Syria

[Tonsilitis]

Hague is making all the usual belligerent statements about how the chemical attack is down to the Assad regime before even the UN inspectors have had a look. Presumably he is so confident because the CIA told him and we are warming things up on behalf of the Americans.

 

Why are we getting involved? I have no doubt that the Assad regime is despicable but equally, I am not convinced that the rebels are much better and if they win do they offer a better prospect for the ordinary Joe in Syria? Or international relations?

 

Time and again the West has demonstrated a total lack of understanding of Islam where a susbstantial proportion of the population want to define their lives and relationships via their religion and not state boundaries and secular laws. That the Sharia laws were largely fixed 1500 years ago and are often totally at varience with modern life does not seem to matter.

 

Our politicians just can't seem to get the message that involving ourselves in such conflicts is a no win situation which will be expensive in both in terms of lives and finances.

[Boozehound]

You know nothing, non-military minded civilian puke.

[irnbru]

You no nothing, non-military minded civilian puke.

 

This is fact becoming my favourite insult.

[Rasta Ton]

Hague is making all the usual belligerent statements about how the chemical attack is down to the Assad regime before even the UN inspectors have had a look. Presumably he is so confident because the CIA told him and we are warming things up on behalf of the Americans.

 

Why are we getting involved? I have no doubt that the Assad regime is despicable but equally, I am not convinced that the rebels are much better and if they win do they offer a better prospect for the ordinary Joe in Syria? Or international relations?

 

Time and again the West has demonstrated a total lack of understanding of Islam where a susbstantial proportion of the population want to define their lives and relationships via their religion and not state boundaries and secular laws. That the Sharia laws were largely fixed 1500 years ago and are often totally at varience with modern life does not seem to matter.

 

Our politicians just can't seem to get the message that involving ourselves in such conflicts is a no win situation which will be expensive in both in terms of lives and finances.

 

Are you seriously questioning why we should get involved in Syria? We do not need secret dossiers this time - we have clear undisputed independent evidence that people are being massacred with figures running in to the tens of thousands. Young children slaughtered in cold blood. It makes Bosnia look like a holiday camp. It is a disgrace the international community have waited until now before considering to act. It has nothing to do with Islam, this is a dictator committing mass murder on a huge scale and it is only right and just that action is taken. No matter how much the Russians and Chinese make from selling arms to Asad it is disgraceful they have so far been silent on the matter, allowing thousands of innocent people to die just so they can play politics.

[Tonsilitis]

Are you seriously questioning why we should get involved in Syria? We do not need secret dossiers this time - we have clear undisputed independent evidence that people are being massacred with figures running in to the tens of thousands. Young children slaughtered in cold blood. It makes Bosnia look like a holiday camp. It is a disgrace the international community have waited until now before considering to act. It has nothing to do with Islam, this is a dictator committing mass murder on a huge scale and it is only right and just that action is taken. No matter how much the Russians and Chinese make from selling arms to Asad it is disgraceful they have so far been silent on the matter, allowing thousands of innocent people to die just so they can play politics.

I am really questioning

 

1) Do we have incontrovertible evidence as to the culprits re this attack. The rebels have shown themselves to be little better than those they are trying to replace in terms of barbarism.

2) If we do intervene, will we make a difference for the ordinary people? We went into Irag and thousands died. Ditto Afghanistan.

3) What sort of regime will follow Assad? Will it be better for the ordinary Syrians who just want to get on with their lives? How long do you think it will be after we have pulled out before the Taliban run Afghanistan again and Hamzi is either dead or in exile again?

 

Every decent person is appalled by the use of chemical weapons but let us have clarity as to who is responsible. Who fired on the UN inspectors' convoy this morning?

 

And in the long term, we cannot impose Western values in cultures that don't want them.

 

 

[chrissiboi]

I am really questioning

 

1) Do we have incontrovertible evidence as to the culprits re this attack. The rebels have shown themselves to be little better than those they are trying to replace in terms of barbarism.

2) If we do intervene, will we make a difference for the ordinary people? We went into Irag and thousands died. Ditto Afghanistan.

3) What sort of regime will follow Assad? Will it be better for the ordinary Syrians who just want to get on with their lives? How long do you think it will be after we have pulled out before the Taliban run Afghanistan again and Hamzi is either dead or in exile again?

 

Every decent person is appalled by the use of chemical weapons but let us have clarity as to who is responsible. Who fired on the UN inspectors' convoy this morning?

 

And in the long term, we cannot impose Western values in cultures that don't want them.

Israel were suspected of using chemical weapons in Gaza, the US used white phosphorus in Fallujah, a level of consistency on all acts against civilian populations needs to be addressed. Bush,Blair, Obama with the drone attacks.

 

The problem is not of humanitarianism but that of imperialism the US want to control ther middle east since the end of WWII and their past selfish interests have a baring on any proposed actions.

 

The UN needs some balls.

[Alibi]

Israel were suspected of using chemical weapons in Gaza, the US used white phosphorus in Fallujah, a level of consistency on all acts against civilian populations needs to be addressed. Bush,Blair, Obama with the drone attacks.

 

The problem is not of humanitarianism but that of imperialism the US want to control ther middle east since the end of WWII and their past selfish interests have a baring on any proposed actions.

 

The UN needs some balls.

 

Tend to agree, although there is a balance to be struck between stopping people being killed and deciding who the goodies are - the latter point being a bit unclear more often than not.

 

Nothing should be done here without the UN agreeing it. You can see William Hague is longing to get to play with his toy soldiers. He should be restrained.

[Rasta Ton]

Tend to agree, although there is a balance to be struck between stopping people being killed and deciding who the goodies are - the latter point being a bit unclear more often than not.

 

Nothing should be done here without the UN agreeing it. You can see William Hague is longing to get to play with his toy soldiers. He should be restrained.

Nothing should be done unless the UN agree to it? Due to whatever political motives and self interest the Russians and Chinese have that will never happen. A UN force would be ideal and could stop the civil unrest and acts of atrocities on both sides. Unfortunately it will be a US/UK led force.

[TAFKAC]

Tend to agree, although there is a balance to be struck between stopping people being killed and deciding who the goodies are - the latter point being a bit unclear more often than not.

 

Nothing should be done here without the UN agreeing it. You can see William Hague is longing to get to play with his toy soldiers. He should be restrained.

You do understand how the UN works - unanimity at P5 level. Never going to happen whilst the Russians and Chinese are arming the Syrians.

[dirty dingus]

Shouldn't the Arab League be stepping up to the plate to stop their own folk getting massacred. If the Yanks and the UK get involved it will just lead to more hatred towards them and more bloodshed on the governments hands who would also be going gung-ho against overwhelming public opinion. The Arab League should be propositioning the UN to get a mandate to send in a security/peacekeeping force with the backing of the squabbling superpowers.

[Alibi]

You do understand how the UN works - unanimity at P5 level. Never going to happen whilst the Russians and Chinese are arming the Syrians.

 

Yes, therein lies the problem. However why should the UK take the initiative here, albeit it would be as a US poodle yet again? You could just as easily argue that the Chinese and Russians should take the initiative but of course they'd be helping the opposite side. It's a bit of a proxy war going on...

 

The UN may not get agreement about the long term solution but it should be possible to broker a ceasefire.

 

If nobody sold these folk arms the Middle East would be a lot safer. OK Hague, you've got nukes - let's see you deter both sides with them. Let us know how that goes.

[Guest David Edwards]

Nothing should be done unless the UN agree to it? Due to whatever political motives and self interest the Russians and Chinese have that will never happen. A UN force would be ideal and could stop the civil unrest and acts of atrocities on both sides. Unfortunately it will be a US/UK led force.

 

A thankless task with, more than likely, unachievable aims. The primary aim would be stopping the slaughter and achieving a ceasefire, but what comes after that? How long before a peacekeeping intervention force becomes, in the eyes of the population, an occupation force? How long before troops are left standing in the middle, hated by all factions?

There must be a clearly credible, defined and agreed exit strategy and I wouldn't expect the likes of Cameron and Obama to be capable of devising one.

[capitanus]

Bomb the lot of them.

 

[vikingTON]

Funny how UN Security Council vetoes are suddenly a disgrace when obstructing NATO/NATO-lite interventions, but not when it comes to the US propping up Israel's countless illegal occupations and annexations. The US has used more vetoes on Security Council resolutions since 1972 than any other power.

 

 

 

 

[Trick37]

You know nothing, non-military minded civilian puke.

This is fact becoming my favourite insult.

 

Glad that I could be of help in that regard.

 

 

I am really questioning

 

1) Do we have incontrovertible evidence as to the culprits re this attack. The rebels have shown themselves to be little better than those they are trying to replace in terms of barbarism.

2) If we do intervene, will we make a difference for the ordinary people? We went into Irag and thousands died. Ditto Afghanistan.

3) What sort of regime will follow Assad? Will it be better for the ordinary Syrians who just want to get on with their lives? How long do you think it will be after we have pulled out before the Taliban run Afghanistan again and Hamzi is either dead or in exile again?

 

Every decent person is appalled by the use of chemical weapons but let us have clarity as to who is responsible. Who fired on the UN inspectors' convoy this morning?

 

And in the long term, we cannot impose Western values in cultures that don't want them.

Tend to agree, although there is a balance to be struck between stopping people being killed and deciding who the goodies are - the latter point being a bit unclear more often than not.

 

Nothing should be done here without the UN agreeing it. You can see William Hague is longing to get to play with his toy soldiers. He should be restrained.

 

Agreed. However, do we sit back and allow it, like to many other times (i.e. Rwanda in the 90s, which Clinton says not going in militarily to stop it was his biggest regret as President)?

 

As stated also, there will be no UN resolution for action as long as Russia and China are willing to veto it (unless they both abstain from the vote). Even if they do, and the resolution passes, who has to power to suppress the Syrian air defenses, establish a no-fly zone, and the like? The answer is NATO, and more so, the US and UK.

 

Personally, I’d like for us not to be in a war for a change. We need to reset out economy, rebuild our infrastructure, and help our own people with billions of dollars of aid and assistance. I’m reminded of something going around FaceBook that says (and I’m paraphrasing here): “The US military should invade the US and give aid and assistance to its people, and build bridges and schools.”

 

 

 

[Scott_Gillan]

1. We dont know who launched the chemical weapons attack

 

Was it

A Assad

B Rebels

C Comeone Else who stands to benefit from the west getting involved in another long and expensive war

 

2. The rebels are just as bad as Assad , Sometimes we just need to take a step back as we cant keep going into countries and make them live by our moral neither can we continue to go in and appoint a puppet leader. Sometimes they need to fix things themselves

 

3. By arming the rebels are we infact arming terrorists who will then use the same weapons against our troops

 

Chemical weapons are a disgracefull escallation in a horrible civil war but I fear we are dammed if we do and dammed if we dont in this situation . Im not really up on military tactics but couldnt we send in special forces to neutralise the chemical weapons or even a surgical missile strike .. Id be happier with that than us taking sides in this conflict

[Rasta Ton]

1. We dont know who launched the chemical weapons attack

 

Was it

A Assad

B Rebels

C Comeone Else who stands to benefit from the west getting involved in another long and expensive war

 

2. The rebels are just as bad as Assad , Sometimes we just need to take a step back as we cant keep going into countries and make them live by our moral neither can we continue to go in and appoint a puppet leader. Sometimes they need to fix things themselves

 

3. By arming the rebels are we infact arming terrorists who will then use the same weapons against our troops

 

Chemical weapons are a disgracefull escallation in a horrible civil war but I fear we are dammed if we do and dammed if we dont in this situation . Im not really up on military tactics but couldnt we send in special forces to neutralise the chemical weapons or even a surgical missile strike .. Id be happier with that than us taking sides in this conflict

Have a scout about on YouTube and it becomes pretty clear what is going on in Syria. Watch Channel 4 News and read the Independent, both of whom have been covering Syria more than other UK media outlets with decent analysis. It's not about imposing morals, it's about protecting innocent civilians. The people of Syria only have the gun as a tool to remove Asad. Remember that this all started with peaceful protests against his tyrannical regime that turned ugly when he sent his army in to oppress the civilian population. Several senior and mid ranking army and government personnel have defected in disgust at what they are being asked to do to their own people. Syrians don't have the option of voting Asad out and they don't have the might of Russian armaments behind them either. There are situations where doctors are murdered or jailed for daring to treat wounded civilians in rebel areas. Hospitals have been shelled by the Army.

 

Yes there are some on the rebel side who are foreign and have other interests but the greater will must be to protect the civilian population as we're not talking about a strong handed police force but the use of full scale military might.

 

I'm not a war monger and didn't agree with the way Iraq was cobbled together but the people of Syria are in desperate need for someone to stand up for them and whilst a UN force would be ideal the US /UK / EU forces have no option unless the Russians and Chinese suddenly about turn.

[xj2006]

Glad that I could be of help in that regard.

Agreed. However, do we sit back and allow it, like to many other times (i.e. Rwanda in the 90s, which Clinton says not going in militarily to stop it was his biggest regret as President)?

 

As stated also, there will be no UN resolution for action as long as Russia and China are willing to veto it (unless they both abstain from the vote). Even if they do, and the resolution passes, who has to power to suppress the Syrian air defenses, establish a no-fly zone, and the like? The answer is NATO, and more so, the US and UK.

 

Personally, I’d like for us not to be in a war for a change. We need to reset out economy, rebuild our infrastructure, and help our own people with billions of dollars of aid and assistance. I’m reminded of something going around FaceBook that says (and I’m paraphrasing here): “The US military should invade the US and give aid and assistance to its people, and build bridges and schools.”

 

for the parts in bold above;

 

you are forgetting that war makes rich people money...

 

and if the US Govt really cared about its own poor people, they would probably have to abolish Capitalism altogether, or at least stop looking after their own wealthy elites' interests.

 

in other words, its not gonna happen

[Rasta Ton]

Glad that I could be of help in that regard.

Agreed. However, do we sit back and allow it, like to many other times (i.e. Rwanda in the 90s, which Clinton says not going in militarily to stop it was his biggest regret as President)?

 

As stated also, there will be no UN resolution for action as long as Russia and China are willing to veto it (unless they both abstain from the vote). Even if they do, and the resolution passes, who has to power to suppress the Syrian air defenses, establish a no-fly zone, and the like? The answer is NATO, and more so, the US and UK.

 

Personally, I’d like for us not to be in a war for a change. We need to reset out economy, rebuild our infrastructure, and help our own people with billions of dollars of aid and assistance. I’m reminded of something going around FaceBook that says (and I’m paraphrasing here): “The US military should invade the US and give aid and assistance to its people, and build bridges and schools.”

Posting Commie rubbish like that will get you on a watch list.

[Ghost]

Russian Warships now in Syrian waters