Syria, Iraq, and the Road To Hell

[Gryphonyx]

guess we're gonna have to go in alone. thanks for helping us spread freedom, britbongs.

i hope ur joking man usa is basically 1984, u have literally no freedom

1984 is s good read though

[alphacat]

guess we're gonna have to go in alone. thanks for helping us spread freedom, britbongs.

[karmacazee]

Thank god for that. But just wondering how Camoron will react to this defeat.

But the Americans are probably still going to wade in.

Been planning it for a while.

http://nsnbc.me/2013/08/28/u-s-war-plan ... ince-june/

Hmmm.....

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=12611

There are many reasons for this war, take your pick, European energy routes, warm water ports, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts...... and that is why this whole things is going to end predictably miserable.

[bennyfroobs]

guess we're gonna have to go in alone. thanks for helping us spread freedom, britbongs.

i hope ur joking man usa is basically 1984, u have literally no freedom

have u checked the freedom index USA is #1

haha whats the freedom index? sounds like phooey poops to me

anyhoo:
-police state
-no free media
-sopa (looool)
-cant peacefully protest without being gassed and beaten up
-can be imprisoned indefinitely w/o being charged or being told why ur in prison
-only 2 political parties who are basically rand by the same people

wery gut free country, definitely not a dictatorship in disguise

[mIrReN]

quite sure he is being sarcastic

[bennyfroobs]

im a retard

[test_recordings]

guess we're gonna have to go in alone. thanks for helping us spread freedom, britbongs.

i hope ur joking man usa is basically 1984, u have literally no freedom

have u checked the freedom index USA is #1

By Freedom House, by any chance? Neoliberal think tank used as a rubber stamp to invade other countries to dispense liberty by fire...

[test_recordings]

Just reading the first page and skipping ahead here, as people were posting that there was some dispute about the use of chemical weapons. The weapons were used by the FSA, moved through Benghazi, through Turkey, with the aid of Qatar. The planing documents for this action were leaked BEFORE the use of the weapons, and people STILL want to pretend like Assad is a mad killer and must be stopped for humanitarian reasons.

Got a source?

[Mr Hyde]

It's a bit predictable to go on about Western intervention being all about Oil or arms companies making money. Syria isn't even a big Oil producer, neither was Afghanistan or Bosnia, or Kosovo. I can't see the economic benefit in a country spending tax payers money on war to make money from arms deals. Syria is in a strategic position and looks like people might be interested in a proxy war to get power in the region though.

Seems more likely that as the war is dragging on the outside world is starting to worry that it might de-stabilise the whole region (as well as humanitarian reasons) and feels that intervention is needed. A bit like letting two people fight until you realise they're actually going to kill each other and cause more people to get involved, probably time to try and step in.

I think Camerons problem was there is no real evidence or plan- if Assad used chemical weapons then what plan was there to make hime stop him using them? Just shooting cruise missiles at Damascus as some sort of punishment isn't going to sort it out.

[nitz]

Altho i fully appreciate that using chemical weapons is a awful war crime, but it begs the question in 2011 when the regime shot citizens because they couldn't hack the rebels protesting, why did the world not call for help then? Is that as bad, if not worst than chemical weapons?

That's like if protesters in UK protested outside no.10 about poor living conditions for example, and the police just shot the protesters down.

[DRTY]

love it when shit like happens. Everyone seems to become a political expert.

EDIT: that sounds crude. I don't love it when regimes destroy their people lol, just seeing mongs who genuinely believe they have the answer

[MrBlack]

The liberator will always become the oppressor in the eyes of the people they wish to liberate.

My great grand kids will still be paying for the Iraq and afghan wars, we really don't need another. Could the British economy handle another war financially??

[nitz]

The liberator will always become the oppressor in the eyes of the people they wish to liberate.

My great grand kids will still be paying for the Iraq and afghan wars, we really don't need another. Could the British economy handle another war financially??

Probably not, inflation in the UK is bad. I'm glad the motion was rejected yesterday. A intervention is needed, but not a military one.

