Syrian forces shell a third city.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
It makes it a lot easier.
But you aren't in favor of our last intervention so why do you want another one? Surely a more consistent approach would be to continue arguing against Libya and also argue against doing anything for Syria?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
are you a conspiracy nutjob i take it?
Absolutely not, I just don't take everything as gospel because the BBC and the newspapers say x, y and z is happening.
Don't you think it would have been quicker just to say that though rather go all around the houses pretending you wanted intervention in Syria?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
so you want them to intervene in every country? what if they do not have the resources to do so? you do know there is a major recession worldwide. also people are saying syria is more advanced than libya, meaning a much harder task. you cannot expect them to take on such a mission if it means putting a considerable more amount of lives at risk.
the BBC is pretty reliable as is most news channels, newspapers on the other hand aren't.
On paper the Syrian Air Force could defeat on the RAF it it attacked them, this was discussed a while back.
+1 quoted for truth
According to what we are told:
Gaddafi's forces are attacking civilians.
We are not (despite all the photos of dead civilians at our bombing sites, the US is even on record as saying they believe Gaddafi is dumping corpses he has killed at NATO bombing sites, as they "do not make mistakes").
The rebels are not (despite the being videos online of them doing just that).
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 16,106
- Location
- Chengdu
I don't know, what does this issue have to do us?
Do we have to get involved with everything?
United Kingdom! **** yeah!!! Coming again to save the mother ******* day yeah!! United Kingdom!! **** yeah!!! Freedom is the only way yeah!!! Syria your game is through! Cause United Kingdom is coming for youuuu!!!!
Rhymes better with "Britannia", just saying
Why are you so keen for us to intervene in Syria when western backed puppet regimes like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia get away with much the same thing?
Fall for propaganda much?
So, you don't believe that, but you believe the Syrians are shelling their own civilians. Despite it being from the same source of information.
Can you not see the issue there?
Whereas the altenative to Gadaffi is likely to be better, with increased relations with the West, do any of us know what the likely replacement government of Syria would be?
You can't just cry 'Oil!' and think that's the argument won. Western forces are stretched, the UN refuse to get involved in anything until someone else takes the first decision, what is going to happen after must be considered, and alternatives decided upon considering that it's not our fight. It's not a computer game, you can't just reload if you get it wrong & reduce global stability further for whatever reason.
All the tin foil hat wearers would do well to realise that decisions are not taken in isolation, whole regions can and will be affected by regime change.
You can't just cry 'Oil!' and think that's the argument won. Western forces are stretched, the UN refuse to get involved in anything until someone else takes the first decision, what is going to happen after must be considered, and alternatives decided upon considering that it's not our fight. It's not a computer game, you can't just reload if you get it wrong & reduce global stability further for whatever reason.
All the tin foil hat wearers would do well to realise that decisions are not taken in isolation, whole regions can and will be affected by regime change.
I am not keen or any intervention, as I have already said.
Have I, I merely posted a link to a story.Yet you've taken what the BBC has reported on Syria as gospel?
No, I said that I don't believe everything that is printed.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
It is physically impossible to intervene in every country at once!