No Military Intervention On Syria From The Uk

[swg dave 334]

What no one in the CORRUPT media is saying, is the real reality of what the backlash will be

like. if Syria is attacked without solid proof of who carried out the chem attack,

this will turn into WWIII make no bones about it. USA supplied the so called rebels

with this chem gas, and they carried out the attack.

THESE FU**ING REBELS, ARE THE SAME CU*TS THAT OUR TROOPS

ARE FIGHTING AGAINST IN AFGHAN, THIS IS
AL FUC*ING KI DU, THIS YANK GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO KICK OFF

WORLD WAR THREE, (AND IT VERY WELL KNOWS THIS) UNLESS THEY ARE STOPPED.

 

AS STATED ABOVE, YOU WATCH THE RETALIATION.

GOD, I HOPE IM WRONG

[paulus 26]

What no one in the CORRUPT media is saying, is the real reality of what the backlash will be

like. if Syria is attacked without solid proof of who carried out the chem attack,

this will turn into WWIII make no bones about it. USA supplied the so called rebels

with this chem gas, and they carried out the attack.

THESE FU**ING REBELS, ARE THE SAME CU*TS THAT OUR TROOPS

ARE FIGHTING AGAINST IN AFGHAN, THIS IS

AL FUC*ING KI DU, THIS YANK GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO KICK OFF

WORLD WAR THREE, (AND IT VERY WELL KNOWS THIS) UNLESS THEY ARE STOPPED.

 

AS STATED ABOVE, YOU WATCH THE RETALIATION.

GOD, I HOPE IM WRONG

it seems we the British supplied the assad regime with the chemical solutions that are needed to make sarin gas

[Malt 379]

 

I agree mate, we should be looking at things with the same perspective as the Russians if nothing else.. Are we going to veto any UN resolution authorising force seeing as how our parliment has voted against it, or will we just sit down and watch from the sidelines?

 

I think that may test the UK-US relationship a bit too much. If undisputable evidence was brought to the UN that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attacks then I reckon British parliament may be changing their tune to save face. We could not just sit by while a Russian and American coalition took action! Madness!

 

That requires considerable evidence of responsibility first though................

 

The spectre of the last Iraq war will long hang over our foreign policy mate, it won't be forgotten in a hurry.. It will always be seen by those in power as the thing that led to the downfall of Tony Blair and his government, which up to that point was a very popular government with one of the highest public approval ratings in British political history..

[Born Hunter 17,751]

What no one in the CORRUPT media is saying, is the real reality of what the backlash will be

like. if Syria is attacked without solid proof of who carried out the chem attack,

this will turn into WWIII make no bones about it. USA supplied the so called rebels

with this chem gas, and they carried out the attack.

THESE FU**ING REBELS, ARE THE SAME CU*TS THAT OUR TROOPS

ARE FIGHTING AGAINST IN AFGHAN, THIS IS

AL FUC*ING KI DU, THIS YANK GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO KICK OFF

WORLD WAR THREE, (AND IT VERY WELL KNOWS THIS) UNLESS THEY ARE STOPPED.

 

AS STATED ABOVE, YOU WATCH THE RETALIATION.

GOD, I HOPE IM WRONG

 

So who are the two sides going to be in this world war? Don't be soft, this is Syria, not fecking Russia. And I'll say it again, are there not terrorists on both sides of this conflict? The yanks seem convinced that the Syrian Gov' is responsible, it's time they shared this with the rest of the world. They have to take a hard line stance on such weapons, Iran's future actions with a potential Nuclear arsenal will in part be dictated by the US's response to this.

[Born Hunter 17,751]

 

What no one in the CORRUPT media is saying, is the real reality of what the backlash will be

like. if Syria is attacked without solid proof of who carried out the chem attack,

this will turn into WWIII make no bones about it. USA supplied the so called rebels

with this chem gas, and they carried out the attack.

THESE FU**ING REBELS, ARE THE SAME CU*TS THAT OUR TROOPS

ARE FIGHTING AGAINST IN AFGHAN, THIS IS

AL FUC*ING KI DU, THIS YANK GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO KICK OFF

WORLD WAR THREE, (AND IT VERY WELL KNOWS THIS) UNLESS THEY ARE STOPPED.

 

AS STATED ABOVE, YOU WATCH THE RETALIATION.

GOD, I HOPE IM WRONG

it seems we the British supplied the assad regime with the chemical solutions that are needed to make sarin gas

 

 

It's been suggested and denied............. bit embarassing if it's proven.

[scothunter 12,609]

were not the police of the world lads.our country on its arse and cuts all over the place, f**k we cant even give the care and attention to the lads hurt in the afghan war,they rely on charitiy to help them. seems some of you guys want us in every f***ing war and conflict on this planet.

f**k them let them get on with it.

[Born Hunter 17,751]

were not the police of the world lads.our country on its arse and cuts all over the place, f**k we cant even give the care and attention to the lads hurt in the afghan war,they rely on charitiy to help them. seems some of you guys want us in every f*****g war and conflict on this planet.

f**k them let them get on with it.

 

Many would say we have a moral responsibility Scot. That's the entire point in the UN is it not? What's the consiquences of saying "f**k it, commit what ever war crimes you please, not our business"?

 

And any military action wouldn't be a war, just surgical strikes.

[WILF 46,605]

 

http://tomohalloran.com/2013/08/30/saudis-go-on-full-alert-as-putin-war-threat-stuns-muslim-world/

 

Bullshit! That's wayyyyy too bold a move for the Russians. They want to stay out of all this shit not start a world war.

 

 

The Russian military cant afford jack shit never mind a war, Russias wealth is in the hand of a select group of billionaires who will do whatever makes the most profit and a full scale war wont do that for them

[Born Hunter 17,751]

You've raised an interesting philisophical point though Scot, one I'm not really sure where I stand on. Do we, as militarily powerful nations, have a moral responsibility to 'step in' when attrocities are being commited, or should we mind our own business? Should we only use our military for personal gain, only when politically, economically or militarily we are threatened? Often not a simple answer.

[scothunter 12,609]

 

were not the police of the world lads.our country on its arse and cuts all over the place, f**k we cant even give the care and attention to the lads hurt in the afghan war,they rely on charitiy to help them. seems some of you guys want us in every f*****g war and conflict on this planet.

f**k them let them get on with it.

 

Many would say we have a moral responsibility Scot. That's the entire point in the UN is it not? What's the consiquences of saying "f**k it, commit what ever war crimes you please, not our business"?

 

And any military action wouldn't be a war, just surgical strikes.

 

aye but it could very well escalate into something else. and come on mate the UN well after the iraq fiasco,allit told me about the UN was it wasnt worth a shit. they still went ahead regardless of what they decided.anyway not my problem id gfladly see the whole of the middle east go up in flames lol

 

i think our role should be defence of britain and nothing more. there always going to be bullshit wars over there what do we do commit ourselfs to everyone. lets face it aswell, we no longer carry the same clout as we once did. look after our own people and interests,cause at the end of the day everytime we get involved in this bullshit, we just leave ourselfs open to another terrorist attack. got to ask yourself is it worth it?i mean i really dont see this country benefiting from either the iraq war or afghan.the yanks have made shitloads of money from that.

[Born Hunter 17,751]

I sometimes wonder if that is the answer Scot. Level the place and divvy up the assets equally, LOL.

[walshie 2,804]

We're not a big enough country to act as world police. These arab countries are always squabbling amongst themselves to some degree or another. If we were actively involved in all these disputes, we'd have only a handful of men per squabble.

 

I agree with what BH has said, but it's about time some of the other UN countires shared the load instead of making the decisions and letting us get on with it.

[paulus 26]

why doesn't the league of arab nations intervene after all its within their jurisdiction why the west all the time

[swg dave 334]

 

What no one in the CORRUPT media is saying, is the real reality of what the backlash will be

like. if Syria is attacked without solid proof of who carried out the chem attack,

this will turn into WWIII make no bones about it. USA supplied the so called rebels

with this chem gas, and they carried out the attack.

THESE FU**ING REBELS, ARE THE SAME CU*TS THAT OUR TROOPS

ARE FIGHTING AGAINST IN AFGHAN, THIS IS

AL FUC*ING KI DU, THIS YANK GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO KICK OFF

WORLD WAR THREE, (AND IT VERY WELL KNOWS THIS) UNLESS THEY ARE STOPPED.

 

AS STATED ABOVE, YOU WATCH THE RETALIATION.

GOD, I HOPE IM WRONG

 

So who are the two sides going to be in this world war? Don't be soft, this is Syria, not fecking Russia. And I'll say it again, are there not terrorists on both sides of this conflict? The yanks seem convinced that the Syrian Gov' is responsible, it's time they shared this with the rest of the world. They have to take a hard line stance on such weapons, Iran's future actions with a potential Nuclear arsenal will in part be dictated by the US's response to this.

 

Im not just on about Syria, and this attack against them, ie, by the us, france, and turkey,

will drag more than two sides into it.

America states that it has 100% proof who carried out the attack,

but will not share this proof because its classified, what a right load of boilox..

Russia has stated show us the proof, and we will back the attack on Syria

 

But no USA wont will they, because they dont have any fu**ing proof

its another lie, just like Iraq..

 

Lets have it right people if the proof was shown, this whole conversation

would not have to take place, SHOW US THE PROOF BARAK OBAMMA YOU BANKSTER PUPPET

[STRANGER 948]

You've raised an interesting philisophical point though Scot, one I'm not really sure where I stand on. Do we, as militarily powerful nations, have a moral responsibility to 'step in' when attrocities are being commited, or should we mind our own business? Should we only use our military for personal gain, only when politically, economically or militarily we are threatened? Often not a simple answer.

 

I don't think we have a moral responsibility for jack shit?

What about all the genocides and butchering that goes on in Africa etc countries leaders raping the ground for its resources and starving the people?

Where do you draw the line?

People are horrible c**ts, always have been and always will be and we don't have the resources to help. f**k we barely have the resources to look after ourselves without loosing sleep over some shitskins.

Edited September 4, 2013 by STRANGER