Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
So our ally threatens another country with terrorist attacks and we are going to bomb the syrian army and help the terrorists take over syria.

So what was the war on terror about ?
 
Thompson_NCL said:
The US has been very stubborn about getting directly involved in Syria, so when they say they have evidence that Assad is responsible, I believe them. If there wasn't overwhelming evidence, they'd happily sit on their hands and watch the conflict continue.
Click to expand...
If America has evidence it was assad they should stop playing world police and hand the evidence to the UN and make it public so russia can't carry on siding with syria

So that pretty much kills all your other points. Assad would be crazy to use chemicals, but he isnt in charge, so who knows what the military think they can get away with.
Click to expand...
He's not? then why are we going after the wrong guy?
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
He's not? then why are we going after the wrong guy?
Click to expand...

We're not going after Assad. Nobody gives a damn about Assad, hes only a figurehead. He spent most of the early stages of the war on a russian ship off the coast. If he was blown sky high tomorrow it would be a PR victory, nothing more. The military chiefs and senior government officials who are part of Assads minority Alawite clan are in charge and directing the war. Assad's brother was actually meant to rule but got passed over for Bashar because it was judged he was a bit too unstable.

The same brother in charge of the military base in Damascus the checmical weapons attack is believed to have originated from.

As for the UN, pfffft. Do you think Russia would roll over with evidence? Or just say it was fabricated and ignore it? This is the same organisation that kept its peacekeepers safely locked up in Rwanda whilst half a million people were killed on their doorstep. No, dont rely on the UN for anything.
 
Last edited:
If America has evidence it was assad they should stop playing world police and hand the evidence to the UN and make it public so russia can't carry on siding with syria
Click to expand...

This is an extremely naive view of the situation.

There are risks to sharing evidence gathered by intelligence networks. It may compromise assets in Syria, reveal Israeli/US intelligence gather capabilities or otherwise cause strategic issues. They can't just hand it over freely.

If Russia has evidence it was the Rebels (which is what they claim to have) then why don't they make THAT public? It would not be in their interest to hide the smoking gun after all.

I am sure some evidence will come out, and a small part of that may be made public. But the majority of intelligence will be held back as frankly it has nothing to do with you or me. We elect governments to handle this for us.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
If Russia has evidence it was the Rebels (which is what they claim to have) then why don't they make THAT public? It would not be in their interest to hide the smoking gun after all.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking, Russia wait until America have talked themselves into a corner before going for checkmate. I.E The time they pressed the US president about spy planes flown in their airspace and he stood up in front of the whole UN and categorically denied any such thing was happening, then they brought in some pieces of the plane they had shot down and pictures of the pilot.
 
This is moving ridiculously fast. So strange that 3/4 if not more of the UK population is against it and it seems Cameron and Hague are pushing through anyway. Definitely more to it.
 
There is no end game to this, it's just firing missiles to slap their wrists. It's absolutely pointless and stupid.

David Cameron and William Hague need a slap in the chops for this.
 
Last edited:
Johnnytoxic said:
There is no end game to this, it's just firing missiles to slap their wrists. It's absolutely pointless and stupid.

David Cameron and William Hague need a slap in the chops for this.
Click to expand...

For what, leading the country and making decisions? Im no supporter of Cameron but for once I admire the guy for doing something when everyone else is more afraid that their fuel will go up 2p than actually saving some lives. Those ignorants who think doing nothing when someone uses a WMD means the problem will stay in one country. The pathetics willing to turn a blind eye to murdered women and children because they live far away.

What can be achieved? Destroy the SAA command and control and certain military bases and depots and damascus will definitely fall. Most importantly send the message that there is an actual red line and people who wont let it be crossed without punishment.
 
Last edited:
Johnnytoxic said:
David Cameron and William Hague need a slap in the chops for this.
Click to expand...

They should get Ian Duncan Smith involved. Then they could send out job seekers on the Work Programme to fight on the front lines.

And if a few should die, then no need to pay them, and the unemployment goes down!

Win, win, win?
 
Not to worry we can always pop back to Syria in say 10yrs? Once the new terrorist government is installed and is causing pain and suffering for the people it wants to "protect".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom