Should we be fighting in Syria?

bwfc1874 wrote:

waynagain wrote:Anyone who thinks Americans want another war is a moron. Obama got elected because he promised to bring all the troops home. He's a very weak leader and that is why countries like Iran and North Korea can thumb their noses at him, they know he will back down. Putin laughs at him, the Chinese manipulate their currency to enable them to inflate it's value and yet he continues to have his country be China's number one client. He might be a good 'speach maker', but he's all talk and no action. The ONLY way the USA will take military action will be if the UK and a few others can talk him into it. Notice when the US Consulate in Tunisia was attacked, he did nothing, same thing when the French were helping the Libyans get rid of Gadhaffi, he did nothing. 

 You've spent too long in America if you really believe that.

It's ridiculous if you think the UK has any influence in these situations, the US is (and always is) the one pulling the strings 

Surely you're not naive enough to think the US is being influenced by the UK???

He's giving the Egyptians 1.5 billion dollars a year in aid while the Army there are killing their own, people have told him to stop the aid, but no - he doesn't want to upset anyone.

That $1.5 billion was; and always has been, there for the Egyptian army to prevent Hezbollah from entering Egypt from the North, in other words weaken the Israeli opposition. That's a fact.

The army in Egypt have been attacking the Muslim brotherhood, no idea what you're talking about. 

If you've actually been told anything that you've said above then your either wildy delusional or badly misinformed. If this is what American news reports I'd advise you to look elsewhere for your current affairs.

The USA will NOT take any military action anywhere if it doesn't have backing from the UK, and vice versa.
I can't believe it, but I'm glad bwfc 1874 has just informed us that the hundreds of people who the Egyptian army killed are NOT Egyptians because they were members of the the Muslim Brotherhood (a political party who won the last election in Egypt). I guess this means that people who vote in England are not English so it would be OK to have the army kill them.

Sorry mis read your point about the Muslim Brotherhood my point was that they are killing people themselves too, not just being attacked by the army for nothing. There's no innocent side in this, it's a real mess.

The USA would definitely take military action without the UK, but we'll back them anyway unfortunately just like the illegal war in Iraq. We'll have to wait and see what happens here I hope we don't get involved but we probably will. The US don't want to lose any power in the Middle East, and they certainly don't need talking into invading a country, it's the most aggressive nation in the world.

bwfc1874 wrote:Sorry mis read your point about the Muslim Brotherhood my point was that they are killing people themselves too, not just being attacked by the army for nothing. There's no innocent side in this, it's a real mess.

The USA would definitely take military action without the UK, but we'll back them anyway unfortunately just like the illegal war in Iraq. We'll have to wait and see what happens here I hope we don't get involved but we probably will. The US don't want to lose any power in the Middle East, and they certainly don't need talking into invading a country, it's the most aggressive nation in the world.

The USA never goes into a war without getting backing from other countries. Even the war of Independance they had the French fighting with them to beat the British, Vietnam was with the French and on and on. As for being the 'most aggressive nation' which countries started World War 1 and 2?. The British are just as aggressive as the USA, but only because they know the USA will back them up.

WW1 and WW2 were started by the Germans.

Vietnam was a French colony, they had their own war with the Vietnamese but pulled out of the region in 1954, the US invaded in 1955.

Your correct to say the US rarely fights alone, but that's bound to be the case other countries always have interests in other regions. For instance about 60,000 Australians fought in the Vietnam war because they're members of SEATO.

The US has undoubtedly been the most aggressive nation  over the past 100 years just look at how many situations they've been involved in, off the top of my head:

Iraq x 2
Afghanistan x 2
Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Libya
Any number of incidents in the Cold War

Im not arguing for the UK by the way, I think the fact we follow the US into places like Iraq and probably Syria is disgraceful, but you seem to think the US only go to war because they're talked into it. It's the most powerful nation in the world, they're not being influenced by anybody else.

I think you will find that GB declared war with Germany to 'start' WW2

waynagain wrote:I think you will find that GB declared war with Germany to 'start' WW2

Germany invaded Poland.

France and ourselves had an agreement with Poland that we would come to their aid if they were attacked - and that is basically how the Second World War started.

I don't think of it as "us" and "them". If I saw an innocent person being treated badly in the street, I'd help them, regardless of their lack of association with me.
The fact that this is happening in Damascus as opposed to London makes no difference to me. They're still human beings that need help.

History lesson time.

The US didn't declare war on Germany in WWII, Germany declared war on her. She only declared war on Japan after she had been attacked at Pearl Harbour. The Americans preferred to stay neutral and sell their support to Britain.

America fights wars for political reasons like every other country. They invade countries when it suits them and do it alone if necessary (Vietnam, Panama, Grenada). Allies are nice but hardly necessary. These days Britain just tags along (Iraq, Afghanistan).

America also subverts regimes it doesn't like (too many to mention).

Cameron's lost the vote on military action.

Having just watched the BBC coverage of a chemical attack it's absolutely horrendous, I don't know what will happen but something needs to.

Think it's fair to say though our interventions in the past only cause more problems going forward.

Anybody remember the napalm in Vietnam that the wanks dumped on civilians? What's the difference now?

If massacring people is a problem why didn't we intervene in a host of other countries? Why is killing people with chemicals worse than blowing them up or burning them alive or chopping them up with machetes?

xmiles wrote:History lesson time.

The US didn't declare war on Germany in WWII, Germany declared war on her. She only declared war on Japan after she had been attacked at Pearl Harbour. The Americans preferred to stay neutral and sell their support to Britain.

America fights wars for political reasons like every other country. They invade countries when it suits them and do it alone if necessary (Vietnam, Panama, Grenada). Allies are nice but hardly necessary. These days Britain just tags along (Iraq, Afghanistan).

America also subverts regimes it doesn't like (too many to mention).

'The War' was started by GB - there was no war prior to GB declaring war on Germany. They had 'occupied' several countries, but none of them had declared war on Germany or Germany on them. The Americans only came into the war because Germany considered them an 'ally' to GB who they were at war with. WW2 had been going on for quite a while before Germany declared war on the US.

As for the US selling aid to GB, yes they did just like GB has been selling aid the the anti government fighters in Syria for the last few months.

There is a difference between "starting" a war and declaring war. Britain no more started WWII than America started the war with Japan in 1941. Germany started WWII by launching an unprovoked attack on Poland.

Have they actually proved that it was Assad's forces that used the chemicals yet? I heard there was some media manipulation going on - and despite that still haven't seen anything conclusive or that could have easily been doctored for political ends.

Cameron said there is no way to prove 100%. The French are now backing the USA to make military strikes.

wanderlust wrote:Have they actually proved that it was Assad's forces that used the chemicals yet? I heard there was some media manipulation going on - and despite that still haven't seen anything conclusive or that could have easily been doctored for political ends.

They haven't presented anything conclusive apart from to say "we're sure, just trust us...." That sounds awfully familiar.

In fact if you look on line there is pictures of rebel forces loading canisters onto rockets, calling for "sarin sarin" and moving containers of different liquids around in vehicles.

thats not to say that is proof of anything either, but at least it's something tangible.

the people who are saying "oh it's disgusting, I'm ashamed" today are still unable to answer the basic questions of any act of war.

How does this act of war against Syria further peace process, because thats what we want right?

Whats the end game if not regime change.

and where is the evidence assad used these weapons.

without those questions answered your case is very very feeble.

Given that Assad is currently apparently winning and western intervention didn't look very likely it seems the rebels actually have more to gain by gassing their people than Assad does.

Still that wouldn't stop idiots like Cameron and Hague intervening would it?

Why would the Assad regime gas they're own people when UN inspectors are in town and they are only 5 miles away from the site of the atrocity?

The obvious answer would be Assad has generals all over the place just doing whatever they want without telling him, then he has some plausible deniability.

It makes no sense at all for Assad to authorise the use of chemical weapons. His regime is actually winning the war against the rebels. Assad is no Amin or Saddam Hussain. He trained as a doctor in London and he married an English woman. The use of chemical weapons against anyone is abhorrent but the press seem to be fixated about painting Assad as a brutal dictator whereas we are told very little about the political aims and objectives of the rebels. Are they Hezbollah? Are they Al Qaeda?

Who is to say that those opposing Assad wont be worse if they are able to take over the country?