Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
StriderX said:
What do you expect, for GWBush to confirm it or something?

Sometimes you take that grain of salt and you keep it, just in case.
Click to expand...

If you get your information from websites with "TRUTH" written all over them, the information can generally be written off as being conspiracy nonsense.

The same website has all manner of 9/11 conspiracy guff all over it, and therefore should be dismissed.
 
V-Spec said:
It looks like it's got Alex Jones written all over it.
Click to expand...

Watch this video of John Kerry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24014762

Consider what he is saying, what is factual, what is being said and who it is being said to.

The media tag line is 'The risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting'
The conclusion of that line is - 'and everybody needs to stop and think about that hard'

Its a threat, hidden in plain site, designed for specific individuals.

And lets hope you did not miss this gem -
Where a dictator can with impunity threaten the rest of the world that he is going to retaliate for his own criminal activity.
Click to expand...
Hypocrisy at its finest.

And what follows this monumental speech?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24012244

William Hague says the UK and US remain "closely aligned" on Syria, after talks with his US counterpart John Kerry.
Click to expand...

Threat received, threat understood, puppets responding.
 
Last edited:
V-Spec said:
If you get your information from websites with "TRUTH" written all over them, the information can generally be written off as being conspiracy nonsense.

The same website has all manner of 9/11 conspiracy guff all over it, and therefore should be dismissed.
Click to expand...

Lets take the situation and logic that governments seem to lie quite a lot, now how can you tell if they are not?

You can't, simple as.

Take that other option, the one that is not actively lying to you (still needs that wholesome grain of salt obviously), you may believe it somewhat.

So one is 0 an the other not 0.

Some people will take it as gospel and validation, it won't be long before the notion of a middle-eastern terrorist is but a distant memory.
 
V-Spec said:
But the rebels don't possess these weapons, pretty much all the nations who's seen the evidence all agree on this, the satellite footage implies it was the regime (unless the satellite footage is a lie) the rebels simply don't possess the capability.

But there's no evidence that the rebels, or any other factions have this sort of capability, the Assad regime has been known to have stockpiles of chemical weapons for many years.
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...es-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

6th May.

The Russians also claim to have evidence the rebels are responsible & it's not like I trust the USA more than the Russians (both are almost equally motivated to lie).

V-Spec said:
I see it the other way, as a government official under attack in the midst of a civil war - if they use chemical weapons they can potentially turn the tide, Russia will strongly oppose any US intervention whatever the Syrian regime does - The Assad regime could kill 10 million of it's own and Russia would still fiercely oppose any US intervention no matter what Assad does, 100k dead already and Russia still supports the regime. We're seeing this in congress now, with many senators looking unlikely that they'll support the motion - Russian and chinese pressure will surely be a factor here, as far as I'm concerned it's part of the game Assad is playing, and it's working for him so far.
Click to expand...
Why exactly would chemical weapons turn the tide?, you can achieve just as much death with conventional weaponry to be honest, it's not like the Syrian military lack hardware.

Taking into account the risk of bringing in the US on the side of the rebels I don't really believe any tactical gain from the use of them would outweigh the risk (if any tactical gain existed at all).

V-Spec said:
But the US hasn't gassed civilians on purpose, there is always collateral damage in any conflict, the difference in this case is that Assad seems to have launched a chemical weapons strike on civilians.

You could talk about all manner of civilians who've unfortunately been caught up in all the conflicts spanning hundreds of years, but as far as I'm aware the US hasn't deliberately targeted civilians in any recent conflict.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that individuals in the US military have historically intentionally killed civilians & have been imprisoned for it.

The same could have happened here but with some disgruntled/bloodthirsty Syrian military members.
 
Last edited:
BunnyKillBot said:
Threat received, threat understood, puppets responding.
Click to expand...

You're reasoning doesn't add up with what's happened.

Why would the PM arrange two parliamentary votes, the first vote to get parliamentary support for a strike, the second to vote on the nature of the actual strike itself once worked out - the first vote failed, even Miliband's watered down draft didn't get any votes, the whole thing stalled.


The government's position is clear, we're not going to be involved militarily in Syria - unless something happens which totally changes the entire playing field. If I'm wrong and the PM totally ignores the will of parliament and joins in any military action with the US, you can quote me right back to this post and I'll admit I'm wrong.


StriderX said:
Lets take the situation and logic that governments seem to lie quite a lot, now how can you tell if they are not?
Click to expand...

So basically you're reduced to the position of saying "well governments lie quite a lot, therefore everything they say is lies"

Governmental stupidity and incompetence is a worldwide phenomena which has never been explained, but the nature of human beings and internet "truthers" is that when governments make stupid mistakes or ill thought out policies, some people (who seem insecure) seem to attribute this to some sort of conspiracy, normally involving oil, arms sales, terrorism, Haliburton or lizard men.

I'm not taking anything as "gospel" I'm undecided over what should happen in Syria, but I'm very careful in how I interpret the information and where it comes from, and won't be dragged so easily into tinhat land the way so many others seem to be.
 
V-Spec said:
You're reasoning doesn't add up with what's happened.

Why would the PM arrange two parliamentary votes, the first vote to get parliamentary support for a strike, the second to vote on the nature of the actual strike itself once worked out - the first vote failed, even Miliband's watered down draft didn't get any votes, the whole thing stalled.


The government's position is clear, we're not going to be involved militarily in Syria - unless something happens which totally changes the entire playing field. If I'm wrong and the PM totally ignores the will of parliament and joins in any military action with the US, you can quote me right back to this post and I'll admit I'm wrong.




So basically you're reduced to the position of saying "well governments lie quite a lot, therefore everything they say is lies"

Governmental stupidity and incompetence is a worldwide phenomena which has never been explained, but the nature of human beings and internet "truthers" is that when governments make stupid mistakes or ill thought out policies, some people (who seem insecure) seem to attribute this to some sort of conspiracy, normally involving oil, arms sales, terrorism, Haliburton or lizard men.

I'm not taking anything as "gospel" I'm undecided over what should happen in Syria, but I'm very careful in how I interpret the information and where it comes from, and won't be dragged so easily into tinhat land the way so many others seem to be.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about you or I, but people who are quite disjointed from society, it won't take much for an official rebel movement to form at this point.

I don't care what so ever about what the US does or does not, nor anything about the Middle-east, but if(perhaps a big one) I suddenly have to live with a western rebellion, I will be quite angry.
 
elmarko said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...es-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

6th May.

The Russians also claim to have evidence the rebels are responsible & it's not like I trust the USA more than the Russians (both are almost equally motivated to lie).
Click to expand...

It could be true that the rebels may have a very small scale makeshift chemical capability, but no way of launching anything like the attack on Aug 21st (pretty much all countries seem to be agreeing on this) it must also be pointed out that despite the article there has so far been on actual verified evidence that rebels did use chemical weapons, only accusations.


On the subject of Russia - I don't think they can be trusted, they have an agenda to keep america away from Syria - they'll say anything to undermine the intelligence and are a known supporter of the Assad regime.

elmarko said:
Why exactly would chemical weapons turn the tide?, you can achieve just as much death with conventional weaponry to be honest, it's not like the Syrian military lack hardware.

Taking into account the risk of bringing in the US on the side of the rebels I don't really believe any tactical gain from the use of them would outweigh the risk (if any tactical gain existed at all).
Click to expand...

Perhaps because you can delete large numbers of people from an area without turning it to rubble? I'm no expert on weapons but it would seem using chemical weapons to clear built up areas has distinct advantages, if you don't care about how the people die.

elmarko said:
The same could have happened here but with some disgruntled/bloodthirsty Syrian military members.
Click to expand...

You can't compare a bunch of rednecks who didn't give a **** who are now in jail, to the people coordinating a military chemical weapons attack on civilians.
 
V-Spec said:
On the subject of Russia - I don't think they can be trusted, they have an agenda to keep america away from Syria - they'll say anything to undermine the intelligence and are a known supporter of the Assad regime.
Click to expand...

The US also has an agenda to enter Syria...so quite frankly, its the same thing.
 
