SA against Syria strike: Zuma

James

James

MyGaming Alumnus
attachment.php


South African President Jacob Zuma hit out at what it called "dangerous rhetoric" concerning possible strikes against Syria and warned any military action must have United Nations backing.

"We are concerned by the rhetoric pointing to the possibility of a military intervention," said Zuma while condemning "the chemical weapons attack" in Damascus.

"South Africa does not believe that bombing the already suffering people and crumbling...read more here: SA against Syria strike: Zuma
 
I am not sure about this. One I think that they should retaliate because of the use of chemical weapons but now Syria has threatened Israel if they do.
 
korn1 said:
I am not sure about this. One I think that they should retaliate because of the use of chemical weapons but now Syria has threatened Israel if they do.
Click to expand...

They don't have chemical weapons and they never had. Even if their use is supposedly "recorded" it could just as well be staged by USA. They are just looking for another reason to invade Syria for their oil, and because Syria is one of the few countries opposed to them. And as for Israel - Syria doesn't stand a chance.
 
Lyt said:
They don't have chemical weapons and they never had. Even if their use is supposedly "recorded" it could just as well be staged by USA. They are just looking for another reason to invade Syria for their oil, and because Syria is one of the few countries opposed to them. And as for Israel - Syria doesn't stand a chance.
Click to expand...

I strongly diasgree with you that they never used chemical weapons. The president is desperate and I doubt the US are involved because of oil (but you never know) + I also remember the US not wanting to get involved in the first place. Syria is not the only country that will attack Israel though...those other shythole Arab countries will also. So a lot is at stake here .
 
korn1 said:
I strongly diasgree with you that they never used chemical weapons. The president is desperate and I doubt the US are involved because of oil (but you never know) + I also remember the US not wanting to get involved in the first place. Syria is not the only country that will attack Israel though...those other shythole Arab countries will also. So a lot is at stake here .
Click to expand...

History counts against the UN and the USA as the WMDs never existed. Even if they find evidence of chemical weapons, who used them may be difficult to prove.
 
korn1 said:
I strongly diasgree with you that they never used chemical weapons. .
Click to expand...
Assad said so himself...nowhere were chemical weapons used, and there is zero evidence. Funny enough, all the USA bitch-papers report otherwise. First they make accusations - and only then do they start collecting evidence. When the UN is given permission by the Syrian government to come and investigate guess what they do? They don't come because apparently it's too late now.

I doubt the US are involved because of oil (but you never know)
Click to expand...

Lolwut, joke of the century. That is exactly why they want to get involved. US will do nothing unless fat profit is involved.

I also remember the US not wanting to get involved in the first place
Click to expand...
Of course, why would they? First they have to arm the rebels - sell their guns to them, make money. That's why you see so many rebel monkeys running around with US made weapons - just like Russia is supplying Assad's forces. The difference is, Russia can't afford to get involved, so the US have the country all to themselves. What's a couple of thousands soldiers' deaths compared to billions they will make out of the oil.

Syria is not the only country that will attack Israel though...those other shythole Arab countries will also. So a lot is at stake here .
Click to expand...

Syria's only traditional allies are Russia and Iran. Russia will never get involved, as I said before. The US have been itching to get their hands on Iran, so a strike against Israel will be very very beneficial to them. Israel has a monster of a military for such a small country...they have been involved in so many conflicts, they are funded by the US, and have a huge defense budget for arms development. IMO Israel is the last country Syria should be picking on.
 
America doesn't want to invade, Obama keeps backing away from his lines in the sand, he has no interest in fighting another war.
It looks like your confusing the Bush and Obama administrations here. America lost to much money to the Afgans, that's why they are training the locals so they can retreat and save some cash.
 
James said:
(I deleted the pic of that smug looking #######)

South African President Jacob Zuma hit out at what it called "dangerous rhetoric" concerning possible strikes against Syria and warned any military action must have United Nations backing.

"We are concerned by the rhetoric pointing to the possibility of a military intervention," said Zuma while condemning "the chemical weapons attack" in Damascus.

"South Africa does not believe that bombing the already suffering people and crumbling...read more here: SA against Syria strike: Zuma
Click to expand...

When will we get through to the Prez that he only speaks for himself, the Gupta's and his other minions. I despise and detest his constant generalisations. Besides, he doesn't have the ability to speak out in any way shape or form against his chums, the Russians and Chinese. :mad:

korn1 said:
I am not sure about this. One I think that they should retaliate because of the use of chemical weapons but now Syria has threatened Israel if they do.
Click to expand...

Iran is also threatening to go after Israel if Syria is targeted. Cowards!
 
It was a false flag attack read a leaked document months ago detialing the attack. The americans want to send troops. Best way to do it have a chemical attack.

A false flag attack is the most effective way to start a war. Been happening since ww2 or even before.
 
The hassle for the Americans is that Russia has a Naval port in Syria and it gives them a presence in the Mediterranean. Anything near the Russian doorstep could stir up a lot more than a bit of handbags being thrown around.
 
McT said:
The hassle for the Americans is that Russia has a Naval port in Syria and it gives them a presence in the Mediterranean. Anything near the Russian doorstep could stir up a lot more than a bit of handbags being thrown around.
Click to expand...

I think they want to start a huge war. Americas economy is war based.
 
Tsar said:
I think they want to start a huge war. Americas economy is war based.
Click to expand...

Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if it's their motive. Emerging markets' economies will take a pounding. Oil will spike and rand will lose strength big time.
 
Actually I don't know anything much about this :p Too many theories :D Lets just say they had proof that the Syrian government did use chemical weapons...would you guys support other countries to intervene or not?
 
korn1 said:
Actually I don't know anything much about this :p Too many theories :D Lets just say they had proof that the Syrian government did use chemical weapons...would you guys support other countries to intervene or not?
Click to expand...

No one wins in a war, so I don't support military intervention.
 
McT said:
Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if it's their motive. Emerging markets' economies will take a pounding. Oil will spike and rand will lose strength big time.
Click to expand...

They want to destroy countries economies. This might sound crazy but they pushing for the new world order. Now think about it. Back in the day before countries where united they had tribes so its a natural process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top