Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

can we really afford to keep letting our governments create wars indefinitely??

Options
  • 26-08-2013 11:04am
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭


    so, as our western "leaders" throw shapes like the corrupted evil bastards they are, we have to take some of the blame for their actions as we are the ones allowing those we voted for, the free reign to get away with these devastating acts of terrorism while fighting an imaginary war on terror they fcuking well created.

    what is the UN got to do with anything, hilary clinton spied on the whole organisation for her overlords, the yanks have been proven to have done so again recently through the NSA spying network! we've had endless proof that the reasons for going to war are dishonest time and time again, evidence of false flags, patsies, arming both sides, using black ops to stir **** up on the ground etc and all this is happening under our watch! shame we've let things slip so far and somehow we're happy to watch it keep getting worse and worse :( think Iraq, afghanistan and the saviours of democracy protecting the poppies that provide 90% of the worlds street heroin, think Libya, Egypt, for more just google!!

    http://rt.com/news/uk-response-without-un-backing-979/

    A response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria is possible without the unanimous consent of the UN Security Council, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has said.

    “I would argue yes it is, otherwise it might be impossible to respond to such outrages, such crimes, and I don't think that's an acceptable situation," Hague said on BBC radio, when asked whether it would be possible to respond to the use of chemical weapons without the backing of the UN Security Council.

    Meanwhile, Britain’s Royal Navy is reportedly moving ships into place for a possible strike with the US on Syria in the next few days.

    Citing government sources, British daily The Telegraph wrote that as military commanders were discussing a list of potential targets, the Royal Navy is deploying vessels for a series of cruise missile strikes on Syria.

    Since last week’s chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburb that left over 300 civilians dead, political rhetoric has been building against President Bashar Assad, alleging the regime carried out the attack against its own citizens. On Sunday, Britain added its voice to the chorus of countries urging for intervention in Syria.

    Foreign Secretary William Hague condemned the Assad regime, stating that “all the evidence points in one direction.”

    "We cannot, in the 21st century, allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity, that people can be killed in this way, and there are no consequences for it," he said.

    Branding Assad a dictator, Hague stressed a “strong response” was essential in light of the use of chemical weapons to “slaughter” Syrian citizens. British Prime Minister David Cameron has also chosen to cut short his summer break and return to the UK to chair a Security Council meeting on Tuesday.

    Syrian President Bashar Assad responded to the calls for an international reaction to the chemical attack, warning that any international intervention in Syria would end in failure.

    "The comments [accusing the regime of using chemical weapons] made by politicians in the West and other countries are an insult to common sense... It is nonsense," Assad said, adding the accusations were completely “political.”

    Russia also urged caution, calling on Washington to avoid “repeating past mistakes.”

    “All of this makes one recall the events that happened 10 years ago, when, using false information about Iraqis having weapons of mass destruction, the US bypassed the United Nations and started a scheme whose consequences are well known to everyone,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

    Moscow has also said a UN investigation into last Wednesday’s attack is of paramount importance and it was essential that its results were not influenced before time.

    A team of UN experts arrived at the site of the attack on Monday in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, however doubts have already been raised over the validity of an investigation.

    Washington has already alleged that an investigation would be “too late to be credible.” The British government echoed the US, stating that valuable evidence could have been destroyed in subsequent bombing of the area or tampered with.

    "The fact is that much of the evidence could have been destroyed by that artillery bombardment. Other evidence could have degraded over the last few days and other evidence could have been tampered with," Hague told reporters on Saturday.

    The toxic gas attack in Ghouta triggered a wave of media hysteria with mixed reports alleging that thousands had been killed. On Saturday, French charity Medcins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) said that 355 people had died and over a thousand were exhibiting systems related to neurotoxic poisoning. However, the non-profit organization said it was impossible to discern who was behind the attack.


Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    so, as our western "leaders" throw shapes like the corrupted evil bastards they are, we have to take some of the blame for their actions as we are the ones allowing those we voted for, the free reign to get away with these devastating acts of terrorism while fighting an imaginary war on terror they fcuking well created.

