Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
They should get support and mandate from the UN.
UN are pointless and powerless
Everything goes there and they need the full support from China and Russia.
They just bypass the UN whenever they feel like it.
Bombs will drop in the next 25 hours then it all kicks off.
Labour will not support it.
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
I can see how people in England and America are more free than people in SYria or people in Iraq under Saddam. Nobody is disputing that. I would of course anyday rather be in America than Syria or Iraq, nobody I hope is disputing that either. So I can see the logic, though well, well stretched to unidentifiable proportions, that "Its better to have the US/UK system of governance imposed over the whole world rather than the Assad or the Saddam systems."
But that is just pure logic, like a Darwinian anthem, that "we may as well bully our way around like a world policeman because we would rather that all the world is like the US/UK".
It has to be allowed to happen naturally, if it happens at ALL, as the 13 colonies of King George naturally and in due course took the decisions to resist tyranny by themselves when the time was right, or ripe.
Nobody intervened on behalf of the 13 colonies, they fought it out tooth and nail against the Red Coats and won. So the Syrian rebels must do the same thing.
The US/UK maniacs are jumping in all around the world intervening and nation building and it is wrong. And it causes blow-back. It it will continue to cause blow-back. And all the NSA Homeland Security Obama Drones of Destruction and NTSA gropings at airports and iris scans and RFID chips and CCTVs and satellite images WILL NOT STOP THE BLOW-BACK, as it is a natural reaction to a foreign force meddling in your business.
I have a Syrian friend, his cousins son and wife were dragged into the street and both executed,
shot in the head dreadful, he was devastated he told me he was very worried about the rest of
his family.! Trouble is our Western way's are totally unsuitable, for the Middle East we may think
we are the dogs bollocks, we are in our own back yard, but not so in others .!
Remember our life style suits us, but it may not suit others and we should not force our ways onto
others, as the song goes, White man came across the sea he brought us, pain and misery never a true
word.
How true,but sadly we watch this area and its surrounding countries escalate into it again and again, boarders will be breached, we will side with our old favorites and it'll be on again. These fucking idiots that run these sand holes can never live in peace they are unforgiving for centuries and the idiots dont learn a thing they teach new vengeance to their offspring. I wish we had just let the whole middle east be and cease any dealings with any of them when we could of. Australia the US, New Zealand, Canada other smaller neutral countries that wanted to join would do so fast, even ones like Chili etc. We could link armies and commerce and go total self sufficient with protection facing every way over every ocean. We still have all the untapped resources including gas and oil reserves that we need,all the lands and climates covered to grow whatever we require, these lot would go bankrupt in no time if we pulled the pin on our dealings with them.But greed keeps our rulers in there cause they have already committed us into so many financial and sub political forms of control there.
Its madness brewing on a grand scale.
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
I can see how people in England and America are more free than people in SYria or people in Iraq under Saddam. Nobody is disputing that. I would of course anyday rather be in America than Syria or Iraq, nobody I hope is disputing that either. So I can see the logic, though well, well stretched to unidentifiable proportions, that "Its better to have the US/UK system of governance imposed over the whole world rather than the Assad or the Saddam systems."
But that is just pure logic, like a Darwinian anthem, that "we may as well bully our way around like a world policeman because we would rather that all the world is like the US/UK".
It has to be allowed to happen naturally, if it happens at ALL, as the 13 colonies of King George naturally and in due course took the decisions to resist tyranny by themselves when the time was right, or ripe.
Nobody intervened on behalf of the 13 colonies, they fought it out tooth and nail against the Red Coats and won. So the Syrian rebels must do the same thing.
The US/UK maniacs are jumping in all around the world intervening and nation building and it is wrong. And it causes blow-back. It it will continue to cause blow-back. And all the NSA Homeland Security Obama Drones of Destruction and NTSA gropings at airports and iris scans and RFID chips and CCTVs and satellite images WILL NOT STOP THE BLOW-BACK, as it is a natural reaction to a foreign force meddling in your business.
You miss my point. Apart from the fact the French. the Spanish and the Dutch helped provide money for munitions against the British ( who many Native Americans sided with Miles ) I am not, unlike the simplistic logic that Gandalf uses to make a political point, suggesting we support the rebels. Not closing our eyes when people use chemical weapons is not an excuse for attacking civilians. It is also no good pretending that it does not matter what people do as long as it is not in my garden. Just as an eye for an eye makes the world go blind all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to avert their eyes. It is very complicated and not helped by the fact that arch enemies like Lyle( @El Kabong ) and Kirkland ( @Kirkland Laing ), Miles ( @Gandalf )and nearly everyone else seems to think that inaction is the best option. Even somebody like @Andre who professes like Miles to not see anything special about the country that he is living or was born in, is not acting like a true Internationalist if a countries border is suddenly important as an excuse not to act when it is in the power of others to do so. It is not surprising when countries like China and Russia do nothing but when even moderate European countries like Germany and France do nothing to help those who are oppressed they are in dereliction of their positions as so called bastions of democracy. It is easy to look after your own looking out for those with which you have much less in common is much more commendable and takes true courage and love.