StriderX said:
To remove Irans militarily strong ally?
Click to expand...

Ok,

So if that's true why is Obama clawing like mad to gain support to simply fire a few cruise missiles, and not even put a single boot on the ground. The majority of senators and lawmakers questioned so far have said they're going to vote against the draft.

If they're so hellbent on rushing into Syria why does it look like they're all going to vote against? because support certainly isn't rife as of yet, it doesn't add up.

Your point would perhaps have some substance if they'd just gone in (which they could have done) without even going to congress, but Obama knows if he does that it's curtains because the american people are sick of war.
 
Last edited:
V-Spec said:
Ok,

So if that's true why is Obama clawing like mad to gain support to simply fire a few cruise missiles, and not even put a single boot on the ground. All the senators and lawmakers questioned so far have said they're going to vote against the draft.

If they're so hellbent on rushing into Syria why does it look like they're all going to vote against? because support certainly isn't rife as of yet, it doesn't add up.

Your point would perhaps have some substance if they'd just gone in (which they could have done) without even going to congress.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because again Iraq has soured the American Public's support for war?

That Libya is a hellhole, Egypt being a clear sign of unwarranted US tampering and the fact that the rebels in Syria are growing to be nothing more than terrorists.

It does not sit well with the average American, so the senators have to follow suit, as nothing else matters to them but having a stable seat at Congress.

Also the fact that a few cruise missiles is barely going to cut it and the more time that is wasted, the more time that Russian and Chinese military assets get between the US and Syria...

Beyond all this, Obama has basically put his reputation and image on the line, it would also seem that he is no longer in the mood for this at all, but he has to continue regardless due to his badly placed words weeks ago.
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
Perhaps because again Iraq has soured the American Public's support for war?

That Libya is a hellhole, Egypt being a clear sign of unwarranted US tampering and the fact that the rebels in Syria are growing to be nothing more than terrorists.

It does not sit well with the average American, so the senators have to follow suit, as nothing else matters to them but having a stable seat at Congress.
Click to expand...

For me it's a point of principle on Obamas part, he thinks the Assad regime should be punished for violating an international norm on the use of chemical weapons - which I agree with him on.

It's true that the war on Iraq has soured the well, in terms of public support for more military action, but that doesn't matter - if no action follows the use of such things then there's no point in upholding any sort of ban or international stance, you can pass UN resolutions all day long, but unless the perpetrator actually pays a hard and real price, they've got away with it and you cannot ignore what sort of message that sends out.

As far as the senators go - there is no support, whether it's because of the lack of public support or whether they disagree with Obama, support is waning - which means it's unlikely anything will happen.

Remember - Obama didn't have to go to congress, he could have launched a strike anyway when it would have been far easier, before Assad could have moved his assets into hardened bunkers.

StriderX said:
Also the fact that a few cruise missiles is barely going to cut it and the more time that is wasted, the more time that Russian and Chinese military assets get between the US and Syria...
Click to expand...

Which undermines you're position, on the one hand you argue that the US has all these agendas and reasons to destroy Syria - if that were true, why have they blown their chances of striking quickly, in response to such a blatant violation of international law - and now risk further problems with the russians.

And look rofl - even Russia who had been so hardline on the fact that the Assad regime hadn't used chemical weapons and it was all the fault of the Rebels, is now asking Assad to hand them over to the international community - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24022866
 
Last edited:
Just because the Russians blame it on the Rebels, does not mean it has anything to do with the removal of the arms from the country.

Its simply a political manoeuvre, to continue the distaste for action.
 
Its quite worrying that a slip of the tongue may have prevented military action which I thought was suppose to be a last resort.

How scary nobody else pushed it sooner, unless Russia were going to anyway but wait until Obama is so deep in the **** to maximise the impact.
 
scorza said:
Good news I think that there's still a chance for the US to avoid military action while still ensuring that Al-Assad can never again use its chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

Provided its workable then its a good option - stops the regime or any rogue army officers from using them again etc... Obama doesn't have to get involved directly in a conflict which could get very messy and for which the US public has very little appetite for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom