Topic: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Yes.

Part of the problem

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

i am trying to understand what this thread is about and i see three different options.

1) the original poster wants to know if other people agree with him that military action in Syria is appropriate.

2) the original poster is feeling confused and is soliciting the views of his peers in hope of gaining a more informed perspective

3) the original poster is actually saying "we're all fucked, the whole world is fucked from bottom to top, lets just stop the foreplay and get down to what we do best, which is perpetrating acts of horror and evil on each other in the name of seeing who's got the biggest dick, who knows, maybe the sooner we get started down this unholy path to apocalypse the sooner we can look forward to something more evolved emerging from the radioactive wastelands."

i've chosen option 3 and on that basis i agree with his conclusion.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Martin Luther King
Legs are very frickin important parts of the woman, thin ankle and tense bop is a must.
MateGreen

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

I haven't got any information on the situation in Syria what so ever to base my opinion. I have no idea what premise America or the allied forces have to attack Syria either. I simply saw a headline that an attack on Syria was being considered and thought it sounded valid based on the Syrian demographic, geographic and religious standing.
I would like to make it clear I have no foundation or reasoning for my choice other than its full of Syrians who are most likely terrorists in the making..

Option 3 for me if i'm being pigeon-holed.

Hope there's no innocent Syrians on here who might be offended. Apologies in advance.

Last edited by Dermo (Tuesday Sep 2013 16:19:12)

Part of the problem

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

i think the biggest problem for them is their tribal consciousness which divides them into bitterly opposed sub-groups.

if you go a touch overboard venting about the dippers on here you might get banned for ten minutes, they go down the local town centre for a bit of a moan and some banter and before you know it they've got mutilated babies exploding all over the shop.

i think you need to cut them a bit of slack to be honest.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Martin Luther King
Legs are very frickin important parts of the woman, thin ankle and tense bop is a must.
MateGreen

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Who? Dippers or Syrians?

Part of the problem

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Time to step out of the world police role IMO.......either that or we're in 100% everywhere (we seem more than happy letting the Egyptians slaughter the fuck out of the general public for example)

"I am the fucking club" - Flares 19.03.14

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Can't see America going it alone.Russia,China,Germany,UK and most likely France saying no later leaves them out there alone.Israel going in would surely provoke the Iranians to respond through Hezbollah.Can see it snowballing into something much bigger and wider.Surely the vast amounts of money spent on  airstrikes would  be better used on the 2 million refuges that have left Syria.Also are these rebels not Al-Qaeda affiliated thus making America fighting them in Afghanistan but supporting them in Syria.

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii178/Segmentrecords/image_zps8af85e23.jpg

Who says war isn't profitable

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

MattBlack wrote:

Who says war isn't profitable

Has anybody ever said that?

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

The US have militarily intervened in Muslim nations three times in the last 15 years, with mixed results but one common underlying motive. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan remain violent countries, with pro western puppet governments in place. China and Russia will not sign the UN mandate allowing UN peacekeepers to be deployed to the territory in an effort to resolve the conflict so USA appoint themselves as global cops and jump to the aid of the poor long suffering locals. Conveniently.

Result: So the USA gain tactical positioning against both Iran and against paranoid antizionist conspiracy within the region, by building airbases closer to its borders within Syria, who are allies to Iran during jihadi conflict with the west, further strengthening US positioning in the region. Coupled with the two bases in Turkey, multiple offshore bases, bases and boots on the ground in Jordan, Yemen, Saudi, the USA gain the upper hand. The Russians lose their tactical positioning over the Med in Syria to an extent or are forced to share it because the American's try to muscle in, which contradicts Russian defense strategy in the first place.

Gadafi's plan for a centralised middle eastern currency that was strongly opposed by the West, but was strongly supported by Saddam and the other oil producing nations, backed in principle by Russia, funded by arab bullion & oil stored in a localised central reserve, with which they planned for oil was to be traded in instead of US dollars and resulting in strengthening the region, failed, because he and Saddam were both removed from power, forcibly, by the USA. All Gulf states and Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lybia revert to trading in US dollars for acquisition and sale of oil. Dollar strengthens. Share prices rise.

USA wins. Nobody ever in the history of the world said war wasn't profitable Matt.

In Theatres Now, starring Leonardo di Caprio, Ryan Gosling and some bird who looks a bit Arab

Directed by Michael Bay

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Should be blow them up though, Mike?

Part of the problem

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

mikemiller wrote:

USA wins. Nobody ever in the history of the world said war wasn't profitable Matt.

In Theatres Now, starring Leonardo di Caprio, Ryan Gosling and some bird who looks a bit Arab

Directed by Michael Bay

Nope, there is always someone ready to make money from someone elses misery. If it wasnt for the fact that the British people are so against it and they are fearing for their chances come the election we would have been in there now, Hague and co are still trying to blame Assad for the chemical weapons when there is no proof it was him, in fact it seems it was the rebels who had the bomb but that doesnt matter to the USA, they will still go in there and bomb the hell out of Syria because as Mike says, its got nothing to do with women and children being killed its to do with oil. What puzzles me though is the US is supposed to be skint and come October if they dont raise the debt ceiling the country wont be able to pay its workers, is this war just a cynical attempt to get congress to agree to raise borrowing to justify attacking Syria?

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Dermo wrote:

Should be blow them up though, Mike?

Nuke the entire site from orbit, its the only way to be sure

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Ahad and Creepy will be along soon to sort this whole bloody mess out

------------
I am STILL a child of the 80s mix: https://soundcloud.com/themills23/i-am- … of-the-80s

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

mikemiller wrote:
Dermo wrote:

Should be blow them up though, Mike?

Nuke the entire site from orbit, its the only way to be sure

Props

Part of the problem

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

In seriousness though, no I don't think anyone should launch an attack on Syria. If the UN council could actually agree on something, then it should be they who intervene in the conflict and at least try to bring order, not the self appointed guardians of the universe, the USA. Its far too well populated to get away without civilian casualties. Sectarian violence in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan are at an all time high so history will just repeat itself. And if body count gets pinned on the usa, hatred towards the west will simply keep building. So USA actually lose long term IMO, although it does give them the control they want over the oil. 

Libertarian USA who helped in Kosovo, Bosnia and Haiti, where they actually helped people, would be great. But thats not on their agenda.

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Yeh agree. Must admit i'm surprised by Obama. Its the first time he's come across as a power mad war monger.
First thing i said to Mrs Derm was this all looks ideal for the offensive on Iran. Very convenient. Cant blame them for that though, that place does need levelling.

Part of the problem

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

I don't like that you've agreed with something I have said

We must restore order to the galaxy

You fucking cunt

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

I was appeasing you just for the sake of it anyway.

Part of the problem

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Theyre even trying to use pictures from the Iraq war in 2003 to justify attacking Syria

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Dermo wrote:

I was appeasing you just for the sake of it anyway.

Me too, I had an uneasy queasyness there. Glad that's settled.

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

I prefer you being rough with me anyway.

Part of the problem

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Dont normally agree with Galloway but hes spot on here

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

we will support whatever America does - as per

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

shaunstrudwick wrote:

we will support whatever America does - as per

Parliament voted last week against military action in Syria