Got to say this..........I'm with former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown on this one

Xerxes · Aug 31, 2013

What seems to have been forgotten in all this is Cyprus. It has British Sovereign Bases which the Syrian Airforce are quite capable of hitting, but also of missing their targets and hitting 'say' Limmasol. That drags another state into the mix. In Syria the rebels are burning down Christian churches as too are the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (40 last Sunday). Leave the damn Muslims to sort out their own problems.

Richietyke · Aug 31, 2013

PONTERED said: ↑

If I was on the Nimitz I wouldn't be worried. They might have Mig29s but the majority of the Syrian air power is built up of Mig21s which are hopelessly out of date.
I would also say the Iraq had a massively superior Air Force to Syria at the start of the 1st gulf war but were still no match for the coalition.
Click to expand...

Russia is sending ships to the Med, I'd be worried.

Capital Tyke · Aug 31, 2013

Xerxes said: ↑

What seems to have been forgotten in all this is Cyprus. It has British Sovereign Bases which the Syrian Airforce are quite capable of hitting, but also of missing their targets and hitting 'say' Limmasol. That drags another state into the mix. In Syria the rebels are burning down Christian churches as too are the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (40 last Sunday). Leave the damn Muslims to sort out their own problems.
Click to expand...

Agree with the above- it's mainly to do with two Islamist factions, Sunni v Shi'ites; we should stay well out of it militarily.

There should be high-level meetings with the Russians who support Assad, and who have influence with him, to try to sort something out of this mess.

Jay · Aug 31, 2013

Richietyke said: ↑

So using gas on your own citizens is a step too far, a red line not to be crossed and a trigger to spark military intervention.? On the face of it, sounds pretty reasonable, but please Nudger or Gloria Stitts or dare I say it Super Tyke answer me these points:

If the Assad regime had not used chemical weapons I'm assuming that it would still be ok to turn a blind eye to the countless thousands dying from bullets, bombs, shells, knives, clubs, rape and torture. That's the trouble with lines in the sand and illegal weapons, they make everything else acceptable and legal. Clearly the Assad regime is already guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and has been for over two years. Where was the West's indignation then? Where was the resolve to protect the innocent then? The time to act was Two years back before this whole thing became impossibly messy and complicated. This Chemical weapons strike is being used by America as an excuse to expunge it's own guilt over the previous two years of inaction, it's a red herring and a fig leaf to cover up their political failings.

Second, what does America, and those who advocate a missile strike actually hope to achieve? Are they going to take out Assad? no. Stop them from using gas again, maybe, but that just means more work for the artillery shelling people instead or dropping napalm on them. By definition this alternative 'conventional' way of murdering your own citizens is acceptable, just don't gas them, ok? What it will do when hundreds of tomahawks are sent in is kill people, a lot of people. The vast majority of which will be conscripted soldiers or civilian staff probably working in a C&C centre somewhere who were called up and are just doing their job, and had nothing at all to do with chemical weapons. So more widows then, more dead sons. How exactly is adding to the death toll going to help? It won't punish the guilty.
Click to expand...

Cracking post that.

SuperTyke · Aug 31, 2013

Richietyke said: ↑

So using gas on your own citizens is a step too far, a red line not to be crossed and a trigger to spark military intervention.? On the face of it, sounds pretty reasonable, but please Nudger or Gloria Stitts or dare I say it Super Tyke answer me these points:

If the Assad regime had not used chemical weapons I'm assuming that it would still be ok to turn a blind eye to the countless thousands dying from bullets, bombs, shells, knives, clubs, rape and torture. That's the trouble with lines in the sand and illegal weapons, they make everything else acceptable and legal. Clearly the Assad regime is already guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and has been for over two years. Where was the West's indignation then? Where was the resolve to protect the innocent then? The time to act was Two years back before this whole thing became impossibly messy and complicated. This Chemical weapons strike is being used by America as an excuse to expunge it's own guilt over the previous two years of inaction, it's a red herring and a fig leaf to cover up their political failings.

