Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Airstrikes against Syria

1457910

Comments

  • I do think Parliament should’ve been consulted, however corbyn’s position that we shouldn’t take any action unless UN sanctioned is ridiculous considering one of the belligerent parties is a permanent member and would veto any resolution whatsoever (and has frequently done so re Syria).

    Also ridiculous considering his views on Palestine and the fact the US block any resolution on that.

    In short, Corbyn is (again) showing stubbornness in his ill thought out views of the world.

    All politicians have ill thought out views of the world if you're going to make that argument. The best you can really manage is to say who is the least bad.

    The Balfour Treaty and the creation of Israel which both the US and GB had a hand in was clumsily implemented and helped create much of the tensions within the region. We seem to have struggled ever since....
    Our cack-handedness with the region long predates the creation of Israel, I’m sorry to say.
    I know - It's all rather depressing....
  • limeygent said:

    Trump's administration has made it's policy in Syria clear enough, the U.S is in Syria ONLY to destroy ISIS.

    By Bombing Assad's chemical factories doesn't that show it's not just ISIS who the Americans and the UK consider are the bad guys in this proxy war.

  • I do think Parliament should’ve been consulted, however corbyn’s position that we shouldn’t take any action unless UN sanctioned is ridiculous considering one of the belligerent parties is a permanent member and would veto any resolution whatsoever (and has frequently done so re Syria).

    Also ridiculous considering his views on Palestine and the fact the US block any resolution on that.

    In short, Corbyn is (again) showing stubbornness in his ill thought out views of the world.

    All politicians have ill thought out views of the world if you're going to make that argument. The best you can really manage is to say who is the least bad.

    The Balfour Treaty and the creation of Israel which both the US and GB had a hand in was clumsily implemented and helped create much of the tensions within the region. We seem to have struggled ever since....
    Israel was created by a UN resolution. The US voted in favour of it as did the Soviet Union and other counties in the Soviet bloc. The Arabs voted against. The UK abstained and refused to implement the UN partition plan or to share the administration with the UN transitional government on the basis that the Palestinians did not agree to the partition.

    There was plenty of tensions in the region before Israel was created. The issues in Syria have nothing to do with Palestine, they are fundamentally a shia/sunni conflict with plenty of added complexities and issues.


  • limeygent said:

    Trump's administration has made it's policy in Syria clear enough, the U.S is in Syria ONLY to destroy ISIS.

    By Bombing Assad's chemical factories doesn't that show it's not just ISIS who the Americans and the UK consider are the bad guys in this proxy war.

    Totally separate issues.
  • Syria is a nightmare for foreign policy. Russia supports Assad (Sunni) yanks are anti Iran (Shia) yet can't agree a policy, while Turks are bombing Syrian Kurds (who have defeated IS), against international law and everyone steps back and lets it happen. And WTF are we invovled? Who are we fighting? Why?
  • Pretty sure I heard Corbyn almost say cluster fuck instead of clusterbomb earlier.
  • Syria is a nightmare for foreign policy. Russia supports Assad (Sunni) yanks are anti Iran (Shia) yet can't agree a policy, while Turks are bombing Syrian Kurds (who have defeated IS), against international law and everyone steps back and lets it happen. And WTF are we invovled? Who are we fighting? Why?

    Assad is an Alawite, which is a Shiite sect (but quite different from mainstream Shiite Islam (they drink alcohol for example).

  • Anyway, how is Bliar getting on as the middle east peace envoy?

    Oh that's right, he isnt one any more because he was being paid millions by the UAE and also representing (in a very well remunerated capacity) a Korean oil company desperate for middle east business, whilst smarming his vile duplicity as a so called peace envoy.

    Still I'm a dyed in the wool Labour voter, so he always got my vote.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited April 2018
    limeygent said:


    limeygent said:

    Trump's administration has made it's policy in Syria clear enough, the U.S is in Syria ONLY to destroy ISIS.

