Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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


  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
Care to source that claim?

In any event, we didn't bomb the Syrians for the last two years, so I would expect even the most casual observer to have figured out it's the use of chemical weapons that created the pretext for this.

As I've already explained in this thread, civilians dying to conventional weapons can be argued down to collateral damage, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. You cannot make that argument with chemical weapons.

Libya is actually an example of our taking action against a nation who were clearly going to kill civilians. The move was not altogether selfish either, as Gaddafi was actually something of a Western stooge after 9/11.

What you ou about? The Libyan civil war was a tribal war, both sides were as bad as the other, both with killing civilians and what would happen after (although arguably the "rebels" are showing gadaffi up to be almost saintlike...)
 
And then what happens? Take a look at iraq now.

You are not supposed to look at iraq now. Thats the iraqis own doing, we spread freedom and democracy there and rid them of wmds and dont forget 911.
Now can we please focus on the next bad guys ...the syrians and please remember that terrorists arent bad anymore because they are on our side k ?
 
Care to source that claim?

In any event, we didn't bomb the Syrians for the last two years, so I would expect even the most casual observer to have figured out it's the use of chemical weapons that created the pretext for this.

As I've already explained in this thread, civilians dying to conventional weapons can be argued down to collateral damage, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. You cannot make that argument with chemical weapons.

Libya is actually an example of our taking action against a nation who were clearly going to kill civilians. The move was not altogether selfish either, as Gaddafi was actually something of a Western stooge after 9/11.

What you ou about? The Libyan civil war was a tribal war, both sides were as bad as the other, both with killing civilians and what would happen after (although arguably the "rebels" are showing gadaffi up to be almost saintlike...)
 
I think maybe Assad didn't authorise the attack and it was probably some dumb fool beneath him.

Dropping chemicals at that stage is so stupid.
 
Sadly the truth is that shia and sunny Muslims will never see eye to eye and radicals from both groups will fight each other to destabilise and claim power and authority . Western intervention will mot change this
 
1_photo.jpg
 
I think maybe Assad didn't authorise the attack and it was probably some dumb fool beneath him.

Ditto. I reckon it was the Syrian Governments weapons used, and they were by a Syrian Government person... but they were not acting on any orders.

If I were head of the army I'd be on TV saying that it was a rogue general and he has been dealt with etc.
 
I think the reason America believe these actions were authorised by Assad is because they heard it for themselves. Doesn't the NSA monitor military communication?
 
Indeed, it could be the rebels, the government or even a small group of troops acting alone.

It's not like all of the US troops found guilty of murdering civilians, or the guys in the helicopter in the leaked video are used as examples of wider US war policy.
 
what happens if you bomb a chemical production or storage facility, does that run the risk of contaminating the air ?
 
sounding like cameron is gonna wait for the u.n. inspectors report now.

Makes sense, looking at Facebook some big time emergency riots, er I mean "prostest" are due to take place on Friday so not even he can be deluded enough to think the UK public are in favour of another war lol :P
 
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.

If you think Cameron et. al. are doing this for the noble reasons of saving lives you are naive.

Your last point is even more naive. There is no red line. Israel have done, and no doubt will do again, used a schedule 3 chemical weapon (WP) when they were at war in Lebanon and for a period exceeding 3 years during their on going 'war' with the palestinians.

I didn't see Blair / Bush / Cameron an co rushing to bomb the hell out of Tel Aviv.

The naivety in this thread is quite entertaining.
 
Back
Top Bottom