The whole thing stinks to me, from the chemical attack all the way to the msm running with the agenda. It was a False flag attack by Saudi sponsored Islamic fanatics that are all into the martyrdom thing and wouldnt think twice about killing other muslims if it furthers their cause. Can see Iran backing Syria and then $hit gets ugly. Oh and Syria took a delivery of Russian made anti-ship missiles so if they decide to sink a US ship with a missile that Russia supplied them with I cant see that going down very well in Washington. Cant wait for the MP's vote tomorrow when they go against the will of the country. Sorry for the rant but we all know we are being lied to and there are more powerful people than Obama, Putin and co running this game.
Funnily enough there are plenty of negatives. The armed forces who were sent in ill prepared and under equipped to do Master Blair's bidding so that he could present himself on the world stage and get his own name into the history books. The dossier of lies that was used to con everyone aside from a few discerning voices about the threat to us as a nation. The tens of thousands of civilians who died as a result and no plan made as to how to administer Iraq when Saddam was removed and the consequent chaos which is still bubbling under the surface. It may seem trivial but a lot of historical antiquities and sites were damaged or destroyed in the conflict as well and after it. Religious groups like the Nestorian Christians suffered a wave of persecution from Islamic radicals. Sites which had been tended under the Saddam regime such as a Sikh gurdwara visited by the Guru Nanak were damaged. I am not saying Saddam's removal was a bad thing. He was a nasty man but we blundered in when our puppet decided he wanted some action for himself. Much like the way the CIA and America with us helped train the Taliban initially, ignored Indian warnings of terrorist training camps within Pakistan because they were then erstwhile allies. What of other dictatorial demagogues that also deserve removal ? Someone like Mugabe or several other African despots as in Sudan at the time ? Why have friends like Pinochet ? Why did we specifically go for Saddam in the wake of 9/11 when he was no friend of al-Qaeda and when an attack on their strongholds in Afghanistan was thoroughly merited. And now we have elements of al-Qaeda in Syria should we be aiding them even if indirectly by attacking Syrian military targets ? They too are equally culpable of atrocities including rape, summary executions of Alawites and Christians. The situation in countries like Egypt or Afghanistan right now is hardly cause for celebration either where the educated secular minded minority struggle to make themselves heard and where women and religious minorities are treated like second class citizens. You go around Iraq today or indeed Afghanistan and you will not find many who have kind words to say about the Allied interventions there Simms. Cameron is also doing his very best to be the heir to Blair. He also loves this grandstanding on the world stage when there are pressing issues within Britain that need urgent resolution and his full time attention. But as jumped up PR guru I would hardly expect less of a man whose running from Downing Street as if to signify his own urgency and concerns makes him the next William Pitt.
I'm not so sure they will vote in favour. Labour have come out and said they won't back it if they don't get the UN permission, and it could be a huge opportunity for the Lib Dems to be popular again if they don't back the coalition line.
Plus you know everything Cameron touches turns into dust. The reverse Midas....... His earnest proselytizing and hand gestures were eerily familiar......What a set of nincumpoops we have in the Houses of Parliament. Ed Rubberband is hardly one to inspire confidence is he ? And as for the Deputy PM , well the less said about him the better. PS Cthulhu are you a naval buff as well ? We have far too much in common.
You post that as if my post suggested the positives outweighed the negatives, which wasn't what I intended. Sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick.
The one thing I don't care about is whether the UN give it backing or not. We should make our decision based on what we believe is right by our own values and ethics. The fact that China and Russia are on the Security Council effectively makes the UN redundant in this matter.
[video=youtube;xk4TjuTJ6Ps]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xk4TjuTJ6Ps[/video]
http://scriptonitedaily.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/us-general-wesley-clark-war-on-syria-planned-in-1991-as-part-of-middle-east-land-grab/
Depends on your views of which creates a bigger threat/can work in harmony to/with the Western World, Sunni or Shia Muslims
Since when are the United Nations the final say in morality, rather than a wasps nest of self interest?
