Do we gather you will be volunteering to join up and get stuck in yourself then? No, thought not!

 

A question and an answer. All in one pointlessly daft post. Good work!

 

Easy to throw the cowardly comments around when you're not the one doing the asking though. That's what people like you and Cameron are like though!

On a more general note if intervention is inevitable now why is it us who have to be involved again? There are a myriad of countries out there who could be doing this, but no, it will be the US and UK making another huge f**k up in the world... only this time we will probably inadvertently hand chemical weapons technology to Al Qaeda

 

How about the Middle East, with all their oil money, helps chip in to pay for us to be the Police for their region? Because we can't even afford to give our troops proper kit let alone get embroiled in another war.

I guess it'll keep the US happy and that's all that matters really.

Yes it's appalling what's happening but why can't some other nations do something for once?

 

Britain should keep out. It has nothing to do with us. Any soldiers being sent there should boycott their command. The Syrians don't want us. We aren't too keen on being ally to al Qaeda either.

 

I dont often agree with the "brother" lover above but on this instance I do. Keep out of this. Let them sort it themselves.

The UK and US are always very very quick to put the blame on Assad.....but there is always two sides to the story. The UN inspection team yesterday that were shot at. If it was Assads men it will be headline news and UK and US demanding action. If it was the rebels then it would be brushed under the carpet.

I am tired of Obama and Cameron. If they want to get involved then it should be them two who put on camo gear and get over there. Or they could just stfu and sort out their domestic issues first

 

A lot of you who are opposed to us taking action are actually describing our policy towards Syria over the past 3 years. And how has that worked out?
Millions of refugees, 100k deaths and now Assad is so immune to our threats he's apparently using chemical weapons.

Some of you are actually advocating the foreign policy equivalent of closing our eyes and sticking our fingers in your ears.

There are not 'myriads of country's' with military capability to do this, we are one of the very few on earth that can.

There are 3 huge reasons why we have to act

1. Morally we cannot stand-by and allow innocent people to be murdered like this. It goes against everything this country stands for, it's an outrage. Doing nothing is actually encouraging Assad, is that what we want?

2. Politically we are committed now because Assda appears to have crossed the 'red-line' . The consequence of blinking here would be huge.

3. We have to secure the chemical weapons, given the complexity of this situation and the factions involved, there is a real danger that these weapons will end up in the hands of extremists, and god knows what the consequences will be then

 

UK is part of the United Nations Security Council along with 15 other countries, 5 of which (UK, France, China, Russia and US) are of a "great power" state with vetoing powers and military and economic influence globally. It is obligated under a UN Charter to maintain peacekeeping operations, enforce international sanctions and authorise military intervention. Under UNSC, we can't intervene as Russia and China has already vetoed any sanctions against Syria. So all we can do now is just stand by and watch as Syria inflicts wanton and indiscriminate violence, massacring and destruction by shooting, shelling and gassing of its civilians.

 

NATO?

 

Isreal has a lot to do with this, and I can't see them thinking too long about how to respond if they get dragged in to this. Sadly the whole region is heading towards a war zone.

 

They could go in as NATO as they did with Bosnia and Kosovo, but since Russia and China have already vetoed UN intervention, NATO intervention could cause unpredictable fallout with Russia and China.

 

Bambi has given the thumbs up, surprise surprise.

 

with the use of chem weapons does that change how russia and china will look/act towards it?

 

We still don't have any concrete proof chemical weapons have been used. No more than the WMD in Iraq anyway. That'll be enough for Cameron though.

 

The authorities may well have more relevant information that we don't know about.

Les

 

Obvously I can't speak for China or Russia, but my guess would be no. They see any external intervention by western states as an attack on Syrian sovereignty. However, judging by how they respected the sovereignty of Tibet or Chechnya, one might suspect that they might have ulterior motives with their objections to intervention.

 

You make it sound like the US and UK are keen to get involved in this. There is no evidence whatsoever to support you in that. So far all we've done is sit on our hands.

Why don't you actually look, listen and comprehend rather than make sh it up?

 

It is you who need to look and learn. I will repeat as since you became as thick as recently you seem to need things spoonfed to you. There is no proof of a chemical weapons attack, just circumstantial evidence. After WMDgate I think we need to be more cautious.

Plus your new best buddy couldn't wait to get into Libya and look how that turned out.

Anyway it shouldn't be us doing this at all, as said before there are plenty of other nations that could get stuck in. Why always us? Mark my words it wi be another complete mess.

 

I agree about being cautious, more facts are needed, and will hopefully be set before the UN. Plus we should only act if we can be effective and minimise civilian casualties. But we have to draw a line somewhere...don't we?

Is Libya such a disaster? So far not so bad would be fairer assessment, Ghadaffi is gone and there is a clear pathway to democracy and prosperity, which certainly didn't exist before we got rid of him.

There really are not plenty of other nations that could do this. In reality the only countries with the ability to project power are the US / France and UK, that's about it, so where all these other nations are I have no idea.

I thought the UN promised that after Rwanda and Bosnia they'd not stand idly by again.
If we follow your world view we should immediately withdraw our seat on the Security Council, and massively cut spending on defence.

 

This is why we need to be extremely cautious. The UN inspectors must be given a chance to determine whether chemicals weapons were used by the Syrian army. Syria is signed up to the 1925 Geneva Protocol which prohibits the "first" use of chemical weapons. If they have, then Russia and China, who are also signatories to this protocol and also the party to the Chemical Weapons Convention have to agree that action should be taken. Intervention should also go no further than humanitarian and target only chemical installations, not to overthrow the existing regime, IMO.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23847839
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800

 

1) If Assad went tomorrow who would try and govern the country? Wouldn't it be a bloodbath between rival factions?

2) I think the evidence so far, especially from the French medicines without frontiers, is a lot stronger than the WMD fiasco

3) Does the West know where these chemical weapons are stored?

4) It would be hard for any country to object to a very limited strike at chemical weapons sites surely?

5) I wonder who sold them chemicals in the first place?

What a f,ucking mess.

David

 

If it is proven that Assad's forces launched the chemical attack, then that must make HIM a legitimate target surely?

 

If it is Assad issued the orders for the chemical weapons attack, then yes he should be brought before the ICC in The Hague. What I don't want to see is Britain being dragged into a long drawn out war with the potential for huge casualties on both sides. Let's not forget that Syria is not another Iraq or Libya. Syria has an extremely well equipped military well prepared for modern warfare and have readily used chemical weapons.

 

I haven't heard anyone yet even hint at a protracted ground intervention. And I think we'd be wise to avoid one.

That said there already is a long drawn out war with huge casualties on both sides.

I'd love to see Assad in The Hague, but it begs the question about how exactly we get him there?

I don't think we should worry too much about the Sryian military capability, it just more ancient Soviet stuff and pretty much useless against modern military forces. There is no way that the US is going to be taking any risks here, this will be an 'air-power' intervention, almost certainly.

 

I wish Assad the best. As far as i'm aware he is a good guy liked by a lot of his population and has other countries arming terrorists within his own.

If we had used Chemical weapons in a conflict the excuse would be because the enemy were hiding amongst the civilians. Eventually the excuse will be if the civilians don't want to end up being victims they should push out the enemy.

 

There will have to be a ground presence, how else are we to secure the chemical weapons and prevent it from falling into the wrong hands?

 

Do you think we would use chemical weapons against civilians?

I doubt very much that Assad is 'a good guy'. A good guy would stand down to stop the suffering of his people, not sacrifice them in a vain attempt to stay in power at all costs.

 

That's a good point. I'd hope that this would be a secure and destroy mission not some kind of occupation

 

Colin Powell once said of Iraq, "if you break it, you own it." I believe currently we still "occupy" Iraq.

 

If they want to attack, they will go ahead. And they want to attack for reasons that will probably never be fully revealed - just like in Iraq.