You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Simple, because it gives the warmongers a plausible excuse to drop some bombs, and the arms companies an opportunity to make some more money replenishing the arsenals. Cynical? Me?
I don't even think it's that, there is a simpler explanation for the UK's reasons.... I just think Cameron's a naive thick **** who shows all the intellectual rigor of a lobotomized penguin and whom a private education was clearly wasted on.
Whilst with the states Obama merely wants to save face and/or carry out some daft strategic game with the intention of helping the Israelis to contain Iran at all costs (even if Sunni jihadists get their way) and garner a stonger relationship with Syria if the rebels win (pushing Russia out).
Tom_W1987 - Member
I just think Cameron's a naive thick **** who shows all the intellectual rigor of a lobotomized penguin and whom a private education was clearly wasted on.
😯 Nothing like strong convictions! 😉
It seems like it's the pro Israel types which are most upset by this. A great number of people (leaft and right) are quite happy that it's been shitcanned by us.
Let them kill each other and get it over quickly, that way less civilians die.If a new Islamic Caliphate is set up then we simply do what we did with Russia during the cold war. Surround it with nukes and contain it politically until it collapses when it runs out of oil. Blocking Russian and Chinese access to oil where possible so they still have to sell it to us, whilst developing better energy security for ourselves.
Maybe threaten to glass mecca and medina in the event that any Syrian and Iranian wmd falls into rebel hands (aka going all Israeli on them).
Is it back to school in your neck of the wood next week?
Amusing the CMD supporters believe he'll win the next election, it's his arrogance that got him into this mess, which typifies his term as PM.
its karma for being a Badger murderer
Is it back to school in your neck of the wood next week?
I didn't mean any of that really that seriously, I like to think out loud and then see how others react and consider possibilities purely for the hell of it. Eg sometimes I will be completely pro nuclear and others anti nuclear and then I will try to construct the best possible argument for whatever stance I have chosen. Tomorrow I might decide to be pro Iran and try to see the world through their eyes - it's a game to me.
In that regard, could you perhaps help me by suggesting a better way to contain the sunni jihadists and contain Russia/China? Seeing as they are certainly in a race with us to have access to resources (see Iceland for details). Is it the case with Cameron and Obama that by intervening in Syria and effectively engaging in a proxy war with Russia and China, AQ and Al Nusra are seen as the lesser evil?
History considered, we have put ourselves in a very difficult position.
It was a ridiculous vote which should never have been put to parliament as was, and should have been voted against by every MP.
It wasn't a vote based on the facts currently known, it was a vote to take action on findings that have yet been determined. It was a rather bizarre attempt to bypass parliamentary democracy by attempting to give DC and his inner circle approval to take military action no matter how they decide to interpret the UN report.
If a new Islamic Caliphate is set up then we simply do what we did with Russia during the cold war. Surround it with nukes and [s]contain it politically until it collapses when it runs out of oil. [/s]trade extensively with it while killing millions of people in devastating and futile proxy wars at ruinous cost and at the expense of nascent democracy in Africa, Asia and Latin America
Because we totally traded with the soviet union in any significant capacity.
Also if you think the left wing revolutionaries in Colombia, Cuba etc were intent during the very early days of setting up some kind of democratic Scandinavian socialism you are totally and utterly wrong. Granted US involvement was a huge failure and questionably carried out. Overall though communism was probably responsible for the overthrough of more potential democracies than we were and don't mention the suffering they caused (Mao anyone?). The actions in Iran and later Venezuela were utterly deplorable but you must remember that China and Russia are really not cuddly friends that are morally better than the west, they are countries to be viewed with deep suspicion. Point is, westerners need to stop self flagellating themselves for these things when we have huge positives to our societies and that other countries eg Russia certainly do not get in a moral dilemma over these sorts of issues like we do. (this though is something good about our society).
Syria is a no win situation, no side is preferable to another side.
For the UK to take sides will be detremental. We will upset someone who matters.
As for what this vote means? who cares, i think it was the right thin in so much that the actions of Blair have so poisoned the debate that any attempt to do the same is unthinkable. The only way forward is to have the UN say do it. To have so much evidence that there is no alternative.
Thing is even then, what will rise in the place of Assad? a western orientated democracy, or a Islamic state allied to Iran, or another Afghanistan/Somalia? Now throw Israel into the mix, does any middle eastern country feel safe knowing that Israel is sitting there with a persecution complex and nuclear weapons.
China and Russia are really not cuddly friends that are morally better than the west, they are countries to be viewed with deep suspicion.
and you think the west is any better?
Methods change the reasons don't, power for the sake of power, control and money.
How much of Africa is now under chinese "control" thorough aid programs?
and you think the west is any better?
Tell me again, right now... which side is actively supporting and giving training to a regime that are using chemical weapons against it's own people?
And I say right now because for all the bad things in the past caused by the west the Russians and Chinese have their own in equal measures.
And I say right now because for all the bad things in the past caused by the west the Russians and Chinese have their own in equal measures.
exactly, we are no better, no worse. We are all equally guilty.
As for your comments about russia and china funding Assad, so they are doing it openly, at least they are being honest about it!
It is a game, Sadamm, Gadafi, the Shah, they were tolerated when they suited our needs.
Indeed, chemical weapons will be used again and more innocent people will die - and when it does happen all the tree huggers who were ranting at us for threatening war will now be ranting at us for neglecting Syrian children's human rightsand Cameron will sit calmly in any interview and blame Miliband for, as he will put it, "putting petty electioneering before saving the lives of innocent children"
No one seemed to care about the lives that were being lost in the last few years through bombs and bullets Labrat.
Yup for sure, I just feel we could have dealt with these regimes in a manner that led to a slower transfer of power and historically we should have never left the middle east in a place whereby Saddam was the best option. If Saddam and Gadafi were still in power now, like Assad would we be seeing anywhere near the level of conflict throughout the middle east?
We should of used our alliances with these people to try influence these countries over a period of decades, until the time was right that elections could be held without a massive bloodbath. Almost all power vacuums from the French revolution to Libya have ended this way, worse than they were before the hated dictators were ousted. Democracy, secularism and peace... these are things that you can only foster effectively through cultural shifts over time.
At the end of the day with the attitudes different power blocs have towards each other, it's more of a case of whether you would rather us **** the Chinese and Russians whenever we can so that we can look out for our own interests. Because you can bet they will do the same to us and that's why we should stop making apologies for our actions in regards to Russia, however where we can win friends and trading allies we should but we should try to be better and foster real mutual relationships with those countries so that we can help end internal strife through the use of diplomacy. I just feel we have made a real mistake supporting Saudi Arabia when we could have supported and gotten on better with the Persians who we probably have more cultural ties to - if only the last 50 odd years were different. Iran, Syria and maybe Iraq could have in another life, been good allies to have.
Put it this way, I haven't seen any girls in Saudi Arabia walking around openly and sitting in cafes without headscarves wearing western clothing like I have seen in Damascus.
Bit of strawman construction and reductio ad absurdium there, but I'm just ilustrating my point.
WT ****ing F?
So does this now mean that the Americans 'Special Relationship', the 'Bridge to Europe' will be the cheese-eating surrender-monkey's? 😀
For the UK to take sides will be detremental. We will upset someone who matters.
Exactly. America gives us McDonalds, Russia gives us most of our gas supply and china most of everything else we do all day.
I know who I'd rather not be friends with, although we'll still be mates with the US because we are their gateway to Europe (kinda).
Because we totally traded with the soviet union in any significant capacity.
Because we (US and EEC) totally did, bro! Gas, wheat, steel, autos all traded with the USSR in significant volumes. There was no blockade or boycott of the Soviet Union.
if you think the left wing revolutionaries in Colombia, Cuba etc were intent during the very early days of setting up some kind of democratic Scandinavian socialism you are totally and utterly wrong.
Totally didn't say that, bro! But weird that you should chose the most degenerate and criminal-fascist regime (Cuba) and the most pro-US military regime (Colombia) to illustrate your points about the absence of Scandinavian social-democratic governments in Latin America.
and on whom a private education was clearly wasted [s]on[/s].
😀
Because we (US and EEC) totally did, bro! Gas, wheat, steel, autos all traded with the USSR in significant volumes. There was no blockade or boycott of the Soviet Union.
I believe the USA's level of trade with the Soviet Union was 1 percent of total trade per year between 1970 and 1987.
You got me Woppit, damn my dyslexia to hell.
per yeah, yeah, yeah, surely?
IGMC shall I?
Oooh, sharp on the edit...
"To hlle", shirley?
Hah 
Have him and vague resigned yet....
times running out
but weve stood by for the last 2.5 years and watched assad kill 99000+ other people
I've seen this kind of comment before, why do some people assume that all the deaths in this tragic war can be attributed solely to Syrian government forces ? Seriously, it baffles me.
If the rebels, and I use the term loosely as many are actually foreign fighters, hadn't contributed to the total death count then they clearly wouldn't be in control of larges swathes of Syria.
I would have thought that it was all very obvious, and yet some people would like to pretend that anti-Assad forces haven't killed anyone. Bizarre.
Shame, was looking forward to another good war in the middle east....the lucrative contracts resulting from our magnificent intervention could have paid my mortgage off.
Can we get started on the Spanish or the Argies instead?
In all seriousness, the middle east is a dump, let them kill each other, provided the oil keeps pumping i really couldnt care less.
In all seriousness................. i really couldnt care less.
Nice
John Kerry speech on Syria. Talking about not repeating the gas attacks of WWI again. Hey John how about the war you served in where you dropped Agent Orange on a nation, whose affects are still felt today in birth defects. Go hang your head in shame.
today's blog in The Telegraph sums it up pretty well from my perspective
Seems logical to me. Some one has a good idea. It must be reasonable as nearly half the MPs agreed.
You ask al who have a say and if its voted against it doesn't happen. Isn't that the point of democracy?
The only people I am ever impressed with are those who ignore the part line and (if they did which I doubt as every politician is a liar to some extent) and vote for their constituency.
To many here it is just a excuse to have a go at the government.
Bet there would be the same moaning if it had gone the other way.
Milliband? He is just the spawn of that disgrace to humanity Blair.
Blair? They had the sexed-up dossier etc etc.
At the end, no evidence.
Funny that. Bliar got away until judgement day. No repenting your sins will work.
youre completely right ernie i shouldve said 'stood by while the civil war killed the 99000 people' or maybe said assad killed 49000 people my point wouldve still stood
infact it annoyed me when rif****d said assad had killed over 100000 in his address to the commons yesterday
Asads still in power. Why? Drop the Regime thing. People stand behind him still as the alternative aint as good/clean as you'd think.
Regimes tend to crumble under opposition, sanctions etc.
Who is the opposition?
Hey John how about the war you served in where you dropped Agent Orange on a nation, whose affects are still felt today in birth defects. Go hang your head in shame.
You don't get it, that's not the same.
Likewise when Israel, in clear violation of international law, repeatedly used white phosphorus shells against densely populated areas of Gaza, including targeting UN provided schools, the US didn't punish Israel for committing war crimes. Instead they provided them with even more military aid.
An illegal Israeli attack using white phosphorus shells against a UN school :
[img] 
?w=580[/img]
[img] 
?w=580[/img]
[img] 
?w=580[/img]
[img] 
?w=580[/img]
[img] 
?w=580[/img]
[url= http://www.hrw.org/node/81760 ]Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza[/url]
Err how many civilians did the US kill in defending a regime?
Sorry. When the US gets moral - pass the sick bag. Kerry just described France as their oldest and loyalist friend.