They need to find out the individuals and commanders responsible and try them in a court of law. If that is impossible than you send in the people who are capable to take them swiftly out. That should not be the job of Britain and America but the UN and the many other countries that make it up have repeatedly not stepped up to the mark. You can not always wait for natural justice to occur. How many Jews were needlessly exterminated by nations inaction? How many could have been saved in Rowanda? Cambodia? I don't have any great solution but I refuse to take the position of least resistance. I am not black but I have fought against racists and facists here and in Italy. I am not a miner, a nurse or a teacher but I have supported their cause. I don't have Cancer or have not suffered a stroke but I have raised awareness and money for those that do. Solidarity is not defined by national borders, class or racial divides and nor should compassion or a desire for justice.
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
I don't have time to post much as I have to go somewhere, but needless to say, I am glad that in the UK at least, Labour is putting up some resistance at last.
Back from the brink: David Cameron forced to retreat over Syria - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
Greenbeanz, you seem to think that a lot of us don't care or are inhumane. We are not, we just don't see how bombing the shit out of a place for several days in a display of 'strength' helps things in Syria. I am all for trying to use the UN and we should definitely allow inspectors to reach their own conclusions first. Britain and America wanted to rush in and not allow for adequate checks and that would have been outrageous. They have blamed a side, but as has been seen before we either get it wrong or else lie. America is the last country to be blaming others over WMD or chemical weapons.
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
I can see how people in England and America are more free than people in SYria or people in Iraq under Saddam. Nobody is disputing that. I would of course anyday rather be in America than Syria or Iraq, nobody I hope is disputing that either. So I can see the logic, though well, well stretched to unidentifiable proportions, that "Its better to have the US/UK system of governance imposed over the whole world rather than the Assad or the Saddam systems."
But that is just pure logic, like a Darwinian anthem, that "we may as well bully our way around like a world policeman because we would rather that all the world is like the US/UK".
It has to be allowed to happen naturally, if it happens at ALL, as the 13 colonies of King George naturally and in due course took the decisions to resist tyranny by themselves when the time was right, or ripe.
Nobody intervened on behalf of the 13 colonies, they fought it out tooth and nail against the Red Coats and won. So the Syrian rebels must do the same thing.
The US/UK maniacs are jumping in all around the world intervening and nation building and it is wrong. And it causes blow-back. It it will continue to cause blow-back. And all the NSA Homeland Security Obama Drones of Destruction and NTSA gropings at airports and iris scans and RFID chips and CCTVs and satellite images WILL NOT STOP THE BLOW-BACK, as it is a natural reaction to a foreign force meddling in your business.
You miss my point. Apart from the fact the French. the Spanish and the Dutch helped provide money for munitions against the British ( who many Native Americans sided with Miles ) I am not, unlike the simplistic logic that Gandalf uses to make a political point, suggesting we support the rebels. Not closing our eyes when people use chemical weapons is not an excuse for attacking civilians. It is also no good pretending that it does not matter what people do as long as it is not in my garden. Just as an eye for an eye makes the world go blind all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to avert their eyes. It is very complicated and not helped by the fact that arch enemies like Lyle( @
El Kabong ) and Kirkland ( @
Kirkland Laing ), Miles ( @
Gandalf )and nearly everyone else seems to think that inaction is the best option. Even somebody like @
Andre who professes like Miles to not see anything special about the country that he is living or was born in, is not acting like a true Internationalist if a countries border is suddenly important as an excuse not to act when it is in the power of others to do so. It is not surprising when countries like China and Russia do nothing but when even moderate European countries like Germany and France do nothing to help those who are oppressed they are in dereliction of their positions as so called bastions of democracy. It is easy to look after your own looking out for those with which you have much less in common is much more commendable and takes true courage and love.
They need to find out the individuals and commanders responsible and try them in a court of law. If that is impossible than you send in the people who are capable to take them swiftly out. That should not be the job of Britain and America but the UN and the many other countries that make it up have repeatedly not stepped up to the mark. You can not always wait for natural justice to occur. How many Jews were needlessly exterminated by nations inaction? How many could have been saved in Rowanda? Cambodia? I don't have any great solution but I refuse to take the position of least resistance. I am not black but I have fought against racists and facists here and in Italy. I am not a miner, a nurse or a teacher but I have supported their cause. I don't have Cancer or have not suffered a stroke but I have raised awareness and money for those that do. Solidarity is not defined by national borders, class or racial divides and nor should compassion or a desire for justice.