Sunni = Al Qaeda and Shia = Iran. So neither then? How about we leave them to get on with their own affairs and stop interfering because the value of the US Dollar is exclusively propped up by the price of Crude Oil and is the world's reserve currency? :naughty:
I think the vast majority of the world is united in the condemnation of chemical weapons, but is heavily divided on the best way to deal with the situation. It seems a common quote, that we cant sit back and do nothing, but it seems no better to do "something" if it actually makes the situation worse. I'm not sure that the Uk would be able to come up with the "morally correct" reponse to the use of chemical weapons, particularly as the indications are that it any vote in the Commons would be along Party lines, rather than a free vote. Certainly I dont think any of the political parties in the UK have any more right to inflict their morals above those of other members of the UN. Besides, whichever Syrian "side" released the nerve gas into the civilian areas they would know that the military value of killing 100's of children is negligent, and so it would more likely to have been done with the intention of drawing in other nations - and there would be nothing better to unite the Muslim world, or at least a significant proportion of the muslim world, than for common enemy of western infidels. At least, if we only acted as part of a combined UN action, we would not be trying impose UK's morals above the rest of the world's.
There's rumours Russia will attack Saudi Arabia in retalliation if the US attacks Syria, not to mention that allegedly it was British companies that sold the chemical components to Syria in the first place and that the rebels have been using chemical weapons as well.
I didn't say weapons I said chemical components, the Russians are already selling them all their weapons.
Syria, Iran and Russia sabre rattling at the moment threatening to destroy Israel if the west gets involved in Syria. Israel have given out 20,000 gas masks apparently to people in the north, although most people already are equipped with basic ones.
I should think there is no risk of anything happening there. The US will do what they want, and Russia will end up not being happy with it but not being able to do much about it.
Cameron's motion has been defeated in Parliament this evening and he's responded by saying he accepts the will of the MPs and that they are reflecting public opinion that we don't want military action.
Thing is some things transcend public opinion. This could be one of them. It really does surprise me though seeing people on the news and hearing peoples opinions that we shouldn't get involved because its nothing to do with us. Do people really want to sit back and leave innocent people to die from chemical attacks? Do the majority of people really feel we have no moral duty to limit and cease the use of chemical weapons? I don't believe they do yet they want us not to do anything to stop it.
Well, Cameron looks silly now. A recall of Parliament, to symbolically vote on action against the use of chemical weapons, and he lost. Ouch.
yeah man! and at the same time, do all of this stuff! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts although obviously, sort out the ones with a close proximity to israel or oil first. and also send more money to poor places! and food to hungry places! and buses to brazil!
Is that to say there are so many bad things going on everywhere that we ought not to do anything about any of them?
its to say, why has this particular conflict got you so riled up? because it's not you saying we should solve all these problems is it? it's you saying we need to solve this very one particular problem.
Personally I don't agree with going in just yet without the proper information available. But the reason why this particular one is important is the chemical weapons.
I don't think this is about hawks and doves, or left and right. Last nights vote is of little real consequence anyway. The government of the day wants to appear strong, whatever, and the opposition of the day wants to disagree, whatever. I am sure that there were many MP's uncomfortable with their own vote last night - on both sides. I would think that they, like most normal people, would be so unsure as to the best way forward that they just go with the party whip because it is easier than making a decision on their own.
Erm. They have just put the decision off for a little while not said they won't do anything ever. I don't see it as a defeat for Cameroon but a victory for democracy, why is it always about party politics and so childish? Interesting articles by the lib dems and others in the standard yesterday, very pro intervention. Let's wait and see the report from the UN and go in if the UN deems it appropriate. Got to feel sorry for the US they'll be damned if they go in and damned if they don't. As has been said before in this thread Israel has far too much influence on western military policy and there involvement in the cons evidence here has now made be sceptical about rushing in.
Erm. Of course it's about party politics. If Cameron had an outright majority like Blair did before him he'd have won the vote. If he had a unified party he'd have won the vote. And you probably have to go back two generations to find the last time a British PM went to the House of Commons to seek a mandate of sorts for war and struggled to find support. And because of party politics there is no next to no chance Cameron will seek to bring the matter back before Parliament as a further defeat would probably lead to a no confidence motion being tabled against him. It has become too politically expensive for him to bother with now. The UN Security Council will never deem it appropriate to go in. Syria represents a red line for Russians interests in the region and they will veto everything. It's for that exact reason that Cameron and Obama are seeking consensus at home, to try and give legitimacy to their desired course of action.
Disagree. Almost entirely. All that will happen is that time will pass. Consensus will be built between political parties they'll agree a compromise with labour and we will join in whatever action is taken.
