[mob17]

Wow you guys really do believe the government are these morally correct heros, maybe they should have some nobel peace prizes for all the good they have done!

Examples of them protecting us: http://www.reprieve.org.uk/abusesincounterterrorism/

Gangzoom: Re not going along with public opinion. The government represents and should speak for the people. They are NOT there to do as they please or see fit. THATS a dictatorship. Also a lot of people care about whats happening. Just because i believe that we shouldn't bomb them to pieces doesn't mean i don't care! In fact its the opposite. This whole campaign is just to destabalise the region. Look at Iraq!

Tony20009: You have correctly pointed out a few sources that indicate the rebels did it. So its clear it really could have been anyone. Assad, rebels or someone else. I personally believe the US have funded the rebels to launch this attack and they were hell bent on putting the blame on Assad.

Anyways you're of course entitled to your opinions. The truth about what has been happening/will happen behind the scenes will come out one day. Probably when we are very old and in wheelchairs

[mob17]

Lets turn this around for a second people. Say a Muslim nation got evidence that the UK used chemical weapons in Iraq, which they did and have admitted to. Then that nation bombs the UK killing loads of ordinary citizens, on the basis that we needed to get "punished".

How would we feel? Obviously this won't ever happen as we and the US are too powerful but just try and imagine. Its essentially the same as what the US are alledging as to what happened in Syria. If anything the evidence is more concrete against the UK as to what they did in Iraq.

The US are just bullies that can literally get away with murder because they are too powerful. They stand on the moral high ground whilst pursuing their own dark agendas. They don't care about what's right. They just want to have more influence and control in the Middle East.

I'm actually happy and proud that for the first time in over 200 years Parliament rejected military action, and looks like they actually are representing the British public on this issue. Gives me hope.

Oh and the "Special Relationship" that we apparantly have with the US? They just expect us to follow and help them, and when we need help (Falklands) they don't do anything about it. Sounds about as special as a prostitute on the streets of Leicester on a Saturday night.

[peterg1965]

Originally Posted by mob17

Oh and the "Special Relationship" that we apparantly have with the US? They just expect us to follow and help them, and when we need help (Falklands) they don't do anything about it. Sounds about as special as a prostitute on the streets of Leicester on a Saturday night.

If you are alluding to the Falklands war of 1982, you are very much mistaken With that statement. I don't think we would have won the Falklands back if it were not for some very quiet and substantial assistance from the US.

[phil200tdi]

^ indeed

They sent arms (sidewinder missiles) and supply logistics (fuel etc). But most critically didn't openly oppose the war, without this it would have been an impossible undertaking.

[peterg1965]

Originally Posted by phil200tdi

^ indeed

They sent arms (sidewinder missiles) and supply logistics (fuel etc). But most critically didn't openly oppose the war, without this it would have been an impossible undertaking.

They also approved use of Ascension Island which had been effectively leased to the US.

[Lifted07Duramax]

Originally Posted by mob17

Lets turn this around for a second people. Say a Muslim nation got evidence that the UK used chemical weapons in Iraq, which they did and have admitted to. Then that nation bombs the UK killing loads of ordinary citizens, on the basis that we needed to get "punished".

How would we feel? Obviously this won't ever happen as we and the US are too powerful but just try and imagine. Its essentially the same as what the US are alledging as to what happened in Syria. If anything the evidence is more concrete against the UK as to what they did in Iraq.

The US are just bullies that can literally get away with murder because they are too powerful. They stand on the moral high ground whilst pursuing their own dark agendas. They don't care about what's right. They just want to have more influence and control in the Middle East.

I'm actually happy and proud that for the first time in over 200 years Parliament rejected military action, and looks like they actually are representing the British public on this issue. Gives me hope.

Oh and the "Special Relationship" that we apparantly have with the US? They just expect us to follow and help them, and when we need help (Falklands) they don't do anything about it. Sounds about as special as a prostitute on the streets of Leicester on a Saturday night.

doesn't really matter they stayed out of it. If the US strikes, mark my words its the beginning of WWIII and your country will soon be involved

[TrAcK TRaP]

Originally Posted by mob17

What about Palestine? Israelies used white phosphorous grenades on innocent civilians whilst the world stood by. They constantly steal land and force families out. But no, we can't go there because the government is Jewish. If only they were muslim!

Makes me laugh how hypocritical the UK/US Government are. They used chemical weapons on civilians themselves in Iraq!

+1

[gangzoom]

Originally Posted by peterg1965

If you are alluding to the Falklands war of 1982, you are very much mistaken With that statement. I don't think we would have won the Falklands back if it were not for some very quiet and substantial assistance from the US.

Wasn't it French supplied Exocet missiles that did the most damage to British ships?

[phil200tdi]

Ha ha

Thatcher forced that issue:

HAIG: œI would say that since the onset of the crisis, the US has not acceded to requests that would go beyond the scope of our customary patterns of co-operation. British use of US facilities on the United Kingdom island of Ascension has been restricted accordingly.

THATCHER: Oh, now thats a bit devastating

HAIG: Now, we have looked very carefully at our agreement on this and we feel that that statement has been and remains justified -

THATCHER: Part of your statement would have an extremely adverse reaction here. Its been said in the House of Commons, quite rightly, that I have done everything possible to support President Reagan and the US government, on every single occasion that they have asked for help; and the moment we need your help you arent there. We just dont receive it. I dont like phrase, you have not acceded to requests beyond the scope of the customary pattern because it looks as if we have made them and you have turned them down.

HAIG: I told them that if they asked, we would turn them down; if you asked while this negotiation was under way, we would have to refrain as well.

THATCHER: the suggestion that we are to be treated in the same way as a military junta with a very bad record of human rights, I think will cause problems here. It will make it extremely difficult to continue the good relations that have hitherto existed.

HAIG: Well, I certainly understand that concern and thats why I read this to you

THATCHER: Well, lets get Ascension out of it altogether, because its our island. I made myself clear, did I?

HAIG: Yes.

Ascension was subsequently used as a major staging post for ships, troops and equipment en route to the conflict zone, as one point becoming the worlds busiest airport.

[mob17]

Ok my questioning of the "special relationship" wasn't really the main point of my post. My worries are what i wrote in the previous paragraphs and would be interested to hear if anyone has an opinion on that, which i think is more of a serious issue than our relationship with the US.

Edit: think it would be a shame to change the focus to our relationship with the US, but i meant their stance on it in recent years http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...is-a-disgrace/

[tony20009]

Note: The text in brackets is my interpretation of the words they replace. The are not mob17's original words. For the reader's convenience, Mob17's original words which I replaced are at the end of this post.

Originally Posted by mob17

Lets turn this around for a second people. Say a Muslim nation got evidence that the UK used chemical weapons in Iraq [and the UK admitted to doing so]. Then that nation bombs the UK killing loads of ordinary citizens, on the basis that we needed to get "punished".

How would we feel? Obviously this won't ever happen as we and the US are too powerful but just try and imagine. Its essentially the same as what the US are alledging as to what happened in Syria. ...

I don't know if it's a given that such punishment wouldn't be meted out against the US or the UK. 9/11 and the Russell Square events were certainly thought of by their perpetrators as punishment. I'm fairly certain that sooner or later, something similarly devastating will happen again in one or both countries. I agree, however, that it's unlikely any government will take credit for such an act, unless it were making a bid for global supremacy. Right now, the only way to do that is to "own" the US' (and the rest of the world's) ass, and that's exactly the strategy one sees China pursuing, and in Africa it's using more traditional tactics such as puppet making.

(Off Topic: China are applying tired and true principles to achieving dominance: discover what your opponent values and "own" that thing. That way you can control your opponent's behavior without directly attacking them and using your own valuable resources.)

I feel pretty confident in saying, however, that no country especially wants to be the global police, and no country wants to be policed. On the latter point, there is likely little to debate. As for the former aspect of policing, one may think the US might want to be such a country, but it doesn't. What the US wants is the liberty to pursue happiness. That was written down clearly in our country's Declaration of Independence. Few people really grasp what that means.

Originally Posted by mob17

The US are just bullies [who] can literally get away with murder because they are too powerful. They stand on the moral high ground whilst pursuing their own dark agendas. They don't care about what's right. They just want to have more influence and control in the Middle East.

