Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
mmj_uk said:
The USA has vetoed hundreds of UN resolutions condemning Israel, if the west ignores China & Russia's veto on Syria then it sets a very dangerous precident and makes the UN worthless.
Click to expand...
obama seems to think America is in some safety bubble

as I already said obama ignoring a veto when russia clearly does not want them to is stupid....

I can see russia and china at the very least trying to take out a bunch of the missiles america fire if not deciding to just launch their own missiles at the terrorists or even worse israel
 
Both side have used chemical weapons. The fact that these so called "freedom fighters" haven't really got any real sort of leadership to speak of hints that there is "far right" acts afoot.

also would like to add a few months into uprising, there was a report on the BBC when they where interviewing a "freedom fighter" he said that if the UN didnt help soon then they will have to take weapons from Al-Qaeda. You got to ask your self where did they get all of their weapons to fight with huh?

I'm not saying that there are not some freedom fighters that are truly fighting or democracy and im sure at the beginning of the uprising it was for democracy, BUT its been 3 years now and you can be pretty sure that there are a high number of the rebel leaders that have links to terrorists.

In my eyes chemical weapons are just as bad, if not worse than nuclear weapons. If Bashar al-assad has used chemicals then he should face his crimes in the UN courts. However the rebel leaders are most likely going to be just as bad if not worse than Assad.
 
xXxsephirothxXx said:
..also would like to add a few months into uprising, there was a report on the BBC when they where interviewing a "freedom fighter" he said that if the UN didnt help soon then they will have to take weapons from Al-Qaeda. You got to ask your self where did they get all of their weapons to fight with huh?
Click to expand...

Have the Americans not being giving them weapons?
 
n111ck said:
Why is it that only your axis of evil / commie type countries support Assad and why is it the only news sites that still keep posting that the rebels did it are paranoid conspiracy blogs or have never been heard of before?
Click to expand...

and what makes them evil ? other than they dont bend over for america and take it up the backside like the uk does.
 
xXxsephirothxXx said:
Both side have used chemical weapons.






If Bashar al-assad has used chemicals then he should face his crimes in the UN courts.
Click to expand...



Make your mind up dude :p

xXxsephirothxXx said:
However the rebel leaders are most likely going to be just as bad if not worse than Assad.
Click to expand...


Well ive not seen Assad cut out the heart of an enemy and eat it so im guessing the terrorists are worse.
 
Obama is taking this too personally, by not wanting to intervene isn't creating a precedent over chemical weapons it's just a reaction to our existing involvement.
We didn't want to go there, we didn't want to stay there and now he expects us to start the whole cycle again?

No thanks, the misogynist followers of the religion of peace and ritual beheading can continue doing what the frack they like, I'm not interested in spending any more money on their stupid petty squabbles over goat incest, goat marriage, boy rape or who beats up their wife the most.

Missiles cost money and Assad is doing a stand up job of killing Muslims, every dead Muslim nutjob is one less who will come here. He may not win a Nobel Peace prize like Obama has (LOL), but as insane dictators go he is killing all the right people.

What we should be doing is sorting out help for all the Syrian refugees and negotiating with Assad to free the ones trapped in the cities so we can supply food and aid properly.
 
Amnesia said:
Well ive not seen Assad cut out the heart of an enemy and eat it so im guessing the terrorists are worse.
Click to expand...

I don't see him hating Christians or other religions either

n111ck said:
You mean Assad's WMD's? All the more reason to disrupt that capability.
Click to expand...

and how do you plan to get rid of the sarin stockpiles whilst bombing assad ? he is the only thing between the rebels and the chemical weapons......

We can not bomb the chemical weapon stockpiles or factories incase it kills thousands of people....
 
Last edited:
Jokester said:
I don't know how old you are, but us older members will remember the run up to the Iraq war and how the media protrayed things back then. I remember speaking to someone at my work who honestly believed that Iraq was going to attack us with ballistic missiles (that they didn't have) armed with chemical/biological weapons (that they didn't have) because of what the media were reporting, based on what the US/UK governments were telling them at the time.
Click to expand...

Yep, when Israel suffered those attacks the panic was at feverpitch - they thought and were reported to be chemical or biological attacks and for an hour or so everyone was expecting Israel to start lobbing nukes around. I remember it being the most tense period since the perceived fear that the Russians were going to drive through the fulda gap. Of which the never did and in hindsight could have done quite easily if they had wished. But I remember as a kid in this country having to practice for nuclear war and watching the cartoon with the two old dears. Media drove that fear.
 
That nice man or should I say dictator Obama decided all by himself to go after Assad.

As the dictator of the world's oldest constitutional democracy I can bomb anybody I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRz14a-QF90

Now that nice man Obama is saying they are going to attack Syria for 3 days.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-plans-3-days-attack-syria-092116189.html

First it was a few strategic strikes and no ground troops. Now he is saying it will be 3 days of strikes and he may have to deploy ground troops after all. The nice man Obama is full of BS.

A little update on what those nice Al-Qaeda backed rebels have been up to

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rian-rebels-accused-of-sectarian-murders.html

A bit of good reporting in the USA. Obama getting pulled up on his lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMAdxJObCoI


It's obvious the USA has an agenda to get Assad. Just like they did with Saddam they are using lies to justify a war. Fool me once America.
 
Last edited:
ennogs said:
A bit of good reporting in the USA. Obama getting pulled up on his lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMAdxJObCoI
Click to expand...
I never thought I'd see the day a Fox reporter actually said it for how it is. FINALLY a bit of reporting sanity, especially after watching mouth dropping insanity on the Larry King show.

By god I hope sanity prevails in the end and this fizzles out.
 
Obama is a jewish puppet.

If there is such proof is was Assad show it to the world, and prove Assad ordered it and he is not some weak puppet being over ruled by a strong alawite army.This is purely Iraq all over again a minority versus a majority and if america have interests in that region history shows both they and the british will do whatever it takes to gain favour with the majority.The minority will be subject of course to culling and genocide.


The alawites just like in iraq are the minority ruling the majority.All alawite jobs are mostly military directly in indirectly realted (military food or clothes) and the alawites form the bulk of it.They will die before they give in, they know they will die anyways if they lose so either way is death only victory will siffuce for the alawites.So yes they could have used chemical attacks fearing rape of the woman and children.


I mean just look at the animals barking at thier doors? The guy who wanted to eat out thier hearts and liver's,public executions of young men and islamic terrorists among thier ranks.Personally the USA should step in and enforce peace and democratic elections.Either they safeguard the alawites loss of power and protect them or they throw bashar to the wolves and back the islamists.


And it seems like they are going to back the islamists too.To me it is the assad supporters who like like sane educated syrians not that non educated animal who was eating livers and hearts on video.Why would the upper class and educated part of syrian society be dumb enough to use chemical weapons and why did it take so long? Personally this is a cover up no sane person would use a chemical weapon when the world is baiting for your blood.Somehow somewhere the islamists managed to get sarin gas.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
As if the public opinion amounted to anything in Cameron's thinking ;)
Click to expand...

Like the guy or not, he does seem to be a believer in doing what is right and democratic, hence why he held the vote in the first place instead of just deciding we were backing up the US, and why he is standing by the vote amid mounting pressure from all sides.


arknor said:
And how do you plan to get rid of the sarin stockpiles whilst bombing assad ? he is the only thing between the rebels and the chemical weapons......

We can not bomb the chemical weapon stockpiles or factories incase it kills thousands of people....
Click to expand...

I don't agree with attacking Syria, but for reference they cannot have anything like the level of stockpiles the media suggests as the stuff goes off very quickly and even the best stuff will last a maximum of half a year (B grade Saddam level crap is useless in a month or two). Also the US could easily hit the stockpiles without letting the gas escape, this is one of the reasons the fuel air bomb was created.

----------------------------

Does anybody else find it comical that the US/UK/France wen't to such lengths to oust Saddam and get what was supposed to be out puppets running Iraq, but now their giving oil contracts to China, buying Russian military hardware and politically backing Assad? lol.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Like the guy or not, he does seem to be a believer in doing what is right and democratic, hence why he held the vote in the first place instead of just deciding we were backing up the US, and why he is standing by the vote amid mounting pressure from all sides.
Click to expand...

so why is he telling the world and at the submit favouring Americas stance if it's not what parliament or the people want?

held a vote.
finds out the country aren't behind him.
carries on with his view point on the world stage anyway.

he is supposed to represent the UK FFS! not his own personal views
 
ubersonic said:
Like the guy or not, he does seem to be a believer in doing what is right and democratic, hence why he held the vote in the first place instead of just deciding we were backing up the US, and why he is standing by the vote amid mounting pressure from all sides.
Click to expand...

Parliaments work different to Congress', before Blair had his little vote, he could have just ordered it without anyone's permission, but it did not go down that way, so unless Cameron is in the mood to break some rules, he has to follow suit in kind or possibly face a court.

I still do not particularly like the system we have, seems like its a little too fluid for my liking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom