Eccentric Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 It looks like only one man will be able to appease Assad, and that is his intimate friend, George Galloway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 As much as my heart goes out to those being gassed, bombed or driven to seek asylum in other countries, lets not forget that the UK, USA, France and Germany are not their neighbours, neither are they the richest countries in the world. Their neighbours include oil rich kingdoms who sell us oil and buy our fighter planes. That's how rich they are. They **** gold. They are so rich they could buy and sell the UK a hundred times over. Let them deal with it! Thats a slightly right of centre post for you taxman! But, one i very much agree with. Syria will be a harder nut to crack as well. I read an interesting piece on bbc website which had some interesting points - ie are we happy backing rebels who back al qieda who will then apparently get a nice stock of chemical weapons. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23842867 Another point that crossed my mind, if there was an election tommorow who could I vote for who would be anti war? The lib dems nailed their colours to that particular mast but I'm not sure who is going down that road now. Having said all that - how many of those who called Blair a war criminal in 2003 voted for him 2005? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBCY Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 It looks like only one man will be able to appease Assad, and that is his intimate friend, George Galloway. ASSad is not the agressor here, its those fun loving , head choppinh , flesh eating , UK tax funded Rebels. who were caught red handed with sarin gas in May 2012. http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Let them deal with it! We were letting them deal with it until chemical weapons were used. Maybe if we and the International community had paid a little more attention to the crisis earlier that could have been avoided. Now in the light of what's happened we are involved whether we like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 We were letting them deal with it until chemical weapons were used. Maybe if we and the International community had paid a little more attention to the crisis earlier that could have been avoided. Now in the light of what's happened we are involved whether we like it. So earlier military action then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 So earlier military action then?NO! I AM AGAINST MILITARY ACTION. I believe they're are always other options, but if nations aren't getting their heads together to discuss matters when a serious crisis develops, and to sort out their own divisions, we shouldn't be so surprised when things get out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 NO! I AM AGAINST MILITARY ACTION. I believe they're are always other options, but if nations aren't getting their heads together to discuss matters when a serious crisis develops, and to sort out their own divisions, we shouldn't be so surprised when things get out of control. Other options don't work, which is why wars happen .i.e. the breakdown of all communication until someone gets battered enough to submit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Is it fair to say the Middle East throughout history has always been a place where there was a war going on? Someone even suggested the 3rd world war might be triggered in the ME No more so than the same could be said of Europe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_Kingdom That's just the UK since the 17th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 NO! I AM AGAINST MILITARY ACTION. I believe they're are always other options, but if nations aren't getting their heads together to discuss matters when a serious crisis develops, and to sort out their own divisions, we shouldn't be so surprised when things get out of control. I'm not having a go, and you are saying what some media commentators are saying - we should have done "something". Even if Russia hadn't kept sending weapons to Assad, they still had plenty to start with. Do we start to put sanctions on Russia ? They feel, and they may have point, that Assad is besieged by al qieda terrorists. It's tip-of-the-iceberg stuff. In this country the two main parties have hardly a fag paper between them in policies and they can't agree on anything. What chance do you think this lot have. Two choices here, and there hasn't ever been anymore than that. Humanitarian aid to both sided and no weapons (hoping that the rest of the world don't get involved) or pick a side and use some degree of military force and get it all done quicker. Pick one, guaranteeing that one side will now put a target on our backs (another 7/7?) and the winners will grow to hate us too. We've sold a lot of weapons to Middle East states - let them roll their sleeves up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 So what do you think the West should do in Middle East conflicts? Ignore the pleadings of those who ask us to intervene and just let the suffering of masses of people continue and escalate, or should we make some attempt to provide assistance? We just can't win on any decision, either way we seem to create upset, damned if we do, damned if we don't. Leave them to it, don't you remember what happened in Libya? Google" FSA burning churches" or "FSA rebels ripping hearts out" and than tell me if these are the type of people we should be helping. The innocents that are caught up in between are just collateral damage as I'm sure has happened many times in other wars. What about when the rebels used chemical weapons back in march this year and were according to the UN committing war crimes? The rebel/al Qaeda need defeating, better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Have a read of this= http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/ More info here= http://www.aina.org/news/20130826131925.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.