Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 ··· 5 6 7 ··· 17 18

News

Latest attack in Syria

427 replies

Jammybean · 21/08/2013 22:11

Just watching BBC news, they were frantically trying to save a toddler who was convulsing . I feel physically sick.

OP posts:

Report

CoteDAzur · 28/08/2013 21:26

I was clearly talking about you, not Marx, who is not a MNer afaik.

You advocate communism which is a political system.

I sincerely hope that you are playing dumb

Report

NicholasTeakozy · 28/08/2013 21:29

Russia will launch strikes against Saudi Arabia if we attack Syria after being threatened by Prince Bandar with Chechen terror attacks during the Sochi Olympics. Frightening stuff.

Report

MiniTheMinx · 28/08/2013 21:39

Cote moi!

Off to read the Daily Mail now (don't tell anyone)

Niceguy, I agree with your last post. (don't tell ttosca I told you so)

Night all

Report

Wannabestepfordwife · 28/08/2013 21:45

Thanks for the link nicholasteakozy that is truly terrifying!

Report

ophelia275 · 29/08/2013 10:28

I don't think the West should get involved otherwise it has to intervene wherever their is a humanitarian crisis and it won't/hasn't done that. There are wars going on all the time worldwide and although what is happening in Syria is terrible, it pales into comparison to what happened in Darfur and nobody gave a fuck about them for some reason (it seems that African lives are not as precious as others).

I also wonder why it is the duty of Western countries to deal with this? Surely the other Arab/Muslim states (especially the rich gulf ones) should be intervening to stop the slaughter of their beloved brethren?

If the West does get involved it will be the whole Iraq/Afghanistan situation again with endless lives lost (on all sides) and nothing really achieved. We will be seen as imperialists rather than saviours of the local population. I think we should have learned our lessons from Iraq that the Middle East is a very complicated place and we shouldn't get involved in something we really don't understand. What has happened is terrible but getting involved would probably cause even more lives to be lost in the long run and I don't think it is worth it.

Report

scaevola · 29/08/2013 22:35

The Government has lost today's vote in the Commons.

How can UK play a credible international role now?

Report

bunchoffives · 29/08/2013 22:35

Just heard Parliament have voted against military action in principle.

Yay - some lessons obviously learnt from Iraq

Report

NicholasTeakozy · 29/08/2013 22:57

How can UK play a credible international role now?

My opinion is that Parliament has made the right decision in voting down a war based on dodgy evidence. If only they'd done that ten years ago. The thing with this particular conflict is if we attack Syria they and Iran have vowed to attack Israel who will retaliate, and Russia will attack Saudi Arabia and the US will retaliate. A proper lose/lose situation.

Though the Tories have apparently referred to Ed Miliband as a "fucking cunt" and a "copper bottomed shit", according to The Times. According to them he's bringing politics into it. :o

Report

difficultpickle · 29/08/2013 23:02

As I understand tonight's outcome this means that there will be no British involvement in any military action at any time in Syria. It was never the intention to take military action on the basis of tonight's vote. There was always a plan for a second vote before this would happen. This won't happen now. I can't see how there can be any participation from Britain now. Absolutely dreadful outcome.

Report

difficultpickle · 29/08/2013 23:03

How can UK play a credible international role now?

Exactly. The lead will be taken by the US and France and we will be left sitting on our hands and continuing to supply arms to Saudi Arabia and other nations that support Syria.

Report

scaevola · 29/08/2013 23:05

This is the text that was voted down.

Report

niceguy2 · 29/08/2013 23:35

Of course we can still play a credible international role. let's just pick things which make sense.

Attacking Syria made no logical sense.

If our 'reputation' is our only reason for bombing and killing Syrian people then frankly it's a piss poor reason.

We're a democratic country, not some gang of hoodlums talking about 'respect'

The best thing DC did tonight was understand that the people in the UK do NOT want intervention. Pity he didnt realise it earlier or misjudged our strength of feeling

Report

AuntieStella · 30/08/2013 05:34

Think piece from the BBC about repercussions for UK's international standing following this vote.

Report

Wannabestepfordwife · 30/08/2013 06:15

Absolutely the right outcome IMO.

