escalate into an air war which destroys all air defences and Syran planes and establishes a no fly zone. The second step is much more liekly if Syria launch an attack on Israel or Cyprus in retaliation. The big question is what will Russia or China do?
Zingari Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 We don't like them using chemical weapons on their people so let's bomb the shit outta them .
Jon the Hat Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 We don't like them using chemical weapons on their people so let's bomb the shit outta their weapons .
Guest MattP Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 It's not too obvious this is going to end as one giant fcuk up is it.
James. Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 I really don't understand why the US and UK seem intent on acting before the UN have concluded their report into the chemical attack.
Guest MattP Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 I really don't understand why the US and UK seem intent on acting before the UN have concluded their report into the chemical attack. I'm just finding this so strange. Surely a chemical attack would be the last resort of a desperate man, this is a man who is actually winning the war now, had decisive victories over the last 6 months and the attack was carried out in Damacus where he enjoys considerable support. Something really doesn't work out, if the 'rebels', sorry Al Queda have pulled this off and managed to convince the World it's Assad what on earth is it going to end up like? What do we do? Get rid of Assad and leave the opposition to it? Maybe the guy who eats human hearts can run the place? There seems to be no plan whatsoever in place and we seem very keen to start raining missiles down. It's like ten years ago all over again. I'm not one who generally goes in for the tin hat tales but something here doesn't seem quite right at all.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.