    By Bombing Assad's chemical factories doesn't that show it's not just ISIS who the Americans and the UK consider are the bad guys in this proxy war.

    Totally separate issues.
    You're joking right?

    We're in Syria solely to attack ISIS...


    Until we attack ISIS's biggest enemies in Syria, Russia and Assad (or two of three along with Iran).

    So we're in Syria to destroy ISIS and to attack Assad, except those are different issues.

    It's Ok, I'm sure Fox and Breitbart are having a really tough time explaining the new interventionist President who apparently wanted troops out of Syria in 48 hours (!!!!!) just a couple weeks ago.

    And to be fair even Nicky Haley is having a hard time keeping up on our approach to Russia. Apparently there will not be new Sanctions on Russia until there is another attack. Trump called New Sanctions off this morning.

    Super normal.

    Trump puts the brake on new Russian sanctions, reversing Haley’s announcement
    https://wapo.st/2H7juRW
  • Kent. Corbyn didn't sanction an illegal airstrike on Syria. He has no power. Please restrict your critism to those that do.

    Who did?
  • Kent. Corbyn didn't sanction an illegal airstrike on Syria. He has no power. Please restrict your critism to those that do.

    Who did?
    Well they claimed they were using the 'Royal Prerogative' - so must have been the Queen....?
  • edited April 2018
    Now that is one formidable stare. As Vikki Pollard would say “she just gave me the evils”.
  • "The horror of the chemical weapons attack in Douma, in Eastern Ghouta, at the weekend was truly sickening. The UK’s response must have the backing of parliament, debated and voted on by MPs free from party whips so they can decide on the evidence and with their conscience.

    "The Green Party will always listen to all the evidence, and we are not persuaded that an attack would deter conflict. To the contrary, we believe there is a serious risk of further escalation which will only bring greater conflict and suffering to the people of the region. To bomb Assad without a serious, thought-out strategy risks making a horrific situation even worse, and this will be the key test of any British Government proposal.

    "But tough action doesn’t have to mean military intervention and Britain should urgently explore every alternative to further bombing. This should start with a crack-down on Russia, including unilateral and international sanctions. Britain must also step up as a diplomatic leader and strain every sinew to get all relevant parties around the table for discussions to broker peace.

    "In the longer term, and in recognition of the appalling failures of recent years in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere, we must enhance and expand UN peacekeeping and peace-building capabilities. Britain must too urgently take more refugees from the region to join those already settled here."

    Mainly agree with this Green Party statement. I do understand the retaliation argument, assuming Assad did authorise the chemical weapons attack, but fear it might only make matters worse in Syria. Am I being cynical by thinking that Trump especially, plus Macron and May will benefit politically by appearing to be strong leaders?
  • It's about using chemical weapons that 192 out of 196 of the planets nations have decreed illegal.
  • Carter said:

    I'm not in support of this

    Im not a coward or a snowflake or a leftie or a hippy. I'm just fucked off with us bombing people, for all the advances humanity makes it can't shake off fucking slaughtering each other can it.

    shiite this, sunni that, Christian this

    how about human being this or human being that

    I'd have a grudging respect for the anuses making these calls if they were honest and said "it's about oil, it's about money, it's about hedging my bets for the defence company me and my partner are large shareholders of"

    No, it can't. But do you stand idly by while one particularly nasty c**t, with the full backing of another, drops illegal poisoned gas all over unarmed civilians to flush out pockets of resistance? Perhaps you do.




  • Sponsored links:


  • 1StevieG said:

    Pretty sure I heard Corbyn almost say cluster fuck instead of clusterbomb earlier.

    If he had, he'd have called it completely correctly.
  • WW2 was as much about the propaganda and lies as the truth by all participants.
    This proxy war has more sides than a tretradecagon.
    Russia could hack into most of the main UK computer systems and bring this country to a standstill; they thought they had the green light when we let Russian dirty money be laundered in London for the last 20 years.
    Putin feels we renegade on the tacit agreement he could take out dissidents and traitors in England.(at least 14 unsolved deaths)
    Once the policeman was harmed at Salisbury the rules changed for the UK, but not for Russia.
    Could the poisoned letter box and the chemical attack have the same consequence as Franz Ferdinand's driver taking the wrong turning in Sarajevo.
  • WW2 was as much about the propaganda and lies as the truth by all participants.
    This proxy war has more sides than a tretradecagon.
    Russia could hack into most of the main UK computer systems and bring this country to a standstill; they thought they had the green light when we let Russian dirty money be laundered in London for the last 20 years.
    Putin feels we renegade on the tacit agreement he could take out dissidents and traitors in England.(at least 14 unsolved deaths)
    Once the policeman was harmed at Salisbury the rules changed for the UK, but not for Russia.
    Could the poisoned letter box and the chemical attack have the same consequence as Franz Ferdinand's driver taking the wrong turning in Sarajevo.

    We're essentially talking about a handful of people's ego or how they were wronged. Because of who they were/are millions of people were killed.

    You'd have thought the world would learn from that wouldn't you
  • edited April 2018
    IdleHans said:


    Carter said:

    I'm not in support of this

    Im not a coward or a snowflake or a leftie or a hippy. I'm just fucked off with us bombing people, for all the advances humanity makes it can't shake off fucking slaughtering each other can it.

    shiite this, sunni that, Christian this

    how about human being this or human being that

    I'd have a grudging respect for the anuses making these calls if they were honest and said "it's about oil, it's about money, it's about hedging my bets for the defence company me and my partner are large shareholders of"

    No, it can't. But do you stand idly by while one particularly nasty c**t, with the full backing of another, drops illegal poisoned gas all over unarmed civilians to flush out pockets of resistance? Perhaps you do.




    Yes we should, harsh as that may seem, we have no bloody business out there, every time we intervene we and our puppet masters the USA, make it worse, we invaded Iraq in 2003 and executed Saddam and then Libya and Gaddafi, not understanding or not caring more like,the two aforementioned bastards kept it under control, now the centuries old unstable middle east has dissolved into fractioned anarchy, with various factions trying to gain power. As soon as we and the USA (the worlds unelected Police force) get rid of one dictator, another comes along. It has been the same for years and will never ever change.
    Also all the people calling for bombing, lets take it too its full logical conclusion should Russia decide to retaliate. Guess who goes to war (assuming its not Nuclear), not the 40-50 year old football supporting blokes on a forum, with an opinion on everything, its kids, 18/19/20 etc, my kids, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids, and definitely NOT the shit house politicians that sanctioned bombing another country without due diligence and the backing of our combined general counsel. And if anyone buys into the humanitarian excuse then your are so naive, its laughable, its oil, its firearms, its money and in some cases it garners political brownie points to the less intelligent.
    If we are true to humanitarian reasons for defending the world, then Mugabe would have been removed years ago.
    So yes we do stand idly by, because if that means my kids dont have to go to war, like I have been lucky enough not to, then its worth it.
    Its bullshit and we are swallowing it.
  • As a 40-50 year old football supporting bloke on a forum with an opinion on everything who also happens to be an RAF reservist, I'd stand a good chance of having to go to another desert shithole war.

    The question is, are we happy to live in a world where, by degrees, the use of chemical weapons becomes accepted practice. If there are no consequences to Syria's use of chemical weapons, and Russia will do their utmost to ensure all reasonable diplomatic efforts are scuppered, they will just carry on gassing civilians. One day this shit will find it's way on to the London Underground.

    Having said that, I expect the Syrians will carry on using chemical weapons and accept the air strikes that follow as the cost of doing business. The whole thing will rumble on for years until Assad has killed every last rebel.
  • Jints said:

    I do think Parliament should’ve been consulted, however corbyn’s position that we shouldn’t take any action unless UN sanctioned is ridiculous considering one of the belligerent parties is a permanent member and would veto any resolution whatsoever (and has frequently done so re Syria).

