Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack
- Thread starter Craig1981
- Start date
Is this the same JIC that suggested Iraq could launch their non existent chemical weapons in 45 minutes...?
Either way she must have had some evidence for that claim, even if the eventual claim didn't point a finger at either side...
100000, a number of dead, used by those that want to bomb Assad as a reason. Yet how many of those 100000 were killed by the rebels/jihadists and how many by the government. It's not one side being peachy clean and the other being devils...
Yeah your exactly right, history has shown there's no point standing up for what's right
Especially when they only conquered Austria, then Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Belgium, then Holland, then France, oh wait their coming for us now?
The WW2 example is a bit severe, Yugoslavia is more akin to this scenario, if the Syrian government has genuinely used chemical weapons then their military should be hit and hit hard as an example to all countries that the people of the world will not tolerate the use of banned weapons, especially against civilians.
I voted Unsure in the poll. I think that we don't need a UNSC resolution to authorise the use of force in Syria, but I do think that there needs to be concrete evidence that the chemical weapons were used by the Syrian regime, and other issues such as what the aims and exit criteria of any military action should be need to be debated in parliament. In short, yes I will support military action but not yet.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
Yeah I know
It's around 1000, which is what the rebels are reporting. It's interesting to see he is suggesting that it is interesting you are using the "official"* numbers though, bias slightly..
*official numbers being those the UN and JIC are reporting (see JIC letter above...)
The muslim countries must be feeling the same.
There is a massive difference between defending nations from an aggressive neighbour and interfering in a civil war...
How would you feel if the UK ended up fighting itself and the US were feeding one side with arms and Russia the other side. We shouldn't get militarily involved, instead we should act as brokers and try to sort out a peace deal, unfortunately we failed at that by showing whose side we were on and disallowing at least one of the governments major allies to the table.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
So who should hit the UK military hard for there involvement in the illegal Iraq war that killed around 1million people?
Yeah the is, hence why I said this bit in what you quoted:
The WW2 example was only pointing out that doing nothing is sometimes the wrong thing.
-----
If you had read my posts you would know I am against getting involved in the Syrian war, so obviously wouldn't be too happy about that scenario.
-----
Completely disconnected to what I said but hey, nice jump /clap
Last edited:
A bit severe, more like totally different!
I realise you are against intervention but the post was a bit odd.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
Helping people without bombing isn't doing nothing. Why does it always have to be a fight?
for the record: It doesn't matter what happens, because we aren't fighting, we are all doing nothing except talk about it.
for the record: It doesn't matter what happens, because we aren't fighting, we are all doing nothing except talk about it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Why so, you think the Syrians deserve to be hit hard for their crimes by outside forces yet you don't think the same should apply to us? Arguably being responsible for crimes on a much greater scale.
Haha, the OBR survey? The one where they called up 2000 Iraqi telephone numbers at random, asked if anyone had died and extrapolated that figure? That universally discredited 'estimate' is your source?
So lets see, the likely figure is more around 100,000, which strangely is where Syria is at now. And so your argument is we still shouldnt intervene, its better to stay out. So are you worried about the numbers or are you just using them to justify staying out, because it seems youre trying to do both?
So what you're really saying is we should forget about Syria and invade China?
A bit severe, more like totally different!
I realise you are against intervention but the post was a bit odd.
Lol, okay ill try and sum up what I meant clearer
We shouldn't become actively involved in another countries civil war, however if one side begins using horrific weapons banned throughout the world then that side should be punished very hard to ensure the next person who thinks about it thinks twice.
Standing by while atrocities occur because it doesn't effect us isn't always a good thing, the intro to WW2 and Yugoslavia taught us this.
-----
Chemical/Nuclear/Biological weapons sit on a tier above all others.
Getting shot or blown up is terrible. Suffocating as your lungs fill with blood and it actually being a sweet release from the pain of your eyes burning is simply worse.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
I wouldn't mind seeing how many lives the UK's gun supply effort has scalped.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
And the figure you use is widely considered to be a gross underestimate... And doesn't include indirect deaths because of the war.
What makes you think we have any right to intervene when we were involved in killing just as many people?
500 people were killed last month alone in Iraq, don't you think we have done enough?
How about we push for a negotiated truce rather than answer everything with bombs. Why have you constantly been beating the drums of war? Do you like making things worse and increasing the suffering of Syrians?
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
So if you had to choose between gas or a bomb you would pick a bomb to die?