It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
barwars47
reply to post by DirtyD
As a Brit you're welcome.
We do need to intervene with Syria. We need to save all the poor innocent souls that are dying in their senseless civil war. However, hurriedly flinging a few missiles in their direction was never the answer, forcing the powers that be to have to talk about things first may result in a much better solution.
For once, democracy seems to be working.
GuardianX
I'm British myself.. unfortunately..!
To be honest I'm proud of our nation too, the way the people all stood in the wake of the crap were facing with politics and government idiocracy..
And rightly so the US voted in a very similar fashion..
The powers that be now have to face the people speaking..and not just in 'the individual..'
I'm not damning the government or whoever- by any means- they do a great job in many respects, and it cannot be the easiest of tasks- I would imagine..
But, soldiers are there to correct the problems the diplomats and politicians cause..
More war to stop war is pretty idiotic IMO.. (In 'masses' opinion)
But, fact is that it is a war that does not involve us- and if it does involve us then there are other reasons for why we are there..(ie -oil etc..)
Can it be..? The people are free..!?
Shiloh7
reply to post by DirtyD
It is very kind of you to thank the UK. The vote was taken and for once the voice of the people ruled. This happened because of a concerted effort of people ringing or speaking to their MPs to say NO, you don't leap off to any more wars.
Cameron had desperately wanted to get into Syria but not the people. These wars seem to be about a group wanting to consolidate their hold on the ME and to keep all economies linked to oil, nothing more.
Had the U.K. rubber stamped military action in Syria, John Kerry would have never had a chance to make a fool of his Herman Munster head in front of Congress, the Tom Cruise missiles would already be sailing through Damascus doorways, laying waste to one of the oldest cities on the planet and paving the way to WW3
Variable
reply to post by DirtyD
Had the U.K. rubber stamped military action in Syria, John Kerry would have never had a chance to make a fool of his Herman Munster head in front of Congress, the Tom Cruise missiles would already be sailing through Damascus doorways, laying waste to one of the oldest cities on the planet and paving the way to WW3
That is a massive assumption with nothing at all to back it up. First of all, the US has never had a problem bombing/attacking anyone AND going it alone. Secondly, i don't buy Obama was ever going to attack. I think there was too much aggressive rhetoric and grandstanding. There seemed to be a whole lot of pumped up chest and yelling " I'm gonna kick yo ass!" but a decided lack of the ass kicking proper, if you will.
If he did attack, i think Obama would have done the bare minimum Clinton style attack - i.e. empty buildings, that sort of thing.
I seriously don't think America's leadership gives a rats ass what anyone else thinks, IF it thinks, it is Right and Just in the actions it is contemplating. Our President has a lot of flexibility when it comes to military action. He can swing his Presidential "unit of power" around all he wants for a few months. Now, would it have been better to have the Brits with us, of course. Hell Obama would love to have as many people on the band- wagon as he could, so as to provide some sort of legitimacy to his left wing Obamanites.
However, make no mistake, if push came to shove the US would certainly go it alone. Believe dat!
Vedit on 9/12/2013 by Variable because: commas