I think it's far better for our international standing and credibility not to get gung-ho and jump into an attack when we still don't know the full facts.

I still don't understand the logic of an attack which will no doubt kill innocent people to teach Assad a lesson for killing innocent people

Report

Ahlaam · 30/08/2013 06:56

I'm glad the British public got together on this. Would have been a complete disaster otherwise IMO!

It'll be interesting to see what US has to say about this.

Report

CoteDAzur · 30/08/2013 07:23

"How can UK play a credible international role now?"

Of course, the definition of a 'credible role' is doing what US tells you to do. Because that worked out so well last time, and UK is so credible in the international arena these days

Report

Solopower1 · 30/08/2013 07:25

What a relief!

The Govt would be extremely foolish to do anything without the UN's agreement after last time. Can't believe they were in such a rush before the weapons inspectors' report, before they even know who was responsible. Has really shaken what little faith I had in the people who are leading this country. They were going to kill even more living, breathing men, women and children, just to impress their pals - ie other world leaders - who are the only people whose opinions they care about. I know what Mini means. It is all a club at the top (and has always been).

However, it doesn't make much difference who used the chemical weapons, imo. It could well have been both sides or neither at this point. If you attack a country, innocent people die.

We need to go step by step on this, and it is vital that we exert ourselves to get agreement from Russia and China, even if that takes a little longer. It has to be remembered, I suppose, that their leaders are also part of the club, also looking for international pats on the back, but during the discussions at least the situation will be clarified and we should have a few more 'facts' to go on.

Report

Solopower1 · 30/08/2013 07:27

It's too early to say, but this does look as if we are learning from past mistakes. That is very good news. Robin Cook should be very proud, as I think he had a lot to do with making sure Parliament gets to vote on whether or not we go to war.

Report

comingalongnicely · 30/08/2013 08:05

Read the comments at the bottom of This Article, from this it would appear that the American Public don't want to bomb/invade Syria either.

I think Britain can be proud that the democratic voice of the people was heard for once.

Report

Solopower1 · 30/08/2013 08:19

Apparently chemical weapons have been used 14 times in Syria already (heard that on the News last night, iirc).

Clearly our govt must have been aware of that, and must have been planning an intervention at some point, so their desire to act quickly, now, is very significant. But, whatever, so far so good. The Govt has been restrained by Parliament. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we do end up going in there, however. I absolutely dread the consequences.

Surely if world govts wanted to end the conflict in Syria, they would do everything in their power to stop anyone selling arms to them.

Report

Rooners · 30/08/2013 08:59

From what I can gather, is Russia somehow being threatened by Saudi Arabia in respect of the olympic games to be held next year?

I don't understand that, but surely Russia and SA have got a bit of sorting out to do by themselves, whether or not Syria is targetted by anyone?

I don't get why there is a war in the first place tbh, or why they can't all just calm the fuck down.

Report

niceguy2 · 30/08/2013 09:13

They can't just calm the fuck down anymore. Well at least not the rebels. Countries like Syria, Tunisia, Libya & Egypt before the revolutions were ran by tyrants.

The rebels must now fear that if they did just down arms that the old regime would hunt them down one by one and make them & their families disappear.

As sad as that is, it's still no reason for us to involve ourselves. Otherwise where do we stop? Even the US isn't really powerful enough to intervene everywhere. We've not even a 1/10th of their military power. Why should we?

Democracy for once worked.

Report

Rooners · 30/08/2013 09:22

I know NG, I sort of meant Saudi Arabia should calm the fuck down, mostly. Why on earth would they want to attack Russia?

Sorry you can see I am not politically on the ball.

Report

NicholasTeakozy · 30/08/2013 09:29

Yes Rooners, reports I've seen state that should Russia support strikes against Assad then Saudi Arabia (via Prince Bandar) would guarantee no terrorist strikes at the Sochi Olympics, because they control the Chechen terrorists.

It seems we label the wrong states as 'rogue'.

Report

Rooners · 30/08/2013 09:31

Oh I see - putting it that way, it's kind of being framed in a positive way, trying to get Russia to play ball.

They should bloody guarantee no strikes anyway if they are able to. I guess that is what Russia thinks too.