    Also ridiculous considering his views on Palestine and the fact the US block any resolution on that.

    In short, Corbyn is (again) showing stubbornness in his ill thought out views of the world.

    All politicians have ill thought out views of the world if you're going to make that argument. The best you can really manage is to say who is the least bad.

    The Balfour Treaty and the creation of Israel which both the US and GB had a hand in was clumsily implemented and helped create much of the tensions within the region. We seem to have struggled ever since....
    Israel was created by a UN resolution. The US voted in favour of it as did the Soviet Union and other counties in the Soviet bloc. The Arabs voted against. The UK abstained and refused to implement the UN partition plan or to share the administration with the UN transitional government on the basis that the Palestinians did not agree to the partition.

    There was plenty of tensions in the region before Israel was created. The issues in Syria have nothing to do with Palestine, they are fundamentally a shia/sunni conflict with plenty of added complexities and issues.

    I was making a general point about the Middle East which I'm sure you'd agree the West has struggled with. Syria is part of the Middle East.

    A Charlton Life Message Board is perhaps a bit of a limited forum for discussing the ins and outs of the history of the Middle East.

    The only point I can really make is that I don't think Western interventions have been terribly successful in general in the Middle East. The religious conflict in the region is one of those problems that looks almost impossible to reconcile.

    In respect of the recent airstrikes I don't think they in themselves constitute a coherent policy. The problem with both Syria and Russia is not something that will be easily revolved.
  • Missed It said:

    As a 40-50 year old football supporting bloke on a forum with an opinion on everything who also happens to be an RAF reservist, I'd stand a good chance of having to go to another desert shithole war.

    The question is, are we happy to live in a world where, by degrees, the use of chemical weapons becomes accepted practice. If there are no consequences to Syria's use of chemical weapons, and Russia will do their utmost to ensure all reasonable diplomatic efforts are scuppered, they will just carry on gassing civilians. One day this shit will find it's way on to the London Underground.

    Having said that, I expect the Syrians will carry on using chemical weapons and accept the air strikes that follow as the cost of doing business. The whole thing will rumble on for years until Assad has killed every last rebel.

    And that is the illogical argument, and this is where they get you, wether we bomb Syria or not has absolutely no bearing on Russian chemical weapons hitting our underground, look at Salisbury last month.......and how easy it was......!
  • Greenie said:

    IdleHans said:


    Carter said:

    I'm not in support of this

    Im not a coward or a snowflake or a leftie or a hippy. I'm just fucked off with us bombing people, for all the advances humanity makes it can't shake off fucking slaughtering each other can it.

    shiite this, sunni that, Christian this

    how about human being this or human being that

    I'd have a grudging respect for the anuses making these calls if they were honest and said "it's about oil, it's about money, it's about hedging my bets for the defence company me and my partner are large shareholders of"

    No, it can't. But do you stand idly by while one particularly nasty c**t, with the full backing of another, drops illegal poisoned gas all over unarmed civilians to flush out pockets of resistance? Perhaps you do.




    Yes we should, harsh as that may seem, we have no bloody business out there, every time we intervene we and our puppet masters the USA, make it worse, we invaded Iraq in 2003 and executed Saddam and then Libya and Gaddafi, not understanding or not caring more like,the two aforementioned bastards kept it under control, now the centuries old unstable middle east has dissolved into fractioned anarchy, with various factions trying to gain power. As soon as we and the USA (the worlds unelected Police force) get rid of one dictator, another comes along. It has been the same for years and will never ever change.
    Also all the people calling for bombing, lets take it too its full logical conclusion should Russia decide to retaliate. Guess who goes to war (assuming its not Nuclear), not the 40-50 year old football supporting blokes on a forum, with an opinion on everything, its kids, 18/19/20 etc, my kids, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids, and definitely NOT the shit house politicians that sanctioned bombing another country without due diligence and the backing of our combined general counsel. And if anyone buys into the humanitarian excuse then your are so naive, its laughable, its oil, its firearms, its money and in some cases it garners political brownie points to the less intelligent.
    If we are true to humanitarian reasons for defending the world, then Mugabe would have been removed years ago.
    So yes we do stand idly by, because if that means my kids dont have to go to war, like I have been lucky enough not to, then its worth it.
    Its bullshit and we are swallowing it.

    “if you tolerate this, then your children will be next”.

    We are in the position to intervene and we should to show the world using chemical weapons is unacceptable.
  • Greenie said:

    IdleHans said:


    Carter said:

    I'm not in support of this

    Im not a coward or a snowflake or a leftie or a hippy. I'm just fucked off with us bombing people, for all the advances humanity makes it can't shake off fucking slaughtering each other can it.

    shiite this, sunni that, Christian this

    how about human being this or human being that

    I'd have a grudging respect for the anuses making these calls if they were honest and said "it's about oil, it's about money, it's about hedging my bets for the defence company me and my partner are large shareholders of"

    No, it can't. But do you stand idly by while one particularly nasty c**t, with the full backing of another, drops illegal poisoned gas all over unarmed civilians to flush out pockets of resistance? Perhaps you do.




    Yes we should, harsh as that may seem, we have no bloody business out there, every time we intervene we and our puppet masters the USA, make it worse, we invaded Iraq in 2003 and executed Saddam and then Libya and Gaddafi, not understanding or not caring more like,the two aforementioned bastards kept it under control, now the centuries old unstable middle east has dissolved into fractioned anarchy, with various factions trying to gain power. As soon as we and the USA (the worlds unelected Police force) get rid of one dictator, another comes along. It has been the same for years and will never ever change.
    Also all the people calling for bombing, lets take it too its full logical conclusion should Russia decide to retaliate. Guess who goes to war (assuming its not Nuclear), not the 40-50 year old football supporting blokes on a forum, with an opinion on everything, its kids, 18/19/20 etc, my kids, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids, and definitely NOT the shit house politicians that sanctioned bombing another country without due diligence and the backing of our combined general counsel. And if anyone buys into the humanitarian excuse then your are so naive, its laughable, its oil, its firearms, its money and in some cases it garners political brownie points to the less intelligent.
    If we are true to humanitarian reasons for defending the world, then Mugabe would have been removed years ago.
    So yes we do stand idly by, because if that means my kids dont have to go to war, like I have been lucky enough not to, then its worth it.
    Its bullshit and we are swallowing it.

    “if you tolerate this, then your children will be next”.

    We are in the position to intervene and we should to show the world using chemical weapons is unacceptable.
    Brilliant, you are now quoting Manic Street Preachers in a matter of potential world war...go and sit in a dark room for a good while, and when you are ready, come out and apologise.
  • Greenie said:

    Missed It said:

    As a 40-50 year old football supporting bloke on a forum with an opinion on everything who also happens to be an RAF reservist, I'd stand a good chance of having to go to another desert shithole war.

    The question is, are we happy to live in a world where, by degrees, the use of chemical weapons becomes accepted practice. If there are no consequences to Syria's use of chemical weapons, and Russia will do their utmost to ensure all reasonable diplomatic efforts are scuppered, they will just carry on gassing civilians. One day this shit will find it's way on to the London Underground.

    Having said that, I expect the Syrians will carry on using chemical weapons and accept the air strikes that follow as the cost of doing business. The whole thing will rumble on for years until Assad has killed every last rebel.

    And that is the illogical argument, and this is where they get you, wether we bomb Syria or not has absolutely no bearing on Russian chemical weapons hitting our underground, look at Salisbury last month.......and how easy it was......!
    The world is a very scary place at the present time particularly with the set of leaders we have in place. Warfare has changed dramaticalĺy and it's hard to predict what type of attacks will be used.

    Regarding Syria and Russia I'm not confident that any of our existing politicians have a handle on it whatever party they're in - that for me is the most worrying thing.



Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!