+- North East Buses (https://northeastbuses.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Other Forums (https://northeastbuses.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://northeastbuses.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=51)
+--- Thread: Syria (/showthread.php?tid=594)
Syria - MrFozz - 30 Aug 2013
So The Tories been made to look like a bunch of tits in front of the world, after Cameron was seemingly adamant we would take military action against Assad, then lost a vote in Parliament...
What is you guys opinions, I personally say well done to the Politicians who pushed through the defeat on Cameron, yes atrocities have been committed and the evidence for such an act is insurmountable, but in my opinion our Arab Allies should be leading the strikes i.e Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey....
Your opinions guys...Yay or Nay
RE: Syria - Adrian - 30 Aug 2013
Common sense has prevailed. A war against Syria would be disastrous, and would ultimately lead to more British troops losing their lives needlessly.
I do however think that this going against Cameron will be his ultimate downfall. As much as I dislike the Tories, I really don't think Milliband and Blue Labour are fit to be in government.
RE: Syria - Andreos1 - 30 Aug 2013
Wow... Erm, where do I start and what do I say?
Something needs doing.
Should we get involved? It is difficult for me to say.
However, if China and Russia hadn't been so stubborn over and over again, it would be debateable whether we would be having this discussion.
The potential for it to kick off over there is massive. Isreal, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc as well as all of the 'groups' such as Hezbolla, could all end up being involved (if they aren't already) - whether they want to or not.
The Arab spring has already caused a few ructions and I can see it getting worse across the entire region, before it gets better.
As for the Tories - Cameron has made a right mess of it and looks as though he has lost a lot of support internally.
However, I do wonder if Labour have played a game or two with the issue and will try and use it to their advantage.
RE: Syria - Adrian - 30 Aug 2013
(30 Aug 2013, 6:48 pm)Andreos1 wrote However, I do wonder if Labour have played a game or two with the issue and will try and use it to their advantage.
I think that's inevitable, but Ed looked just as daft when his amendment to the motion was defeated on another vote after division.
RE: Syria - Andreos1 - 30 Aug 2013
(30 Aug 2013, 6:51 pm)aureolin wrote I think that's inevitable, but Ed looked just as daft when his amendment to the motion was defeated on another vote after division.
I didn't catch the full interview, but there was something on the radio when I was driving home earlier on, about how he has learned after 3 years in opposition, the ammendments rarely come off.
In a way, I am pleased they stood up against Cameron's proposal - but I am unsure as to the reasons.
Were they based wholly on morals/principles or political posturing?
If morals, then good on them. However, I'm not convinced they were the reasons.
RE: Syria - MrFozz - 30 Aug 2013
I dont think any of them are fit for government, Cameron has now lost face in front of the world, then theres his bitch, I mean Nick Clegg, I would not trust to care for a dog and Ed Milliband, there is something I dont like about him, I always thought his brother would have been a better choice for the leadership, if better choice is the right words.
As for 'Blue' Labour one of the most accurate things Margaret Thatcher ever said, when she was asked something like 'What is your legacy' she replied 'New Labour'. If the Lib Dems had any sense, they would look to break the Coalition as Cameron has lost his party now in my opinion, breaking Coalition agreement would almost certainly trigger a General Election and Cameron could try and fight for a parliamentary majority and and try to get a mandate.
Bashar Assad is a bad man, no two ways about it, but the rebels are no angels, and have possibly committed atrocities themselves, and by supporting the Rebels any intervening Armed Forces are on the same side as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Iran as they have been supporting Syrian Government Opposition and we all know what happened in the 80's when backing Rebel Groups in Afghanstan, the mujahideen the West armed, evolved into the Taliban and al-Qaeda. once that was over Bin Laden turned his site on the US, and America was even arming Iran in the 80's while there Iraqi opposition at the same time(Iran-Contra Affair, I think it was named.
Well, on a lighter note, people are claiming this could trigger World War 3, if it does, we should stay neutral, then turn up 2 and a half years later and go on to claim we won it
RE: Syria - Dan - 30 Aug 2013
If it triggers World War 3, Go North East can contribute by sending over their DAFs... Best explosives money can buy!
RE: Syria - Adam - 30 Aug 2013
Brian Reade in the Daily Mirror summed it up perfectly for me the other day.
Al-Qaeda are one of the rebel groups that are trying to force Assad out, so if Britain intervened, we would effectively be working alongside Al-Qaeda, whilst at the same time bombing them in Afghanistan. How on earth do you explain that one?
I'm pleased common sense has prevailed and we're not taking military action. Why should we even get involved? We should only get involved if Assad started threatening to attack us instead of his own civilians. Let's make it absolutely clear though that I am totally against what he's doing.
RE: Syria - Adrian - 30 Aug 2013
It's ironic how everything has kicked off big time in the Middle East since the UN appointed their new 'peace envoy'. This peace envoy being the same guy that wanted to knight al-Assad, and was on friendship terms with Gaddafi. Who would have guessed it...
![[Image: 136237640_b393058c23.jpg]](http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4318/65/320/136237640_b393058c23.jpg)
RE: Syria - MrFozz - 30 Aug 2013
I am not sure what is worse for America, the fact we arent going on this little beano to Syria or the fact that of all the countries to partner them, it's the French, which is quite ironic considering there staunch opposition to the Iraq War 10 years ago.
Israel should be unleashed on them, they will take no prisoners, fair enough, that might see the whole region erupt, but they would do a job and they always have no mercy for anyone who fights them...
On a serious note, any intervention should be a Peacekeeping Force with the strictest rules of engagement in place and act as a buffer, either a UN Peacekeeping Mission, An Arab League Mission or NATO Mission.
Common sense on our part has prevailed, I am glad to see democracy has won in this instance
RE: Syria - MrFozz - 31 Aug 2013
Just been listening to the news, and while it seems we arent going to be directly involved, we could be indirectly involved giving a coalition use of the Sovereign Bases in the Med (Gibraltar(bet the Spanish will love that) and Akrotiri and Dehkelia...)
At the end of the day, the only ones speaking any kind of sense at the moment is Comrade Putin, I know he is on Assads side and would go against anything Mr Obama or says, but he is telling the US to bring there supposed compelling evidence to the UNSC and saying until they do that nothong they say is really credible. That is the only time I have heard the Russians come out with something sensible.
End of the day, if they go in and it escalates, I am not convinced it will be on the scale of a World War anytime soon, we will be hauled into it eventually...
The War on Terror has now gone longer than WW1 and WW2 combined, about as long as American military ops in Vietman and half the amount of time we were in Northern Ireland.
While I dont like Tories(my great granny would say 'Only good tory is a dead one') I think David Cameron did it right putting to a vote even if he has lost credibility
RE: Syria - Adrian - 31 Aug 2013
![[Image: 1004699_370689066367944_103853331_n.jpg]](https://sphotos-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/1004699_370689066367944_103853331_n.jpg)
RE: Syria - MrFozz - 01 Sep 2013
picture stolen and saved, my pals will like that