A question to our frineds from USA and Europe. Does your tv show the acts in Syria? Do you see how your journalists are in the hot points as Allepo and Damask

Over here in the UK we have regular reports almost every day on the TV news about what is happening in Syria.

It appears that Assad has lost control of the North East of his country where the Kurdish people who live haven taken power.

It's interesting. In our tv I heard recently that the army of Syria controls almost all Syria except Allepo(they have 80% of the city)
Did you see the fights in Allepo, some news?
Our journalists showed us the things of terrorist. And this do you name the citizen army? It's the terrorists who are supported by NATO.

yeah. just like in Chechnya.)

It seems that Israel has now attacked a weapons convoy from Syria to Lebanon apperently to stop balance changing weapons from reaching Hizbullah. just 2 days ago the news agancies in Israel said the "Iron dome" defensive missiles were deployed here in the north including in Haifa. I wonder where this is going...


source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21264632

Lots of talk now that the west is going to start arming the rebels in Syria.

This must not be allowed to happen as if the Sunni Muslims take power they will create an Islamic state and persecute other religions.

We have already seen in Egypt how the Muslim brotherhood have made a bad situation even worse since they were elected to power.

At least Russia are not afraid to back Assad which should mean that he remains President however the fighting has to stop and all sides need to find a peaceful solution.

Do you think we should be backing Assad's regime then, Hams?

No.

We should be trying to get all sides in Syria to sit down to discuss peace.

If the UK and France decide to arm the rebels then Russia and China have the right to arm Assad.

Do we really want to see world war 3 break out in the middle east?

Here's a better idea - just let them all get on with it and stay well away from it all.

Steely, staying away from it all is a privilage not all countries have. Israel can not live with islamic radicals armed with long range missiles and chemical weapons right across the border.

Steely believes that every country should have access to any weapons system it chooses to have.

If the US and the UK can have nukes, why can't Syria?

Maybe I have misunderstood his position.

my position is very simple - if we feel we have the right to arm ourselves with nukes then we have no business dictating to other nations that they are unable to similarly arm themselves and threaten invasion if they ignore our hypocritical threat.

all nukes should be removed from the face of the Earth and then there would be justification in disarming rogue nations.

quite right.

however Israel is not the UK and we can 'stay away from it all'. Israel is more than capable of defending itself.

Though sound, surely, you don't think the issue is as simple as that. I wish we lived in a world where hypocrisy was a term not even invented but you're off in the land of the fairies with this one.

I just find it hard to actually believe you're "fair dinkum" about it mate.

so you think we're justified in dictating what weapons are developed by other nations while we have free reign to do as we please?

who makes the final call on this dictatorship? Britain? USA? NATO? Russia?

In the case of North Korea and Iran, yes, yes I do. This goes beyond pats on the back for passing a hypocrisy integrity test Steely.

All that is asked of both nations, first and foremost, is that they cease their Nuclear Weapons programs, that is all.

That was the same thing that was asked of Saddam. For all these years he played these games with the UN watching his people suffer and all he had to do was let the IAEA inspectors in to have a snoop around and he would still be snorting lines of coke off some Iraqi models a$$ up until this day.

What call? What dictatorship?

and on what basis should they listen to us telling them to cease their programmes? let's not forget that the only country to have ever used a nuke is one of the nations telling others to stop. it's laughable and, quite obviously, will not be taken seriously.

we've obviously learnt nothing from Saddam then have we if we're just doing the same thing.

go to war with those who want to arm themselves like we do and threaten them with the very weapons we forcefully prevent them from developing.

The international community is telling them to stop Steely. Only a few weeks ago, all the full members of the security council voted for even more harsh sanctions against North Korea. This includes Russia and China, the latter, is North Korea's only "friend" in the international community. The basis is quite simple. The devil we know is better than the one we don't.

We know that countries that currently possess nuclear weapons have strict protocols when it comes to use of such weapons. These weapons are secure, they are not being sold. We know that each of these countries are more or less stable democracies with more or less competent leaders. These countries have the necessary finances and know how store these weapons. These countries have structures in place to prevent a mad man nuking the planet and starting a nuclear war. We know the US, UK, Britain, and Israel have been involved in multiple wars and never once were nuclear weapons on the table as an instrument. Let's leave the WWII bombs out of this because Atomic bombs were new then and they had to be used, it happened.

We don't have that peace of mind when it comes to Iran and North Korea Steely. That's the difference.

and do Iran and North Korea have piece of mind from us and the Yanks?

Not when they are pursuing these programs. That's how it should be.