Paul_Peel Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 It's all very well talking about missile attacks etc. But what happens after that? There are no simple answers to this one. There's no plan A yet, never mind a Plan B. All that will happen is a lot of additional carnage, and the civil war will carry on. The main probelsm is there are bad guys who would use chemical weapons on both sides. The only possible solution to try and bring about a peace that I can see is a Russian led UN troop deployment. 100K Russians, 20K USA, 20K others (or better still 50K Russian, 50K US and 20K others). If peace is really the objective, people have to start swallowing pride to achieve it, whilst giving the UN some teeth. Very well said Albert ... don't get me wrong on this I'm not saying we should attack, simply that by talking and then not acting we are sending a very dangerous message Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 It's all very well talking about missile attacks etc. But what happens after that? There are no simple answers to this one. There's no plan A yet, never mind a Plan B. All that will happen is a lot of additional carnage, and the civil war will carry on. The main probelsm is there are bad guys who would use chemical weapons on both sides. The only possible solution to try and bring about a peace that I can see is a Russian led UN troop deployment. 100K Russians, 20K USA, 20K others (or better still 50K Russian, 50K US and 20K others). If peace is really the objective, people have to start swallowing pride to achieve it, whilst giving the UN some teeth. You're still drinking the mainstream media kool aid. The US don't want to help Syria or bring about "peace" --- the entire point is to destabilise it. Aiming missiles at them and helping Al Qaeda to take over is a great idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 It's all very well talking about missile attacks etc. But what happens after that? There are no simple answers to this one. There's no plan A yet, never mind a Plan B. All that will happen is a lot of additional carnage, and the civil war will carry on. The main probelsm is there are bad guys who would use chemical weapons on both sides. The only possible solution to try and bring about a peace that I can see is a Russian led UN troop deployment. 100K Russians, 20K USA, 20K others (or better still 50K Russian, 50K US and 20K others). If peace is really the objective, people have to start swallowing pride to achieve it, whilst giving the UN some teeth. You're still drinking the mainstream media kool aid. The US don't want to help Syria or bring about "peace" --- the entire point is to destabilise it. Aiming missiles at them and helping Al Qaeda to take over is a great idea. I think they should send you in on your own. A bit like Arnie in Commando. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Why should the west become embroiled in essentially what is just another sectarian/religious war within islam? This is another Sunni/Shia conflict financed and encouraged by Iran and its neighbours. The Sauds would like us to get involved so they can fight this conflict by proxy and retain their power base. Leave them to it, as long as they're fighting amongst themselves they're not a collective threat to the apparent peace and stability of Israel. Instead of throwing missiles and making a fast buck out of arms sales, the west should provide humanitarian aid and assistance to the refugee problem. Providing safe areas with food and medical aid should be where any priorities lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Why should the west become embroiled in essentially what is just another sectarian/religious war within islam? This is another Sunni/Shia conflict financed and encouraged by Iran and its neighbours. The Sauds would like us to get involved so they can fight this conflict by proxy and retain their power base. Leave them to it, as long as they're fighting amongst themselves they're not a collective threat to the apparent peace and stability of Israel. Instead of throwing missiles and making a fast buck out of arms sales, the west should provide humanitarian aid and assistance to the refugee problem. Providing safe areas with food and medical aid should be where any priorities lie. I agree with you in a general way. The underlying concern is the vested and conflicting interests of the West (Russia & China v rest of the UN) which are muddying the waters. The other concern I would have is that this the continuing unrest in the middle east may spill over and start impacting upon their neighbours as the effects of such a conflict spill over. Should the UN become involved at that stage to prevent the "innocent" neighbours being dragged into either a conflict or a humanitarian crisis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 30, 2013 Author Share Posted August 30, 2013 Very well said Albert ... don't get me wrong on this I'm not saying we should attack, simply that by talking and then not acting we are sending a very dangerous message Who are we sending this message to? I'm still not convinced that the regime is responsible. The main aim of dictators is to stay in power. Using banned weapons is a very regime limiting move. I'm no fan of Miniband but imho he got it exactly right with: "It is surely a basic point for this House that evidence should precede decision, not decision precede evidence" Unlike Iraq where it was debated for 10 years, weapons inspectors in country for 5 or 6 years, UN resolutions passed etc etc there was NEVER any doubt about who used WMD on the thousands of innocents in Halabja. If there is any similarity with Iraq it would be if idiots start to think that "intelligence" somehow means "factual". Be aware that both sides have been armed by Russia, China and so forth so their munitions are pretty much the same. So if the delivery system is found to be, say, Russian it won't pinpoint either side as being responsible. Plus if the US bombs the regime they WILL be taking sides with the rebels by default - a VERY dangerous thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The other concern I would have is that this the continuing unrest in the middle east may spill over and start impacting upon their neighbours as the effects of such a conflict spill over. Um........Manxman, that's exactly the AIM of the corporate-controlled US Government. They want chaos all over the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The other concern I would have is that this the continuing unrest in the middle east may spill over and start impacting upon their neighbours as the effects of such a conflict spill over. Um........Manxman, that's exactly the AIM of the corporate-controlled US Government. They want chaos all over the world. When you say "corporate-controlled US government" I assume you mean the arms industry? I am not sure that many other corporations would want global chaos because that can only make cross-border trading even more challenging and difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group. By Dale Gavlak (Associated Press) and Yahya Ababneh However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack. “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta. Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels. In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad. Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News and the Associated Press. Gavlak has been stationed in Amman, Jordan for the Associated Press for over two decades. An expert in Middle Eastern Affairs, Gavlak currently covers the Levant region of the Middle East for AP, National Public Radio and Mint Press News, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago. See full article at http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The other concern I would have is that this the continuing unrest in the middle east may spill over and start impacting upon their neighbours as the effects of such a conflict spill over. Um........Manxman, that's exactly the AIM of the corporate-controlled US Government. They want chaos all over the world. When you say "corporate-controlled US government" I assume you mean the arms industry? I am not sure that many other corporations would want global chaos because that can only make cross-border trading even more challenging and difficult. No, I don't just mean the arms industry, I mean transnational corporations. They are involved in everything, not just arms; they are even involved in producing peanuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 It's all very well talking about missile attacks etc. But what happens after that? There are no simple answers to this one. There's no plan A yet, never mind a Plan B. All that will happen is a lot of additional carnage, and the civil war will carry on. The main probelsm is there are bad guys who would use chemical weapons on both sides. The only possible solution to try and bring about a peace that I can see is a Russian led UN troop deployment. 100K Russians, 20K USA, 20K others (or better still 50K Russian, 50K US and 20K others). If peace is really the objective, people have to start swallowing pride to achieve it, whilst giving the UN some teeth. Very well said Albert ... don't get me wrong on this I'm not saying we should attack, simply that by talking and then not acting we are sending a very dangerous message According to Jack Straw on Today Programme this morning, the timetable was driven by Obama wanting something in time for Labour Day and an upcoming summit with the Russians (I havent checked this out, so caveat emptor). If this is the case, then i can understand Parliament not wanting to be driven by US policical needs. Going to parliament without a Plan A seems a bit premature, also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 It's all very well talking about missile attacks etc. But what happens after that? There are no simple answers to this one. There's no plan A yet, never mind a Plan B. All that will happen is a lot of additional carnage, and the civil war will carry on. The main probelsm is there are bad guys who would use chemical weapons on both sides. The only possible solution to try and bring about a peace that I can see is a Russian led UN troop deployment. 100K Russians, 20K USA, 20K others (or better still 50K Russian, 50K US and 20K others). If peace is really the objective, people have to start swallowing pride to achieve it, whilst giving the UN some teeth. Very well said Albert ... don't get me wrong on this I'm not saying we should attack, simply that by talking and then not acting we are sending a very dangerous messageAccording to Jack Straw on Today Programme this morning, the timetable was driven by Obama wanting something in time for Labour Day and an upcoming summit with the Russians (I havent checked this out, so caveat emptor). If this is the case, theni can understand Parliament not wanting to be driven by US policical needs. Going to parliament without a Plan A seems a bit premature, also. Cameron also looking for a bit of politically-motivated 'glory'. Good job the vote went against him, very embarrassing for him and his legion of lickspittles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Anyone reading Manx Forums will have IOM down as a Little Switzerland. Typical unbalanced views with nobody supporting good old Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Anyone reading Manx Forums will have IOM down as a Little Switzerland. Typical unbalanced views with nobody supporting good old Dave. I've got a brilliant idea!! Let's put you in charge.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Now your'e talking Quilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.