Are our political "leaders" liars or idiots ?

[nicko31]

We're 1.2 trillion quid in debt, we're rapidly scaling back our arms forces and a few more pips on interest rates and we're knackered.

The days of playing other peoples war games are over. Tragic as though the situation in Syria is, its not endangering world peace, so leave it alone....

 

[somerset]

We're 1.2 trillion quid in debt, we're rapidly scaling back our arms forces and a few more pips on interest rates and we're knackered.

The days of playing other peoples war games are over. Tragic as though the situation in Syria is, its not endangering world peace, so leave it alone....

I am at a loss to know how you could know so many things,.... doesn't the sand that your head is buried in clog your eyes and ears??

 

[KingstonSeagull]

Just nuke anywhere that doesn't speak English and we can then be happy and drive our hybrid cars and save the rainforest!

 

[symyjym]

Interesting - the UK and Germany both used chemical weapons in WW1 and Churchill authorised the use of poisoned gas against Arab civilians in the 1920's. Not sure if it is more or less vile than depleted uranium or drone attacks on Wedding parties.

Yep totally agree, trying to take the moral high ground to justify one type of painful agonising death over another. It is not even certain that Assad did use chemical weapons as there is so much spin, sexing up and propoganda.

We encouraged the rebel forces in Syria, just like in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, who no one wanted in power anyway.

Knowing what happened to Gaddafi in Libya, I am sure that Assad has every right to defend himself and his people.

If the West led by example the world would be a much more peaceful place.

How about the rebels to give up, that will solve it, instead of us adding fuel to the fire.

 

[SI 4 BHA]

I am at a loss to know how you could know so many things,.... doesn't the sand that your head is buried in clog your eyes and ears??

So who do you think we should support - The Al-Qaeda backed Sunni rebels or the Hezbollah backed Alawite/Shi'a government? And which sides civilians are just collateral damage?
Last I heard UK and USA were still fighting both terrorist groups but now apparently, Al-Qaeda are the good guys?
Politically it probably makes more sense to support the existing largely secular government structure rather than destabilise the region further by supporting the rebels.
Rather than some kind of limited military action, Assad is more likely to take notice if his Russian backers threatened to cut him loose if he uses chemical weapons again, (assuming he already has).

What really annoys me is Obama saying he has already decided Assad is guilty of this attack, when the UN investigators won't be reporting until early next week. Just shut the f*** up for a few days you Tw**.

 

[somerset]

So who do you think we should support - The Al-Qaeda backed Sunni rebels or the Hezbollah backed Alawite/Shi'a government? And which sides civilians are just collateral damage?
Last I heard UK and USA were still fighting both terrorist groups but now apparently, Al-Qaeda are the good guys?
Politically it probably makes more sense to support the existing largely secular government structure rather than destabilise the region further by supporting the rebels.
Rather than some kind of limited military action, Assad is more likely to take notice if his Russian backers threatened to cut him loose if he uses chemical weapons again, (assuming he already has).

.

How about, just support those civilians who are being slaughtered eh?... All your commentary above does, is illustrate that we must be intervening on the basis of humanitarian motivation to save another 100000 people ( mostly civilians) getting killed. We know our government wouldn't support Assad, they are Russia/China backed,.. we know we wouldn't offer any long term support to jihadist groups, so that leaves us in the middle, attempting to stop the killing, a simple analysis, but probably near the mark. Don't say its for oil, the US and UK don't buy any from Syria, and Syria is a small time producer in global terms.

 

[drew]

So who do you think we should support - The Al-Qaeda backed Sunni rebels or the Hezbollah backed Alawite/Shi'a government? And which sides civilians are just collateral damage?
Last I heard UK and USA were still fighting both terrorist groups but now apparently, Al-Qaeda are the good guys?
Politically it probably makes more sense to support the existing largely secular government structure rather than destabilise the region further by supporting the rebels.
Rather than some kind of limited military action, Assad is more likely to take notice if his Russian backers threatened to cut him loose if he uses chemical weapons again, (assuming he already has).

What really annoys me is Obama saying he has already decided Assad is guilty of this attack, when the UN investigators won't be reporting until early next week. Just shut the f*** up for a few days you Tw**.

That is the dilemma that we faced, ie. which is the lesser of two evils, much like having to side up with Stalin to defeat Hitler.

As regards the inspectors, it is not their remit to establish who carried out the attack. As was just mentioned in the speeches, all the circumstantial evidence points towards Assad, ie he has used them before, has the delivery capability that the rebels don't have, was shelling the area at the time!!!

 

[beorhthelm]

So who do you think we should support - The Al-Qaeda backed Sunni rebels or the Hezbollah backed Alawite/Shi'a government? And which sides civilians are just collateral damage?
...
What really annoys me is Obama saying he has already decided Assad is guilty of this attack,

though i get the point you are making about the sides, lets not start making out like "al-qaeda" or Hezbollah are backing anyone, they are themselves proxies for others. As for Obama comment, its odd how after the whole Prism thing people dont quite understand the depths of intel the US have (and UK and a few others - you think its just them?). how about they know it was Assad's side because they have a communication intercept that tells them this (and then spies, statellites etc come in). one thing we can be certain of, despite some protestations here earlier, is that chemcial weapons were used - even the Russian and Iran have acknowledged this apparently, so the only question is who released them.

and from there do we do anything. seems alot of people are saying we should just leave them to it. i think thats not a bad idea, but it doesnt sit well. i dont understand people being blase about non-intervention. as for politicians, they are just being nakedly opportunistic, many of those against would be sitting on the other side if they had daily pictures of chemical weapons victims.

 

[symyjym]

How about, just support those civilians who are being slaughtered eh?... All your commentary above does, is illustrate that we must be intervening on the basis of humanitarian motivation to save another 100000 people ( mostly civilians) getting killed. We know our government wouldn't support Assad, they are Russia/China backed,.. we know we wouldn't offer any long term support to jihadist groups, so that leaves us in the middle, attempting to stop the killing, a simple analysis, but probably near the mark. Don't say its for oil, the US and UK don't buy any from Syria, and Syria is a small time producer in global terms.

You must support the Al-Qaeda backed Sunni rebels then?

 

[somerset]

You must support the Al-Qaeda backed Sunni rebels then?

Can you fookin read.........?

 

[symyjym]

Can you fookin read.........?

Obviously not

 

[nicko31]

I am at a loss to know how you could know so many things,.... doesn't the sand that your head is buried in clog your eyes and ears??

It stands for we need to get real about the true position of our country, so few really understand the financial mess we are in. We are no longer the world power we once were and can no longer afford to be the moral compass of the world.

 

[somerset]

... can no longer afford to be the moral compass of the world.

But actually, that is something we can still do, our diplomats are second to none in the world of political and social wheeling and dealing..... as a nation we still, despite our overall economic decline, sit fairly high on the general 'lead by example' scale in the eyes of a lot of the nations of the world.

 

[nicko31]

But actually, that is something we can still do, our diplomats are second to none in the world of political and social wheeling and dealing..... as a nation we still, despite our overall economic decline, sit fairly high on the general 'lead by example' scale in the eyes of a lot of the nations of the world.

I'm sure you are right, we are good at that. But what exactly do you think we are going to achieve by leading by example?

 

[somerset]

I'm sure you are right, we are good at that. But what exactly do you think we are going to achieve by leading by example?

...provide a broad moral compass that can give a rough directional guide to those who may want/need it.