Let's bomb Syria!

21 to 40 of 45 messages
27/08/2013 at 19:13
seren nos wrote (see)

I don't know what the solution is......but i really feel that its wrong to do nothing......let the world watch whilst innocent people are being killed.......when do you actually start to do something.....when it happens in europe.or maybe just when it happens in your own country.......

but then maybe if its happening between gangs in a different city to yourself you are happy for it to be left alone as long as its not in your near vicinity.......

I don't think it should be UK or USA lead.i think it should be UN lead.but then the UN cannot seem to ever make a decsion on most things


Seren I believe your thoughts are similar to politicians but they are in the spotlight and need to be seen doing a) something or b) nothing AND explaining logically their decisions. There is no right answer just a decision to be made.

My own view despite my earlier post is that if nobody locally will make a stand then once again the West will need to step in. Does the West have a post war strategy?

My view about the stance of Russia and China in these matters and earlier conflicts is that the leaders in those huge countries can visualise domestic unrest.  They tend to veto intervention on the basis that one day their own countries may have a situation where they do not want outside interference.

Using the same argument as for Syria what realistically would the West do if thousands were dying in civil unrest and then a chemical attack in China or Russia? I do not imagine either county using such a weapon but would have said the same about  Syria. Sadly I think the West would let it happen.

27/08/2013 at 19:27

Sadly, you can't protect civilians in war.

You especially can't protect them in a situation like the one in Syria, where there's nothing like a front line and it's basically street fighting.

All you can realistically do is provide humanitarian aid.

27/08/2013 at 21:23

The 'we must do something' argument is a very dangerous one without a solid strategic and political plan.  Without clear objectives is becomes little more than retaliation or sabre rattling which will just escalate the situation further.

The moral objection from the US is fairly hollow given that: a) the US has admitted using chemical weapons during the invasion of Iraq; and b) the in recent years US has undertaken a consistent policy of targetting civilians outside defined warzones; c) the US assisted Sadam Hussain's regime by providing satalite imagery to target chemical attacks on Iranian forces during the Iran/Iraq war.

27/08/2013 at 23:15

Looking at all the available I'd say the best argument is to keep out of it.

28/08/2013 at 00:02

It looks like this is a done deal, unfortunately. I expect the missiles to be flying within a week. 

28/08/2013 at 07:31

It's worth noting, because there are potentially a few similarities, that following the falabja massacre during the Iran/Iraq war the US insisted it was carried out by Iranian forces. This continued until the late eighties and the build up to the first gulf war when the US changed its mind and decided Iraq was actually responsible. 

28/08/2013 at 08:05

I've never understood why it's ok to shoot your citizens but not gas them.  But maybe that's a discussion for another day...

28/08/2013 at 08:20

Sounds crazy doesn't it? But probably because gassing is, by its very nature, indiscriminate.

You can use all sorts of other weapons and claim to be trying to avoid civilian casualties but you can't make the same claim with gas. 

28/08/2013 at 12:19

Making out that gas and chemical weapons are evil, yet allowing for target bombing and guns is a creation of the civilised western world. It effectively means that we want the world to fight fairly, in light of the overwhelming superiority of western traditional weapons, it is in their interests to do so.

Shooting masses of people or bombing them causing mass casualties is no more or no less evil (or morally wrong) than gassing, burning or any other means to kill.    

Cake    pirate
28/08/2013 at 12:29
LouiseG wrote (see)

I've never understood why it's ok to shoot your citizens but not gas them.  But maybe that's a discussion for another day...


It's not still a war crime but also all war is a crime.

The only real difference is that if you shot citizens you might be able to claim it was in error in a war zone. Regardless of how hard you try citizens always die in the cross fire anyone who tell's you different is ever a idiot or lyeing.

Chemical weason's however are banned by international law althrough most countries that have had them still have them in some capacity and the us are no moral high ground in this as above.

JvR
28/08/2013 at 12:52

Whatever decisions the Security Council makes it has to be specific and not get everybody embroiled in what will be a very costly war that has the real possibility of escalating out of control.

I'd like to see them state that they will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons within Syria and will take steps the necessary steps to stop their use if either side appear to be going to use them.
After that I'd like to see everyone take a step back and allow the UN Inspectors to do their job. Once the results of their investigation are available then whoever used the chemical weapons can be held to account.

As for UK and US forces spearheading any action, unfortunately, when you have some of the most advanced weapons and best trained forces in the world, people tend to let you take the lead. Its just a shame that successive governments haven't realised that because the UK armed forces are some of the best in the world that they need to provide them with the support they need if they are going to chuck them into conflicts over and over.

28/08/2013 at 15:34

There's still no proof that chemical weapons have been used and I for one (and possibly in a minority of one) think that some of the footage we've seen looks somewhat contrived.

I do wonder, howwever, why UN inspectors weren't allowed in the area for five days. Let's hope that modern forensics can discover the truth. Trouble is vif results come back negative there are those that will say that the results are due to the delay.

The whole thing tends to remind me of the WMD screw up though 

Cake    pirate
28/08/2013 at 16:24

groovy afriad San ton fonter's (spelling sorry) are saying it has been used and I'd trust them more than others and there is chemical samples that turkey and other nato people are saying proves it. Who used them is the only issue to me that isn't set in stone is who has used them. Assad is as guilt as a puppy next to poo as far as I'm consirned but that's just me and not proof.

28/08/2013 at 16:42

I'd like to see proof I'm afraid. It's not that I necessarily believe that chemicals haven't been used it's just the footage doesn't convince me. We live in a digital media age and most propaganda comes through that channel but we also know that it can be easily manipulated

Dave The Ex- Spartan    pirate
28/08/2013 at 16:56

Lets bomb the badgers instead 

seren nos    pirate
28/08/2013 at 17:05

not sure why america keeps on about the chemical weapons on innocent people mind..........when they sent the nuclear bomb on whole cities filled with innocent people.... can't see how they can take the moral high ground on this 

28/08/2013 at 17:49

considering hoing into Syria but not intervening when the Israeli army kills countless Palestinians, makes no sense to me. Lives seem to be valued based on what the USUK coalition can earn from it. The British and American politicians should hang their heads in shame for allowing Israel to slaughter civilians and then fiercely protecting Isreal from other Arab states. 

I think morality is more like moroility these days...,,

Dave The Ex- Spartan    pirate
28/08/2013 at 17:53

Palestine hasn't any oil has it ? 

28/08/2013 at 17:56
Intermanaut wrote (see)

You appear to be as you're responding.  Besides, it's not trolling.  If it is, then offering any counter to a statement or an argument would be trolling, you moron.

 

Ooh- strong key tapping there. Simply classing an alternative opinion as 'bollocks' without any attempt to offer a counter opinion/argument is blatant trolling. As is calling someone a moron just because you think you'll never meet them. So troll on lass.

Cake    pirate
28/08/2013 at 17:58

 Err I don't disagree with that conpleately but the uk did supple the palestinians with much of there police equipment and training and has joined in some but not all of the resultions in the past condeming Israeli action. If we have a poor track record in one area should we just allow murder in anouther?

The Israelie/Arab situation has at times been both sides calling the kettle black at each other and isn't as clear cut as your making it out to be.

21 to 40 of 45 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump