Should we be fighting in Syria?

Reebok Trotter wrote: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?

Very astute post,you have been missed !

Tiger, While on holiday I got pissed off watching Billy Hague and Call me Dave giving it large about how we should back America and carry out air strikes on Syria. Have our politicians learned nothing? It should have been obvious to them that the British public are fed up to the back teeth with the way things have turned out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our poor young squaddies getting blown to bits thousands of miles away in some god forsaken hell hole that has never seen true peace for hundreds of years. It's nice of our politicians to suggest that we have a moral duty to take out Assad ( safe in the knowledge that their own sons and daughters wont be the ones who have to make the ultimate sacrifice when the shit hits the fan.)

I think we are best off avoiding getting involved in any conflict in the middle east where there is a civil war. It's none of our bloody business. I do feel sympathy for the families who lost loved ones in the chemical weapons attacks but it's no different from America cluster bombing entire villages to root out radical insurgents in Helmand province.

Now that Amadinnerjacket is no longer in power in Iran ( Syria's closest ally ) there is an opportunity for some stability in the region. The current Iranian leader is a moderate. Hassan Rouhani was educated at Glasgow University. He is open to dialogue with the West and there is every chance that he will be persuaded to pull the plug on Iran's nuclear weapons programme. If however, the USA decide to bomb Syria then the whole situation could turn to ratshit. Much better to let the weapons inspectors carry out a thorough investigation before any military action.

Reebok Trotter wrote:Tiger, While on holiday I got pissed off watching Billy Hague and Call me Dave giving it large about how we should back America and carry out air strikes on Syria. Have our politicians learned nothing? It should have been obvious to them that the British public are fed up to the back teeth with the way things have turned out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our poor young squaddies getting blown to bits thousands of miles away in some god forsaken hell hole that has never seen true peace for hundreds of years. It's nice of our politicians to suggest that we have a moral duty to take out Assad ( safe in the knowledge that their own sons and daughters wont be the ones who have to make the ultimate sacrifice when the shit hits the fan.)

I think we are best off avoiding getting involved in any conflict in the middle east where there is a civil war. It's none of our bloody business. I do feel sympathy for the families who lost loved ones in the chemical weapons attacks but it's no different from America cluster bombing entire villages to root out radical insurgents in Helmand province.

Now that Amadinnerjacket is no longer in power in Iran ( Syria's closest ally ) there is an opportunity for some stability in the region. The current Iranian leader is a moderate. Hassan Rouhani was educated at Glasgow University. He is open to dialogue with the West and there is every chance that he will be persuaded to pull the plug on Iran's nuclear weapons programme. If however, the USA decide to bomb Syria then the whole situation could turn to ratshit.   Much better to let the weapons inspectors carry out a thorough investigation before any military action.  

Spot on RT.

Just watched a prog on BBC World News on Syria talk about opening Pandora's Box there is outside influence as is plain to see, whereby these people, Islamists, are prepared to take down the Assad government if they can and then there's the Syrians, who want democracy.
It's pretty obvious, going off what was shown, that on toppling of the government, civil war will break and the Islamists, much as the Taliban will once again be in Afghanistan, will win the day and Sharia law, which is being practiced in non government areas, will come into play.
This is more or less the same scenario that occurred in Afghan before all the shit started when the wanks and us went in. No doubt a similar scenario will occur in Egypt ultimately. If the people with guns want to live in the dark ages then democracy will never prevail, and ultimately the West will always be pissing in the wind.
I'm all for the term "but for the grace of god" but this is all fairy story belief I'm afraid.

' Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media '

After watching Good Morning Britain this morning I have now decided the only way to stop ISIS is to invade Syria.

Airstrikes, boots on the ground, and if necessary, a nuclear strike.

Yes, thousands (if not millions) of people will lose their lives, but unless something is done now ISIS will only get stronger.

I never thought I would encourage war, but listening to some experts this morning it's clear ISIS could take over the world in the next 10 years. And if they get their hands on a nuclear weapon, well, it's game over for all of us.

i have a feeling you may be right, but this time it needs to be a global response and not just us and the Yanks doing all the dirty work

Natasha Whittam wrote:it's clear ISIS could take over the world in the next 10 years.

Pardon?

You should have your own video blog on YouTube.

That's how all the other dangerously ill-informed nutters with an axe to grind do it.

bwfc1874 wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:it's clear ISIS could take over the world in the next 10 years.

Pardon?

Don't expect a coherent response - by her own admission, Nat isn't a "figures" person......

Oh, I don't know, Breaders, Nat would probably scare them off.
The use of chemicals could be a false flag exercise. It isn't the first time and won't be the last. Bit like the Russians in the Ukraine. But just in case, I think we should look carefully that Bliar isn't involved in any decision.
I put my trust in the  Chief of the Defence Staff who can refuse to take action if he decides it may be illegal. Plus I'm on leave in three weeks time.

Norpig wrote:i have a feeling you may be right, but this time it needs to be a global response and not just us and the Yanks doing all the dirty work

It needs to be a European response with US backing.

It needs to be swift and brutal.

While all the liberal bellends are jumping up and down about "legality" and "innocent people" ISIS will continue their war against the west.

Just bomb Syria to bits, killing loads of ISIS, just keep loading up bombs and dropping them.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Norpig wrote:i have a feeling you may be right, but this time it needs to be a global response and not just us and the Yanks doing all the dirty work

It needs to be a European response with US backing.

It needs to be swift and brutal.

While all the liberal bellends are jumping up and down about "legality" and "innocent people" ISIS will continue their war against the west.

By war on the West do you mean the attacks in Tunisia, Paris etc?

Bombing Syria isn't going to solve that.

bwfc1874 wrote:

By war on the West do you mean the attacks in Tunisia, Paris etc?

Bombing Syria isn't going to solve that.

It's not going to stamp out terrorism, but ISIS are the biggest global threat to peace. Don't you agree the world would be a better place without them?

i don't like the idea of troops on the ground anymore than anyone else, i just cant see how IS will ever be defeated without it happening. They already control large areas of Syria and Iraq, perhaps they other middle eastern countries like Iran need to get involved?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

It's not going to stamp out terrorism, but ISIS are the biggest global threat to peace. Don't you agree the world would be a better place without them?

I bet you've got a cowboy hat, haven't you?

And a daft moustache.....

Are you saying ISIS aren't a threat? Are you suggesting if we do nothing they will just ignore us?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:

By war on the West do you mean the attacks in Tunisia, Paris etc?

Bombing Syria isn't going to solve that.

It's not going to stamp out terrorism, but ISIS are the biggest global threat to peace. Don't you agree the world would be a better place without them?

Bombing Syria wouldn't get rid of them, that's the point. Killing innocent people only radicalises the next generation.

A better start would be to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia and tackle where IS is getting it's funding.

well upsetting Saudi Arabia is never going to happen is it? Their human rights record is appalling and because of their oil fields and wealth they are free to carry on.