British military chiefs are being ejected from US meetings about Syria

So the British have been asked to leave the secret briefing room because they would not join up to the next murderous killing campaign . So that just leaves the US and France and I would not want to bet my house on France turning up when the bombs start dropping. With their track record in wars they would be better off just hold the US's jacket.

I think the UK have made the right decision as we don't really want to fight shoulder to shoulder with Al Queda like the Americans seem to be preparing to do.

In fact of all the recent conflicts from Afghanistan to Libya this one against Syria is the most dangerous conflict to start. Who knows where it will lead and how it will end , Syria with strong allies incl Russia is no pushover and does have the ability to cause major damage in many ways.

Why not just leave Syria to clean up its own mess , civil war or no civil war, why should the whole world have to get involved (again)

This may just be one western gamble too much and unleash massive and unforeseen consequences the like the world has not seen for many a decade...!!!

Yes, the world is messed up. It looks like the U.K. has voted to remain neutral in what is going to become a pretty big war.

Originally posted by James1982
If they are not involved in the operation, what business do they have listening in on the planning?.

I agree. It's a common sense thing to keep them out of the meetings since their government
has declined to go along with the operation. I don't see a problem with this at all. It makes sense.

reply to post by TrueAmerican
There could be reason to believe they are mudding the waters. For example they are seriously trying to downgrade the effect and evolvement of the FSA as a contributing factor in the uprising.

Originally posted by Nedusa


Why not just leave Syria to clean up its own mess , civil war or no civil war, why should the whole world have to get involved (again)

At this point it looks like Syria may go for a final solution scenario if left to clean up its own mess.

Originally posted by Phage
Not only that.
You've heard that English muffins will now be called freedom muffins, right?ba dum dum...

You SO beat me to it!! Mind you, you'll also have to change the name of your language to 'Murican', eh?

Any country that says no to USA is regarded as an enemy, it happened to newzealand when they said no more bombs on their reefs, if I remember' .

Why should 'we' be involved in meetings about a military operation 'we' are not going to be involved in?

Maybe I would expect the US to keep the UK abreast of developments etc and any imminent intervention but there's no need to be involved in the nitty gritty of developing plans etc - I don't see any sort of insult in this at all.

reply to post by SupersonicSerpent

I hope the U.K and U.S fall out,it would be best for the U.K to build bridges with Germany and other EU countries,...

Many in the UK would disagree with you there, especially about having closer links with the EU - it's a discussion that is urgently required in the UK, sitting astride the fence is doing our country no good at all.

....the yanks just start one war after another.....

With all due respect please have even a casual look at European history - it's a non-stop catalogue of war upon war - people in glass houses and all that.

....come collect your trident missiles israel will be happy for a weapons arsenal increase.

They are 'OUR' missiles and I for one wish to keep them for the time being!

reply to post by woodwardjnr

I'm sure the US will still be happy to use any intel provided by SAS who are probably already on the ground in Syria. Maybe we should eject these forces and let American special forces take over.

I'm sure the SAS / SBS are there mate - should we pass intel on?
If it means reducing the risk of civilians being caught up in any 'collateral damage' then most definitely yes we should pass it on.

Other than that, I'm not sure.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Oh the classic if I can't play then I'm taking the ball home.

Oh children, fight nice yes?

Don't believe for one second that TPTB that govern the UK don't want a war with Syria, it's just on this occasion people have been keeping a close eye on David Cameron and Co. and a NO vote has basically put him in a tight corner. However I suspect he'll worm his way around it and drag us into it at a later stage one way or the other.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Huh? Cannot be trusted? You're kidding right? So because the British Parliament showed wisdom and restraint in saying no to war, all of sudden the British military's gotta go?

That's the Chicago way! If you're not with us you must be dealt with. Sad but true.

But wait a minute. What are British military doing in Tampa in the first place?

There are many foreign military members in US, just as there are US military members all over the globe. I don't read anything into it.

And wait a minute #2: Doesn't this imply that no matter what the US Congress says, Obama's going to proceed with the strikes anyways (as I believed)?

I don't think so. He would look tyrannical if he went without declaration after asking for it. But you notice he instantly went to the Hawks (McCain and Graham) for support. He's going to strong arm Congress into voting for war with the same old garbage; "If we don't do this we'll be in danger."

Meh!

Originally posted by SupersonicSerpent
I hope the U.K and U.S fall out,it would be best for the U.K to build bridges with Germany and other EU countries,the yanks just start one war after another there has not been a single year since the Vietnam war america have not been in conflict with another country,i think we have bombed enough civilians in the past decade to say ty for ww2 now we should go our separate ways come collect your trident missiles israel will be happy for a weapons arsenal increase.

Why ? i'd rather we left that burnt out failed socialist experiment. It costs us far too much. We still have more in common with America than we do with continental Europe

reply to post by Freeborn


im sure if it was the u.k leading the attack and congress voted against the u.s to go to war, we would not tell the u.s generals to piss off out of the war room,after all the joint attacks we have carried out in the last decade, we should be unconditionally trusted,with that said i am sort of glad now we should go piss spain off over Gibraltar and pretend we are busy.

reply to post by James1982

If they are not involved in the operation, what business do they have listening in on the planning?

No, I believe we know what this means....

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Huh? Cannot be trusted? You're kidding right? So because the British Parliament showed wisdom and restraint in saying no to war, all of sudden the British military's gotta go?

That's the Chicago way! If you're not with us you must me dealt with. Sad but true.

Bush was from Chicago? I had no idea!

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Bush didn't turn his back on our allies, did he?

If I remember correctly, Bush built a fairly substancial coalition of nations to attack Iraq.

I don't remember Bush stomping away like a baby when things didn't go his way.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I am moderately offended but can see there point, British corporation's have vast investments in Russia and vice versa so as the business of Britain has always been business and you can understand there point of view but unless our military chiefs are briefed perhaps we should withdraw the use of our air bases and take Diego Garcia back to give back to it's indigenous people eh since it is sovereign British territory and not covered by the same agreement as our navel bases in the Caribbean were.
I have always been pretty pro american but the america I used to like seem's to have died and this stranger is somebody I do not know, Let's be fair though without them I would now be munching on a sour kraut butty (Not bad with chips actually) or worse be called Hans.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Well lets be clear ..

Obama is very definitely going ahead with an attack and a large scale attack designed to cripple if not topple the Syrian government.

Let's also note that there is no UN mandate .... it will be an act of aggression against a sovereign state that has never fired a shot in anger at the US.

Under International law it is an Act of War without a Declaration ... just as heinous as the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan in 1941.

I think it is time the citizens of the US made their voices heard before it is too late .... I can tell you with absolute certainty that should the US break International law and attack Syria ... the first retaliatory strike will be the US Dollar ... the Debts of the US will be called in Gold or Silver ... US assets overseas will be seized in lieu of payments.

Naturally US military assets in the area will also become fair game and escalation will proceed at a pace that will spiral out of control.

Somebody has to stop this lunatic and soon ... very soon.

C..

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

If I remember correctly, Bush built a fairly substancial coalition of nations to attack Iraq.

Yup, and a real powerhouse assemblage it was aside from the Brits and the Aussies....and yerselves, of course.

Cameron went to the people over Syria and was told no. I expect our Steve to do the same if he feels somehow deluded into sending in our military. I see nothing wrong with Obama going to Congress for permission to step into yet another Middle Eastern turd.

This is only for the best, it is a powder keg we should stay away from anyway.

Staying out of wars never did Switzerland any harm. They are not despised or called "responsible" for the deaths caused by tyrants that they have no control over.

Im actually glad.