Off Topic Is the UK right to get
- Thread starter Commachio
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
**** me comm.
You as well getting onto politics.
For the record no, we should stay the **** out of syria. its only just got back onto its feet with Assad and now we want to turn it into another libya/iraq
You as well getting onto politics.
For the record no, we should stay the **** out of syria. its only just got back onto its feet with Assad and now we want to turn it into another libya/iraq
It's the only bit of politics that i bother with. When our lads and lasses are being sent to fight.
How many people were injured or killed in the chemical attack?
Will those same civilians be harmed by any attack we mount?
How many more people were killed as a result?
Who exactly are we attacking?
Why exactly are we getting involved, what other motives other than protecting the people, ie oil?
Did we contribute directly or indirectly the arming of Syria's attackers at any point in the last decade?
And why is Syria more important than any other atrocity that has happened recently in the world?
What are other countries doing apart from France and the US?...ie Germany, Spain, Italy?
Personally I would not want us getting involved without knowing as many of the facts as possible.
Will those same civilians be harmed by any attack we mount?
How many more people were killed as a result?
Who exactly are we attacking?
Why exactly are we getting involved, what other motives other than protecting the people, ie oil?
Did we contribute directly or indirectly the arming of Syria's attackers at any point in the last decade?
And why is Syria more important than any other atrocity that has happened recently in the world?
What are other countries doing apart from France and the US?...ie Germany, Spain, Italy?
Personally I would not want us getting involved without knowing as many of the facts as possible.
Assad has pretty much defeated the Jihadi rebels with help from Russia so the Yanks are looking for an excuse to help the ISIS boys.
Propogander machine on full throttle to try and convince us to topple yet another regime.
Assad poses no threat to us ,The rebels do it's ****ing madness to even think about getting involved yet again .
Iraq WMD lies and regime change massive amounts of dead people for nothing and the place is a basket case now.
Afghanistan hunt for Bin Laden pointless loss of lives and money.
Lybia took out Ghadaffi and ruined the country killing even more innocents .
Will we ever learn to keep out of this ****?
Think i'd prefer to know the answer to all the other questions, once i know them, then consider Russia. Only reason i say that is because i'm fed up with the bickering between the two super powers. I'd want to know the answers then decide what part Russia contributed towards the problem and why.
I don't often agree with yer Duncs but this more or less sums it up for me. And until we are better informed my answer would be no to military action.
That's the best post I've ever seen you write. I agree with bit of it.
Going into these conflicts without an exit plan, or long term plan, has never done us any favours. It's always a mess with a bigger heap of ****e to clear up than what we started with.
Another war, another rush for the Mediterranean by the folk under attack. Around and around we go again.