I would normally be with you,but i honestly think if we go in again it will be an excuse for Muslim extremists to join the world over to pull off a few big strikes and start what we wont be able to stop for many years, the horror and billions that will suffer may not be worth it.
Like you say a hit squad in and out maybe the answer but you wouldnt want to wear colors it would have to be covert and if caught they die silent. But to walk on in and drop a flag and park no way,Im not for that.
I think every neighboring enemy we have ever made in that region and all the ones that now live in secret amongst us, will use it for an excuse for the next holy war. You know 'the demon is on holy ground' if you are for Allah and the prophet you must arm yourself and fight the devil in your homeland or here blah blah blah. You know you want it!
I also think if we do get involved and cant withdraw you may find Nth Korea and China sitting there like vultures ready for us all to weaken and move in on our homelands while we are all off fighting others fights.
I smell a big steaming nuked rat race in that exact arena one day.
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Situational ethics.
I wonder, if it was China that did this or accused of doing so?
How about North Korea? A modern day killing fields. Probably responsible for more murders then Pol Pot.
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Situational ethics.
I wonder, if it was China that did this or accused of doing so?
How about North Korea? A modern day killing fields. Probably responsible for more murders then Pol Pot.
The West postures when it wants to, but as far as I can see Egypt shot dead its own protestors with US funded military equipmentand we fail to acknowledge a coup, China shot hundreds dead in Tiannamen and we rewarded China with investment so that labour could be exploited and the exploiters got rich, in Syria we respond by saying there must be regime change. Judging by historical precedent Assad must be feeling very hard done by. I guess you either have to be a US puppet or at least allow their corporations to abuse you. Tut, tut Assad for being a little too independent.
We also forget the golden rules. Never get involved with a country that can defend itself to an expected degree and has no resources of its own. China owns the US fiscally and now has global trade and resources links, it is too powerful. Plus the trade ties with China are still working for the US corporatists. North Korea has no resources, but it has nukes and is equipped.
Morally North Korea is a great case in point, but we don't approach these things morally. We give lip service to morality, our big thing is power and control either in terms of strategic interest or obtaining resources.
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Situational ethics.
I wonder, if it was China that did this or accused of doing so?
How about North Korea? A modern day killing fields. Probably responsible for more murders then Pol Pot.
The West postures when it wants to, but as far as I can see Egypt shot dead its own protestors with US funded military equipmentand we fail to acknowledge a coup, China shot hundreds dead in Tiannamen and we rewarded China with investment so that labour could be exploited and the exploiters got rich, in Syria we respond by saying there must be regime change. Judging by historical precedent Assad must be feeling very hard done by. I guess you either have to be a US puppet or at least allow their corporations to abuse you. Tut, tut Assad for being a little too independent.
We also forget the golden rules. Never get involved with a country that can defend itself to an expected degree and has no resources of its own. China owns the US fiscally and now has global trade and resources links, it is too powerful. Plus the trade ties with China are still working for the US corporatists. North Korea has no resources, but it has nukes and is equipped.
Morally North Korea is a great case in point, but we don't approach these things morally. We give lip service to morality, our big thing is power and control either in terms of strategic interest or obtaining resources.
This species has been sociopath in nature since we left the tree. Nothing has proven that out more then foreign policy. Actually its more then that, its downright schizophrenic. I blame it as the years go by for my growing indifference. Which in a way makes me a sociopath.
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Situational ethics.
I wonder, if it was China that did this or accused of doing so?
How about North Korea? A modern day killing fields. Probably responsible for more murders then Pol Pot.
The West postures when it wants to, but as far as I can see Egypt shot dead its own protestors with US funded military equipmentand we fail to acknowledge a coup, China shot hundreds dead in Tiannamen and we rewarded China with investment so that labour could be exploited and the exploiters got rich, in Syria we respond by saying there must be regime change. Judging by historical precedent Assad must be feeling very hard done by. I guess you either have to be a US puppet or at least allow their corporations to abuse you. Tut, tut Assad for being a little too independent.
We also forget the golden rules. Never get involved with a country that can defend itself to an expected degree and has no resources of its own. China owns the US fiscally and now has global trade and resources links, it is too powerful. Plus the trade ties with China are still working for the US corporatists. North Korea has no resources, but it has nukes and is equipped.
Morally North Korea is a great case in point, but we don't approach these things morally. We give lip service to morality, our big thing is power and control either in terms of strategic interest or obtaining resources.
