Syria

Do you think we should attack Syria?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 6.3%
  • No

    Votes: 42 87.5%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 3 6.3%

  • Total voters
    48
  • Poll closed .
Do you think we should attack Syria, given the fact that neither the Government or Rebels are friendly to us?

1. Yes
2. No
3. undecided
 
I suppose this falls under the UN umbrella and actions will have to be sanctioned by them. I feel they typically produce short term success but long term misery, far more effective long term is the good old trade embargo.

Bob

Edit. Just realised this a pole, as I really dont know enough about the situation its going in as undecided
 
Last edited:

Mike Pass

Supporter
We had a couple of civil wars. The Wars of the Roses and the Roundheads versus the Cavaliers. Apparently there is no evidence of Syrians helping out in either case. I rest my case.
Cheers
Mike
 

Keith

Moderator
Well,if there's no oil, then what's to like?

On a serious note. The utter waste of space that is the UN are in Syria right now (these people are funded by us the tax payer).

So, you might be forgiven for thinking we can nail this story down with the facts right?

WRONG! The UN are there to prove/disprove the use of chemical weapons only. They WILL NOT (even if they know) say who used them because of some stupid reason in their mandate.

Whaaat?

This mob should be disbanded now - it's a toothless tiger anyway.

So, on that basis, I reckon we should feign disinterest, oh and there's no oil either.

That and what Mike said. :thumbsup:
 

Ron Earp

Admin
Don't worry, the US will jump right into this mess like we always do, despite the UK voting involvement down and the UN not returning a decision. Yay.
 

Pat

Supporter
Anyone know when the Shamal seasonal wind shift occurs in Syria? I wouldn't want to be downstream when that stuff is blown into the atmosphere. Syria is rumored to have the largest chemical weapons stockpiles on the planet and it will be an environmental disaster downwind...
 
Anyone know when the Shamal seasonal wind shift occurs in Syria? I wouldn't want to be downstream when that stuff is blown into the atmosphere. Syria is rumored to have the largest chemical weapons stockpiles on the planet and it will be an environmental disaster downwind...
Mid June to mid September.
 
Why is this the problem of the US and UK? The Saudis, Turks, Pakistanis, and Jordanians are there with their own armies and money. There is absolutely no good outcome for our involving ourselves in this lose, lose situation, and I don't want one UK, Australian or US life lost for an ill placed line in the sand.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Is it any supprise that Al is ok with the spread of chemical weapons, he has prompted the spread of deadly weapons here, why not everwhere.

I'm sure if it was Mexico or his next door neighbor using chemical weapons, he would defend their right, after all, is a slippery slope.

First they take our chemical weapons, next its our nukes!

Where will it end?
 
JOE BIDEN: "Ladies and Gentlemen, I drafted an outline of what I think the Constitutional limits have on the war clause. I went to five leading scholars, constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me that’s being distributed to every senator. And I want to make it clear, and I made it clear to the president, that if he takes this nation to war…without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. And that’s a fact!"

Breaking: Joe Biden Calls for Impeachment if President Takes ‘Nation to War Without Congressional Approval’ | The Tea Party News Network | TPNN.com

"GOTCHA! Both the above video, and Biden’s quote are 100% accurate, with the exception of replacing the word “Iran” with “…,” which would be replaced with “Syria,” if Biden had a conscience. The year was 2007, and Buffoon Biden was playing hardball with then Republican President George Bush over the invented belief that Bush would use the military to attack Iran without congressional approval, which is required by the U.S. Constitution. Biden was right!"
 
Is it any supprise that Al is ok with the spread of chemical weapons, he has prompted the spread of deadly weapons here, why not everwhere.

I'm sure if it was Mexico or his next door neighbor using chemical weapons, he would defend their right, after all, is a slippery slope.

First they take our chemical weapons, next its our nukes!

Where will it end?
They've killed 100K people since the start, and once again, it's the manner of death not the amount that bothers you. Dead is fucking dead!
 
I think that we have to seriously consider what sending a few cruise missiles into Syria is going to accomplish.
1. They will still have chemical weapons.
2. Will this deter them from further use of chemical weapons.
3. Do we have a clear plan for the outcome?
4. Which of the two groups will promote the well being of Syria?
5. Will this promote good will towards the US and it's allies?
6. Will the killing stop?
7. Are we prepared to deal with Russia, China, Iran, the BS UN and other fallout.
We should have learned from the Russians about Afghanistan and also stayed out of Iraq.
This will be a huge pissing contest with the US and allies on one side and Russia, China, Iran, and who knows who else on the other. And the losers will be the Syrian people.
 

Keith

Moderator
Is it any supprise that Al is ok with the spread of chemical weapons, he has prompted the spread of deadly weapons here, why not everwhere.

I'm sure if it was Mexico or his next door neighbor using chemical weapons, he would defend their right, after all, is a slippery slope.

First they take our chemical weapons, next its our nukes!

Where will it end?
Where does it say that Al is OK with the spread of Nuclear weapons. (I meant Chemical of course. Sorry.

Would you kindly desist from turning these posts into personal attacks?

For Christs sake, can't you be objective for once in your life?
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Keith,

Al is totally against any attempt to slow the slaughter via the control of weapons in our country.

Now he has come out against trying to contol weapons of mass destruction in other countries.

I said I'm not supprised, are you?

Keith, are you against trying to stop the use of chemical weapons?
 

Keith

Moderator
OK the UK Govt (recalled from recess) has voted AGAINST military involvement, as a means of resolving this issue.

Obama apparently is in a tizzy about it as quote: "He was counting on UK support for a military solution"

Without any other prompting he has also said "This will not harm our special relationship" That sounds like a threat to me.

However, there have been many calls from ordinary US citizens apparently to adopt a UK style approach and recall Congress for proper debate, so what I read here on this board, seems to be a fair reflection of broad American opinion even if the sample is small.

All on our late lunchtime news bulletins.

In the meantime, predictably, Syrian families domiciled in the UK are saying quote: "Why is the UK Government allowing our families to be murdered"?

Possible Future Scenario 6 months hence. Expat Syrian family in UK: "Why did the British Government kill our families with their uncalled for military intervention in Syria?"

It's a funny old world isn't it?


I do agree though that the Arab League should do something, or perhaps they are in too much disarray right now.
 
Top