Now is this wise?

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Obama and UK's Cameron are preparing to arm rebels in Syria amid claims of chemical weapons being used by the Assad regime.
Interfering in other countries’ civil wars has only produced life-costly disasters and makes no more sense than if the Arab world had interfered in the US civil war.
The West is a slow leaner IMHO of course.
 

Keith

Moderator
Under the thread "Syria" somewhere in the Paddock Pete, this question was asked some weeks ago and a wonderful thing happened. We had, as near as dammit, 100% consensus across the board, that NO NO NO a thousand times NO!

But, it seems despite the unease felt by almost all except the shady characters behind armament sales (usually Govts), there gonna go ahead and do it.

It makes no sense. These weapons will likely end up in the hands of Hezbollah killing our own anywhere in the wide world. :thumbsdown:

I think we should rattle their cages again. I am writing to my local MP as I speak.
 
I just want to cry :(
Why care, why even give a shit?
Those that can change the world, don't, those that want to, can't.
A beach and a beer or two await..................
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a few weeks ago, the use of WMDs had not been confirmed. Since then it appears that we have had this caim "confirmed".

Now if it turns out that the Syria did infact use WMDs, does that not change how the world should react?

When the world draws a line in the sand, when they say, use WMDs, you are going down!

Should we stand by our words?

I get the feeling that Pete, Keith and Mark think that the World should back down, do nothing, just allow this to happen?

Go to the beach and drink beer?

Now I really do not want to get involved in this any more than you, but in this case, If WMD were used, then the World must act!
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Interfering in other countries’ civil wars has only produced life-costly disasters and makes no more sense than if the Arab world had interfered in the US civil war.
The West is a slow leaner IMHO of course.

Wrong!

In the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), France fought alongside the United States, against Britain, from 1778. French money, munitions, soldiers and naval forces proved essential to America's victory over the Crown.

The Revolutionary war was just as much a "Civil War" as the North/South Civil war.

In both cases, a good sized portion of a country wanted out and was willing to fight!
 
Last edited:

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Wrong!

In the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), France fought alongside the United States, against Britain, from 1778. French money, munitions, soldiers and naval forces proved essential to America's victory over the Crown.

The Revolutionary war was just as much a "Civil War" as the North/South Civil war.

In both cases, a good sized portion of a country wanted out and was willing to fight!

I didn't know the French were Arabs.
 

Keith

Moderator
Oh dear...

Here we go.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkzjBfTDH20"]Argument Clinic from Monty Python - YouTube[/ame]
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
All the way until it becomes east! Or is that North?

It seems that no one learns from history, whether wars, the economy or women!
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
The World leaders have made it clear, some things can't be tolerated..

Personally,

If it can be proven, really PROVEN, that he used WMD gas, I have no problem with sending arms to Syria...........but just one, through his window!
 
Last edited:
The World leaders have made it clear, some things can't be tolerated..

Personally,

If it can be proven, really PROVEN, that he used WMD gas, I have no problem with sending arms to Syria...........but just one, through his window!

I can't believe you want to get involved in another pointless war that will have no positive outcome.

You know Obama is just after the oil..
 

Glenn Mac

Lifetime Supporter
Arms through windows can be dangerous, and it will get you a ticket from the Highway Patrol here in NSW.:drunk:

My most recent reading on this topic suggests that the rebels (which ones, who knows, there's lots of brands apparently), were the ones to use gas, and the chemicals were supplied by the USA!

What about the guys caught with Sarin in Turkey last week?

Who knows where the truth lies? A good reason for staying out of it.

Glenn.
 
Obama and UK's Cameron are preparing to arm rebels in Syria amid claims of chemical weapons being used by the Assad regime.
Interfering in other countries’ civil wars has only produced life-costly disasters and makes no more sense than if the Arab world had interfered in the US civil war.
The West is a slow leaner IMHO of course.

With 100,000 civilians already killed is it an option to not get involved?

Bob
 
Holy sh1t. I'm with Jeff!

You guys that talk about IF there is proof etc, Really? Proof!? Nothing you are told can be relied upon anymore. Jim cites the American revolution. Good point Jim re history, but why the hell should we accept historical events as good reason to act in future ones?

Lets get creative and stay the hell out of other peoples shit for once. If these morons weren't supported by the outside, it would blow out in a month.
 

Ian Anderson

Lifetime Supporter
Holy sh1t. I'm with Jeff!


Lets get creative and stay the hell out of other peoples shit for once. If these morons weren't supported by the outside, it would blow out in a month.

And ban all reports from said area. If they do not get international press they have lost the fight as nobody will know!

But lets face it Mad Murdoch wants to sell loads of newspapers and press freedom yada yada yada
 

Pat

Supporter
The World leaders have made it clear, some things can't be tolerated..

If it can be proven, really PROVEN, that he used WMD gas, I have no problem with sending arms to Syria...........but just one, through his window!

Jim, what's the end game and exit strategy? Who are we arming? What's the plan past the current news cycle? Aside from facilitating more killing, what does a couple of thousand small arms do to change any of this? By all accounts the Syrian uprising has devolved to factional chaos and it is entirely likely that whatever arms we distribute will be used at some point against us or our allies.
Having been "touched" by a certain civil war in Southeast Asia a while back, history has repeated thought that unless you are in it to win it, stay the hell out of it. And no, you can't win other people's civil wars. The administration is simply playing with activities with no clarity on outcomes, a recipe for disaster. Mr. Obama overplayed his hand with the "Red Line" comment he couldn't back up and we look impotent as a result but so what?
Assad is an evil guy that as recently as 2011 Secretary of State Clinton told “Face the Nation” viewers that the US would not interfere in Syria because Assad was a “reformer.”
Now we're stuck like we are elsewhere in Africa and Southwestern Asia except this time the regime has nuclear allies that are more strong willed than we are. We neither have the will or the resources to take on Mr. Assad and his allies that include Russia, Iran, and now Hezbollah. You tell me how sending small arms and even a no fly zone secures the vast chemical (and possibly biological) weapons Mr. Assad has at his disposal. There is credible evidence that the Iraqi chemical arsenal is also part of Mr. Assad's munitions. We're talking thousands of tons of the stuff. Are the rebel factions any less likely to use them should they come to power? Does anybody think there won't be murderous reprisals whoever prevails?
Like Vietnam, we fumbled the opportunity to intervene early enough to affect a durable solution and this, like many of our other adventures, our best efforts will simply replace one murderous regime with another.
Given the recent turn of events, it appears Mr. Assad may pull this one out and then what??
As much as it pains me to say it, I actually agree with Jeff on this one. We're in over our heads as it is without any more internal interventions. If somebody invades an ally such as Israel, then it would be a different story.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Pat,

You may have missed my meaning, as it was not as clear as I should have been. I do not think we should send arms. If you go back and read my post, I want to send arms, but only "one". What I meant is put a bomb through his window...................

I say if it can be proven that he ordered the use of WMDs, I say take him out, send a message!

The World needs to take a stand..........use WMDs and you die!

If we do, in the future, I doubt that any leader would be stupid enough to use them again.
 
Back
Top