Despite the media froth about limited air atrikes against Syria I wonder if it will actually happen? I suspect that the on the ground investigation will turn out to be inconclusive, not enough to justify further action regardless of any western spin, and that Russia will have to stand up to the US on behalf of its ally, or risk losing credibility in the sight of other nations with whom it has close ties.

So is it continuing uncertainty, another dose of Shock and Awe, or an inadvertant conventional war with Russia?

cruise missiles and drone strikes

any sort of further intervention will really upset russia

As far as I can tell it’s a load of old men in the Western world standing around condemning the brutal treatment of civilians and then referring that condemnation to an organisation that is quite frankly a waste of time and money.

The UN then fails to condemn the regime in any real strength due to the fact that there is a country on the board who would rather justify the actions of said regime, then a load of old men in suits fail to agree a statement for release and continue to sit at a big table eating and drinking lovely food whilst what they should be doing is releasing a lovely strong statement of condemnation which really would put the willies up old Assad, he really does shit himself when a statement is released you know.

Meanwhile thousands of civilians are killed or have their lives ripped apart by brutal means whilst we just watch William Hague dribble into a microphone whilst condemning the naughty little man with a moustache, and repeat.

So the best way to stop people killing people is to kill more people?
I often wonder what sort of a mess The Balkans would be in if Saint Tony had got properly stuck in.
Ps why hasn’t that **** sorted all this out yet? Its his job.

Saint Tony had got properly stuck in

He did!!!

Him & Bush were chomping at the bit to get into Iraq – oh how times have changed!

As for Syria – how **** is that gonna sort itself out I do not know – but what I do know the scenes of dead children are pretty upsetting to say the least.

Personally get all the innocent Syrians out of the country and bomb the place to smithereens – only my opinion like! Why should we be involved in a costly war FFS

To the OP – It’s a Civil War!

” there is a country on the board who would rather justify the actions of said regime,”

That’s two countries, who think what Syria is doing is should not be stopped. One of them is the one that we get all our cheaply produced manufactured (cycle) goods from who we can never dicuss human rights with. The other one is supplying Europe with a good portion of its gas.

Hypocracy has many levels of involvement not least in our own complicity.

I suspect the plan will be a replay of the 1995 and 1999 air campaigns in the Balkans if anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_NATO_bombing_campaign_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Whether it’ll all turn out nicely or not is, of course another question.

Unilateral military action by the US, UK and France would be a grave error IMO but becoming increasingly likely. I wish the bodies who should be more active in this terrible situation were and those that should not be (including us alone) were not. Bloody mess which ever way you look at it. Today’s increase in rhetoric is not a good sign.

OP asked war or not

not whether it was justified

Im not sure whether the UN will be ableto get enough evidence

still im sure the USA can rely on MI6 to fabricate some again

Obama is on his last term I think he’ll OK air strikes, cameron??

I agree US, UK & French action is looking very likely – This is what Assad probably wants so he is justified in his mass genocide. Sorry state of affairs!

Kimbers chill out mate – this is a discussion forum

And to answer the OP question – YES

The one question I have is who supplied the chemical weapons, because the amount of times you see the empty shells on the news, and the distraught relatives pointing out the made in the USA badge on it. So it’s ok to sell them it, but they can’t use it. That’s like selling gazza a home brew kit and then being surprised when he is found pissed up again.

benji – That’s you and Gorgeous George who think that Syria doesn’t have the ability to make its own chemical weapons.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kPzvy808pr8[/video]

Well, it’s definitely a war and has been for some time – just have a look on youtube and other sites for news fottage of Syria and you’ll see that plenty of the towns and cities have been subjected to heavy shelling.

The thing that strikes me is most of the footage of the FSA or other combatants taking on the government resemble – in dress, speech, tactics the guys we were fighting against for the most part in Iraq. That coupled with the the fact that they are mostly a collection of different groups with different agendas helps explain why we are only now looking to get more actively involved.

I’d hazard a guess that if the FSA and co were more integrated and representative of the Syrian population as a whole and, Assad didn’t have Putins backing we probably would already be involved to a greater degree.

However I am not sure what some of you want – on the one hand you rightly condemn all killing but then describe our politicos as war mongers when they start putting the pressure on the Syrian government. Granted the UN is rarely able to act due to differences of opinion of the Security Council members but does that mean US/UK/France/Germany shouldn’t act if policies of ethnic cleansing and mass slaughter are being carried out?

Personally I’d like to see more effort put into arms embargoes before we start bombing campaigns – TBH this may well be happening but the press are less likely to give it coverage than the prospect of cruise missile attacks.

Zippy

I think my post stemmed more from the redundancy of the UN and the pointless talking that takes place daily rather than my want of war, although where do you draw the line on whether to take action or not?

How can an organisation like the UN have any impact on issues in the world when it’s made up of countries like Russia who are to all intents and purposes saying it’s ok to use chemical weapons on your own people.

A bunch of silly old men in suits giving daily condemnation (or not in the UN’s case) is rather pointless. Condemning something with no action is no different to tolerating it, IMO of course.

Seems as if obama has put some new batteries in william wague and allowed him to say something that agrees with the the us of a,just like the puppet on the go comapre adverts.

Then there is tony bliar the so called middle east peace envoy, probably signing his book of lies in the nearest holiday town.

Probably a few big bangs and threats of violence, just like a chav estate on bonife night

it’s a load of old men

a load of old men in suits

A bunch of silly old men in suits

I think I understand what you’re getting at scandal42………the answer is young ladies in casual dress ?

To OP that is Syria’s internal affair. The rest are just nosey … 🙄

It will only be war if there is a large scale retaliation by proxy from both sides. i.e. downing of a few western jet fighters and the start of drone war.

Most Western Politicians who are actively calling to arm are actually seeing an opportunity to leverage the situation for their own political profile as well as to deflect the economic woes in their own country. Ours are trying to emulate Thatcher for future book signing gains … 🙄

benji – That’s you and Gorgeous George who think that Syria doesn’t have the ability to make its own chemical weapons.

No, that wasn’t what I said, it’s when the distraught relatives show of the cases and they are stamped made in the USA. No where did i say they were incapable of making their own. It seems most countries are capable of killing their own people, sadly.

clearly it is a civil war
Will we get involved – who knows only Russia is stopping us at the moment and the absence of oil

As for what we should do morally I am uncomfortable with doing nothing but our recent experience of waging war in the middle east to bring about peace has not been the most successful strategy

How can an organisation like the UN have any impact on issues in the world when it’s made up of countries like Russia who are to all intents and purposes saying it’s ok to use chemical weapons on your own people.

We turn a blind eye to Saudi, Pakistan etc and numerous other countries that are our “friends” so it is hardly fair to blame the UN/Russia.
Strategically it is very important for Russia and like the US [ and the UK] they protect their interests [ whether right or wrong]

I dont see an easy solution short term or long term

OP: Yes, I think the UK will intervene in some way.

No, I don’t think we should, a look back through history shows this has led to huge numbers of deaths on all sides together with increasing unpopularity for the UK – coupled with little or no resolution for the country the subject of the intervention. We go, and then pull out leaving a bitter, bloody mess than festers on for decades.

Further, we did nothing about Pol Pot, the Rwandan massacres, or the continuing unrest in Southern Africa – I’m sure those better versed in current affairs can point to many other conflicts where we have looked the other way. Why so fired up about Syria?

But mainly for the reason that this country hasn’t got any money. Hospitals, police and fire stations are being closed, legal aid funding slashed, cut-backs in services for those who are long-term unwell. Put simply: we can’t afford it.

China is well resourced, and has a great deal of influence, let them get involved (ok, on a side we consider to be the “wrong” side), let them spunk millions of yen on bullets and bombs and lose hundreds, if not thousands, of their own people.

Just my opinion.

Do we have a clear strategic objective in engaging militarily in Syria?

By what criteria will intervention end and/or be deemed a success? What is the desired end-game?

Have we exhausted non-military alternatives?

What is the likely response of other players involved directly or indirectly?

Is action justified under international law?

What amount to collateral damage (1) should we expect, (2) deem “acceptable”?

Is the Assad regime solely responsible for the use of chemical weapons?

Not sure even these basic questions (especially the first two) have been answered correctly. But what is new there? The same can be said of most of our recent interventions in MENA & Afghanistan sadly. Most likely to end in tears in more ways than one. 🙁

If history has shown us anything, it is that western governments have no qualms stooping to the lowest levels of manipulation and propaganda to further their end in pursuit of resources and the continued fuelling of the profitable arms industry… much like the fabricated WMDs, this latest attack should not be taken on face value and is evidence of just how filthy the reality of politics beneath the facade really is…

http://www.examiner.com/article/hacked-e-mails-reveal-washington-approved-plan-to-stage-syria-chemical-attack

jivehoneyjive,

It’s in the blood.

Dear Leaders will use all sort of manipulations to out play/gun other Dear Leaders for self gain. They all have their own agendas and some are better at the games than others.

The winner(s) will always be the heroes while the losers are always maggots but what they do not realise is that they are all maggots.

May the innocence rest in peace.

😯

jivehoneyjive, I enjoyed your link, but I enjoyed even more the linked story about how NASA has discovered space-rats on Mars.

It’s a war. That’s about the only clear simple answer. Are there grounds for intervention? Yes but there are plenty of non syrians intervening already. Directly and indirectly. Is there a clear objective .No An exit strategy? No since we don’t have a clear objective.Do we have the military might? Maybe. Would there be international support for military intervention? No.Would the uk public support military intervention? Don’t know. ..doubt it. Would the Syrian public support western boots on the ground ? No.

though the Israelis are not to be trusted and are not adverse to be a western imperialist stooge in the region I can’t believe they are keen on destabilized arab countries to the north and south, though they probably despise both Assad and Mubarak they quite keen on them at the same time. Throw into the mix the thought of Assads chemical stock pile falling into the hands fundamentalist Islamic extremists, Hezbollah etc. Israeli intelligence touting the western line ?

It’s actually quite a few proxy wars going on in the same country. A right old mess!

At the end of the day, they’re all madder than a box of frogs. The only realistic solution is to nuke the entire Middle East, including Israel, and start from scratch again. Lets face it – It was an interesting experiment, but its just not working, is it? It’s the best solution for all involved

I do not like that one bit Binners, If you nuke israel I wont be able to pay my mortgage and before you know it my bike will be on ebay.

Oh – this does not look to good 🙁

David Cameron ? @David_Cameron

Speaker agrees my request to recall Parliament on Thurs. There’ll be a clear Govt motion & vote on UK response to chemical weapons attacks

Robin Brant @robindbrant

US sec def chuck hagel tells BBC that american forces ‘ready to go’ if obama orders military strike on syria. seems all prep done.

seems like the decision has already been taken to me

Looks like the US is going in 🙁

Not good news IMO.

Is there ever such a thing as a “one-off” military strike?

Hague better not be vague on his international law. This is a very dangerous path that he and others want us to take.

Looks like the US is going in

I only hope we’ve got the balls to tell them to crack on, we’ll be staying at home thanks.

depends on what the objectives are I suppose

I imagine assads so deep in a bunker that he’ll be fine, besides killing him would constitute regime change and I guess thats off the cards

you wouldnt want to hit any chemical weapons stores as that might be very dangerous

most of the war seems to be being fought within civilian areas so its hard to imagine an outcome of this that wont be bad for everyone

Anything protracted might well incite russia or iran to step in so will have to be over very quickly

Allowing the british base in Cyprus to be used will make us complicit in crime, as well as leaving us open to revenge attacks on the UK mainland by sleeper agents.

But back to my original point: Where does Russia draw the line? And what do they have to do in order to be taken seriously?

depends on what the objectives are I suppose

I’ll be going for (wild guess); deposing of russian supported government, installation of puppet govt (who neither side likes or supports).
Probably followed by power vacuum and further war/insurgency and loads of civilian deaths as each group makes a bid for power.
Seems to be the fashion.

The UK base will have been used from the offset for intel gathering anyway. That’s what we keep Cyprus for, to enable a forward platform for intel and operations in the Middle East.

Russia are already in allegedly, providing consultancy to Assad through special advisers near the front line.

Thing is a major mess and it seems Obama will have to do something now or look weak. Whether that’s the right thing to go and get involved who knows without the benefit of hindsight.

Of course,we’ve left Iraq and Afghanistan beacons of peace and democracy.
I bet the Syrians can’t wait for us to **** their country up as well.