I guess Afghanistan and Iraq are forgotten to Kerry in that childish dig.
mattsccm - heir to blair ? shirley you are meant cameron is heir to blair
milliband is opposing war in the way the torries never did to blair
[quote=kimbers ]
milliband is opposing war
Did you actually watch/listen to the debate last night? Miliband isn't opposing war, he just wants a higher level of "proof".
To be fair France is indeed the United States oldest ally. The United States would not have achieved independence when it did had it not been for the defeat of the British navy by the French navy, the US had no navy at that time.
**** Kerry
**** America
**** Israel
It's high time we stopped being the US' lapdog.
They don't want/need our help, it's just so that they aren't seen to be doing it alone. Happy to be distanced from hollande too.
The French will lose their appetite, and when they do, the Americans will round on them just as they are doing on us. Remember "freedom fries"?
The French will lose their appetite, and when they do, the Americans will round on them just as they are doing on us. Remember "freedom fries"?
And Saddam. He was once their blue eyed boy in the Middle East, they even supplied him with chemical weapons to use on the Iranians. But then they dropped him when he no longer served their best interests.
As for chemical weapons, we are not so innocent, during the second world war, uk was mass producing chemical weapons at Runcorn and delivering them for safe keping to Rhydymyn near Mold, the most secret place during the war,as the germans never discovered it, lots of deep tunnels and a secret tunnel to the coast.
Saw a quote this week- Obama is closer to Nixon than Martin luther King.
[quote=hora ]Saw a quote this week- Obama is closer to Nixon than Martin luther King.
Obama and Nixon both have 5 letters so you may have a point.
Obama's version would be "I have a drone" then....
Wow. Obama now says Syria threatens the US' s security and interests.
I'm moving him closer to Bush.
We had chemical weapons in WW2. So what. The key point is we didn't deploy them. We currently have nukes as a whole arsenal of other weaponry.
today's blog in The Telegraph sums it up pretty well from my perspective
What, you like the bloke who wrote that article is a bit a of drama queen?
So?
The Yanks used atomic bombs on soft targets
And various napalam, defolliation chemicals and Agent Orange indescriminantly.
Lets not beat around the Bush. The US are ****ing hypocrites.
Sir Max Hastings' s interview is worth listening to.
Hague and Cameron are both trying to do the right thing but by doing that they are following (the will of the people) instead of leading us to do the right thing.
Milliband how the hell is he a leader? Hes a joke and the wrong Milliband was voted in completely. Foolish decision, would sooner follow a true leader to war and take mankind forward than listen to the reationary rubbish that man comes out with.
Leader....... Milliband? Come on!
scotroutes - MemberDid you actually watch/listen to the debate last night? Miliband isn't opposing war, he just wants a higher level of "proof".
ok fair point but ill take a higher level of proof of guilt over camerons motion to vote yes to unilateral action, the details of which we'll discuss later, wtf would anyone vote for that?
All of a sudden the right wingers seem to be wishing Tony Blair was running labour again?
its a crazy world
even suggesting david 'extraordinary rendtition' milliband was in charge
We need a captain to steer the ship, i dont care if they are labour conservative or whatever just need to be insperational. Cant imagine Milliband leading a brass band let alone a country FFS!
How about Boris, is he inspirational enough for you ?
Yeah a leader - might be a little mad though?
Surely you need to be a little mad to be a great leader ?
But not as mad as Milliband cause hes just plain daft..
As Ernie has already pointed out: there wasn't a peep out of them when the israeli's were dropping white phosphorous on Palestinian children, but now appear to be horrified by chemical weapons in Syria.
Forget the comparisons with Iraq. Getting involved in a civil war? An alliance with France? Against an enemy being supported by Russia and China? More Vietnam, than iraq. About the only (of many) American military follies we sensibly stated well out of! We'll be equally as glad we stayed out of this one. The French will soon disappear. Just like they did before.
Someone certainly needs to leads you to enlightenment I will give you that
We had chemical weapons in WW2. So what. The key point is we didn't deploy them
Why do you think we had them - was it just that during the war we thought hey lets waste loads of resources on making something we have no intention whatsoever of ever using and then secretly store it.
Clearly it was made because it would have been used - presumably if we were invaded or as a last cause or some such.
Thats exactly their intention Junkyard. Churchill directed the project.
The storage facility still exists. Search 28days later forum.
I'm glad Churchill directed that particular project, its what I'd expect a great leader to do.
so you must like the great syrian leader even more as not only did he do this he also deployed them
Saddam Hussein was too daft to realise that all great leaders have a ready supply of chemical weapons.
But President Assad reminds me a little of Winston Churchill. It's those great leadership qualities I think.
No Churchill had the foresight to protect this country by whatever means if we were invaded. As i said, a great leader.....
Assad has done exactly the same thing so why is not a great leader?
Are we really comparing assad with Churchill???
Come on now, that's pretty disgraceful.
Yep, as I said ..... Saddam Hussein lacked those great leadership qualities. What sort of pisspoor leader had no chemical weapons ready to use when their country is invaded ?
Bashar al-Assad on the other hand.........Churchillian stature
Are we really comparing assad with Churchill???
Well yes. Apparently great leaders have chemical weapons ready to be used if their country is invaded.
Just exposing the hatred junkyard and ernie have for their own country 😉
Well yes. Apparently great leaders have chemical weapons ready to be used if their country is invaded.
Should I get some for my house? Just in case?
I think the real baddy is whoever supplied those chemical weapons in the full knowledge of how they worked.
We should declare war on them.
Oh....
🙂
....that'll be Russia then.
A time of war is no time to start trusting your enemy - you have to cover all bases to protect your own skin. Its kill or be killed time. Of course if Hitler was successful in landing troops on the ground in England and we had become entranced in a WW1 style trench warfare and Hitler started chucking chemical weapons around, then we were prepared to retaliate - but it is worth noting that during the whole of WW2 both sides did not resort to using chemical weapons in open combat - though unfortunately they gassed the Jews in the camps. There is a gulf of difference between covering your options and bases, and actually using the things.
Assad clearly is a great leader just as Hitler was. He's managed to stay in charge through this whole crisis so far, so people are prepared to follow him, just as a whole nation followed Hitler into a World War, i'm sure against their better personal judgements. They were great leaders, though their aims and objectives are clearly wrong and abhorrent.
Are we really comparing assad with Churchill???
bloodynora seems to be
Should I get some for my house? Just in case?
Best find out whether bloody nora likes you or not so I can decide if it is good or bad.
Of course if Hitler was successful in landing troops on the ground in England
I assume you mean Britain when you say England there?
F me, Hammond is talking like he's actually experienced something other than comfy university, boardrooms and parliament. As if he's has a *ing clue what soldiers think. What a Jeremy hunt.
bloodynora - MemberJust exposing the hatred junkyard and ernie have for their own country
Well nora you didn't mention either me or Junkyard. You only mentioned Churchill.
And you mentioned Churchill only to point out that you expect "great leaders" to have chemical weapons at their disposal ready to use if threatened.
Only someone with your level of logic would think that it was a good idea to make that point on a thread which is discussing how to deal with President Assad alleged use of chemical weapons.
So I guess it's well in keeping with your irrational logic to claim that what you were in fact really saying was that me and Junkyard hate our country.
[img] 
[/img]
What's the calm down comment for zippykona ? Nora seems very relaxed adding winkies to his post, and I find his comments hugely entertaining.
And meanwhile, the Syrian civil war goes on, with no idea or plan on how to bring it to an end, other than firing a limited number of cruise missiles at them for a bit and hoping for the best 🙁
Is it me or is the BBC being particularly hawkish on Syria? More graphic images, emotive tone and language than I can remember for a long time, although granted video phones allow access to more raw footage. Feels like there are a few over eager editors with agendas. Watching Newsnight, there was a slow zooming shot into the face of a clearly distressed aid worker just back from the scene of the presumed napalm attack.