This species has been sociopath in nature since we left the tree. Nothing has proven that out more then foreign policy. Actually its more then that, its downright schizophrenic. I blame it as the years go by for my growing indifference. Which in a way makes me a sociopath.
Capital! Lets join forces and go up against the Republicans and Liberals with a new formed political party The Sociopaths.:cool: Im in.
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scrap
Is there Oil there ??.
Not enough to make it a consideration in whether we get involved or not.
If there was a lot of oil there we'd have been stuck in ages ago.
The Syrian war is just getting started. It could easily last another decade. And the west getting involved isn't going to help things any. Hopefully they just fire a few missiles and then let the Syrians get on with it.
And there's zero chance of any wider conflict developing (except into Lebanon, Iraq and so on.) We heard the same nonsense about Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, you name it. Hopefully even the Americans and Brits won't be dumb enough to put boots on the ground there, certainly nobody else is.
Oil is their main export but go on, you were saying?
Also it seems that YOUR President will be using force without Congress having had a vote to allow that.....but hell what do I know? You were on the whole "Hope & Change" bandwagon perhaps you can explain which part of that, attacking Syria without a Congressional vote authorizing force or UN support is....Hope or Change???
Oil is the main export of every Arab country that has any, even countries that have very little like Syria. They don't do a lot of manufacturing or exporting of anything else. Saudi Arabia's second-biggest export is second hand clothes.
Obama is your president, not mine and this is just the latest in a long line of illegal actions by American presidents.
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Well, the British politicians shot down the crazy talk and put an end to Camerons big shot adventures and a good thing too. Though now they are arguing that Milliband has the French angry and has no chance of building on the 'special relationship'. You know, fuck the French and fuck the Americans. I would be more patriotic, if we would become a moral nation acting in a dgnified way, rather than this pathetic, snovelling, drooling, sycophant to a nation that itself is beyond redemption.
Go it alone Obama, see how that makes you look. Twat. :rolleyes:
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scrap
Is there Oil there ??.
Not enough to make it a consideration in whether we get involved or not.
If there was a lot of oil there we'd have been stuck in ages ago.
The Syrian war is just getting started. It could easily last another decade. And the west getting involved isn't going to help things any. Hopefully they just fire a few missiles and then let the Syrians get on with it.
And there's zero chance of any wider conflict developing (except into Lebanon, Iraq and so on.) We heard the same nonsense about Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, you name it. Hopefully even the Americans and Brits won't be dumb enough to put boots on the ground there, certainly nobody else is.
Oil is their main export but go on, you were saying?
Also it seems that YOUR President will be using force without Congress having had a vote to allow that.....but hell what do I know? You were on the whole "Hope & Change" bandwagon perhaps you can explain which part of that, attacking Syria without a Congressional vote authorizing force or UN support is....Hope or Change???
Oil is the main export of every Arab country that has any, even countries that have very little like Syria. They don't do a lot of manufacturing or exporting of anything else. Saudi Arabia's second-biggest export is second hand clothes.
Obama is your president, not mine and this is just the latest in a long line of illegal actions by American presidents.
Are you senile then?
Again YOU said Obama was better than Romney now don't you feel like a stupid cunt?
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Actually, that last post was more of a rant than anything else. I guess I am just somewhat satisfied that cooler heads have prevailed in the UK. However, it is a still largely a police state and this isn't enough considering all the other Big Brother horror they are up to. Obama is still a twat and he looks like one. Either he bombs Syria and the world looks at him like a clueless muppet. Or else he doesn't and he loses face like a clueless muppet. Either way, I think he is displaying all the characteristics of someone with a sociopathic disposition and needs to be taken away for his own sake.
Who needs to take the meds now, Rhun? I am not the man advocating the bombing of people in an effort to show that my balls dangle further than all others in a region that doesn't like my balls.
Re: Are you for or against intervening in Syria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Actually, that last post was more of a rant than anything else. I guess I am just somewhat satisfied that cooler heads have prevailed in the UK. However, it is a still largely a police state and this isn't enough considering all the other Big Brother horror they are up to. Obama is still a twat and he looks like one. Either he bombs Syria and the world looks at him like a clueless muppet. Or else he doesn't and he loses face like a clueless muppet. Either way, I think he is displaying all the characteristics of someone with a sociopathic disposition and needs to be taken away for his own sake.
Who needs to take the meds now, Rhun? I am not the man advocating the bombing of people in an effort to show that my balls dangle further than all others in a region that doesn't like my balls.
It would not matter who the President is and that's part of the problem or which side of the floor the Prime Minister of England is from. We in the west will sit on our collective hands while 200 thousand people are killed and then take a moral stand when a few hundred are killed in the same country by chemicals. Its certifiable.