    I knew we never should have sanctioned that confrontational stance on Rockall. :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    British
    British
    British

    We?


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    What political parties can the people of Britain and the USA vote for who wont go to war?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    We?

    so just cos we're Irish we don't get to protest about moves our closest neighbour is making that will effect us when missiles come raining down on the UK someday??

    you do know we're sending our own lads out to Syria today and we allow rendition flights and worse through shannon airport??

    the whole planet is one, i recognise no borders anymore!


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    the whole planet is one, i recognise no borders anymore!

    Still have to pay your taxes though.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    you do know we're sending our own lads out to Syria today

    As part of a UN peacekeeping mission. We're hardly sending in an invasion force.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,945 ✭✭✭✭McDermotX


    .....i recognise no borders anymore!

    Said Saddam Hussein


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭Raging_Ninja


    British and American actions have nothing to do with me or the Irish government.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    What political parties can the people of Britain and the USA vote for who wont go to war?

    none until they stand up for themselves on a scale that has never happened before, until then do you think the way we're headed the respective "leaders" will just turn around someday and say something like, "we've decided amongst ourselves to come clean and cut the cr4p so here we are now you're new uncorruptable government"

    the whole world needs to stand together to stop these crazy decisions/war games etc! where is our red line??


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    I KNEW I shouldn't have signed for that last war, but it looked so delicious.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    British and American actions have nothing to do with me or the Irish government.

    and what's that supposed to mean exactly?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    Still have to pay your taxes though.

    who says so?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    As part of a UN peacekeeping mission. We're hardly sending in an invasion force.

    how do you know the Irish rangers aren't getting involved upon request from their overlords?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    so, as our western "leaders" throw shapes like the corrupted evil bastards they are, we have to take some of the blame for their actions as we are the ones allowing those we voted for, the free reign to get away with these devastating acts of terrorism while fighting an imaginary war on terror they fcuking well created.

    what is the UN got to do with anything, hilary clinton spied on the whole organisation for her overlords, the yanks have been proven to have done so again recently through the NSA spying network! we've had endless proof that the reasons for going to war are dishonest time and time again, evidence of false flags, patsies, arming both sides, using black ops to stir **** up on the ground etc and all this is happening under our watch! shame we've let things slip so far and somehow we're happy to watch it keep getting worse and worse :( think Iraq, afghanistan and the saviours of democracy protecting the poppies that provide 90% of the worlds street heroin, think Libya, Egypt, for more just google!!

    http://rt.com/news/uk-response-without-un-backing-979/

    A response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria is possible without the unanimous consent of the UN Security Council, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has said.

    “I would argue yes it is, otherwise it might be impossible to respond to such outrages, such crimes, and I don't think that's an acceptable situation," Hague said on BBC radio, when asked whether it would be possible to respond to the use of chemical weapons without the backing of the UN Security Council.

    Meanwhile, Britain’s Royal Navy is reportedly moving ships into place for a possible strike with the US on Syria in the next few days.

    Citing government sources, British daily The Telegraph wrote that as military commanders were discussing a list of potential targets, the Royal Navy is deploying vessels for a series of cruise missile strikes on Syria.

    Since last week’s chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburb that left over 300 civilians dead, political rhetoric has been building against President Bashar Assad, alleging the regime carried out the attack against its own citizens. On Sunday, Britain added its voice to the chorus of countries urging for intervention in Syria.

    Foreign Secretary William Hague condemned the Assad regime, stating that “all the evidence points in one direction.”

    "We cannot, in the 21st century, allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity, that people can be killed in this way, and there are no consequences for it," he said.

    Branding Assad a dictator, Hague stressed a “strong response” was essential in light of the use of chemical weapons to “slaughter” Syrian citizens. British Prime Minister David Cameron has also chosen to cut short his summer break and return to the UK to chair a Security Council meeting on Tuesday.

    Syrian President Bashar Assad responded to the calls for an international reaction to the chemical attack, warning that any international intervention in Syria would end in failure.

    "The comments [accusing the regime of using chemical weapons] made by politicians in the West and other countries are an insult to common sense... It is nonsense," Assad said, adding the accusations were completely “political.”

    Russia also urged caution, calling on Washington to avoid “repeating past mistakes.”

    “All of this makes one recall the events that happened 10 years ago, when, using false information about Iraqis having weapons of mass destruction, the US bypassed the United Nations and started a scheme whose consequences are well known to everyone,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

    Moscow has also said a UN investigation into last Wednesday’s attack is of paramount importance and it was essential that its results were not influenced before time.

    A team of UN experts arrived at the site of the attack on Monday in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, however doubts have already been raised over the validity of an investigation.

    Washington has already alleged that an investigation would be “too late to be credible.” The British government echoed the US, stating that valuable evidence could have been destroyed in subsequent bombing of the area or tampered with.

    "The fact is that much of the evidence could have been destroyed by that artillery bombardment. Other evidence could have degraded over the last few days and other evidence could have been tampered with," Hague told reporters on Saturday.

    The toxic gas attack in Ghouta triggered a wave of media hysteria with mixed reports alleging that thousands had been killed. On Saturday, French charity Medcins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) said that 355 people had died and over a thousand were exhibiting systems related to neurotoxic poisoning. However, the non-profit organization said it was impossible to discern who was behind the attack.

    TLDR
    Start a blog ffs!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby



    the whole planet is one, i recognise no borders anymore!

    Try crossing some and see how far you get:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 783 ✭✭✭HerrScheisse


    Why get involved at all?

    The choice between a dictatorial regime allied to Iran, that destabilises Lebanon, and several years ago was struck by Israel for working on a secret reactor, or a ragtag bunch of factions drawn from fundamendalist groupings worldwide and loosely allied to Al Qaeda.

    Seems lose-lose to me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    who says so?

    The UN, obviously.
    Otherwise they'll war on you good!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    Why get involved at all?

    The choice between a dictatorial regime allied to Iran, that destabilises Lebanon, and several years ago was struck by Israel for working on a secret reactor, or a ragtag bunch of factions drawn from fundamendalist groupings worldwide and loosely allied to Al Qaeda.

    Seems lose-lose to me.

    oh right, the same al-CIAda the yanks were killed by in benghazi after arming them amd trying to get the weapons back from them after!? hilary and obama are up to their tits in trouble over that! west is backing/arming the same people they're hunting for!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    Try crossing some and see how far you get:D

    you keep thinking the way you're thinking and see how far you get buddy ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    you keep thinking the way you're thinking and see how far you get buddy ;)

    Well, I'm off to Italy in 2 weeks. You use your methods and I'll use mine and I'll see you there?




    The answer is no. I won't.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭Mr Benevolent


    OUR governments? Ireland doesn't start wars. Nothing to do with us, OP.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,973 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    The Syria civil war has been going for years now, and the "West" hasn't exactly been eager to get involved to date, have they? Even now, they're still at the "righteous indignation" phase, making hyperbolic statements that won't necessarily translate in to policy.

    A new BBC piece puts it like this:
    But at least an appearance of regime willingness to co-operate may for the moment let the US and its allies off the hook.

    For one of the other elements that has become clearer than ever in the past few days is the great reluctance of President Barack Obama and others to plunge into an embroilment that would be hard to get out of, and which would carry a very high risk of aggravating the situation even further.

    For the West, an almost irresistible sentiment that something has to be done is colliding with the reality that there is no course of action that is attractive or even acceptable in terms of that risk.

    Mr Obama also knows that his own public does not want another costly, open-ended adventure in the Middle East.
    The Syrian civil war is between (a) a despotic dictator who represents a small minority of Syrians and may have used chemical weapons on his own people, and (b) Islamist militants backed by Iran and (possibly) Saudi Arabia, who want to turn Syria in to an Sharia theocracy on Israel's border. Some choice. :rolleyes:

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭Raging_Ninja


    and what's that supposed to mean exactly?

    You are trying to make me and others collectively responsible for the actions of foreign powers. Apparently because we are westerners.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    But doesnt the old heart of the earth need to be renewed by the red wine of the battle fields ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    bnt wrote: »

    The Syrian civil war is between (a) a despotic dictator who represents a small minority of Syrians and may have used chemical weapons on his own people, and (b) Islamist militants backed by Iran and (possibly) Saudi Arabia, who want to turn Syria in to an Sharia theocracy on Israel's border. Some choice. :rolleyes:

    yikes, most certainly not backed by Iran

    a) Assad is backed by Iran

    b) rebels under the rough umbrella of the FSA, defected units from the Syrian military formed in around July 2011

    c) Various jihadists from a wide range of groups

    d) Hezbollah, backing Assad

    b and c are fighting against a (and d) for different reasons

    It then gets a whole lot more complicated when we break down the various groups


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    bnt wrote: »
    The Syria civil war has been going for years now, and the "West" hasn't exactly been eager to get involved to date, have they? Even now, they're still at the "righteous indignation" phase, making hyperbolic statements that won't necessarily translate in to policy.

    A new BBC piece puts it like this:


    The Syrian civil war is between (a) a despotic dictator who represents a small minority of Syrians and may have used chemical weapons on his own people, and (b) Islamist militants backed by Iran and (possibly) Saudi Arabia, who want to turn Syria in to an Sharia theocracy on Israel's border. Some choice. :rolleyes:

    As another poster noted, Iran backs Assad (yes, Iran and Sunni Islamic extremists like al Qaeda hate each other). However, Saudi Arabia are more likely than not to be in there backing up the Sunni rebels. Saudi Arabia's regime is the biggest state sponsor of 'Islamic' terrorism in the world, something that is politely ignored by the West!

    Both sides in the war are not good but the al Qaeda are far, far worse than Assad ever was that is for sure. An al Qaeda dominated Talibanistic state bordering already volatile Israel, Lebanon and Iraq would foment untoward chaos in the region that could also impact on other states as well such as Jordan.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    I think the only good outcome from the Iraq war (which created chaos in that country and lead to the biggest recession since 1929) is that it makes the West think before they go to war again.

    Bush's government had this plan in their heads to ditch the Taliban out of Afghanistan (admittedly, deservedly) and then get rid of Saddam and then take out others. If Iraq did not turn into the mess it did, Bush could have taken out others like North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya, Cuba and Burma within a 3 year period. Thankfully, he didn't.

    None of the Western lead wars in the Middle East have solved one issue. They only created more and more chaos, problems and mistrust. Would Syria or Egypt be any different if the US entered their conflicts? It would make thing worse.

    We were all raised on the anti-Saddam propaganda and lead to believe that Saddam actually had an army and arsenal of weapons that could start WW3!! If Saddam had such weapons and power, the West would never attack him. They knew he had a poorly equipped army so that's why they attacked him. It is time for all this propaganda about exaggerating the 'dangers' of some country to justify war on it to stop.

    With Iran becoming more moderate and Syria too bogged down in its own conflict, no doubt someone else will have to come in to replace them as the Westerners' bogeyman? Saudi Arabia fits the bill as a dangerous influence more than anyone but you will never see these being denounced! Instead, it will be someone like North Korea that will be seen as propping up 'Islamic terrorism' despite it not even being a Muslim country!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    so just cos we're Irish we don't get to protest about moves our closest neighbour is making that will effect us when missiles come raining down on the UK someday??

    Sounds good to me, first we let the Arabs soften the Brits up with missiles, then we invade through Holyhead!

    Fvck Yeah!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Rubeter


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Sounds good to me, first we let the Arabs soften the Brits up with missiles, then we invade through Holyhead!

    Fvck Yeah!!!
    That expression always gives me the image of "softening up enemy troops" in the same way a meat grinder softens up a steak.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,451 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    All modern wars are a capitalist conspiracy of the millinery industrial complex and right wing politicians :P ( think that's how it goes anyway )


Advertisement