Syria megathread- is British government desperate for another war?

[bullerboY]

Most of you are missing the point which is why should we be involved with other countries affairs when our own country is suffering internally.AS one poster said there are far richer countries around that area who should be sorting it out not us.I f oil was not involved do you think the UK and America would give a monkeys whatsit who were killing who and how many.No we need to get this country sorted out and soon,how many missiles are going to be fired and at what cost in human and financial terms,all this could be put to settling matters here.Money is soon found for adventures such as this but not for home issues.

[boyfriday]

I don't know tfh.

 

On the one hand it was heartbreaking to see images of dead children killed by nerve gas, on the other I understand the consequences of interfering from a British point of view.

 

If there is a god you would have thought intervention in the form of hellfire & brimstone is long overdue.

[megalithic]

No. We're skint aren't we.

[boyfriday]

No. We're skint aren't we.

 

If it was only about money I'd give my last tanner to see children saved from genocide.

[tinfoilhat]

Most of you are missing the point which is why should we be involved with other countries affairs when our own country is suffering internally.AS one poster said there are far richer countries around that area who should be sorting it out not us.I f oil was not involved do you think the UK and America would give a monkeys whatsit who were killing who and how many.No we need to get this country sorted out and soon,how many missiles are going to be fired and at what cost in human and financial terms,all this could be put to settling matters here.Money is soon found for adventures such as this but not for home issues.

 

I don't think the usa get much oil at all from the Middle East. They either produce their own or get from Canada and South America.

[taxman]

No. We're skint aren't we.

 

Money can always be found when "needed".

 

I'm tending towards no military intervention. Syria are supported by China and Russia, let those countries put diplomatic and economic pressure on Assad and if military intervention is needed let The Arab League deal with it.

 

Billy Hague was on TV just now saying that any action would be specifically targeted at destroying the capability to use chemical weapons and we wouldn't be taking sides. Which sounds OK but on the ground there are dangers of either doing too little because we don't to "take sides" or doing too much and supporting one side in a civil war who probably loathe our guts anyway.

 

We are rarely welcomed by any side in the Middle East or, if we are initially welcomed, we are soon castigated as invaders.

[Ridgeway84]

After reading up on the Rwandan genocide and the slaughter in Yugoslavia I believe we should always intervene where mass killing takes place. This will require ground action if we are to avoid a new dynasty of nutter taking over.

[tinfoilhat]

If it was only about money I'd give my last tanner to see children saved from genocide.

 

Get of that fence bf;);)

 

I mentioned it on another thread, we've done little in quite a few other parts of the world (rwanda, sri lanka) Should chemical weapons (if that's actually true) be the line in the sand? Do the other hundred thousand dead not count?

[chem1st]

We are already involved, more than you think.

[megalithic]

No, i didn't mean my decision was just based on money, that's just an aside, we shouldn't be interfering elsewhere imo.