Sounds right to me Les.

I think we should invade North Korea first. The ordinary people there have been treated far worse and for far longer than they have in Syria.

Then we should invade China, and Russia, and most African states, and Iran, and Pakistan, and then Ireland (that last one's a joke, but I thought I ought to be inclusive.)

Or perhaps we should stand back and remember we're actually just a tiny, overcrowded island that used to have an empire 100 years ago, and consider whether an isolationist position (as per America prior to WW1) might just be a better option for the good of the people of THIS country, for a change.

What has happened in Syria is clearly terrible, but why isn't this being led by India or Canada or Belgium or Australia, or anywhere else, for once?

 

Excellent post. Those that believe it is our duty as they think we are a world superpower will be along soon to put you straight though

 

Cameron will do it if he can so that he can be even better mates with Obama. Just like that other prong who used to run the country when Kuwait was in danger.

Les

 

Sadly it does seem that way to me Les.

Good article on the UK politics of the situation:

Why Cameron buckled on Syria vote

He really isn't very good is he?

 

It's because of a little known agreement setup by 5 countries immediately after the Second World War.

 

No-I agree with you alright.

Les

 

I don't know why you want to invade Pakistan. You better off invading Birmingham

I agree that we should sort out Ireland once and for all. A simple message either fit on or jog on. Non of this north/south business.

Oh and isn't it wonderful that India is now officially more powerful than Britain. How ironic eh.

The best thing for Britain to do is to brown nose America because of we stop and they withdraw and support for us then we may as well be sitting ducks.

 

Since it’s unlikely that we’ll ever find out who used the chemical weapons the obvious thing I can think of is that rather than try get some UN mandate signed off to bomb the place, how about one where Syria has to hand over its chemical weapons to Russia (or China), as I can’t imagine they are too keen for them to fall in to extremists hands any more than we are.
If Russia and/or China refused that one, then they are effectively saying its okay to use them, whilst handing them over puts them out of use. Probably far too simple, but seems like a good idea to me 

 

Shaid, the average Brit will not be sitting ducks, the average Brit also won't be running anywhere

 

What's with all the inane drivel about invading anywhere? Even if this action against Syria does go ahead, I'll bet my next month's salary not a single regular US or UK soldier sets foot anywhere the place.

 

They said that about Vietnam, the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan, **** me, Hitler even said it about Poland

 

So tell me then... if absolutely no ground troops are to be involved how are they going to secure and remove the chemical weapons? By 'beaming them up'?

 

Yes, most blokes like to think that they are Arnoldmusclemanbruceleemuhanmedaliandimhard however the way things are going if Amercia ever let us go the world will be a big scarry place with a lot of people looking to bum us.

Remember we thought the Japs were going to be a pushover didn't we. How wrong were we then.

Basically stop the arrogance and accept what we are not what we were

 

You seem to be fixated with **** sex Shaid, is there something you want to say

 

Militarily, we are a world superpower.

btw, Syria has an interesting history as part of the Ottaman Empire, along with the rest of the middle east.

 

Fortunately, I recognise that I am the 'before' man having sand kicked in my face in the Charles Atlas adverts (anyone else old enough to remember them?), so I am immune from any potential urge to go and *** some kick (or something....)

If Mr Cameron can be made to feel likewise, we'll all be better off.

 

Quite

PS Yes I remember those ads

 

All that 'dynamic tension' seemed very exotic in those far off days.

 

Yes, I enjoy giving it. Next time give yourself a couple of wipes beforehand buddy

 

The UK government has just lost the vote on Syria in the Commons by 285 votes to 272.

 

So that should be that then. We're not getting involved. As has been said all along we've done our bit on the world policing front, time for someone else to have a go

 

The most likely action would be missile and/or air strikes against known command centers, air-bases and various other military targets, with the aim of disabling the regime's capacity to launch further chemical attacks. If boots on the ground are required for any of that, it would be solely for intelligence gathering and/or target verification.

Incidentally, have you developed a sudden allergy to using Google, or is it just that you can't be @rsed?

 

Why have a dog and bark yourself!

PS You're talking mainly nonsense about the whole intervention, the US has already stated that ultimately it wants to remove the chemical weapons not just prevent the Assad regime from being able to use them!

 

This is why we needed to wait!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Cameron and Obama were prepared for military action against Assad based on nothing more than what is essentially just a "gut" feeling that chemical weapons was deployed by Assad. A few months back we saw nothing from the UK or US to intervene when it was suggested that the rebels used sarin. Now Russia are sending in their warhips to the Med.

On a side note, UK are hosting an arms exhibition at the Excel in a couple of weeks time, the "intervention" would have provided a great demonstration of the products exhibited.

 

Just been listening to how damaging this whole affair has been for Cameron both domestically and on the world stage.

A double whammy so as to speak. We aren't going to get embroiled in another war we can't win and Cameron has been made to look an idiot

In my opinion if he had approached this with a more cautious attitude from the outset he may have got is way, but when he started saying that we needed to get straight on with it as the evidence was 'highly likely Assad had used chemical weapons' and then said we would ignore the UN if they didn't agree etc. etc. it was too much like Iraq WMD 45 mins all over again!

Fortunately this time parliament was not sucked in

 

I personally don't support any action against Syria, however I feel really uncomfortable wondering what Labours motives are. After all it was they that rushed headlong into Iraq and Afghanistan and I can't believe they have learned lessons that easily.

Party politics I think.

 

Just a few asides on your post.
Firstly, the days when wars were "winnable" are long gone. You can't "win", as the inevitable total destruction of a country to ensure a "win" would be unacceptable in the modern world. All you can hope to do is suppress the ability of a state to wage war on any meaningful scale. If you take that as the criteria, British Forces, in conjunction with others absolutely annihilated the military capability of Iraqi and Libyan forces, and did so with ease.
RE Iraq "WMD", it's worth pointing out that despite the fact that none were found, he had already used chemicals on the Marsh Arabs and Iranian troops and worse than that he SAID he still had them, and obstructed proper inspection, leaving only one possible response.
There is no doubt that serious damage would have occurred to the Syrian's abilty to drop napalm on whoever happened to be in the way in the future if their aircraft infrastructure was attacked.
No matter, "the people" have decided that inviting Assad in for coffee is a better way to deal with the situation, and we can only hope that any potential enemy will now be quaking in their sandals at the prospect of such a sanction.

 

Yes, but what is left behind? In the case of Iraq a country arguably in as big a mess as before yet with approx. 1 million less population lost as 'collateral damage' due to our intervention.

Secondly by winnable I mean setting out with an objective. Afghanistan, for instance, has never had any clear objective. Even the commanding officers have no real idea what the endgame is supposed to be. The politicians talk some load of waffle about democratic process etc. but that's just political rhetoric

We have been there 10 years and the best we can hope for is that when we leave it is no worse than it was before (the words of the commander of the British Forces there not mine)

Syria would have been even worse. Already there was discussion of taking out Assad's ability to deploy chemical weapons or protecting the civilians or removing his chemical weapons. That's three different objectives/endgames from three different quarters and we hadn't even decided to go in there. Then there is the fact there is no clear opposition to back... half of them are people we have ostensibly been 'fighting against' for the last 10 years.

It was and is too much of a risk to go steaming in and make the same mistakes we have made with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (to a lesser degree I grant you)

If Cameron had approached the whole process with a lot more caution and common sense he may have got his way, but his impatience has cost him, the 'shadow of Iraq' was too much for a lot of MPs

No one is disputing that at one time Hussein had some WMD and deployed them, but the basis for the invasion was that a) he was stockpiling more and more WMD, b) he was working towards nuclear capability and c) he could deploy a chemical attack on Europe within 45 minutes of the decision to do so.

These three claims were basically bollocks, but more importantly the last one was a lie!

I think the people and parliament simply decided they didn't want to go steaming in without 100% concrete proof of what has occurred and you can hardly blame them after the fiascos of the last 10 years.

I also feel that this country feels in some ways for now it has done enough and I must admit that is my feeling too. There are plenty of other countries in Europe that can help the US out on this one if they so choose.

Finally there is also the cost. This country is £1.2 trillion in debt. According to a recent report 13000 people died as a result of failings in 13 NHS trusts. Surely there comes a point when we have to sort our own house out first and let another country take up the mantle of aide to the US World Police Force

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

 

Terrible leadership by Cameron.

He should have judged the publics reluctance to enter another "war" and not pushed for a vote at this time. Rather waited for the inspectors report, then co-ordinated some UN response depending on the outcome.

Basically what he said was "please give me the authority to attack Syria before we know the facts. The public said No.

Now he is boxed into a corner.

Also what the hell were his whips doing, obviously not giving him party feedback.