Outwardly, it may look t many like the US is a bully. It's action sure seem that way for the US government often is both judge and jury. However, the country's objective isn't to be a bully. The goal and very reason for the existence of the US is so that its citizens (and by extension organizations) can freely do that which makes them happy. So what makes Americans happy? Money and its trappings. It's as simple as that.

Make no mistake, everything about why the US was created has to do with money. The East India Company provided the foundation for my country's founding and its legacy is what exists today not as a business, but as a nation state that exists for the purpose of allowing individuals to pursue their business interests and make money. The cry "taxation without representation" was and is about the idea that if one is providing a substantial enough financial contribution to the state's coffers, one should have a controlling say (or nearly so) in how the state operates. That's just not possible in a monarchy if they king/queen doesn't want to go along with you.

The founders of the US were intellectual and financial elitists. You'll recall that all the freedoms this nation offered were available only to land owners, i.e., the wealthy. They weren't creating a state that was meant for the poor to get richer; they were creating one for the rich to get richer. The entire system in the US is about obtain and protecting property and resources. Do you know of any other country that was founded for specifically that purpose?

Sure, the nation's design allowed for innovation and entrepreneurship to get ahead, but mostly the system of laws was created to make sure that a band of fighters couldn't lawfully just use force to get ahead. The government would use the collective resources provided by all to provide redress to the citizenry -- land owners -- if some gang of thugs used force to pilfer the citizen's spoils earned through "hard work." That was never allowed per se even in a monarchy, but the feudal nature of monarchies also meant that if one was property aligned with the powers that be, the monarch could cast a blind eye and one could get away with it. Not so when the leader has no say in that matter.

So to talk about the US' "dark agenda" is to misunderstand what the US is about in the first place. There's no dark agenda. It's right there in plain sight for all the world to see. The agenda is to facilitate profits, the prosperity of business, and the only question is to what extent and when must the profit motive become subordinate to humanity and the individual. It always has been so. I doubt it will change. The thing that makes the US dominant is money and the fact that the US has successfully co opted most of the rest of the world into buying into the idea that money is more important than people.

Now don't go thinking I'm some sort of Marxist or communist. I'm not. But I'm also not blind to the fact that as political systems go, communism, if administered objectively and without selfishness, is a better system for individuals, whereas democracy is a better one for capitalism, for businesses and profit making. Both systems have their drawbacks. Communism suffers from the fact that human nature is what it is and humans must run the system. Democratic republics suffer from the need for the representatives to garner support among the populace and that costs money. So again by design, the US is a system that ensures the guy with the money can purchase the influence he wants to "pursue his happiness."

With the foregoing perspective in place, consider Syria. Syria is rich in history, but poor in resources. Syria's petroleum sales generated $4 billion, one third of the country's exports. By way of comparison, Merrill Lynch in 1998 (think, maybe 199) had net income of $27 billion. Regardless of which side comes out ahead, do you think either will look favorably to the US or UK? And if either were to become that way, it would allow what? A swarm of small businesses and tourism business opportunities.

The only reason the US has been vacillating and uncertain on the Syria issue is because there's no business value to acting boldly in Syria, yet nobody wants to seem so uncompassionate as to say, "Oh, well. It is what it is over there." What every world power is doing right now is trying to find a political, diplomatic solution to the issue. Why, because it's cheap to talk, and while the talking is going on, combat doesn't really escalate, and because doing more than talking is very expensive. Were an ideal solution to be achieved, it would be tossing out both Assad and the rebels and putting in some third party that the rest of the world can tolerate but that isn't seen as a somebody else's puppet.

Originally Posted by mob17

I'm actually happy and proud that for the first time in over 200 years Parliament rejected military action, and looks like they actually are representing the British public on this issue. Gives me hope....

I'm glad the UK opted not to take military action in Syria. I hope that's a position they won't be forced to reverse. I'm glad of it because it's at least an honest position. It recognizes that there's no real value to taking military action. Despite the selfish nature of the American state I've indicated above, the fact is that the Brits are only slightly less selfish as a nation. (I'm not referring to any individuals, it's strictly about the state and it's objectives that I speak.) What's different for the Brits is their Prime Minister didn't draw a line in the sand like Obama did. Thus the Brits don't need to engineer something to let them just say no.



Below are the statements from the OP that I altered in the quoted sections above:

Originally Posted by mob17

Lets turn this around for a second people. Say a Muslim nation got evidence that the UK used chemical weapons in Iraq, which they did and have admitted to. ...

The US are just bullies that can literally get away with murder because they are too powerful. ...

[rsmallwo]

Its a sad day when the french are ready to take action and the UK isn't. If chemical weapons are used again on this large scale in Syria, on all your anti-interventionist heads be it. I just really hope that I'm wrong

[mob17]

Thanks for the history lesson tony. You're obviously quite a patriotic person, and i understand why you want to defend your country. You are quite clever in your response, which didn't really answer my questions. Instead you diverted away to how the US is this amazing country and whatever they do is for the good. Are you a politician? Or perhaps you've been fed these lies by the Government and you actually believe it.

Also good job policing the grammar. We need more grammar police like you on the forum, a vital role.

[mob17]

Originally Posted by rsmallwo

Its a sad day when the french are ready to take action and the UK isn't. If chemical weapons are used again on this large scale in Syria, on all your anti-interventionist heads be it. I just really hope that I'm wrong

Yeah but if we start bombing the crap out of them then thats really going to make things better!! If in doubt, press the big red button!

Chemical weapons are used in Israel illegally, in an area with one of the highest population density in the world. The media does a VERY good job of keeping that out of the news and not seem that important, but will put the Syria news in your face. Can't you see this? You're being made to feel bad for Syria and wanting to attack, but in Israel's case you just don't care?

[mob17]

Specially for you tony:

You can be proud of your country but not of your Government. It is allowed.

[mob17]

Israel bombarding a SCHOOL with white phosphorous grenades http://www.sott.net/article/192069-I...chool-children

USA: But hey the Israelis are our best buddies so fuck it let them do what they want! But anyone else gets fucked hard!

Does anyone see my point yet.

[Hotcoupe]

Originally Posted by mob17

Does anyone see my point yet.

I think most people see your point Mob, but if there's any doubt:

If there's no oil (or in Syria's case, not much) its all about location,location,location.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by mob17

Thanks for the history lesson tony. You're obviously quite a patriotic person, and i understand why you want to defend your country. You are quite clever in your response, which didn't really answer my questions. Instead you diverted away to how the US is this amazing country and whatever they do is for the good. Are you a politician? Or perhaps you've been fed these lies by the Government and you actually believe it.

Also good job policing the grammar. We need more grammar police like you on the forum, a vital role.

Your response above is surprising to me inasmuch as I agree with you regarding not taking action in Syria. What I don't agree with is your vilifying the US by saying there is a "dark agenda" afoot. I don't agree that the US agenda is dark, obscured, clandestine or anything but plain and in the open. Where there's financial gain to be had, the US will act. Where there isn't, the US won't act. The facts of history show that there's nothing new about that; it's been that way since the US was created. I didn't at all say that the decisions the US' leadership made in the past are good, and I didn't say I think more recent ones are good. I merely offered a rebuttal tot he idea of there being some dark agenda.

So I have shared why I believe the US government should not act and I have offered my thoughts on why the UK is not planning to act. I ask now why, in your opinion, do you think the UK decided not to pursue a military response?

Red Text: The question you asked is how would we feel were we invaded under the auspices of punishment or police action. I assume you already read post 25 in which I essentially shared my point of view on that. As I said before (post 25), my opinion is:

Originally Posted by tony20009

Despots, tyrants and regimes that massacre their own people are as despicable as it gets, IMO. However, when that is the action of a sovereign government within it's own country...The fact is that so long as there is no evidence that Syria is committing these heinous acts against its own people, the rest of the world needs to leave them alone.
...
As for where Obama is taking the Syria issue, I cannot help but think he's barking up the wrong tree portending military action. ... Leadership is about taking folks in a direction that is the best direction and in their long and short term interests. Sometimes it means acting, but it can also mean knowing when not to act.

Blue text: No, I'm not a politician.

Green text: I think you are being a bit patronizing with your remark, but maybe you aren't. I don't know. That sort of thing doesn't come through all that well in writing.

I changed "that" to "who" to reflect the fact that my interpretation of your comment is that you meant the people running the show, and perhaps also influential citizens. If you did indeed mean individual people and did mean an institution or something functioning as governments sometimes do on inertia and/or "auto pilot," fine. My interpretation was wrong.

[phil200tdi]

The coalition are all for "humanitarianism" when there is a financial gain or relatively low military risk. The fact that 100,000 people have died and 1M displaced had largely gone ignored. Obama made a mistake by saying there was a line which shouldn't be crossed, it's forcing his hand. Now he's looking to back track by getting congressional sign off - or not more likely!!

It doesn't mean that something doesn't need to be done! It does as it was in the balkans, sierra leone etc.

Do you think anyone is silly enough to fuck with the Israelis over the West Bank, Chinese with their appalling human right record or Russia with Chechnya/Georgia? These nations are highly capable militarily and would cause significant damage to the economy worldwide.

A few airstrikes over Libya were enough to tip the balance, I think some were hoping Syria to be as easy....

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by phil200tdi

The coalition are all for "humanitarianism" when there is a financial gain or relatively low military risk. The fact that 100,000 people have died and 1M displaced had largely gone ignored. Obama made a mistake by saying there was a line which shouldn't be crossed, it's forcing his hand. Now he's looking to back track by getting congressional sign off - or not more likely!!

It doesn't mean that something doesn't need to be done! It does as it was in the balkans, sierra leone etc.

Do you think anyone is silly enough to fuck with the Israelis over the West Bank, Chinese with their appalling human right record or Russia with Chechnya/Georgia? These nations are highly capable militarily and would cause significant damage to the economy worldwide.

A few airstrikes over Libya were enough to tip the balance, I think some were hoping Syria to be as easy....

Libya offered the prospect that the group taking power would form a democratic government. So that meant/means there is some prospect of there being a political benefit to having done so and there's some small economic gain to be had as well. Africa being a continent with no shortage of countries near anarchy, despots, tyrants and madmen running the show, even small inroads toward establishing a foothold of stability is worth pursuing. Plus the whole continent is rich in natural resources.

Syria is a case of one group that doesn't like the US/UK vs. another group that doesn't like the US/UK, and there's no economic value to accrue as a result of taking action. The more of your enemies that your other enemies vanquish is probably not a bad thing to just let happen. If the conflict starts to spill over to other areas, there might then be a case for doing something.

[Vaheed1]

For anyone who still think the JewSA and Israeli Zionists have nothing to do with all this:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09...els-into-gaza/

[mob17]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Libya offered the prospect that the group taking power would form a democratic government. So that meant/means there is some prospect of there being a political benefit to having done so and there's some small economic gain to be had as well. Africa being a continent with no shortage of countries near anarchy, despots, tyrants and madmen running the show, even small inroads toward establishing a foothold of stability is worth pursuing. Plus the whole continent is rich in natural resources.

I find it amusing you think Africa harbours tyrants but the US are a helpful force! Because they did a great job with Afghanistan and Iraq didn't they. Don't you guys see why they put in Obama as a president? So the public would be more willing to trust him when going into Africa. This has all been planned and excecuted by the US Government.

Guantanomo Bay is one of the most ridiculous and illegal acts of the US, yet nothing is being done. Inmates are being held and tortured for decades. One of Obama's campaign promises was to close Guantanamo Bay. Does this really sound like a Government you can trust? Sounds like madmen and a tyrant to me.

Britain sold chemical weapons to Syria:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk...micals-2242520

This really does sound barbaric to me: http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile...14880d76b3e39c

http://www.theguardian.com/world/sho...emical-weapons

And don't even get me started on Israel. Obviously the US won't fuck with them because most of the US lobbyists/senators are Jewish. I find it quite ironic that the Jews who were tortured by the Nazis are now doing the same to the Palestinians.

I also find it disgusting that nothing is being done about Guantanomo Bay and Palestine. I find it even more disgusting when people claim the US are a positive force in this world. They are simply parasites feeding on other countries, no matter what the consequences are. They cleverly use the mainstream media (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...103349413.html) and propaganda to legitimise their actions.

It will only work up to a certain point and i'm sure one day the truth will come out and more people will see whats happening.