Let's bomb Syria!

Or maybe, let's not bomb Syria. Because it really worked with Iraq and Afghanistan. And we really ought to weigh in on the side of the jihadists, al-Qaeda and other nutters.

We could do it with drones, though, because they never cause civilian casualties. And by using them, the Americans have retained the moral high ground.

Dear Mr Cameron - the two sides in Syria are intent on slaughtering each other so let's leave them to it. When they're ready to talk, then we can get involved.

«1

Comments

  • Your last paragraph is utterly retarded bollocks.

  • I don't think military action of the type that was in Iraq or Afghanistan will be anything but bad and just widen the war. But military action in a similar way to Kosavo or Lybia might might be of use in stopping this madness if and only if Russia can be made to be on side and it there are clear target's i.e. the fasilities that are presently making or stock piling the chemical weapon's that are increasing being used from whats I can tell from the news. At yet I'm unconvinced that's possible but depending on what is said willing to entertian the idea.

    Troops on the ground will just cause a mess as all the other factions in this farse get involved and will make it even worse for the people of syria.

  •  

    Cake wrote (see)

     

    Troops on the ground will just cause a mess as all the other factions in this farse get involved and will make it even worse for the people of syria.

    I think this is the point. There aren't even two clear "sides" in this conflict. The rebels don't seem to have names, or faces or even clear goals, so just about anything the west does will almost certainly make things worse.

  • Screamapillar wrote (see)

     

    Cake wrote (see)

     

    Troops on the ground will just cause a mess as all the other factions in this farse get involved and will make it even worse for the people of syria.

    I think this is the point. There aren't even two clear "sides" in this conflict. The rebels don't seem to have names, or faces or even clear goals, so just about anything the west does will almost certainly make things worse.

     

    There are certainly different factions but meant if un peace keepers where used they would just be a bullet magnet for the hisbula Syria and Iran have been sponsoring them for years as well as other middle east group’s and they are already engaged in the civil war.  At the moment if the present situation continues it’s going to just get worse been thinking it over and wondering if a no-fly zone over the country is of any use? Alongside more serious sanctions? Still far from ideal but you’re not going to get an ideal situation on this one.  All of this will depend on a clear and forceful UN resolution through which is as likely as me winning the next miss world competition.

  • Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

    On the basis that if we wade in we will be wrong and if stand back we will be wrong, I say stand back and leave it to someone else, where's the French? couldn't we unleash the Germans instead?


    As I understand it the French and Germans are both in favour of taking action.

    What I don't understand it why the Syrians have decided to use chemical weapons against civilians.  There is no military benifit to be gained and it must be obvious that this would massively escalate the crisis internationally.  What does Assad expect to gain from this?  Is this a deliberate attempt to provoke retaliation from Nato thus pulling in Iran/Russia etc?

  • Lou while in some area's Assad is doing well in other's he's losing and desperate. A bad combination and the use of the weapons might not be under his control, He's hardy going to say I've lost control of my own weapons of mass distruction.

    Plus since chemical weapons have first started to be used there has been a combination of factor's that make me thing he thinks he can get away with in indeffinatly. Any use of force by nato will have to be with a nod and a wink from russia or we will enter a new cold war or worse. I think they are hoping that won't happen.

  • I fail to understand why the Middle East countries cannot sort out their own local difficulties. Most are wealthy from oil, have officers trained at West Point and Sandhurst and buy their prestigious weapons from the West. Why also do they need the lives of our military?

    Do they always require (or want) a solution from the West which rarely satisfies and stokes anti USA and British hatred (irrespective of whether UN or EU are involved)?

    Also the morning papers' said Tony Blair Middle East Peace Envoy, no less, supports intervention.........says it all really! 

     

     

  • Emmy H wrote (see)

    I'm really sorry that you're having a rough time at the moment. I wish that I could help in some way but i'm sending all of my positive thoughts in your direction... and I know that you don't want to hear that because you'll start crying again.

     

    Martenkay wrote (see)

    I fail to understand why the Middle East countries cannot sort out their own local difficulties. Most are wealthy from oil, have officers trained at West Point and Sandhurst and buy their prestigious weapons from the West. Why also do they need the lives of our military?

    Do they always require (or want) a solution from the West which rarely satisfies and stokes anti USA and British hatred (irrespective of whether UN or EU are involved)? Also the morning papers' said Tony Blair Middle East Peace Envoy, no less, supports intervention.........says it all really!     

    Middle east oil states encouraging democracy in other countries?

    I'm sure the ruling elite really want to encourage that.

  • 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 thingsimage

  • It's not an argument.  It's a statement.

  • Martenkay wrote (see)

    I fail to understand why the Middle East countries cannot sort out their own local difficulties. Most are wealthy from oil, have officers trained at West Point and Sandhurst and buy their prestigious weapons from the West. Why also do they need the lives of our military?

    Do they always require (or want) a solution from the West which rarely satisfies and stokes anti USA and British hatred (irrespective of whether UN or EU are involved)? Also the morning papers' said Tony Blair Middle East Peace Envoy, no less, supports intervention.........says it all really!            Someone with a very dark sense of humour must have appointed him to that position. I can picture the interview; Q. Now tell me Mr. Blair, what have you done so far to further the cause of peace in the Middle East ?.............?   Incidentally, whatever the arguments for and against, and I happen to be strongly against intervention, a recent Yougov poll shows only 9% in favour of direct intervention and just 10% in favour of supplying arms to the rebels. Once again we could be getting involved in yet another foreign conflict against the wishes of the British people, with no outcome predictable other than it will be very muddy, and that it could spark attacks against us on the streets of our own country.

     

  • 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.

  • 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 thingsimage


    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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. 

  • 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...

  • 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. 

  • 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. image

    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.

  • 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.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.