Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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


  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
They were suppose meet up on Wednesday just to do that but the UK and the US have just pulled out with peace talks with Russia instead choosing to attack.

Many other minorities also support Assad including the Christians. Well support may be a bit strong since they are stuck in between a rock and a hard place.

All solutions which include an interest of a victor is destined for more blood shed.
 
[TW]Fox;24836142 said:
Where did you learn to read a map!?

7 Countries border Iran.

Only 2 of them have been 'invaded' by the USA. The USA has since withdrawn from 1 of them and is withdrawing from the other so if it was about Iran they kinda forgot the main part of that 'plan'.
Well, I maybe used too strong language there.

Western influence has run very deep in the region, politically or via the military - when talking this subject I thought it was obvious I meant those unfriendly with the west in the region (that being mostly - Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran) not nations which already play ball (Saudi Arabia etc) - but I can see how it was taken otherwise due to not wording it specifically.
 
Negotiations would need to have Russia come onboard and theyre not interested. Assad does have substantial support from that portion of the country that is Alawite, somewhere around the teens. Of course the majority of the country is Sunni which is yet another factor.

Wasn't the main issue that the west wouldn't allow one of Syria's main allies to the table. We just wouldn't allow Iran to be part of the negotiating which destroyed any idea of a peace process, alongside the US then stating they were arming the rebels, which happened after an apparent chemical attack that may have in fact been carried out by the opposition*...

As for the comments about the government being guilty because it took them a few days to allow the inspectors in, and bombing the area after the event... It was a sardine, the revels were on the back foot and this happened, it makes sense for the government to keep pushing the rebels, rather than just stopping the offensive and possibly losing the ground they had just won.


*The UN reports believing the opposition have already used chemical weapons in at least one of the events the UN inspectors were there to look at...
 
the same rise you will see every 6 months (going to 9 months now) thats strangly in line with the Herrick rotation swapover?

not to mention the amount of kit coming back due to the draw down

Having lived by a station for years I did know when something different was happening by the increase in traffic so I assume the locals in Cyprus would be used to rotations

the fleet that was already in the med anyway? no

No the news said the US was sending a fleet so it obviously was not there already.
 
They were suppose meet up on Wednesday just to do that but the UK and the US have just pulled out with peace talks with Russia instead choosing to attack.

Many other minorities also support Assad including the Christians. Well support may be a bit strong since they are stuck in between a rock and a hard place.

All solutions which include an interest of a victor is destined for more blood shed.

Which is at least the second time we have pulled out of peace talks because an event has happend... Convenient... I haven't seen any reports of Russia doing the same at any time yet.

It's stunk right from the beginning (months ago). We have never had any intention of getting any kind of peace process going. Just going through the motions to make it look like that.
 
No offense but thats Daily Mail idiotic. I dont know where to start, geopolitical reasons, domestic, humanitarian? How do you reckon it will 'increase the likelihood of an attack?' So if the islamists get their hands on chemical weapons theyll be satisfied with that? What exactly do you propose, we close our borders to the outside world?

Humanitarian? You are taking the wee! Rwanda settled any pretext that US/UK act in a humanitarian way.
It will increase the likelihood of an attack primarily by the same method that the other conflicts did, by further radicalising UK Muslims. Our atrocities were committed by home grown terrorists. You obviously did not think when you talk about border crossings etc. A lot of chemical weapons could be manufactured by anybody of university student level. You don't need outsiders.
 
As its looking at the moment I just see more misery for ordinary Syrians.

I would not be surprised to see a situation similar to as what happened in Egypt. Topple Assad, a Muslim/"Islamist" type party legitimately wins a democratic election, the west funds dissent protests (as in Egypt) by secularists, all hell breaks loose again and many more people die, until the US/West have there chosen puppets party in power.

takes off tin foil hat
 
Last edited:
ones thing is certain if it wasn't assads regime using chemical weapons then once the UK/US take action he might as well start using them as he's guilty regardless of who did actually use them
 
[TW]Fox;24836501 said:
High oil prices seriously damage the U.S. economy and high gas prices seriously threaten elections so it's madness to suggest the USA would want to increase the oil price.

They don't harm the individuals raking in the cash though and they carry a lot of influence, politicians only pretend to have the country's interests at heart.
 
They don't harm the individuals raking in the cash though and they carry a lot of influence, politicians only pretend to have the country's interests at heart.

Politicians have their own interests at heart but this mostly includes getting reelected, forcing them to at least partially care what individuals think. An economy back in the bucket isn't a good reelection ticket.

High fuel prices also cause significant harm to big business, more U.S. corporations consume energy than produce it.
 
Humanitarian? You are taking the wee! Rwanda settled any pretext that US/UK act in a humanitarian way.
It will increase the likelihood of an attack primarily by the same method that the other conflicts did, by further radicalising UK Muslims. Our atrocities were committed by home grown terrorists. You obviously did not think when you talk about border crossings etc. A lot of chemical weapons could be manufactured by anybody of university student level. You don't need outsiders.

Nobody is saying that the west has always acted perfectly, although I would lay Rwanda firmly at the door of an ineffectual and quite frankly cowardly UN.

Plus appeasing that portion of the UK muslim populace (a very small portion) that is just waiting for the excuse to self-radicalise is never going to work, because they dont need much of an excuse. You could sit on your hands and youre guilty of not helping the palestinians, you could help the palestinians and youre trying to colonise the region for the benefit of the israelis. Such idiocy should not dictate any aspect of foreign policy.

As to manufacturing homegrown chem weapons, I think you'd be surprised at actually how difficult this is without specialist training either in supply or preparation. The difference is that the order of effectiveness with military grade weapons is on a different scale.

So thats one reason, protecting the stockpiles.
 
I see Tony Blair has been rattling the sabre too, quite strange seeing that he is a middle east peace envoy.

Middle east peace is actually a good reason. Syria is a bit like a vortex, its sucking in lebanon, requiring the israelis to take military action, pitting the sunnis against the shia's across the region, especially in the palestinian territories.
 
Back
Top Bottom