Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
[TFU] Thegoon84;24854449 said:
We can all discuss about why we should or shouldn't take action...

The bottom line is, nobody really knows whats gone on. This would be top level stuff. Which ever country invaids Syria will ultimately beof benifit to them. Perfect example is Russia and China refusing to even talk about invading, its not in their interested so turn a blind eye to country gassing its people...

The whole world is run by a select few who use the world leaders as puppets.

The Balance of power is not in its people who voted but in £$£$£$£$£$£$£
Click to expand...

How do we know Syria gassed its own people? Where's the evidence apart from hearsay in the western corporate media, the same media that looks out for the interests of Israel and the US Military Industrial Complex?

The gassing of civilians has false flag wrote all over it.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Then you better whinge at the moderate segments of the Syrian opposition who have said repeatedly on camera and when talked to,that the islamists are favoured over them for weapons by the arab states. This is why the moderates are begging us for more weaponary and the islamists are not. The islamists don't seem to so feared by the Saudis as you think they are otherwise they would not be arming them to hilt.

The fact is that you are making up theories,whereas I am stating facts which can be verified,and you seem to have your head in the ground as it is not convinient for your analysis.

So,no I am not going to agree with you at all. Thats it and I am not having any more talk with you over the matter.
Click to expand...

Obviously they have their own agenda, that I do not know. What I do know organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood are a direct threat to the Kings/Prince's of Saudi, as it shows the masses there is no need for Kings/Prince's. That is a fact, you can stuff tissues in you ears all you like but wont change that fact.

Perhaps you should take a look at the history of Saudi and how they supress political movements within there own borders and their fellow UAE states.
 
Last edited:
The reason, I really hate David Cameron. Because he destroying everythings with a massive cuts and the rich get richer, while the poor get poorest. The British hard working family is worse off than before. I do understand that UK are in serious debts but he shouldn't cutting everything too fast, far too fast. He also spending our money to foreign when we all need them.

I hate him really because he had costing my job lost. All his fault. I never voted for him, the UK didn't voted for him in last election. He got in because of bloody cheek of Nick Clegg.

I just hope David Cameron will resigned and give the job to Boris Johnson. I believe Boris Johnson is the right man for Tory leader.

I don't like Ed Miliband at all. David Miliband are the right man for Labour Party.
 
bulldog147 said:
The reason, I really hate David Cameron. Because he destroying everythings with a massive cuts and the rich get richer, while the poor get poorest. The British hard working family is worse off than before. I do understand that UK are in serious debts but he shouldn't cutting everything too fast, far too fast. He also spending our money to foreign when we all need them.

I hate him really because he had costing my job lost. All his fault. I never voted for him, the UK didn't voted for him in last election. He got in because of bloody cheek of Nick Clegg.

I just hope David Cameron will resigned and give the job to Boris Johnson. I believe Boris Johnson is the right man for Tory leader.

I don't like Ed Miliband at all. David Miliband are the right man for Labour Party.
Click to expand...

nothing will change, for something to change you have to deal with the face and not the mask.
 
I believe too many politicians in the West grew up under a romantic childhood image of WWII and think that they can apply that template onto any conflict.

Democracy can just bomb the baddies to victory and save the innocent people trapped in the middle. But WW2 was about the invasion of countries and a clearly defined army that had to be pushed back. Middle East conflicts are so much more complex because of the countries history.

This is a civil war, very sectarian containing factions and pockets of power, this is not about one governments army vs. another and once the war is over we shake hands and have a game of footy.

You can guarantee over 90% of the MP's who voted yesterday have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the history of Syria and the region. Are they really qualified to make the decision to execute people from afar? Are any of us?
 
Last edited:
MookJong said:
I believe too many politicians in the West grew up under a romantic childhood image of WWII and think that they can apply that template onto any conflict.

Democracy can just bomb the baddies to victory and save the innocent people trapped in the middle. But WW2 was about the invasion of countries and a clearly defined army that had to be pushed back. Middle East conflicts are so much more complex because of the countries history.

These are civil wars, very sectarian containing factions and pockets of power, this is not about one governments army vs. another and once the war is over we shake hands and have a game of footy.

You can guarantee over 90% of the MP's who voted yesterday have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the history of Syria and the region. Are they really qualified to make the decision to execute people from afar?
Click to expand...

No, I suggest using ocUK GD for such highly sensitive matters since we are all here experts especially groen and kwerk.
 
magick said:
How do we know Syria gassed its own people? Where's the evidence apart from hearsay in the western corporate media, the same media that looks out for the interests of Israel and the US Military Industrial Complex?

The gassing of civilians has false flag wrote all over it.
Click to expand...

Thats my point exactly, nobody knows what really went on... we'll never really know either! Sounds more likely to be a company who deals in weapons Orchestrated it all to make it look like the Syrian government...

Crap world is crap!
 
This was a huge **** up by Cameron

To have this vote before the UN evidence is produced (or not) was suicide.
How ever this has nothing to do with Democracy or a new found faith in our MPs and parliament. It is purely point scoring and school boy bragging for Miliband who will never,ever make it as PM is and is an embarrassment to the nation.

Thats our real parliament, party politics, gutless everywhere else no matter who is in

Cameron failed to convince his own party that there was reason enough to go in and thats why he lost, he should have waited until the evidence was published, and come monday if there is undeniable evidence that Assad did it I have no doubt he will be back again for another vote
 
Last edited:
gizmoy2k said:
Cameron failed to convince his own party that there was reason enough to go in and thats why he lost, he should have waited until the evidence was published, and come monday if there is undeniable evidence that Assad did it I have no doubt he will be back again for another vote
Click to expand...

Party politics aside for a moment, wouldn't it be a good thing if he calls another vote once the UN evidence (or lack of) is in? I agree calling the vote now was premature - but his hand was kind of forced by Obama.

However, if the UN produce evidence that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against it's people surely we would want a vote to decide whether or not to join an international coalition?
 
platypus said:
P

However, if the UN produce evidence that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against it's people surely we would want a vote to decide whether or not to join an international coalition?
Click to expand...

I'll agree with this statement as it is the correct way for this kind of actin to be sanctioned.................

but what happens if the evidence is inconclusive and the UN can only ascertain that Sarin was used but cannot confirm who was actually responsible for its deployment.
 
wildman said:
I'll agree with this statement as it is the correct way for this kind of actin to be sanctioned.................

but what happens if the evidence is inconclusive and the UN can only ascertain that Sarin was used but cannot confirm who was actually responsible for its deployment.
Click to expand...

which is what will happen. If they have the best evidence available, the shells that were used, the SAA will just say they were stolen. Theres comms *apparently* about SAA positions being told to prepare for an attack, about low level commanders asking why they had shot the munitions etc. nothing will ever be 100% and im sure thats good enough for most people to warrant sitting on their hands.
 
gizmoy2k said:
This was a huge **** up by Cameron

To have this vote before the UN evidence is produced (or not) was suicide.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence and I doubt the UN would have uncovered any evidence implicating Assad hence why they (camerloon, obammy boy) wanted to get the ball rolling before they were left with no justification.
 
Theophany said:
How so? :/
Click to expand...

Yeah, how so. I'm getting irritated with all this, and again it goes back to the party politics and posturing. Perhaps he's lost some leadership within his own party by not wining the vote but so what?

It says everything about how bad our political system is that a PM doing what he's been forced into doing (by the US), but then taking the result of that vote and standing by it is considered to show him up so badly. The way the media have reported this is disgraceful, but then I'm not sure why I'm surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom