# Syria what is your Opinion ??



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

this forum has a excellent age range and it is one of the better "civil mannered" ones on the net..........

I am in US and read/heard how your Gov't has done your proceedings correct and admire that.......

Now do you think Uk/US/ whoever should go ahead and retaliate ???????

anybody from France on here (EUROPE) ??

Myself I am just tried of the US telling/pushing/highly suggesting what Countries to do......

Tried of Women and Men dying as I am sure everyone is...

Suck answer I know that is why I am asking your opinion


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

I think an attack on carefully selected "millitary and government" targets ie air force bases and artilliary bases would send a message to Assad that using chemical weapond means we will butt fook you.


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

Hello there Whanab. You raise an interesting argument and I have been following this closely both here in the UK and from US sources. I find myself in the US a lot and have friends there who have strong views on the issue so I feel I have formed my opinions based on both camps. However a conversation like this will no doubt incite strong feelings so I will try keep it as objective and civil as I can.

It's a tough one. I hear a lot of 'so its okay to kill civilians with bombs and bullets but when you do it with chemical weapons that's crossing the line!' Should the west even get involved in another internal conflict in the Middle East? Who says we always have to be the world police? Finally how far does the US, UK, France etc commit?

The use of Chemical Weapons is strictly against the rules and conventions of war. Yes even wars have rules and so they should. If we learnt nothing from WW2 is was that using chemicals weapons on civilians is obviously crossing a line. While its clearly not been done to that kinda scale here its a slippery slope. What would Assad do if his back was truly against the wall? Unleash his full arsenal of chemical weapons? Retaliate against the west? Some people just like to watch the world burn.

To be honest it sickens me that a government would turn its weapons against its own people they have sworn to protect. So the use of chemical weapons does for me at least cross a line of indiscriminate loss of life and a clear violation of the rules of war. So who's shoulders does it fall on to make sure it doesn't escalate? Well if you're talking about a very limited precision air strike from cruise missiles and maybe air based forces there are actually very few countries who have the capabilities to launch an attack like that on this kind of scale. The 2 main countries being the US and the UK plus we also have bases in the area with which to launch air strikes if needed.

So I can understand why Cameron and Obama have been in discussions. Secondly and critically like in Libya how many local nations can you bring in on the mission after the initial strikes from cruise missiles? The more the better! It can't be seen as just another incursion solely from the west. For me the only question that needs answered is how far do the attack go? I like many don't want to see our brave men and women put in harms way for a less than honourable reasons. I actually don't think it's the case here. If Assad has used Chemical Weapons then for me you can set a dangerous precedent to other nations around the world if we don't act. We are saying that these kind of actions, while against the rules of law won't be punished.

If any military action from the US, UK, limits itself to cruise missile strikes with the intention of stopping Assad's ability to use Chemical Weapons then I would be okay with that. It puts little to no risk of loss of life on our forces and can seriously cripple Assad's ability to deploy these weapons. When you start talking about air strikes which would include France, Turkey etc then I start to get more nervous as it puts airmen and women in harms way. However I can't see how it can be avoided. Finally I am absolutely against any kind of boots on the ground. I am pretty sure western governments are too so I hope this won't be required. So in some ways it would be very similar to the operations used against Libya but this time I feel with a more concrete, honourable reason for doing so. The only difference here is Chemical weapons have been used, Syria militarily is more advanced and they have limited support from China and Russia in the UN.

The next few days will be critical and I for one am keeping a close eye on the situation. Hopefully it can be resolved peacefully but then again we have tried that and failed


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

First and foremost, if its proven beyond all doubt that chemical weapons were used by one side or the other...how about a novel approach and let their middle eastern neighbours get off their rich ar*es and deal with it.

I am a little concerned that the US and its bitch the UK and that annoying little puppy dog called Frenchie, will attempt to build a case even if one is not there, to justify their own ends. I would suggest the WMD saga taught us that one, if nothing else.


----------



## Tyrer (Jul 4, 2013)

The UN need to lead in my opinion, US and UK regularly get commended/slated by their involvement... Are we the only countries with any morals on right and wrong?

Then this leads to further unrest in our own countries in relation to our 'meddling' and results in further deaths (we have seen this all too often)

I believe no country should be ruled by a dictator but every country has a leader... Is Cameron not our own dictator??? I mean he dictates where our hard earned money goes.

Anyway I think something needs to be done, innocent lives being taken is just plain wrong


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

It's a difficult one for sure - no-one wants to get into yet another protracted conflict, but how can we call ourselves civilised if we stand by and watch the genocide going on in Syria, let alone the illegal and flagrant use of chemical weapons? On the other hand who made us sheriff of the whole world, particularly when it looks like any action will be without full UN support and many countries will condemn any strikes.

I don't think we're likely to see UK/US boots on the ground out there, I think we've learned our lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan about guerilla conflicts which we can't win and are so costly in allied lives. I think we're likely to see missile attacks and air strikes against selected military targets, probably restricted to known sites where chemical weapons are stored. David Cameron says any action taken will not have the objective of regime change, so it's going to be difficult to justify government targets.

The problem is we hope to see a working democracy springing up in these countries where we intervene but it seems one form of chaos is replaced by another and there's always another despot waiting in the wings.


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

My concern is that as yet it is highly speculative as to which side has used chemical weapons. We have seen images but no truly authoritative reports have been released confirming that chemical weapons have been deployed by Assad's government. Indeed it would be illogical for Assad to use chemical weapons as it would enable the use of force against him by foreign powers. A more likely use of chemical weapons would be by the rebels in a self-inflicted attack to precipitate the West's involvement.

I actually believe that the West is powerless to control the Middle East. The vacuum created by regime change will either be filled by military or religious leaders or a puppet democracy. None of which will be stable, none of which will work for the people and none of which will prevent a reoccurance of Syria. In that area, lasting stability, not peace, can only be secured with a dictatorship. You've just got to hope that the dictator can keep a lid on things. Those searching for a better life will emigrate, the others will continue with their 13th century life style and be happy. Unfortunately those that want a better life, but can't leave, are screwed, it will take several generations before the people are sufficiently educated to cope with choices.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Chemical weapons I'm told are illegal in war. If, as it seems, they have been deployed then someone is responsible and could be hauled up in the Hague for it. I'm not sure cruise missile strikes are quite the same legal redress but I suppose could be a more immediate deterrent to further deployment. Whether they would be effective and/or what further damage may come of it is debatable.

It would clearly be better if the UN sanctioned such action rather than a bilateral decision by the US/UK so perhaps there is some merit in waiting for the inspectors to report, although whether attributing blame is within their mandate has been questioned.

I've heard arguments that the Syrian government is clearly guilty from delay of allowing the inspectors in causing the evidence to degrade and bombing of the evidence prior to letting them in. I've also heard the argument that the rebels are more likely to have done it to bring in the West's reaction. Further today that the son of the president personally ordered it due to an assassination attempt. Who to believe and what are the motives?

It would be useful to be privy to the evidence submitted to the permanent five on the security council today. Russia's concern of a consequential and eventual shift in ther balance of power in the region and perhaps playing into the hands of Al-Qaeda are something to consider.

Any military response, from weighing up all of the above, therefore needs to be carefully considered. There is so unlikely to be a simple and beneficial solution as we can probably guess. We all want the killing to stop but answers are not easy to come by here.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

UN need to grow a pair and do something, not always leave it to UK & US.

remember a book about Kosavo, Dutch troops & UK special forces forced to back off, knowing that a massacre was about to happen, because UN was still debating what to do. Ended up with some soldiers (brave lads) taking off badges and trying to stay behind to protect women they knew would be raped and old men they knew would be murdered, in the end the troops who tried to stay behind we're marched out at gunpoint by their mates, and still the UN did nothing. Only book I've ever read and affected me badly. Wife couldn't understand why I'm sitting on the beach on holiday crying, until she read it.

If anyone wants proof of the stalemates and political BS at the UN, read Shake hands with the Devil, by Gen Romeo Dallaire, the force commander of the UN mission to Rwanda. It is unbelievable, but true.


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

ag said:


> My concern is that as yet it is highly speculative as to which side has used chemical weapons. We have seen images but no truly authoritative reports have been released confirming that chemical weapons have been deployed by Assad's government. Indeed it would be illogical for Assad to use chemical weapons as it would enable the use of force against him by foreign powers. A more likely use of chemical weapons would be by the rebels in a self-inflicted attack to precipitate the West's involvement.


+1

What proof is there that it was the Syrian government that used chemical weapons if chemical weapons have been used. I think that the British and American governments are 'jumping the gun' in proposing retaliatory strikes when there is not yet proof as to who is possibly responsible. Remember the reason for the invasion of Iraq, was to prevent the use of the WMD's. At the conclusion of the war, no 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' had been found. I hope and pray that this does not end in a similar way.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

After the WMD fiasco, they will make sure that the proof is in place first that chemical weapons were used first and foremost.
There will have been spotters or spies on the ground gathering intel for weeks or months already sending back information to head sheds I bet, so any strikes will not be on chemical sites unless they know they can totally destroy without harming the general population.
Whenever it gets to the situation where the main police cannot contain a problem and it escalates into full scale war on your own folks as a government you have lost control and should stand down!!!! So yes strikes are needed to take the advantage away from asad including a no fly zone to stop the jets and missiles.


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

YoungOldUn said:


> ag said:
> 
> 
> > My concern is that as yet it is highly speculative as to which side has used chemical weapons. We have seen images but no truly authoritative reports have been released confirming that chemical weapons have been deployed by Assad's government. Indeed it would be illogical for Assad to use chemical weapons as it would enable the use of force against him by foreign powers. A more likely use of chemical weapons would be by the rebels in a self-inflicted attack to precipitate the West's involvement.
> ...


I agree there needs to be proof before any action is taken. It needs to be legal in that any action taken was done so to save lives against the use of chemical weapons. To be honest it looks like the Assad regime was behind this, both from there actions on the day of the attack and there actions after in trying to destroy evidence. Also there was a failure to let the UN investigators in until that was done so.

Finally the Americans appear to have undeniable evidence from communication intercepts that talk about the attack from Syria's own forces. The UN won't say who launched the attack only if there were chemical weapons used. If that is proved so then couple that with the intercepts and the Assad regime actions it paints a pretty clear picture. It would be a clear violation of the articles of war, not only that it would be a crime against humanity.

As long as the attack concentrates on the chemical weapons element and there is proof then there should be consequences. Countries have gone to war for less. Maybe this would be the rare instance where it would be done for the right reasons. Only time will tell.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Fairly likely the Italians will surrender soon, just to be on the safe side


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Shug750S said:


> Fairly likely the Italians will surrender soon, just to be on the safe side


Your late bud.....they did three days ago just in case. :lol:


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

Gazzer said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> > Fairly likely the Italians will surrender soon, just to be on the safe side
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

P.S. Glad to see that you are still active Gaz


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

YoungOldUn said:


> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> > Shug750S said:
> ...


Trying jim m8


----------



## J20ROBO (Aug 11, 2013)

A total support our forces .. Proud what they do for us.. Truth tho is for a country that in recovery with such a large deficit.. Good idea to go drop millions of pounds worth of resources into another war/military campaign??? Money could be much better spent... Sorting problems much closer to home... Let Someone else deal with it!!!


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

the OP asks , should we " retaliate ", and others ask " should we get involved ",,,, listening / watching that henious person john kerry giving his vile poison, and "our " Haig recomending " appropriate action "........ apropriate action would be never to have joined the US and their puppets, saudi arabia, quatar, kuwait, UAE, turkey and not least isreal, funding , arming , organising and supplying logistically and with intelligence the army of various malcontent international terroists to overthrow the legitimate government of syria in the first place,, i would think that anyone who has payed any attention to this slowlly escilating situation will seriously still believe it to be about a popular uprising by the people of syria..the international " involvment " started a long time ago with the careful stiring up of historical inter religous rivalry which has been exploited to create the bedlam which now prevails in syria,, also in libya, egypt, iraq and everywhere else that the US / Zionist serpant has stretched its hand of influence into,, the US / Zionist is intent on creating as much instability as possible in the middle east. does anybody really still believe the us gov. or ours,, are memories so short that they cannot see the same rhetoric of WMD from just a few years ago, or the blatant lies, eg, the babies from the incubators in kuwait a few years earlier,, or the lies from the bay of pigs in cuba, or the lies from vietnam, etc etc,, are you all so young not to remember,,,,,
" retaliate,, how can we retaliate to something which " we " have created in the first place ? ask the question,, why do americans etc supposedlly fight against the Al Queda in afghanistan, mali, algeria yet support and arm the same peole in libya egypt and syria,,, is it not a bit strange ?,, time for reading between the lines and not listening to the vile sensationalist sentimentality from john kerry and his british lapdogs,,,,,,, others talk of UN,, what have they got to do with it,, george bush and his puppy blair invaded iraq without a UN mandate, clearly inn breach of international law and murdered sommany people i cannot remember how many , and will do the same again,, already 200000 dead and 2million refuges in syria,, look at the children on the streets of Beirut and realise that our governments have put them there, and worse.....
.retaliate ? i will not be surprised when someone does, with the only means available to them,, terorisim on our streets.


----------



## J•RED (Feb 10, 2013)

It's a bit of a touchy subject, a lot of for and against. I'd like hard evidence that the Assad regime have used chemical weapons but have yet to see it, although media are reporting his family member gave the authority to use CWs. I agree with Gaz that special forces are more than likely been in the country gathering intel for months. The government will have its reasons and I'm sure we'll hear them, but I have my doubts as to why we will be dropping bombs to help what is widely regarded as Al Qaeda get more power in the east. Has a dirty deal been done? Was one done in Libya? Iraq? Some of the wealthiest oil/gas rich countries in the world, and then there is Syria and from what I have been told has some of the worlds largest gas fields. I can't help but feel this is for an ulterior motive. Maybe I'm wrong or too sceptical. However what I don't agree with is the killing of man, woman and child in such a distressing way as what I have seen, brought me to tears and left me speechless that a person could die in such a way. I for one hope that we know who did this and can at the least stop the chemical weapons being used or transported as I would not want them landing in the wrong hands to be used on our shores. So I'm fore an attack on the manufacturing and logistics of the chemical weapons just no boots on the ground.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

We don't appear to have learnt a great deal from past conflicts in the Middle East. We need to ween ourselves off their oil products and let them fight it out amongst themselves. They are simply going through the same upheavals that Europe went through at various times over the last 800 years. England, France and Germany have not always had the cosy relationship we currently enjoy. No-one can legitimately claim to govern a country without power derived from a mandate or weapons. In countries that do not have a democratic culture then the strongest army must govern. Outside influences will simply prolong the agony.

We should stay away and leave them to it regardless of images we see on the TV and the stances of politicians.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

ag said:


> We don't appear to have learnt a great deal from past conflicts in the Middle East. We need to ween ourselves off their oil products and let them fight it out amongst themselves. They are simply going through the same upheavals that Europe went through at various times over the last 800 years. England, France and Germany have not always had the cosy relationship we currently enjoy. No-one can legitimately claim to govern a country without power derived from a mandate or weapons. In countries that do not have a democratic culture then the strongest army must govern. Outside influences will simply prolong the agony.
> 
> We should stay away and leave them to it regardless of images we see on the TV and the stances of politicians.


Ag, whether we like it or not our very existence as a country is tied to fossil fuels until we can invent something that will bypass it.......so we MUST be in the game or lose an opertunity to score. Yes we are all basically fossil fuel addicts.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

200,000 dead,, 1.7 million people displaced / refuges,, children ,with neither parents, guardian or a home for night, selling roses on the streets of neighbouring countries to get enough money to buy some food , ( i have seen it  ),, and that is just the current conflict, so that some can have fosil fuels at a rip off price,,, enjoy [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

roddy said:


> 200,000 dead,, 1.7 million people displaced / refuges,, children ,with neither parents, guardian or a home for night, selling roses on the streets of neighbouring countries to get enough money to buy some food , ( i have seen it  ),, and that is just the current conflict, so that some can have fosil fuels at a rip off price,,, enjoy [smiley=bigcry.gif]


Fook me you make a living out of fossil fuels dohhhhh


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Gazz,, i work in the north sea,, i dont kill arab children for profit......


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

Well it looks like we won't be getting involved in Syria after all. House of Commons votes against such action and the PM has promised not to use special powers to bypass such a vote.

Whether there will be another vote once the evidence from UN investigators comes in who knows. But for now it looks like if there will be any reprisal from the west the US will likely go it alone.

I for one am starting to doubt there will be any military action at all. It's taken too long I feel and if there is any action what so ever it is likely to be very limited. I kinda get the feeling people want to do something, maybe feel they should but kinda don't want to get involved. Maybe I am wrong, who knows.

So sad that all this is discussed so easily on our end and yet people are dying bloody elsewhere. Hard to comprehend sometimes.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

I can't help feeling sorry for Cameron, at least he had the balls to try to do what he felt was right, and far from being a US puppet on this, he was advocating intervention while Obama was, and is still is, dithering. Milliband has behaved like the complete shit he is by telling Cameron Labour would support the motion and then withdrawing Labour support to defeat it.

I can't say I'm any happier at the prospect of involvement in Syria than anyone else, but i can't help feeling we're somehow not standing so tall as a country this morning .


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Proposterous statment that we " won't be getting involved " when we have been involved since the very begining ,,, where did the so called rebels get their arms , funding and logistical support from in the first place , saudi , qutar , turkey etc , where do these countries get their backing and arms from . US and uk , does not take a brain of britain to figure out the rest !!!! And there will continue to be covert action and almost definatly direct action by at least the US ,since when did they ever need UN sanction to invade a country , and for sure the british lap dog will follow. We live in sad and twisted times


----------



## neilc (Aug 8, 2011)

I think Ed Milliband has just confirmed that he could never be prime Minister by not supporting the governments suggested action , it shows a real weakness and lack or fortitude. The hardest road is often the right road. How can the western powers stand by and watch innocent people die in such a horrible way. The Chinese and Russians have there own motives for not supporting military action but for us as a nation to allow this to happen due to political wrangling is a disgrace.

Labour party you should be ashamed.


----------



## Dayer2910 (Apr 29, 2012)

Let the Russians and Chinese sort it out....no, we should keep our noses out this time around.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

neilc said:


> How can the western powers stand by and watch innocent people die in such a horrible way.


The moral argument simply doesn't stack up.
We stand by and let innocent people die all the time, in Africa for example: Rwanda, Sudan, Congo... 
Why would we intervene in Syria but not in those countries? Are Africans not as worthy?

I'm certainly not saying we should rule out intervention, but the politicians need to answer the above and make a proper case as to why this time it's different, why it's in our interests when it isn't elsewhere (or before now in Syria). Explain what the aims and outcomes are, what the limits would be. If the justification this time is that chemical weapons have been used, what military action will prevent their future use without killing even more people? What might the other, unintended consequences be? You can't just ask people to agree to start lobbing cruise missiles at another country (which is war, even if you're not putting boots on the ground) without a proper argument as to how this will improve the situation.

Hand-wringing over images on TV and saying "we must do something ... sending cruise missiles is doing something ... good, my conscience feels better now" simply isn't a good enough argument to go to war.

I'm not surprised last night's vote was a "no"; they should have waited until there was something concrete to vote on: the UN insepctors report, any international consensus, clear aims, objectives and limits etc. Just rushing MPs into voting on some open-ended, vague "use of military force" was stupid.


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

If the main thrust of all arguments for attacking the Syrian regime are based on policing the use of Chemical Weapons without taking sides and therefore acting in a neutral manner, then surely any accusations and sanctions should be taken by the appropriate authorities, namely the world police. As just such an organisation exists, shouldn't we wait to see what the UN has to say about it. I admit that they are, and nearly always have been, weak willed and slow to react, but they do have a legitimacy that a soverign state acting independantly can never have.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I thought there was no good reason not to wait for the UN inspectors to report as we were only talking days but the US and Cameron were talking up that they knew the answer already but when it came to the debate there was no clear evidence as we'd been led to believe from communication intercepts and spies on the ground. Then remarkably Labour's amendment to wait for the UN to report was defeated, which left no option for those not wanting to go in without clear evidence which would be illegal to then vote the main bill down - a defeat from Cameron's own side.

The leeway for a military strike to be legal without a UN resolution was very narrow. There had to be clear evidence of an imminent threat of use of chemical weapons, other channels exhausted to stop their use and military action taken had to be the minimum required. This wasn't at all clear it could be satisfied.

All very unsatisfactory but just satisfying feelings of having done something, when it might not be legal or achieve anything and might make things worse is not the most reasoned of arguments and world leaders will be diminished by using such as I think we will see.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Strange that parliament has put the cart in front of the horse by voting before the UN inspectors have finished their work


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Once again the right questions are not asked because it's not encouraged and the bigger picture isn't seen by the masses.
What we should be asking ourselves is why has oil been traded solely in dollars since the 1970s? If we understand that question then we should begin to understand why the middle east is so important to the USA and by extension the rest of the western world.
In the meantime we are treated to a sideshow of horrors by the media so that we can narrow it down to a should we or shouldn't we go in? argument. Either way doesn't really matter to those with vested interests in keeping the value of the dollar up with regard to the sale of oil as a plunging dollar would spell serious consequences.
Destabilising any parts of the middle east that show any sign of wanting to trade oil for anything other than dollars is essential to the federal reserve, this includes allies of oil producing countries which in this case is Syria who are allied to Iran.

The deliberate obfuscation of what is an essentially simple concept works just with the compliance of a few western governments.


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

Bung said:


> Once again the right questions are not asked because it's not encouraged and the bigger picture isn't seen by the masses.
> What we should be asking ourselves is why has oil been traded solely in dollars since the 1970s? If we understand that question then we should begin to understand why the middle east is so important to the USA and by extension the rest of the western world.
> In the meantime we are treated to a sideshow of horrors by the media so that we can narrow it down to a should we or shouldn't we go in? argument. Either way doesn't really matter to those with vested interests in keeping the value of the dollar up with regard to the sale of oil as a plunging dollar would spell serious consequences.
> Destabilising any parts of the middle east that show any sign of wanting to trade oil for anything other than dollars is essential to the federal reserve, this includes allies of oil producing countries which in this case is Syria who are allied to Iran.
> ...


I Love this WORD: obfuscation

We have been aware of this Word since forever... in the home , in the market place, in the work place.... So, why do we act so surprised when these crazies out there do these crazy things..... and mask it with this Word.... You can be crazy and smart ; just have to believe the West (US) are idiots .... Sadly the US is falling and it is taking down excellent Gov't's with them... if anybody does anything have the facts and if it shows all Yes's they did what they did... over throwing the currant government is not going to do anything really as the Government that will step in is just as bad... So, bottom line make a hard decision do nothing or go in and make it a territory of the UN...great location near to the middle east some oil blah blah..... Keep it that way until a agreeable Government can be put in place in other words NEVER..... Really what is any other Country going to do ..... a thought ???


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Big problem

All these countries are doing is going through the same struggles that we in Europe did hundreds of years ago, and trying to get to a point where the general population, or the people who win, can keep their society reasonably stable.

Main difference it happened in Europe hundreds of years ago, and the weapons were swords and spears with shields etc, most on foot and some on horseback.
They have AKs, RPGs etc..


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

Obama asks Congress to take Military Action against Syria..


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

One cannot stop war with war (or military action).

Having said that it doesn't surprise me in the slightest: Middle Eastern oil is far too important to the west for Obama to "sit on the fence"

So lets see what Congress says,,,,,


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

thanks for the latest update,, but honestly mate this is no surprise,, Obama has had his troops in there in covert operations for some time now, maybe even years, preparing , organising , informing the army of assorted rag tag international terrorists who go by the euphamisim of " rebels " with the intent of overthrowing Assad and creating, not an alternative stable government, but as has been done so far in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Mali, etc., a general destabalisation of another country which does not tow the US line.. for many months now his " army " of AlQueda etc have been commiting attrocities among the civilians , being responsible for a conflict which has so far seen the death of some 200,000 people and the dispplacment of an estimated further 1.7 million , however , as it would appear that his covert support will not bring down the government as was his long term abjective he will now provide a more obvious support in the way of selective targeting by some cruise missiles,,,, shame on the people of the world standing by and letting him get away with this international terrorisim,,,fortunatly, and totally unexpectedly, the leader of our political " oposition " managed to lead a revolt against our prime minister in his attempt to follow faithfully like a puppydog after his American master..... i hope one of the cruise missiles mallfunctions and lands back on the bridge of the nest of wasps from which it is launched.. have a nice day


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

can really only speak for myself......... but this is a big surprise I did not expect Obama to even ask Congress.......

as I do know some had believed he would not do this.......... as he is a second term President and He is seen as not

following through with what He said He would do..........


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

HE is doing what HE always inteded to do, just that HE is doing it in a way which HE can claim to be lawfull ..


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

News that Obama will look to seek approval from Congress to take military action in Syria is huge. The President doesn't need approval unlike in the UK where generally we do.

So he is playing a big risk in allowing this. After the press conference a reporter asked if he will strike even if Congress votes no, shock he didn't reply. How could he strike if there is a no vote, i highly doubt he will. However I'm sure there will be a lot of political lobbying in order to secure the yes vote.

What I find interesting is the fact that for one he is bothering to ask congress at all. Secondly he is not looking to recall congress like Cameron did. What I think this tells you is British support, despite claims to the contrary means a lot in Washington, more than perhaps some people want to admit. I have no doubt we would be conducting strikes by now if the House of Commons voted yes to military action. Speaking to friends across the pond sentiment seems to be that Britain has gone about it the right way. Almost as far as showing 'the worlds oldest democracy' how democracy works if you will. I personally think any vote on the issue should be after we hear from the UN not before like Cameron did. Still I imagine we will have another vote post UN findings.

On the second point congress won't convene and debate the issue until the 9th of September. Obama has the ability to recall congress like Cameron does, so why not? I think it buys him time to lobby for a strike and ensure he gets the yes vote (something Cameron should have done if he wanted to win). Also I think the fact Britain's had this vote has shown America that if it can't convince its strongest ally then how can it convince its own people. So in a way if it is voted no in congress the President gets to walk away from a strike without appearing too weak. He was simply following the will of the people despite his tough stance. It is almost a get out of jail free card for him if you will.

Any strike now will be extremely limited and is merely a show of force than anything else. Surely by now any chemical weapons have been relocated. So I am questioning whether the President even wants to conduct strikes now. Allowing for congress to convene gives all sides a cooling off period too and allows for the UN to present there findings. The US says they have evident that proves it was an attack by the Assad regime. Putin has asked the US to release this information. Why hasn't it? Secondly the US says there have been over 1400 deaths with anywhere between 400 and 700 children dead (depending on source). Yet British intelligence and doctors without borders seem to claim the deaths are nearer 400. Who is right? Doesn't even matter how many deaths there are?

The fact that Obama says our assets in the area and can strike at any time and are not 'time sensitive so we can strike tomorrow, in a week, a month' is very telling. Interesting wording that appears to be strong but is kinda saying we are 'rocking the throttle pedal!' I.e we are not sure what we are doing yet. Maybe looking to wait and see if the UN comes back with anything, potentially bringing the British back into play and giving the US a clear go ahead. Maybe it's as simple as giving everyone a cooling off period as a prelude to pulling out. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

What you've just said makes a lot of sense with some very good points. As soon as I heard Obama was going to congress I thought he was following suit with Cameron and giving himself a way to back out without loss if face. They still have time to see what develops too. Well summarised.


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

GoTeamGb2012 said:


> ...............What I think this tells you is British support, despite claims to the contrary means a lot in Washington, more than perhaps some people want to admit..........................................


 In my experience this is very true.

That's not to say that I don't agree with the rest also.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Why is the defence budget repeatedly used to attack people?

It's really that simple when you think about it. We're not operating in defence of our country so should we really feel obliged to get involved in what is essentially another country's civil war?


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

rustyintegrale said:


> Why is the defence budget repeatedly used to attack people?
> 
> It's really that simple when you think about it. We're not operating in defence of our country so should we really feel obliged to get involved in what is essentially another country's civil war?


Might have something to do with breaking the articles of war, namely those revolving around the use of chemical weapons (chemical weapons convention). Majority of the worlds governments have signed an agreement saying the use of such weapons is prohibited. It's kind of a taboo subject really and clearly evokes strong emotions in people and governments. Specially those who recall history.

We currently operate with the 4th largest military budget % GDP (US 1st but behind Russia and China, both pro Syria) and currently 2nd largest military budget Per Capita behind the US. Currently British military doctrine is to protect the United Kingdom and her overseas territories. Protect British security interests around the world and provide a humanitarian response where possible.

I don't think we want to get involved in a civil war and I agree 100% with that. However there are clear rules governing the use of chemical weapons. So as an advanced country operating one of the largest military budgets, with a current mandate that seems to suggest are role is larger than simply defence then don't we have a moral obligation to act? Apparently not if you ask MP's so this is kinda mute now. Mind you what will be gained from a strike after this time is doubtful. Any strike now would be simply to send a message that's it.

If the UN come back with evidence that say chemical weapons were used and if the US release proof it was the Syrian government, then what.......


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

GoTeamGb2012 said:


> If the UN come back with evidence that say chemical weapons were used and if the US release proof it was the Syrian government, then what.......


Then I think any decision should be made then. I'm not anti doing anything but I do think we have to learn lessons from Iraq (which I wholeheartedly supported incidentally).


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

rustyintegrale said:


> GoTeamGb2012 said:
> 
> 
> > If the UN come back with evidence that say chemical weapons were used and if the US release proof it was the Syrian government, then what.......
> ...


Yeah well I am pro intervention provided we have absolute proof first. I like you recall the failings made in Iraq and don't want a repeat. I tend to liken the situation to that of Libya. There we intervened because there was evidence suggesting there would be a 'cleansing' or mass bombardment of opposition forces and innocents. So we did a limited bombing of Libyan military targets that actually turned the tide of a civil war.

However in Syria all sides agree there should be a limited attack destroying Assad's ability to launch chemical weapons. Nothing like the mass intervention we saw in Iraq or even Libya. So why is this such a hard sell considering we intervened in Libya and considering they apparently used chemical weapons?

Either way nothing will happen for over a week now and by then the situation might well defuse somewhat. Time will tell.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

We're all tired of these wars in The Middle East, that's the truth of it, but that doesn't mean we should opt out of our responsibilities in the world. I think in retrospect that Cameron made a big mistake in having a vote on this rather than wait for the UN report - Obama is pretty much forced into doing the same now and France who have been hawkish from the outset will wait for the result of the US vote.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

igotone said:


> ...and France who have been hawkish from the outset will wait until after lunch before making a decision.


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

> "If you live each day like it's your last, one day you'll be right." Steve Jobs


even a cat only has nine lives ..........


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

some people talk of learning lessons from Iraq,, surelly the first lesson to learn from that is never to believe anything the US or UK gov says,,,,,,,,, does anybody really seriously still believe them, do you have such short memories ?? [smiley=bomb.gif] [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## POOKIETT (Sep 16, 2012)

roddy said:


> some people talk of learning lessons from Iraq,, surelly the first lesson to learn from that is never to believe anything the US or UK gov says,,,,,,,,, does anybody really seriously still believe them, do you have such short memories ?? [smiley=bomb.gif] [smiley=book2.gif]


With that being said I wonder how many people have even heard Assad speak on this?
Listen below




 or


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

i am not sure how many others,, but i have,, i watched what you have linked to , live, ( i think ) it is the same one , it was months ago


----------



## POOKIETT (Sep 16, 2012)

For me it's an insight into what he has to say on it. British mainstream media will only ever tell you what to believe as opposed to giving you both sides of the story an allowing you to make an informed decision. Thought I'd share it for those who haven't seen it


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

POOKIETT said:


> For me it's an insight into what he has to say on it. British mainstream media will only ever tell you what to believe as opposed to giving you both sides of the story an allowing you to make an informed decision. Thought I'd share it for those who haven't seen it


good shout Pookie, but the writing has been on the wall for all to see for a long long time now,,, but still they bury their heads in the sand and discuss the pedantics of the lies and the mistruths.


----------



## POOKIETT (Sep 16, 2012)

That's the most frustrating part Roddy. Nice to know that many other people are now seeing through lies


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

yes Pookie,, there are many,, very many, fortunatly very very many, but not many on here,, here they would rather listen to the hidious individual john kerry and discuss whither we should " go in " to a conflict which we started and have been " in " on for the last two years !! [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

POOKIETT said:


> That's the most frustrating part Roddy. Nice to know that many other people are now seeing through lies


Who's telling lies? I thought they all were weren't they? I have seen these interviews too and it doesn't shock me that Assad is pro Syria or that he says the government hasn't killed civilians. Nor does it shock me when I hear the west calling for war and saying he is a tyrant. You listen to western media you will largely get pro western news. Same goes for Syria. I am sure there is a middle ground somewhere once you wade through all the bullshit and propaganda.

The only person I have really disliked from all of this (as in I don't like hearing him speak) is John Kerry. For a guy in such a powerful position he comes across as pretty unprofessional and cringe worthy.


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=235940599886723

this is graphic but not as bad as I though but just to make sure

what do you think ??????????


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

US Turkey Saudi etc send mercinaries into a country to destabalise and overthrow a government ,,,, where is the middle ground ?????


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

roddy said:


> US Turkey Saudi etc send mercinaries into a country to destabalise and overthrow a government ,,,, where is the middle ground ?????


Rodders, not everything in life is a conspiracy m8, of course governments play the numbers game in their favour.....it is all a giant game of chess I think. The only thing striking Syria will do is change the balance of power to the people instead of the government. What will replace assad's regime who knows and will it be yet another regime or a democracy? Great word democracy I think, as does it really exist lol


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Gaz there is no conspiracy mate ,, I don't think anyone will still argue that the " rebel " army was created by and is supported and armed by US saudi Turkey and the other countrys which are US puppets ,,,, and the people are not the people of syria. ( There are some ) they are an assembly of international terrorists ,, the same will happen as happend in iraq , libya , egypt , destabalisation and anarchy , the west does not want strong stabalised indrpendant countrys in the mid east .


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

whanab said:


> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=235940599886723
> 
> this is graphic but not as bad as I though but just to make sure
> 
> what do you think ??????????


I think it's a piece of sensationalist nonsense, used in isolation by this presenter to paint the whole of the Syrian opposition in the same light. You have to hope the liver is that of a Hepatitis B sufferer, but that apart, you'll find examples of atrocities committed by individuals on both sides of any conflict - it's in the nature of war - it's not a pretty business and it brings out the worst in some individuals.

The relevant facts here are that the Syrian people are trying to overthrow a self appointed dictator who was never elected by anyone and who is prepared to kill thousands of his own people to hang on to power. If it is proven that Assad's regime was responsible for the chemical attacks, which were a gross flouting of internationally recognised law, then that's all the justification needed to make strikes calculated to limit his ability to do so again.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

igotone said:


> whanab said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=235940599886723
> ...


Agreed, but what shambles will take his place I wonder. Roddy will say it will be a western backed hiarchy with there. Own agenda for the region


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Gazzer said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> > whanab said:
> ...


Who knows how it will pan out Gaz? No-one wants another protracted conflict out there. The truth is it will be several generations before people out there are capable of living within a democratic infrastructure and thinking beyond the religious and sectarian brainwashing they get from birth. Much as we'd like to see these dictatorships replaced by democracy the truth is it will take many years before there's a working democratic infrastructure - it doesn't happen overnight. I don't think any of that means that as a civilised country we have to stand by and witness genocide and tyranny, even if we can't see the immediate working democracy we'd all like to.

It was arguably bugger all to do with us when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, but I think we can be rightly proud that we did declare war without hesitation.

As for Rodders, I don't know how anyone can take his ramblings seriously, when he was still spouting a conspiracy when lee Rigby was butchered in broad daylight on the streets of London in full view of numerous members of the public!


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

well,, sensationalist,, just how sensational can you get,, no not just any old moron, but this individual is actually a high ranking and respected leader of one of the many extreemist factions who are currently being exploited by and in the pay of western powers ,( or their supported mid east states ) and would be viying for power should this incursion be successful. as the Lebanese man i was speaking to on the plane on my recent visit to Beirut said, assad is no angel,, but anybody who thinks this is a peoples rebelion is living in fantasy land..
anybody who can not see how this is going to pan out is either blind or a fool ( or worse )
and what igitone classes as a rant is not just my opinion but also that of the international comunity which is not in the pay of the US..
to digress slightly and address his comment re rigby,, i did not say his death was a conspiracy but an unavoidable reaction to the western policy towards the arab / muslim world,, and until the likes of him recognise that then attrocities will continue,, time to think uotside the box mate,, or in your case the match box. [smiley=book2.gif] :wink:
PS,, how many generations and how many people are you going to kill before you have them living in the democracy which you " would like to see ". [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

"...the likes of him.." a British soldier doing his duty. There's having an opinion and there's being grossly offensive. I don't have much time for you at all mate, you might have noticed?


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

" the likes of him " was actually addressed at you, try to pay attention,, ( i would hate to rely on you in a court !! ),,, your liking of me is of slight regard.. but it does concern me that someone of such limited outlook / awareness is actually a serving plod.. [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

I'm not a serving plod thank you very much. It concerns me somewhat that a jock Welder with such a limited grasp of basic punctuation in his posts would expect anyone to to take his views seriously,. Did you actually attend school at all?

Anyway it's been lovely chatting to you .... but I have to go out.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Jesus guys..... Put a sock in it and back a tad maybe


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

Guys and Gals this is just opinions on the subject matter. and as you can see how hard it is to see or not see ones opinion in a reasonable objective way here can you imagine what it must be like in this situation we are trying to base our opinions on ?

most of the time (all) I make no sense...... and this continues here..  .... (on my post that is) clarifying


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

thank god for the Russians,, still the despicable John Terry, obviously smarting from having the rug pulled out from underneath him and his war mongering behavour and not wanting to loose anymore " face " still fells the need to continue his aggressive stance with ongoing threats.. :x


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

roddy said:


> thank god for the Russians,, still the despicable John Terry, obviously smarting from having the rug pulled out from underneath him and his war mongering behavour and not wanting to loose anymore " face " still fells the need to continue his aggressive stance with ongoing threats.. :x


Why bring poor old JT into this? Has he been shagging a Syrian bird?


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

roddy said:


> thank god for the Russians,, still the despicable John Terry, obviously smarting from having the rug pulled out from underneath him and his war mongering behavour and not wanting to loose anymore " face " still fells the need to continue his aggressive stance with ongoing threats.. :x


Don't be too hard on the old boy if it weren't for his gaff to the media the strikes were a lot more likely to happen. Instead he gets cornered with a question and says the only thing that would stop strikes is if Syria were to give up its chemical weapons.

Lets be clear Obama was looking for harder more intense strikes to not only limit the use of chemical weapons but also degrade Assad's ability to wage war. For Kerry to make a gaff like that which sounds rational (giving up chemical weapons) Obama had no choice but to tow the line set by Kerry.

Sure they have to show a hard stance. Assad is still a dangerous man and this will test his word. If he follows through then he, along with Russia will politically win in all this. If he doesn't then he will just show himself up as the type of dictator Kerry (America) claims he was all along. Next week will be critical.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

it is also nice to see Cameroon and horrible little Haig left out to wash after their war mongering attempts ,,,, never thot i would find myself saying this :? but thanks also to Milliband for effectively stopping the bombing, despite the efforts of the Froggies ..


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

roddy said:


> it is also nice to see Cameroon and horrible little Haig left out to wash after their war mongering attempts ,,,, never thot i would find myself saying this :? but thanks also to Milliband for effectively stopping the bombing, despite the efforts of the Froggies ..


Haha Milliband's move was political nothing more nothing less. He's a complete waste of space. Cameron was always proposing force after the UN had given there evidence so cut the guy some slack at least. The only thing he didn't agree too was a UN resolution which was a waste of time anyway.

Cameron is no saint in this but Milliband is in a different league. Only thing that stopped us from going on to strike Syria was Conservative rebels, the back stabbing of Milliband political aspirations and fear of another Afghanistan.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

correct me if i am wrong, but it was Milliband who tabled the motion which forced the vote which prevented the incumbent puppydog , cameron ,from following his master , as did his predicestor blair, into another illegal invasion of a foreign country ( which the invasion of Iraq was and remains ). Far from being a waste of space he has effectivly saved the lives of many Syrian people, to parody your term " nothing less ".


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

roddy said:


> correct me if i am wrong, but it was Milliband who tabled the motion which forced the vote which prevented the incumbent puppydog , cameron ,from following his master , as did his predicestor blair, into another illegal invasion of a foreign country ( which the invasion of Iraq was and remains ). Far from being a waste of space he has effectivly saved the lives of many Syrian people, to parody your term " nothing less ".


Then I will correct you based on my understanding. As I understand it Cameron recalled the MP's early for a vote on action in Syria which he knows the UK needs before military action. Before the vote took place there was a lot of political negotiation, naturally.

It would seem that Cameron was forced to water down his response on Syria following his discussions with Miliband (not unheard of, it happens all the time). Mainly because it was to include waiting for any evidence presented by the UN first. It is believed that Miliband gave the nod to Cameron once the draft was watered down. So the watered down vote went before the MP's and Miliband basically did a complete 180 and voted it down without informing Cameron.

This explains the anger directed towards Miliband (who is well known for his flip flopping and is one of the reasons I can't stand him). Then after the vote with all the abuse directed his way he goes on record to say action is warranted if evidence is found. He was never against it provided he had proof. So another 180 and proving he voted politically.

He tried to vote with public opinion and its basically backfired. I give him some credit for his balls but he has lost what little respect I had for him. He shouldn't even be in office if it weren't for more political wrangling and back handers. For me the wrong Miliband is in the driving seat without doubt....

On the issue of Syrian lives I won't go into that as there are too many factors to take into account. Depending on what side you fall he either saved lives from a potential coalition strike or gave a free pass to a dictator to slaughter more of his own people based on political posturing....


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Milliband is a tool who actually stood against his own brother as leader of the labour party and only narrowly won because the unions got behind him and voted him in. Personal ambition is his only motivation. It's amusing now to see him at loggerheads with the unions.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

GoTeamGb2012 said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> > correct me if i am wrong, but it was Milliband who tabled the motion which forced the vote which prevented the incumbent puppydog , cameron ,from following his master , as did his predicestor blair, into another illegal invasion of a foreign country ( which the invasion of Iraq was and remains ). Far from being a waste of space he has effectivly saved the lives of many Syrian people, to parody your term " nothing less ".
> ...


TBH, i really dont understand how you can differentiate between any of the wishy washy characters from parliament ,, they are all whimps,, gone are the days of decent individuals, like Benn, Foot, Skinner, Dyell, Galloway ( fortunatly still around ), i am certainly no fan of millibund, tho however you might call it, it was he who stopped the invasion ( bombing ) as it is fairly well known there was going to be no waiting for evidence, ( which was never going to be conclusive ) and apparently that was going ahead last sunday, even before the UN people had left the country... [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------