Second, what does America, and those who advocate a missile strike actually hope to achieve? Are they going to take out Assad? no. Stop them from using gas again, maybe, but that just means more work for the artillery shelling people instead or dropping napalm on them. By definition this alternative 'conventional' way of murdering your own citizens is acceptable, just don't gas them, ok? What it will do when hundreds of tomahawks are sent in is kill people, a lot of people. The vast majority of which will be conscripted soldiers or civilian staff probably working in a C&C centre somewhere who were called up and are just doing their job, and had nothing at all to do with chemical weapons. So more widows then, more dead sons. How exactly is adding to the death toll going to help? It won't punish the guilty.
Click to expand...

My reply to Nudger was sarcastic, I don't for one minute believe that he was right.

The idea of killing more people because we don't like the WAY they are killing each other is crazy in my opinion. Go ahead and shoot each other, we don't mind. But if you dare to kill each other in any other way then we'll be right in there to kill more of you by bombing you. Genius.

Marlon · Aug 31, 2013

Young Nudger said: ↑

The guy knows what he is talking about in relation to foreign policy - because basically he has seen wars at first hand

I am also ashamed that Britain has stood by and watched people being gassed..........this is not the way of Britain..........Britain did not become Great by sitting on the fence

We know that there isn't one side in this conflict that is right..........they seem to be both as bad as each other.

A strike against Syria dosent mean that more people will be killed - for example they could take out all the military aircraft while they are sat on the ground.

If we waited for the UN to act then nothing will be done........i.e. like Kosovo, when the blue helmets stood there and watched ethnic cleansing taking place in front of their eyes

Thank goodness for the United States of America
Click to expand...

The Kosovo reference is also somethig you got wrong NATO went into kosovo,UN were in Bosnia but don't let facts get in the way as they usually spoil your posts

EastStander · Aug 31, 2013

Young Nudger said: ↑

As the Tories have said.............Miliband is playing politics by trying to distance himself from the past actions of Tony Blair...................in the mean time the green light has been given for more horrendous actions by the Syrian Government on the poor people of Syria..............and this is happening basically because the character of the British people has no stomach for conflict.

Miliband has lost my support
Click to expand...

Of course the Tories weren't playing politics at all when they outright rejected the amendment put forward by Labour. Labour were prepared to back action based on certain conditions, the Tories overwhelmingly rejected those conditions, The coilition had enough MP's to carry the vote, so where is the indignation against those bankbenches that were playing politics because they wanted to give teh cabinet a bloody nose?

And there was a quote from a senior Tory saying that "Labour were playing politics and not protecting the nations interests" That was the most telling statement, as wasn't supposed to be about humanitarian reasons not national interest? At least that's what they told us.

What we have seen is horrific, and nobosy wishes gassing like that to take place, but there is doubt over who is doing the gassing, whether it's Assad's forces or the rebels. Personally it wouldn't surprise me to find out it was both.
Also the rebels are pretty much Al Qaeda, so it's hardly a case of "my enemy's enemies are my friends". Can we really risk ousting him and making the region even more insecure?
And what does bombing achieve apart from even more loss of life.

The whole situation is a complete mess and unfortunately there is no simple, easy solution to it.

EastStander · Aug 31, 2013

Young Nudger said: ↑

Yes..............as for Iraq; we gave them freedom and democracy and what have they done with it..........killed each other

Its not the British or Americans that are killing Iraqis..........they kill each other by the use of terrorist attacks
Click to expand...

We gave them our version of democracy, you can't impose that on a country.

Log in

Forums

Got to say this..........I'm with former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown on this one

Xerxes Well-Known Member

Richietyke New Member

Capital Tyke Well-Known Member

Jay Well-Known Member

SuperTyke Well-Known Member

Marlon Well-Known Member

EastStander Active Member

EastStander Active Member

Share This Page

Log in

Useful Searches

Got to say this..........I'm with former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown on this one

Xerxes Well-Known Member

Richietyke New Member

Capital Tyke Well-Known Member

Jay Well-Known Member

SuperTyke Well-Known Member

Marlon Well-Known Member

EastStander Active Member

EastStander Active Member

Share This Page