Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
arknor said:
have they said it's not about regime change yet?
Click to expand...

They've said in the past that Assad should step down, that it's time for regime change.

Besides, in Libya, they didn't talk about regime change either IIRC. They talked about stopping whatshisface from attacking his own people, loss of life, etc. Whilst providing the rebels with ammo and weapons. Then they stepped up a gear, and just started bombing everything :p
 
ubersonic said:
Dude.... seriously?

They asked Japan to surrender, Japan said no they would fight to the last man.
They dropped a nuke and again asked Japan to surrender, Japan said no they would fight to the last man.
They dropped another nuke and again asked Japan to surrender, then the USSR finally declared war on Japan, finally at the request of the emperor and by a split decision the Japanese government voted to surrender.
Click to expand...

So I guess only Americans are allowed to end the war quickly then?? Using WMD is fine as long its used by the "approved" people?? :D You even get a Nobel prize with it for peace... AWESOME
 
how about cameron steps down as he wasn't voted in in that case.

I bet if there were a poll the outcome for get rid of cameron would be about the same as the poll in this thread

bet no one mentioned al nusra being the main fighting force behind the rebels....
 
Paul11 said:
they are saying its nothing to do with regime change and only to punish the use of chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

that makes sense. lets punish them by potentiall yputting civillians in harms way again. How many of these kinds of missions have been mared with civllian deaths due to the odd missile going astray. The government won't be doing themselves any favours by getting invloved without direct UN mandates.
 
Amnesia said:
So nukes are good then ?

or is it nukes are only good when the good guys drop them
Click to expand...

Killing 250,000 people is very very bad, doing it to save 15,000,000 is the "the lesser of two evils". I would have a very hard time making that call personally, good job I wasn't running America in WW2 lol.

Any time you have to take life to save life its a terrible thing even if warranted :(
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
I do enjoy that the BBC seem to be ignoring that Russia are gearing up for war, suppose they got pooped out of that little issue 20 years ago?
Click to expand...

Russia gearing up for war? Are you sure. Sending a destroyer to the Med does not constitute gearing up for war. The Russian military is a nothing but a reflection of its leader, Mr Putin - they like taking their shirt off and looking tough and manly, but ultimately they don't have much in the way of capability.
 
UncleRuckus said:
Israel's intelligence agency are the one's who originally stated Assad:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nfirmed-assad-regime-behind-alleged-chemical/
Click to expand...

Haha, that's brilliant. 'The UN inspectors report will not be credible because the evidence has been removed.'

But naturally the intelligence community have that evidence, have analysed it already, and found Assad did indeed use chem warfare.

And we should all just trust the US intelligence agencies, becuase... well, because. Because Obama got a Nobel peace prize, so he must really want peace. I guess.
 
ubersonic said:
Killing 250,000 people is very very bad, doing it to save 15,000,000 is the "the lesser of two evils". I would have a very hard time making that call personally, good job I wasn't running America in WW2 lol.

Any time you have to take life to save life its a terrible thing even if warranted :(
Click to expand...

so helping assad and killing the rebels/terrorists is the lesser of two evils if it ends the civil war the fastest no?
ahaha someone mentioned the pictures of which some were stock footage from a different war
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
so helping assad and killing the rebels/terrorists is the lesser of two evils if it ends the civil war the fastest no?
Click to expand...

Not really comparable, in WW2 the use of nuclear weapons was the only viable alternative to a ground invasion, and it was easily the better choice.

In Syria the options are not either join the rebels or join the loyalists, we have another option to simply stand back which gets my vote, let them fight their own civil war, they will ultimately be better for it.
 
FoxEye said:
Haha, that's brilliant. 'The UN inspectors report will not be credible because the evidence has been removed.'

But naturally the intelligence community have that evidence, have analysed it already, and found Assad did indeed use chem warfare.

And we should all just trust the US intelligence agencies, becuase... well, because. Because Obama got a Nobel peace prize, so he must really want peace. I guess.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty much agreed by everyone that CW were used - you can see the evidence for yourself on the news, what evidence is missing is who used them. The UN Weapons Inspectors were only supposed to confirm whether or not CW were used, and maybe what sort - they were not going to say who used them.
 
scorza said:
I think it's pretty much agreed by everyone that CW were used - you can see the evidence for yourself on the news, what evidence is missing is who used them. The UN Weapons Inspectors were only supposed to confirm whether or not CW were used, and maybe what sort - they were not going to say who used them.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the whole thing is mute, because the US have already decided that whatever the UN inspectors find, they can completely disregard it. But instead of just openly saying they are going to do whatever they want, they are discrediting the inspectors instead, by saying that they cannot possibly find the truth.

Why anyone, and I do mean _anyone_, would trust the US/UK governments to not act purely in their own self-interest, is beyond me.

The US and the UK are not interested in human rights. They only act to benefit themselves in one way or another. That they get away with it time after time, and even with the approval of some of us, is pretty scary.
 
ymui.jpg
 
Just read over some news that American Imports of Crude are going down by 32% (due to interior Shale), while Chinese Imports are rising to 360% to around the figure that the US imports (10 million barrels/day). Between 2005 and 2020 respectively.

We are in the middle of this change, obviously, so it seems rather strange that China has done almost nothing compared to the US in its meddling behaviour...I wonder what this could mean as China starts moving in, applying their own style of "management" to the Middle-east?

I cant offer any opinions as China has done things rather subtly, its difficult to really say what they will be doing as the decade moves on...but I see it becoming a power play between the West and the East, with the Middle-East simply being a perpetual warzone (not that it ever wasn't).

Very strange times ahead i think, but otherwise quite predictable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom