The Russians can be negotiated out of it. They are interested in the oil only not in the Syrian people. Failing that just go around them.
Just as a point of conversation. What give us the right to be the police force and interfere with the internal affairs of another country? Whether we find their actions morally reprehensible or not? We would certainly not be happy if Saudi Arabia was considering Military action because we afford women equal rights. I'm genuinely interested in people's reasoning as Syria is something I can not make my mind up on given previous operations in the middle east.
i keep hearing people say 'we should stay out of it, as its just does not involve us.' whenever i hear this i am just absolutely fuming. just because something is half a world away, does not make it acceptable when there are innocent people dying. the use of chemical weopens is abhorrent, thousands have been killed and millions displaced by a war in which neither side seems to be making significant gains. we should not go in because we expect to gain something from the situation, we should get involved because helping the innocent is the right thing to do. i hope when the mps look at the situation on tv in the evenings, and see more children dying, that they realise what a spineless bunch of malcontents they really are. lets be honest the entire vote yesterday was a political exercise in shaming the conservatives. nothing more, nothing less. you can go on and say well yes democracy has won, but in my opinion human decency lost yesterday evening.
We assisted Saddam Hussein in the Iran Iraq war. That didn't work out too well. We assisted Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. That worked out even less well. One thing I know if we go into Syria is we won't make any friends in the region and whatever we do will no doubt come back to bite us.
but hornmeister there is a difference between affording women equal rights and using chemical weopens on innocent civilians? i would like to think if we lived in a country where our government was killing innocent civilians, that some other country would intervene because it would be the right thing to do. for what its worth, although iraq has turned out to be a complete train crash, i was entirely behind the decision to go to war there. why? saddam was a complete nutter who along with his cronies had committed genocide. unfortunately we appear to have left the country in a worse state than we found it, but this is only because we have been trying to give power back to an independent iraqi government who can do nought but argue with each other. afghanistan was a completely different war. it was all about revenge. at the time i was probably all behind it, being naive and angry about the twin towers. the state of fear that that scale of terrorism created, the amount of anger, i think you would have to have been very brave to argue that it was not the right course of action, although you would not necessarily have been wrong
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594 Watch that and tell me that intervening is the not correct course of action. Labour is absolutely spineless, yet somehow Cameron is the one who will come out of this looking like a ****.
I am opposed to our military intervention on multiple levels: The Syrian people have a fundamental right to self determination The UN Security Council has no moral platform whatsoever to make judgements on others when it has spent the last 70 years totally engrossed in political selfishness, greed and manipulation. I see no absolute proof (yet) that the Syrian regime is guilty of using chemical weapons. What happened to the British democratic principle of innocent until proven guilty? After the WMD lies (war crimes) used by the US and British Governments to manipulate justification for the Iraq war I distrust everything I now see on Syria in the press. The Syrian people hate us as much as the Syrian regime. Why am I going to step in and stop 2 rats fighting to the death? By replacing the regime (who does the British people no harm) we risk creating a fundamentalist terrorist sponsoring state (which will intend the British people great harm) It is wrong for British soldiers to be killed and maimed when there is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the lives of British citizens or the security of the United Kingdom.
For me, it isn't about whether we take action, it is whether we take action in almost total isolation - yet again. I see myself as appalled by the events, but unsure how a USA/UK military action would help. Having seen the figures for the vote last night, I am appalled at one aspect, and that is how Party politics has, for Labour, been the most important aspect of this vote. The nation is divided, according to polls at around 25% for action and 75% against or not sure. Following on from this, I see that around 10 Lib Dems and around 30 conservative MP's voted against their leaderships wishes and with their conscience. The Labour MP's all voted with Milliband orders. Labour obviously think it is more important to give Cameron a bloody nose than vote honestly with the Syrian people in mind. Either that, or the Labour Party is completely out of step with the general population. This isn't really a victory for democracy at all!
I have friends in the armed forces, and each and every single one of them who i have talked to, would love the opportunity to go in there and try to make a difference. Nobody forces them to join the armed forces, they do so because they want to fight for their country in whichever way the government of the time decrees.
No one will attack Israel, it'd be suicidal, they'd hold their own against Iran and Syria. Bearing in mind they have WMDs aswell.
The vote last night will send almost unparalleled waves through Westminster. Make no mistake, Cameron is in DEEP ****. I wouldn't go as far as saying as hanging by a thread but certainly the backbenchers will be considering alternatives to him. In addition, Cameron is pretty much a lame duck Prime Minister. If he can't win a vote on something so simple and 'morally right' as this, then seriously, wow. As for Syria, the Americans don't need us militarily and what they really wanted is 'big name' support. They'll only have our words now and the French, desperate for forgiveness by the Americans, will stand alongside them.
it was not really camerons fault. labour and milliband deserve a ****ing kick in the balls for turning the whole thing into a prime-minister shaming exercise.
