[Closed] Syria: Is it war or not?

Henchman only number so many. If everyone is suffering a unpopular regime would crumble/split.

Force a harden-stance? The thing is they know it'd bring about more than just sanctions unless they felt Russia really was protecting them.

Why risk the worlds wrath?! Iraq is a strong example to the region of what gave the UK/US the go ahead it thought it needed.

A distant war but in WWII Germans dressed up as Russians and attacked German Border positions as a false-pretext to start a war.

If everyone is suffering a unpopular regime would crumble/split.

I think the plan is to keep your supporters happy so they support you and give them all the guns - ever seen a gangster film like that but with better weapons and the same level of fear and intimidation
Let me know if I am over complicating my explanations

A distant war but in WWII Germans dressed up as Russians and attacked German Border positions as a false-pretext to start a war.

Oh goody! Do we get to follow the Americans into another military quagmire, just to try and show we're still the big swinging dick on campus? While actually achieving the polar opposite, in showing how weak and impotent we actually are? Great!

And parliament has been recalled to give the democratic facade to rubber stamping a decision already taken in Washington. Tragic!

Personally, I think that the decision to go to war should only ever be taken by people who've experienced a front line themselves. I suspect they'd be sending considerably fewer people to pointless deaths, than a gung Ho politician trying to give themselves a bit of swagger on the world stage, or shore up a sliding popularity rating at home

I agree with binners. But if he says "campus" again, I'm gonna twerk him so hard he isn't going to shit right for a week.

Fair enough 😆

Cameron will announce to parliament on Thursday that they have firm evidence of Syrias use of WMD. Around the same time Obama will address the US nation with the same evidence. During his speech the fighter bombers will all ready be in the air and the Tomohawks will have already left their launch tubes.

Military action is inevitable. Do nothing and the west appears weak

I remember this with the Iraq war

parliament were debating* whether we should go to war

while troops were already being shipped out

its just a rubber stamp

* I say debating all MPs blue and red were trying to outdo each other on the anti-saddam rhetoric
there were a few rumblings from the lib dems(remember them?) and robin cook - the only person whod bothered to look into the 'evidence'

Cameron will announce to parliament on Thursday that they have firm evidence of Syrias use of WMD.

I bet he's well pissed off that Tony done away with Dr Kelley. Be useful right about now.

Its a pity the erstwhile Middle East Peace Envoy is away on his Hollybobs at the moment! He's done a cracking job so far! Almost as good a job as he did with the British economy. I'm sure if he could forsake for a few days his French beachside home, he could get this whole thing cleared up in a heartbeat.

Learning from our earlier mistakes we shouldn't get involved, but the difference here is the use of chemical weapons. The last time we didn't intervene when a mad dictator was throwing his weight around, a world war resulted causing millions of deaths - if the world had got together in a coordinated way earlier and nipped it in the bud, it all might have been avoided. We can't stand idly by allowing people to use these things. It appears obvious he has used them, but for the sake of credibility we do need hard proof before doing anything learning from the Iraq mistake, but if we get the proof I really think we have no choice - it would send the wrong message to all those other despots out there with WMDs. It's a desperate situation.

And woe betide us if we get the evidence and the UN still doesn't act decisively. It really would be the final nail in the coffin for that organisation and the US and UK will be drawn into many more conflicts.

tony bliar has now popped up and said we should invade/kill lots of foreigners,just because obama said we should.

Am I too late to say that I really hate Tony ****ing Blair?

I am not sure I understand why it is worse to kill and injure hundreds of civilians using chemical means than it is to kill and injure hundreds of civilians by shooting or dropping bombs on them?

Or why massacres in Syria merit western intervention but massacres in Egypt don't...

Whats the US defence/arms industry worth and lobbying power?

How can the US afford this? After all Egypt alone gets $1billion a year in arms from the US. Im guessing its all US sourced companies....

I really don't think there will be boots on the ground. No way the the US, UK, France etc want to get bogged down in a war in the Middle East. It would be bad news for everyone.

I would think no fly zone, surgical strikes, SAS here and there. Libya style. No doubt there will be an increase in civilian deaths and every doubt in who will end up in power when the FSA or one of their factions kill Assad. Probably an extended civil war after the power vacuum. Flippin mess.

Probably a religious Cleric.

The US have a habit of royally ****ing up in war dont they? Post WW2 where they learnt fast/caught up and ever since they've blundered.

Am I too late to say that I really hate Tony **** Blair?

Look at a map. Find Iran. The US and their allies nearly have the place surrounded. Syria is just another piece of the jigsaw.

hora - Member

The US have a habit of royally **** up in war dont they?

Depends on your point of view I guess. Lockheed Martin shareholders will be happy:

[IMG] [/IMG]

(is it as simple as that?)

This is interesting Chinese position on Syria
http://www.mei.edu/content/chinas-evolving-stance-syria

Im guessing its all US sourced companies....

I think youll find that the UK have a healthy interest in the Egypt arms market, cameron has made a concerted effort to improve UK arms sales in the Middle East, theres little doubt that some of our fine armaments have been used in the suppression of demonstrators recently with the massacre in Egypt- Seaking helicopters and Saudi troops in Bahrain using British guns for example

Israel has supplied the smoking gun

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk

The 8200 unit of the Israeli Defence Forces, which specialises in electronic surveillance, intercepted a conversation between Syrian officials regarding the use of chemical weapons, an unnamed former Mossad official told Focus. The content of the conversation was relayed to the US, the ex-official said.

sexed up, who knows?

Well its all but a fait accompli now.

Interesting article from Time magazine [url= http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/27/mission-all-but-impossible-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons-from-the-air/ ]here[/url] pointing out how difficult it will be for a strike to achieve anything militarily.

As for punishing Assad, shooting his dog walker or bombing his favourite take-away would probably send him a stronger signal and effect the out come of the conflict a similar amount

I've yet to hear why murdering civilians by conventional means is ok, but doing so with chemical weapons demands intervention...

Because there is a civilised way to butcher your citizens and an uncivilised way to butcher them apparently.

I dont know the "actual" reason but suspect it owuld be that good

Here is something I never thought I would say, some very insightful posting from wrecker on this issue.

Because there is a civilised way to butcher your citizens and an uncivilised way to butcher them apparently.

I dont know the "actual" reason but suspect it owuld be that good

Here is something I never thought I would say, some very insightful posting from wrecker on this issue.

Here is something I never thought I would say, some very insightful posting from wrecker on this issue.

Slightly OT but from what I understand Syria is 'total war' - albeit within its own borders.

World War II was total war.

Let us not forget that we had massive stores of chemical weapons here in the UK in WWII 'just incase'.

Its not right however when two sides are facing stalemate then war becomes very very messy.

Post-US/UK intervention just look at how civilised and strong the Iraqi nation has become..................................

I think the Iraq angle is interesting
You can see why they want /need nukes as they must be on the list

Its seems we cannot help ourselves

FWIW I think it is a damned if you do damned if you dont scenario but the decision appears to have been made some time ago

I dont see what they hope to achieve tbh with military action to stop only the chemical atrocities but none of the other ones. I cannot be alone in being doubtful of Israeli intelligence[ a long tradition of lies, distortions and halftruths [ even for spies]- given what the consequences would be why would they say anything on air?

The 'End Game' that we're not being told about is the re-ordering of the middle east along lines more acceptable to the west (think of the democracies of Bahrain an Saudi Arabia). Leading to the eventual attack on Iran...

So watching this happen, and knowing that at some point in the future they will be on the end of some missile diplomacy; how long will it be before both Iran and North Korea decide that if they don't engage in premptive strikes against US regional assets to reduce their offensive potential? Because if they don't it is certain to be used against them... Best do it now, while the US forces are stretched...

I dont see what they hope to achieve tbh with military action to stop only the chemical atrocities but none of the other ones.

I don't think that's the plan. It's a convenience, Hague etc have been pushing for military action for a while and the use of chemicals has just given them a stronger hand.
I think the west has more to lose by poking our noses in. They'd seriously piss off some powerful types (Russia, China, ****stan) and those who benefit will be wholly ungrateful anyway (see Bosnia & Kosovo).

We could stop supplying weapons to both sides - that might be a good start eh?

Grum you heartless bastard!
Ahhhh. Look at his little face. You really want to deprive the little chaps of their AK47s? 😉
[img] https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrwxhsopGawLYMAYvsWjvpqmybFLfL4sTl_jqBvQNeovC6_6K_ [/img]
I bet you take noisy toys off your kids, don't you?

Ultimately its just posturing by the west. They look impotent and have to be seen to be doing something. This chemical attack gives them the fig leaf of legitimacy they need to stage a limited strike.

The US is becoming increasingly frustrated by the intractability of the Syrian crisis. What they actually want is a continuation of a secular state in Syria - albeit a slightly less tyrannical one.

Democracy is a fine idea but doesn't help western strategic interests when the people of a country vote for an Islamist democracy - as they tend to do.

But as others have pointed out, while horrific - in the truest sense of the word - the Syrian chemical attack only represents a very minor escalation of the ongoing death toll.

Something has to be done about ending the war as a whole, a quick "punitive" strike solves nothing.

The only member of the Security Council with any sway over Assad are the Russians. They are the key to any negotiated cease fire and longer term settlement. Isolating them by ignoring their wishes serves no-ones interest in the long term.

Oh goody! Do we get to follow the Americans into another military quagmire, just to try and show we're still the big swinging dick on campus?

Of course, the politicians here are of the same political ideology as they are in the US, only they don't have to bear the burden of the consequences of their actions.

[url= http://scriptonitedaily.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/us-general-wesley-clark-war-on-syria-planned-in-1991-as-part-of-middle-east-land-grab/ ]A very interesting piece here.[/url]

And to quote a little bit:

General Wesley Clark one of the most highly decorated 4 star generals of the US military openly admits that there has been ‘a policy coup’ in the US government. He explains that he was told, back in 1991, that the US would actively invade and destabilise countries across the Middle East to take control of the region. These are not the words of an outsider conspiracy theorist, but the man who did this job for the US government.

[img] [/img]

They should pinch his bike, [u]nowt[/u] is worse than having your bike pinched!

[img] [/img]

Edited

Cannondale the bike of choice for tyrannical purveyors of injustice.
Actually maybe he stole it

gordimhor - Member
Cannondale the bike of choice for tyrannical purveyors of injustice

not necessarily

[img] [/img]

is that a trek that putins riding?
[img] [/img]

Lets create more people who hate/want to bring terror to the UK?

I notice that, following their (partially) successful African adventure, the French are now enthusiastically rattling sabres along with the best of them.

Allons enfants de la Patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé !

Wonder what cmd would ride ...my money's not on a Boris bike.

In fact my money is on a tag along with Obama .

I'm with Vickypea and Ransos. I'd like a proper answer to why it's ok to kill people with, say drones, but not ok to kill people with sarin gas?

No, this is just a trumped-up excuse for war. Just like Iraq was. A tissue of lies. There's something else underlying it, the real reason is probably financial.

Oh, and I bloody well hate that smarmy twunt ****ing Tony ****ing Blair too. Slimy, mealy-mouthed, lying media-whore.