Are you for or against intervening in Syria?

[El Kabong]

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?

[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.

[IamInuit]

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.

[brocktonblockbust]

100% agree

[Beanz]

So basically Miles was as wrong as Lyle in his riot thread. It makes no difference though because he just likes a rant. Empty vessel. International law only when it suits his politics.

[Gandalf]

So basically Miles was as wrong as Lyle in his riot thread. It makes no difference though because he just likes a rant. Empty vessel. International law only when it suits his politics.

Eh? Britain might be out of it, but America might well be going ahead as planned, so don't count your chickens.

I'm all for international law, unlike a lot of so called law professors and politicians. I don't believe it is our fight and we won't be thanked for anything by marching in with a 'show of force'. There is still no evidence that Assad was responsible and we know who has a history of using chemical weapons. And lest we forget, we actively supported Saddam when he did use chemical weapons. If we were to intervene in Syria there would have been a case in 2011 as argued by the Robert Fisk over at the Independent, but to say we now have to get involved over an inconclusive chemical attack. Well, that is picking an arbitrary time for intervention considering a hundred thousand and more are dead already. You can't just pick a side and bomb them and use doctored and fabricated evidence which we have a history of doing. WMD anyone? Evidence that Bin Laden orchestrated 9-11? Gulf of Tonkin? Etc etc.

At least be genuine and say you want to help people. Don't talk about protecting US interests and red lines just to display force to Iran in order to make Israel happy. That in itself is a blatant disregard for everyone suffering in Syria. America couldn't give two hoots about anyone in the Middle East, history has shown it time and time again. Even now nobody cares about the Syrians. All I read in the papers is how we might have hurt our standing with America. Are these people serious? Is that really the crux of the argument?

It is pathetic. The simpering politicians of the UK right through to the sociopathic US political realm....they are hideous. We have taken sides and are channeling resources to the rebels. Surely if you are to get involved then that is enough. Let Iran and Hezbollah support Assad and let America and Britain support the terrorist factions. However, arbitrarily bombing places, would be doing nothing more than to say 'Look Iran, we have bigger weapons'. Posturing that will only slaughter Syrians, though Obama likes to wipe out people from the air as we well know.

[Kirkland Laing]

So basically Miles was as wrong as Lyle in his riot thread. It makes no difference though because he just likes a rant. Empty vessel. International law only when it suits his politics.

That makes Miles the same as every country out there.

[imp]

Well, england are out of it now.

Usa and france are now best of buddies.

Embarressing for Mr.Cameron..

[imp]

So what after obama gets the nod from congress in ten days what exactly will be the first stage of action?

1. Bomb syria
2. Drop bombs on syria
3. Use cruise missiles on syria
4. Bomb russia for getting cheeky.

[El Kabong]

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.

it's a civil war it has 0 impact on US foreign interests. Yeah it sucks that people are dying but it IS war. And this whole idea that the US has to put the lives of their soldiers on the line for humanitarian work is bullshit!

I love how the Peace-nicks are now banging the drums of war just because someone used chemical weapons. Blame Russia and China for not controlling their guy

[brocktonblockbust]

why dont we just see what will happen this time rather than this proactive happy horse shit nation building crap meddling all around the planet. Is this another one of those "lets get them before they get us" genius type thinking?

[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.

it's a civil war it has 0 impact on US foreign interests. Yeah it sucks that people are dying but it IS war. And this whole idea that the US has to put the lives of their soldiers on the line for humanitarian work is bullshit!

I love how the Peace-nicks are now banging the drums of war just because someone used chemical weapons. Blame Russia and China for not controlling their guy

Not that America controls its chemical weapons merchants either. After all Saddam used them and America who loved the man at the time turned a blind eye. And still it isn't proven that Assad used them. Only the rebels have been shown to use them thus far.

[El Kabong]

Not that America controls its chemical weapons merchants either. After all Saddam used them and America who loved the man at the time turned a blind eye. And still it isn't proven that Assad used them. Only the rebels have been shown to use them thus far.

And where is Saddam now princess?

Assad and the rebels are equally vile...I wouldn't support either group.

[Gandalf]

Not that America controls its chemical weapons merchants either. After all Saddam used them and America who loved the man at the time turned a blind eye. And still it isn't proven that Assad used them. Only the rebels have been shown to use them thus far.

And where is Saddam now princess?

Assad and the rebels are equally vile...I wouldn't support either group.

Well, it took lies of considerable proportion to make an excuse to topple Saddam. A similar thing is quite possibly the deal here, though we have never been that close to Assad.

In terms of sides, I agree. They have both shown their colours. In the middle are swathes of people who just want to get on with lives, but won't for a long time. It isn't our fight though, the rhetoric of the politicians gives little concern regarding the people of Syria. It is all about brownie points with America and showing strength to Iran.

[Kirkland Laing]

Not that America controls its chemical weapons merchants either. After all Saddam used them and America who loved the man at the time turned a blind eye. And still it isn't proven that Assad used them. Only the rebels have been shown to use them thus far.

And where is Saddam now princess?

Assad and the rebels are equally vile...I wouldn't support either group.

So it was a good idea to invade Iraq?