Agree about oil but then that goes for us and USA too. The last thing the Russians want is a pro-Western government on the border with Iran and a step closer to them. As for going around them - have you missed the comments by the Russian foreign ministry and the fact that Russia has been providing significant weapons to Syria recently? They're hardly taking a neutral stance in what has so far been a bit of a proxy war with us arming the rebels and them the regime. With Putin back in charge the chances of them allowing themselves to be sidelined are minimal in my opinion. How does us chucking some cruise missiles on the rubble help them? You speak like we have a magic cure for war and it's through sheer intransigence that we don't use it. In fact there is literally nothing we can do to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria either now or in the future. Intervening militarily is not the correct course of action. What's wrong with offering humanitarian aid, encouraging people to give money to the DEC and offering our specialists/labs etc to assist the UN with their investigations? You also say the government is 99% sure - the figure I heard from a political correspondant this morning on BBC it's more like 80%. And some of that is down to interpretations of intelligence by people who have a vested interested in interpreting it in a certain way.
Wasn't it just how a democracy works? Rather than the PM just saying 'sod you all' and go marching in to Syria, he asked MP's to vote who (in theory) should reflect what their constituents want. The majority said no so for now no action will be taken. He could have done a Blair and ignored everyone regardless.
Get it all in your heads that the Syrian gov did not gas these civilians, Al Quaida did and that it plays right into the hands of the big US war machine makes me very, very suspicious. Just understand that it is the US that are controlling the media and anything you see is geared to their viewpoint. This war is about to ahead with or without the will of the people either here or across the Atlantic and if not right now then soon. Expect a bigger atrocity to kick it off next time although it will need better thought out 'concrete evidence'.
US, France and a few other allies will attack Syria, something will happen that means we have to meet our NATO obligations and we will get dragged in. Hope I am wrong but we are far from out of this at the moment.
No, the labour MP's all voted in accordance with their leaders orders - nothing to do with their constituency, or their own feelings.
I'm not saying you are right or wrong with what you say. But what makes you such an expert on who released the nerve gas. Do you have any "concrete evidence" ? Or, are you just taking your usual anti US line.
out of interest then godfather; this latest incendiary attack on a school. if as the media say is correct the incendiary bomb was dropped from a fighter plane, are we supposed to believe that al quaida now possess military fighter jets?
How many times do you hear of such things only to find someones been launching rockets from the roof top? ... I'll tell you now that the only news coming out of Syria is only what they want you to see, truth or untruth.
Indeed. But they've made threats and Hezbollah and Hamas will see it as a good time to fire thousands of rockets into Israel yet again and Israel will get the blame for defending itself. Israel would give us a good run for our money they have one of the best armys in the world with all Citizens doing a 3 year national service too. You're starting to sound like George Galloway. Do you have any evidence that Al Qaeda did it? Did Israel give Al Qaeda the weapons as Galloway said? Assad is a weak leader. It's the Assad family pulling the strings behind, and by all accounts Assad's brother is the real nasty one.
I despair, has it not occurred to you that what we are being told by the media might not be the whole truth? You're too young to really remember Iraq when 1 million people marched through London in an effort to stop the war and they still did it anyway. Our government misled parliament and "sexed up" documents, lied in layman's terms, to fight an illegal war with no international consensus. More than 100,000 people died. You're studying philosophy, what do you call it when a Government acts against or without the will of it's people? And secondly, what is Assad supposed to be?
I don't need evidence to understand the likely outcome and who's agenda is being met.... Simms were you born yesterday?
As I thought, no evidence whatsoever. ...and that is the problem for the UK if they joined with the US to take military action. Certain sections of western society, and the majority of the arab/muslim society wouldn't need any evidence of the UK having the wrong motives, they would just be critical anyway.
no. he probably wasnt born yesterday (not entirely sure, awaiting simms clarification, but im sure you wont believe it unless you actually see his birth certificate). the fact is, we dont need to launch a full scale invasion. hell, the motion proposed yesterday only talked about military intervention if needed. there was never any chance of a full scale ground war, it was more going to be targeted strikes on suspicious sites suspected of being involved in production of chemical munitions.
yes, that ed milliband is an absolute ******. he has turned this from a humanitarian issue into a political agenda. he was more focused on making cameron look like a idiot than anything else.
I have the utmost faith in the coalition of the willing being able to launch missiles at appropriate places and then hitting thosr appropriate places and then killing the appropriate people (not a school, school bus, tv station, wedding party e.tc)
im not concerned about what the bloody US do. that is up to them? how can you not see that what is going on in syria is quite simply wrong? im concerned with what we do. the US are going to do whatever they want to do, with or without us. however i see that as no reason as to why we should not perform some sort of intervention, no matter how limited. its quite clear you have an anti-american agenda, but that does not mean that we should not the right thing.
Of course we're not being told the whole truth, that's partly the point, the public are not capable of making a decision about it we don't know all the facts, hence why I said earlier I'd abstain until we know more. Do you mean to say that Britain is a Tyranny? Without evidence your opinion isn't valid.