[trilldon]

love it when shit like happens. Everyone seems to become a political expert.

yh lol fucking bunch of retards

ukip seem like the only major party completely rejecting the idea of intervening big up to them imo





#b&again

[bennyfroobs]

It's a bit predictable to go on about Western intervention being all about Oil or arms companies making money. Syria isn't even a big Oil producer, neither was Afghanistan or Bosnia, or Kosovo. I can't see the economic benefit in a country spending tax payers money on war to make money from arms deals. Syria is in a strategic position and looks like people might be interested in a proxy war to get power in the region though.

Seems more likely that as the war is dragging on the outside world is starting to worry that it might de-stabilise the whole region (as well as humanitarian reasons) and feels that intervention is needed. A bit like letting two people fight until you realise they're actually going to kill each other and cause more people to get involved, probably time to try and step in.

I think Camerons problem was there is no real evidence or plan- if Assad used chemical weapons then what plan was there to make hime stop him using them? Just shooting cruise missiles at Damascus as some sort of punishment isn't going to sort it out.

afghanistan was a long time ago, times have changed. these days why would anyone from the west enter into a war that wasnt profitable for their country? doesnt have to be profitable in a financial sense, but still no one from the west is gonna enter a war theyre gonna loose money on. agree bout it being in a strategic psoition though. theres a lot of naughty proxy business going on

i doubt that the west are worried at all about it destabilising the whole region of the ME , since thats probably exactly what they want to happen

[test_recordings]

Syria is profitable for various reasons, Israeli security, oil pipelines etc. Why do you think the NATO have been chomping at the bit to dive in guns blazing?

I also wonder if UKIP would be so antiwar if they didn't think it was so popular

[bennyfroobs]

was that @me? cos im well aware that syria could be profitable :p

[orangeluva56]

ayy big up UKIP yall need to vote them into parliament and shit. that'll save ur country

[AllNightDayDream]

Some of you fail to see the big picture. If this was really about Syria and Assad, why has Russia and Iran been flexing its might? What interests are really at play here? Anyone with a cursory reading of the news knows how irrational and hypocritical this whole chemical weapons things is. We've been using them in Iraq and Israel has been using them in the gaza strip for years. Don't fool yourself into thinking this has anything to do with humanitarianism. That is all bullshit in the foreground. Cmon guys. You have watched in recent memory the worlds most legitimate super-power concoct a massive lie and pummel it through the media to wage one of the dumbest and ill-planned wars that served no public interest. Don't be this naive.

This is about Iran and the Shiite coalition in the middle east. Iran is notorious for hating Israel and supplying terrorist organizations with arms, funding, etc. for a while now. It is also the prime contender to be the middle easts' muslim superpower. Should Iran, say, attain nuclear power, it's nutsack quadruples in size and the Israeli-Saudi-American gangbang party controlling the region will become a lot less fun.

Look at a map of the middle east. Hezbollah, based in South Lebanon, is the annoying kid kicking at Israel's feet and occasionally firing an unguided rocket to land in an unpopulated park somewhere. Hezbollah is Shia. Assad is Shia. Iran is Shia. They are all fairly buddy-buddy. Iran has free access through Syria to give arms and logistics to Hezbollah to attack Israel, as well as the Mediterranean sea via Syria's ports. This is especially crucial since the west has been tightening it's stranglehold on Iran's economy.

Know that Saudi Arabia has been working with Israel to funnel arms (Including chemical weapons) and money, which may have originated in America, may have not, to the Syrian rebels, who are Sunni and more and more Salafist and hardcore Jihadist with every passing day. Saudi is the tentative muslim superpower with an impressive USA granted military nutsack. This makes Iran competition, and they have never had healthy relations. The Saudis have recently tried to coax Russia into abandoning Syria with oil. In fact it was Saudi Arabia that alerted the west about the chemical attack and urged for intervention.

The United States of Israel and its allies gain a few strategic advantages by tipping the war for the rebels:
Blocks off Iranian arms to Hezbollah, pleasing the kosher overlords
Restricts Iranian access to the sea
Pushes Iran to make a move, thus justifying military action against Iran, which our military has been itching to do for a while now. That seems to be the end-game.

[Laszlo]

^Who is being naive? Did you even read this thread before posting?? Or even this page? With the fairly big cartoon strip? Hmm? Ay??