Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
[TW]Fox;24842076 said:
As much as I object to our involvement in this why do people keep saying that? Nowhere does it appear to state or imply that the intention is to launch some sort of Iraq style invasion. Infact every source seems to say the intention is limited to chucking a few missiles at strategic targets.
Click to expand...

That's how Iraq started!
 
MrMoonX said:
That's how Iraq started!
Click to expand...

I think there was always a boots on the ground obejctive in Iraq. The air strikes were to soften up what was left when the boots came in. I don't ever recall Bush or Blair saying they would limit the opperation to airstrikes only, although I could be mistaken.
 
dunker said:
syrian foreign minster threatoning to attack israel if we bomb them, also read putin given military orders to attack saudi if we bomb syria.

hopefully none of that's true or atleast just bluffs.
Click to expand...

yea how dare the bad guys even think about attacking another country:p

We are the good guys, thats why we do all the bombings.
 
[TW]Fox;24842076 said:
As much as I object to our involvement in this why do people keep saying that? Nowhere does it appear to state or imply that the intention is to launch some sort of Iraq style invasion. Infact every source seems to say the intention is limited to chucking a few missiles at strategic targets.
Click to expand...

But then what happens when plan A fails. Syria is significantly stronger then Libya. They better know what their doing because if air strikes and cruise missiles dont work then what? Boots on the ground may not be the next step but once the ball starts rolling thats where I fear it could end up. I honestly dont know whether it's right or wrong and would hope the powers that be would make the right decision but we all know how that went down last time.
 
Anyone else get the impression we are rushing into this quickly so we are to involved before the UN report comes out...? Wouldn't be the first time we have rushed in to a war with "definitive" evidence without waiting for a UN study that subsequently points out we were totally wrong...

I get the impression we aren't waiting for the UN report just in case it tells us it wasn't a chemical attack or that the chemicals used weren't ones held by Syria... Not that I'm expecting that, just suggesting the rush is to get in front just in case that is the case.
 
[TW]Fox;24842076 said:
As much as I object to our involvement in this why do people keep saying that? Nowhere does it appear to state or imply that the intention is to launch some sort of Iraq style invasion. Infact every source seems to say the intention is limited to chucking a few missiles at strategic targets.
Click to expand...

I think he was talking in relation to Iraq arguably being the mistake chiefly responsible for turning the British public against Blair, and this potentially being Cameron's decision that costs him the 2015 election.
 
Amp34 said:
Anyone else get the impression we are rushing into this quickly so we are to involved before the UN report comes out...? Wouldn't be the first time we have rushed in to a war with "definitive" evidence without waiting for a UN study that subsequently points out we were totally wrong...

I get the impression we aren't waiting for the UN report just in case it tells us it wasn't a chemical attack or that the chemicals used weren't ones held by Syria... Not that I'm expecting that, just suggesting the rush is to get in front just in case that is the case.
Click to expand...

that is exactly what we are doing. rushing without any proof and without any real plan of what an attack might achieve..
 
wildman said:
Why would Putin attach Saudi if US/UK launch strikes against syria ? Is it because they would do so from Saudi Air fields or something ? Just seems like a really crazy retaliation strategy. Its logical to see why Syria would got for Israel, but Russia attacking the Saudi's seems bonkers
Click to expand...

Putin has to voice up to show his support for Syria, he's only interested in keeping his arms deals going, if Assad is forced ouf of power the UK and US will get all the arms deals....

One reason Putin wants to lean on Saudi is we have very close ties to them.
 
Johno please? said:
Oh sorry, I forgot you were the expert on foreign politics.

Its like trying to argue with religious fundamentalists, I suggest a little critical thinking chaps.
Click to expand...

Not really, it's just this is playing out much like so many wars in the past.

Remember 2003? Lets have a summit and say unless Iraq allow inspectors in we'll bomb them. Iraq point out they are letting inspectors in and they have nothing to hide. The intelligence service make up a 45 minute claim and it's obvious nothing is going to stop an invasion...

Queue the dust settling and it turns out the Iraq were telling the truth and we were lying...

Remember Libya...? We are going to set up a no fly zone and not get involved in the fighting... Few days later we are bombing every government target we can find, breaking UN resolutions as we go...

Look how both of them have turned out... And that's not forgetting the mess that is afghanistan...

The population are getting bored of being lied to especially when the results from past conflicts are showing it's not going to make any difference and that we are ignoring proper channels as we go.
 
[TW]Fox;24840561 said:
Brent Crude touched $117 in early morning trade :(
Click to expand...

Predictions from french bank SocGen:

"Base case scenario: $125 for Brent. We believe that in the coming days, Brent could gain another $5-10, surging to $120-$125, either in anticipation of the attack or in reaction to the headlines that an attack had started. In our base case, we assume an attack begins in the next week. Upside scenario: $150 for Brent If the regional spill over results in a significant supply disruption in Iraq or elsewhere (from 0.5 – 2.0 Mb/d), Brent could spike briefly to $150."
 
Firing a few missiles at the targets will not help in the long run, it will just prolong the war and increase the suffering and death of the people on both sides.

Sooner Assad defeats the terrorists the better for the country and for everyone.

But I also hate all this moral tears over Syria and the suffering of the people, what about the poor people of North Korea?
 
IronWarrior said:
Firing a few missiles at the targets will not help in the long run, it will just prolong the war and increase the suffering and death of the people on both sides.

Sooner Assad defeats the terrorists the better for the country and for everyone.

But I also hate all this moral tears over Syria and the suffering of the people, what about the poor people of North Korea?
Click to expand...

They dont have oil.
 
Hedge said:
Freedom to use chemical weapons on innocent people? It's not really as black and white as you make out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Like assad would use chemical weapons when he was going to win the war in matter of weeks anyway... Sounds real smart...

CLEARLY it couldnt have been rebels doing and then blame it on assad to get the support from NATO cause otherwise they would be dead in few weeks...

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but believing the "official" story is just beyond me.

Assad did not use chemical weapons when he was nearly losing the war, and now when the victory is in sights he decides to go all YOLO.

6-tc77247_genius1%20(1).jpg
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
Not really, it's just this is playing out much like so many wars in the past.

Remember 2003? Lets have a summit and say unless Iraq allow inspectors in we'll bomb them. Iraq point out they are letting inspectors in and they have nothing to hide. The intelligence service make up a 45 minute claim and it's obvious nothing is going to stop an invasion...

Queue the dust settling and it turns out the Iraq were telling the truth and we were lying...

Remember Libya...? We are going to set up a no fly zone and not get involved in the fighting... Few days later we are bombing every government target we can find, breaking UN resolutions as we go...

Look how both of them have turned out... And that's not forgetting the mess that is afghanistan...

The population are getting bored of being lied to especially when the results from past conflicts are showing it's not going to make any difference and that we are ignoring proper channels as we go.
Click to expand...


I can remember W hauge saying there was no UK soldiers on the ground in Libya
and at the same time al jerez news was showing them on the ground on a live feed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom