Yep, you're probably right! Sigh!

 

Because the UK has an obligation to do so, even if you set aside any moral obligations, the UK is part of the United Nations Security Council and has a mandate for a peacekeeping role along with 4 other countries which was ratified immediately after the 2nd World War.

You only have to google Syrian atrocities (committed on both sides) to see the horrific images of men, women and children in mass graves, the executions and the aftermath of a chemical attack, civilians caught in the middle under constant attack and shelling. Are people really able to just simply turn a blind eye to this and happy to let it continue? And yet these are the same people who quite openly say they'd inflict retribution and punishment to peado's, murderers and child abusers etc and pat people on the back for intervening where a woman was being beaten as posted in another thread.

Also I'd like to see some evidence where the US have manipulated this situation.

 

Are you going to answer the question, or is it too uncomfortable for you?

 

Yes, not directly against civilians but as collateral damage. Happened before. Will happen again.

 

Is the average punter really incapable of discerning the difference between the situation in Lybia, where there was undoubtedly something fairly major already happening before the West intervened, and the situation in Iraq, where noone on either side of the debate has ever tried to claim there was? Or are you saying it doesn't make a blind bit if difference whether there was something already happening or not?

 

Why would I be disappointed?

That's EXACTLY how I believe this will play out. I would be against any kind of occupation.

There needs to be a response to Assads deeds, and there now will be. I believe if they can hit his military hard enough they could tip the balance in the civil war though

 

Based on what?

When did it happen before... Flanders???

 

Do you think fluffy bunnies come out the end of a tank?

Do you not wonder wtf is in the bombs the Mericans use that causes deformation to babies?

 

Your question is null and void as you based it on your hypotheiss that it has nothing to with money.

I cannot answer the question as it is not based on the real world.

If you want me to say I don't care about the suffering in Syria I do, but without the finaces to deal with it, without a good explanation as to why other nations can't get involved, with the memory of the three countries we have f**ked up so far all too recent and without an endgame in place I still can't say there is a single part of me that sees the logic in wading in and being World Police yet again.

 

True, but the problem there will be convincing all the protagonists to build tanks with thinner armour, thereby negating the need of depleted uranium shells

 

Sorry don't follow that logic. Blair's side of the debate which included Bush the Warmongering Moron said there was clearly a lot happening in Iraq!

 

The question is only 'null and void' because it goes to the heart of your position.

If we were being attacked would we look at our bank balance before acting?

If we haven't got the money to defend the innocent, then we haven't got the money for a whole lot of stuff.

Let's assume we have all the money in the world and bomb and bullets are plentifull and free. Then where do you draw the line?

BTW I said before and again for clarity, we should only intervene if we can do so effectively, with clear objectives

 

Oh now we've just gone to default pantomime villain setting!!

 

Of the same ilk and on the same scale of what was happening in Lybia then, and what is happening in Syria now? Within years or months of the start of the Second Gulf War? Sorry, but no sale on that. Have another go and see if you can come up with something even marginally plausible.

 

Sorry, but you've either been on the ale or had a stroke as you are not making any sense.

It is fact that a large section of the public feel lied to over WMD/Iraq. Ergo it is not surprising they are wondering what is happening now. Yes there is lots of news coverage about chemical attacks, but there is still no concrete evidence and hence the question inevitably gets asked based on past recent history.

 

Speaking of WMD, evidence and Iraq...Halabja???

 

But we don't have all the money in the world so the question is stupid.

Even given that my position is pretty obvious. Concrete proof of chemical attacks, a plausible endgame and a scenario where we are going to be able to 'win' with genuinely very little loss of life on our side ... if we can't tick those three boxes then stay out of it.

Yes people are suffering, but they are suffering in Iraq and Afghanisatan after our good work there... why aren't you so keen for us to get invovled there again?

Or is it just a new challenge we like?

 

Great, so finally I understand your postion, and guess what, it's not that differnet to mine (I'd just add, very little loss of life on all sides)

Why did that have to take so long?

 

No, 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 stiockpiling 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!

 

Because that is not my position, it is based on your hypothetical world of having loads of money. In the real world we can't afford it and other nations should get stuck in this time.

 

You should be getting all hot and excited on the results Chilcott enquiry then?

 

Whilst the F1 and Martin show is brewing nicely I would add my two-pence worth in.

If I was Assad, and I knew I had not fired any chemical weapons, then I would defend the country to the hilt.

If any invading forces (i.e. foreign government forces) did come in then I would have no problem using said 'heavy stuff' against them

Like I said three years ago...."I can see this getting Syrias"

 

Well, I still can't decide whether you're just being willfully obtuse here, or whether you're really so fixated on the idea that every military intervention in the ME by the West henceforth must inevitably have a dark ulterior motive, that you're transferring your own views on the subject onto the public at large. For my part anyway, I still see a very big and obvious difference in the likely fakability of a full-scale and ongoing civil war on the one hand, and a handful of covertly-obtained intelligence reports and documents on the other, and with a few obvious exceptions for the hard of thinking, I believe most of the public can see that also.

 

Ah OK, glad you've sobered up by the morning, you're starting to make sense now

But we're not going into Syria because of the civil war, we're going in because Assad attacked his people with chemical weapons... of which we have no conclusive proof other than a handful of YouTube videos and a few 'eye witness' reports.

I am not saying it didn't happen, but because of the Iraq lies people are wary of believing things like this and I don't blame them!

 

And if you were Assad and you did use chemical weapons, I'm guessing he'd still have no problems using the "heavy stuff" against the intervening forces, if indeed he did order its use.

Assad has a stock pile of chemical weapons and the means to deploy them with their Soviet trained military. Clearly it would be a lose-lose situation for Assad if he did use them as that would be an open invite for international intervention. If the stockpile was not secured and was captured by the Syrian rebels, some of whom defected from the Syrian army and therefore also trained to deploy such weapons, they could deploy such a weapon to bolster international support. It is not clear cut who deployed the chemical weapons which is why it can't be stressed how important it is for the UN inspectors to gather evidence and therefore get the backing and approval for a UN resolution to legally intervene. Going via NATO would be seen as circumventing the UNSC by the Russians and the Chinese and would have far reaching consequences for international relations.

 

Right, so from now on I must remember not to make my points too subtly when I'm explaining anything to you, lest your inability to comprehend gets somehow confused for a deficiency of my own mental faculties. Message received and understood.

 

Being brutally frank yes! And I'm not joking!

Not arguing as to who's right or wrong but I was struggling to understand what you meant and I pretty much get everyone else's posts on here so....

 

Cameron's playing his Libya "authorising necessary measures to protect civilians" card.

Looking forward to plenty of 'mission creep'

 

Listening to the Beeb's R5L last night and there was a very interesting military guy from USA talking about options USA had.

USA have cruise missiles in the area but they can't be used for chemical weapon strikes because chemicals would be released into atmosphere and you'd end up with a Bhopal type tragedy.

He thought cruise missiles should be used to bomb runways and then take out grounded planes individually. This would prevent chemicals being dropped and other air attacks.

Other option would be to drop thermal high temperature bombs on the chemicals being stored so that they vaporised and were destroyed completely. Aircraft would be needed for this.

Assad likely to have moved chemicals around which made location very difficult.

I assume UK military aware of all this?

David

 

Personally, who cares about Syria. I'd be more concerned about pissing off Russia. I mean, we still need their cheap gas don't we. (Did anyone notice the Gazpron billboards at the Emitates last night). And China, are they not our friends.