Here we go again, this stupid government never learns and we have been too involved with endless foreign wars that are not in our national interest. It's seems to be us that is forced by America to get involved and its about time someone else gets involved.
Our armed forces are being cut dramatically and morale is bad. A lot of people have been calling for the army to return home from Afghanistan so to start a new action is going to be very bad indeed.
I can’t help thinking that all this was started by George W Bush when he invaded Iraq,..
I think the unprovoked attack on the free secular world that resulted in the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians by muslim fundamentalists started it. Without 9/11 there would have been no war in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
It's a lot more complex than that. The west and by that I mean predominantly the USA have been selling arms and propping up dictators for years so long as it suited foreign policy and business interests. These supported regimes, Assad, Saddam etc etc are only allowed to be deposed or are removed as in the case of Saddam when the wind of change means the Americans need to back a new player. The result of this is millions of angry oppressed and ultimately rebellious individuals that are only brought together and led by extremists and terrorist groups with their own agendas. The Syrian rebels are Al Qaeda by any other name. If it suits then the USA will get into bed with them in a flash.
I forgot to mention that the Americans will lie and fabricate evidence to their allies and the world in order to achieve their end game. Weapons of mass destruction anyone !
I can’t help thinking that all this was started by George W Bush when he invaded Iraq,..
I think the unprovoked attack on the free secular world that resulted in the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians by muslim fundamentalists started it. Without 9/11 there would have been no war in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
It's a lot more complex than that. The west and by that I mean predominantly the USA have been selling arms and propping up dictators for years so long as it suited foreign policy and business interests. These supported regimes, Assad, Saddam etc etc are only allowed to be deposed or are removed as in the case of Saddam when the wind of change means the Americans need to back a new player. The result of this is millions of angry oppressed and ultimately rebellious individuals that are only brought together and led by extremists and terrorist groups with their own agendas. The Syrian rebels are Al Qaeda by any other name. If it suits then the USA will get into bed with them in a flash.
It is a very simplistic, and wrong, view to blame big bad America for all the wrongs in this world.
I can’t help thinking that all this was started by George W Bush when he invaded Iraq,..
I think the unprovoked attack on the free secular world that resulted in the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians by muslim fundamentalists started it. Without 9/11 there would have been no war in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
It's a lot more complex than that. The west and by that I mean predominantly the USA have been selling arms and propping up dictators for years so long as it suited foreign policy and business interests. These supported regimes, Assad, Saddam etc etc are only allowed to be deposed or are removed as in the case of Saddam when the wind of change means the Americans need to back a new player. The result of this is millions of angry oppressed and ultimately rebellious individuals that are only brought together and led by extremists and terrorist groups with their own agendas. The Syrian rebels are Al Qaeda by any other name. If it suits then the USA will get into bed with them in a flash.
It is a very simplistic, and wrong, view to blame big bad America for all the wrongs in this world.
No, you are right. If the free world was not under sustained attack from Muslims America would be picking a fight with the Hindu world in other to generate arms sales.
No, you are right. If the free world was not under sustained attack from Muslims America would be picking a fight with the Hindu world in other to generate arms sales.
I can’t help thinking that all this was started by George W Bush when he invaded Iraq,..
I think the unprovoked attack on the free secular world that resulted in the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians by muslim fundamentalists started it. Without 9/11 there would have been no war in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
It's a lot more complex than that. The west and by that I mean predominantly the USA have been selling arms and propping up dictators for years so long as it suited foreign policy and business interests. These supported regimes, Assad, Saddam etc etc are only allowed to be deposed or are removed as in the case of Saddam when the wind of change means the Americans need to back a new player. The result of this is millions of angry oppressed and ultimately rebellious individuals that are only brought together and led by extremists and terrorist groups with their own agendas. The Syrian rebels are Al Qaeda by any other name. If it suits then the USA will get into bed with them in a flash.
It is a very simplistic, and wrong, view to blame big bad America for all the wrongs in this world.
Interesting to see people are saying that the US are lying to invade/increase military budget already.
At least wait until the UN envoy release their findings, the US/UK/France could be right after all.
This this this. Surely it's fundamental to making an argument for action. I've seen William Hague pontificating that its the Assad regime that's used the chemical weapons. Fine. Tell us your proof. He can't because at this point there is none.
Lets not start blaming the Labour Party for what's happening now. Their current stance is IMHO the only shred of sense being spoken by British politicians at the moment.
'Labour say will not back Govt over Syria attack unless UN weapons inspectors produce "compelling evidence" Assad used chemical weapons'
At least one party is doing it right...
And you believe them? It's no wonder why Labour have come out and said this when they already said many other things to the opposite what they did in Goverment.
Most of Tony Blair's policies of 1997 turned out to be lies after he got elected as prime minister so I highly doubt they are being genuine over this one, especially when their popularity decreased when we went to war in Iraq.
If anyone thinks that there is any possibility of a United Arab Uma or even a simpler agreement between the Islamic States as mentioned in Loco's very interesting post above then the no fly zone is needed right now to stop those flying pigs.
Shooters being a muslim myself, I had to say the shahada for my lady's hand in marriage, I hope if the caliphate returns we wouldn't see pig's flying round my flat roof. I'd be most upset.
Operation Pig you know virtually nothing about Islam. Of all the monotheistic religions it is inherently accepting and forgiving. Sharia law is interprative via the wisdom of qadis. Like all religions, it has mentalists promoting it. Of all the religions Christianity seems to do the biggest fuckups in the Middle East.
As for Assad it seems peculiar for him to use chemical weapons now. But he unlike his father, does not control the military, his position is reliant on them. Tactical decisions can and often are taken by quite lowly military officers: Princip and the Serbian intelligence services who setup the assasination lacked a strategic accuity, something their political masters at least were aware of. If there was an established chemical weapon engagement protocol, I doubt Assad held the key or the choice of when to enact the delivery. The Assad regime does not have enough troops to control all rebel areas. Terror is a weapon that logically can be argued is effective in quelling support for opposition forces.
Do I believe Assad forces did this? No. But do I believe it was possible to be government forces? Yes.
So now the government have changed their minds as they may have lost a vote in Parliament and cancelled a vote on UK involvement..for now......however wherever you stand on this debate innocent people in Syria are losing there lives....that's the sad thing about this.
We should always remember that the issue is not with muslims, but muslim fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is frightening, whatever the religion. The issue in the world is that mulsim fundamentalism is a significant force and the people who hold these views want to spread them.
Yes Al Qaeda did start all this with 9/11 - but that was exactly what they wanted to do. Bush was a pawn who played into their hands!You increase the hatred, you create the conditions where sides are taken and these give the fundamentalist the chance of power.
Whatever your political beliefs - you have to thank Ed Milliband for his stance. If the labour party has learned from Blair's mistakes- good - it gives some hope! We must remember that the reason Milliband has been able to scupper the governments idiocy for now, is that a lot of conservative MPs have the same view - it shouldn't be a party political thing and credit should be where it is due. These are the people we have to pin our hopes on!
Tony Blair was one of the most religious prime ministers we have had - a disaster which proves my point - politics must be for all the people and must always be logical. I have no issue with religion but it cannot offer this.
.The difficulty, whatever, your party politics is that you cannot get proof as to who used the weapons and you cannot control the consequences or the killing. The guiding rule is usually, when faced with two evils, always choose the lesser. This time, I can't work out which that is.
.The difficulty, whatever, your party politics is that you cannot get proof as to who used the weapons and you cannot control the consequences or the killing. The guiding rule is usually, when faced with two evils, always choose the lesser. This time, I can't work out which that is.
This.
We can't solve all the problems in the middle east, but by going in with a UN force can we stop the violence? I don't even know what people are fighting about. Innocent people are being slaughtered though
No we should not get involved and for once credit should go to Ed Miliband for at least delaying Son of Blair's warmongering.
Islamic infighting is a matter for muslims and not the West. Are the situations in Afghanistan or Iraq really any better for Western interference and the many British soldiers needlessly slaughtered?
One thing I've never understood is the willingness of some to engage in conflicts abroad with no direct impact on Britain yet they are the most vociferous in criticising Britain's defence of its own territory when the Falklands were invaded and will almost certainly take the Spanish side if the unrest re Gibraltar escalates.
Obama and Cameron are bowing to public pressure. They realise that public opinion is opposed to any type of military intervention. Obama wants to see another democrat in office when his term ends, Cameron wants to be re-elected. I suspect that there will be huge under the counter payments made to the 'Syrian rebels' to enable them to buy high quality illicit weapons. Assad, once a darling of the 'great powers', like Sadam Hussein before him, has fallen totally out of favour, probably because the Russians have supported him. The 'great game' from the 19th century goes on and on. This will of course eventually mean a totally Islamic dominated middle east/north Africa and then we will see what happens next. For example, the Assad regime is comparatively at peace with Israel. This will not be the case if a Syrian government is in the hands of Al Qaeda and/or the Muslim brotherhood
One of the problems facing Dave and Barack is that their predecessors went into Iraq on the basis of faulty or misleading intelligence. I think the feeling amongst the general public after that great crusade was that it was probably all about oil and influence. I suspect most people feel this is more of the same and will not be so willing to support it. Plus it seems to be a hugely complex situation. It's hardly a vote winner.
How ironic that Milliband - who has so far looked woefully out of his depth - has finally made a breakthrough by, quite literally, doing nothing.
Huge error by Call Me Dave, he has totally misread the mood of the country, you can't force austerity down people's throats and then just jump on board the next military adventure that comes along.
Cameron probably just blew his last chance of Tory majority in next election, trapped in pincer by Labour on left and UKIP on right.
Comments
Our armed forces are being cut dramatically and morale is bad. A lot of people have been calling for the army to return home from Afghanistan so to start a new action is going to be very bad indeed.
At least wait until the UN envoy release their findings, the US/UK/France could be right after all.
This this this. Surely it's fundamental to making an argument for action. I've seen William Hague pontificating that its the Assad regime that's used the chemical weapons. Fine. Tell us your proof. He can't because at this point there is none.
At least one party is doing it right...
Most of Tony Blair's policies of 1997 turned out to be lies after he got elected as prime minister so I highly doubt they are being genuine over this one, especially when their popularity decreased when we went to war in Iraq.
Make that two parties by the way......
As opposed to jumping in feet first with the yanks before anyone can say the words 'Weapons of mass destruction'.
Operation Pig you know virtually nothing about Islam. Of all the monotheistic religions it is inherently accepting and forgiving. Sharia law is interprative via the wisdom of qadis. Like all religions, it has mentalists promoting it. Of all the religions Christianity seems to do the biggest fuckups in the Middle East.
As for Assad it seems peculiar for him to use chemical weapons now. But he unlike his father, does not control the military, his position is reliant on them. Tactical decisions can and often are taken by quite lowly military officers: Princip and the Serbian intelligence services who setup the assasination lacked a strategic accuity, something their political masters at least were aware of. If there was an established chemical weapon engagement protocol, I doubt Assad held the key or the choice of when to enact the delivery. The Assad regime does not have enough troops to control all rebel areas. Terror is a weapon that logically can be argued is effective in quelling support for opposition forces.
Do I believe Assad forces did this? No. But do I believe it was possible to be government forces? Yes.
Yes Al Qaeda did start all this with 9/11 - but that was exactly what they wanted to do. Bush was a pawn who played into their hands!You increase the hatred, you create the conditions where sides are taken and these give the fundamentalist the chance of power.
Whatever your political beliefs - you have to thank Ed Milliband for his stance. If the labour party has learned from Blair's mistakes- good - it gives some hope! We must remember that the reason Milliband has been able to scupper the governments idiocy for now, is that a lot of conservative MPs have the same view - it shouldn't be a party political thing and credit should be where it is due. These are the people we have to pin our hopes on!
Tony Blair was one of the most religious prime ministers we have had - a disaster which proves my point - politics must be for all the people and must always be logical. I have no issue with religion but it cannot offer this.
We can't solve all the problems in the middle east, but by going in with a UN force can we stop the violence? I don't even know what people are fighting about. Innocent people are being slaughtered though
Islamic infighting is a matter for muslims and not the West. Are the situations in Afghanistan or Iraq really any better for Western interference and the many British soldiers needlessly slaughtered?
One thing I've never understood is the willingness of some to engage in conflicts abroad with no direct impact on Britain yet they are the most vociferous in criticising Britain's defence of its own territory when the Falklands were invaded and will almost certainly take the Spanish side if the unrest re Gibraltar escalates.
Hey ho.
I suspect that there will be huge under the counter payments made to the 'Syrian rebels' to enable them to buy high quality illicit weapons. Assad, once a darling of the 'great powers', like Sadam Hussein before him, has fallen totally out of favour, probably because the Russians have supported him. The 'great game' from the 19th century goes on and on.
This will of course eventually mean a totally Islamic dominated middle east/north Africa and then we will see what happens next. For example, the Assad regime is comparatively at peace with Israel. This will not be the case if a Syrian government is in the hands of Al Qaeda and/or the Muslim brotherhood
I suspect most people feel this is more of the same and will not be so willing to support it. Plus it seems to be a hugely complex situation. It's hardly a vote winner.
Huge error by Call Me Dave, he has totally misread the mood of the country, you can't force austerity down people's throats and then just jump on board the next military adventure that comes along.
Cameron probably just blew his last chance of Tory majority in next election, trapped in pincer by Labour on left and UKIP on right.
Still not convinced by Ed Milliband though.