Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

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

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
Can someone please tell me the possible hidden agenda here? someone mentioned Irans oil, how could that be connected? they slowly make their way to Iran?

I'm trying to make bigger picture of all of this and explore all areas of it to get a full understanding, and I can see this military action being to someones benefit, like others say a lot worse has happened in the last 20 years and people simply looked on.
 
Pigeon_Killer said:
Why do America call anyone that's used weapons of mass destruction terrorist nations? What sort of weapons will America be using to attack them FFS? Weapons of minimal destruction? :rolleyes:

Can't keep their weapons in their pants for more than 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

Google 'weapons of mass destruction' then come back and delete your post. :rolleyes:
 
Interesting illustration there...

I do think this was a little rushed. I was not / am not in support of military action, and I can't believe they'd expect me to be at present.

What would the aims of military action be? to oust Assad or to prevent more chemical attacks? I think the latter of those has already been achieved. I could understand an attack on chemical weapon facilities / transport / weapons themselves if there are any such things in the country, but aside that I see no clear aim.

I know the decision has potential to harm our relations with the US, I know there are possibly some other underlying motives, but as far as the crap they're offering at the moment, I'm not sure what Cameron was expecting...
 
squarepusher said:
Can someone please tell me the possible hidden agenda here? someone mentioned Irans oil, how could that be connected? they slowly make their way to Iran?

I'm trying to make bigger picture of all of this and explore all areas of it to get a full understanding, and I can see this military action being to someones benefit, like others say a lot worse has happened in the last 20 years and people simply looked on.
Click to expand...

Its always about the oil yet the price of petrol keeps going up.

I want the cheap oil that was supposedly stolen from Iraq on my behalf - where is it??? :confused:
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
And whilst all this is going on the Sudanese government has begun again to commit genocide in Darfur :(
Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered over the last decade in Sudan, the west has pretty much stood by and done nothing :mad:
Click to expand...

show me the oil fields in Sudan and I'll show you some peace keeping troops and western intervention................ I think that's the way it goes right ??
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Let's not kid ourselves, glory hunting ****eron doesn't give a flying **** about the British public so don't pretend you give a toss about the Syrians!!
Click to expand...

What makes you think the rest of the politicians do? they don't either. Not until voting day anyway.
 
[TW]Fox;24858593 said:
You are joking, right?

Sudan is a pretty large oil producer as far as African states goes.
Click to expand...

true that, as they knock out around 0.5 million barrels per day. I was under the impression their production output wasn't up there with the traditional middle eastern oil producers like syria, Saudi etc, but they are pretty big it seems.

At least the rules out the blood for oil theories on this one then
 
Oil (crude) is no longer a desirable item for the US, they have their shale now.

They are likely satisfied with their resources, however the Saudis are not, as with all Middle east politics, it boils down to Shia-Sunni aggression.

Until one side is dead or they forget their ********, this wont end.
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
Also Cameron is daft, he should have waited a few more days, until their was more conclusive evidence, it may of made the difference.
Click to expand...

or hes quite smart. doing it early means he can apease the pro war people and look like he wants to intervene to save them but his hands are tied by labor. this means he gets the good side of seeming to care/appear strong but none of the hassle and massive loss of public opinion of actually having to go to war
 
Nelly said:
Also Cameron is daft, he should have waited a few more days, until their was more conclusive evidence, it may of made the difference.
Click to expand...


Cameron is not daft.... this outcome is perfect for him, he will blame labor for eating children of Syria and he came out as a democratic leader who listens to peoples opinion and when they say no, he does not go against it unlike Mr Blair.

If David Cameron pushed for Syrian bombardment it would seal his fate, currently he lost a bit of respect from Americans but who knows what goes on behind doors.

Especially with UK public opinion that all we do is follow Americans into any mess they get into, this could send his ratings through the roof.

So out of this whole situation he came out with minimal damage, because if he went ahead with invasion his popularity would be demolished same as happened with blair when dirty Iraq secrets started coming out. If he refused to join Americans he would be seen as a weak leader who shares views of Russia/China which is a no-no. But with this outcome he hit all the points.
 
Last edited:
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Since 9/11 we've been complicit in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent humans. We should be ashamed.
Click to expand...
Pre 911 the muslims in the middle east were quite adept at killing each other, after 9/11 they took it to another level in iraq particularly. The sectarian fighting in iraq with the shi'ites and sunnis makes northern ireland look like a minor scrap by comparison. At least when they had a tough guy in power in iraq, sectarian mass slaughter wasnt a big issue.

Personally myself, i dont think the us or uk should get involved in syria, but they probably will as theres much money to be made for the backers of leaders such as obama and cameron, war is for profit theese days.
 
Whilst i wouldnt accept anything wrote on infowars as the guy that runs it is a ******* loon, i wouldnt be in the least bit surprised if both sides have used chemical weapons. In a civil war such as in syria, lots of military personell will have switched sides. Some of theese people will have access to such weapons. The same happened here in northern ireland, but just with conventional weapons. The vast majority of loyalist terror groups arms at first came from british army supplies, quite often those using them were members of the security forces.
 
chance of cnn/nbc/rueters/bbc/fox/cbs/ etcetc chance of publishing that, probably zero.


i'm starting to think this is a complete setup, by i don't know who but it is very entertaining like a Strike Back Dawn thing series.

curious who writes Obamas speches, the "red line" line umm if he wrote that himself then i guess he was having a bit of a stupid day, if he did'nt then i wonder who did write it, and who advised them to do so, and then who advidised them? argh this is getting silly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom