Syria; intervention or steer clear

[mrsblue]

Assad was an invited guest to Downing St not too long ago yet he is now the number one target,Did he order the chemical strike? Or did the "rebels" engineer the current situation?,That is the dilemma and in truth does anyone actually care!

The invasion of Iraq with their WOMD was completely flawed and untrue,The west have failed to learn from that mistake and Iraq is still a virtual no go land.

Violence solves nothing.

 

[Neil_F]

Assad was an invited guest to Downing St not too long ago yet he is now the number one target,

How is that relevant? Are you suggesting that military action can't be taken against someone if they've been invited round for tea?

Did he order the chemical strike? Or did the "rebels" engineer the current situation?,That is the dilemma and in truth does anyone actually care!

I care. If the Assad regime did give the order then they have committed mass murder. If someone else did it then it is an attempt to drag other parties into a civil war. Who did it is crucial and I care because I'd like to think someone else would care and do something if the British government deployed chemical weapons against its own citizens.

The invasion of Iraq with their WOMD was completely flawed and untrue,The west have failed to learn from that mistake and Iraq is still a virtual no go land.

Learning from mistakes is clearly a good thing but it can be easy to be paralysed by them as well. No one is proposing a ground invasion of Syria as far as I am aware. Syria is also not Iraq and al Qaeda are nowhere near the force they were then they filled the power vaccum in Iraq after the invasion.

I find these issues extremely difficult. I find the instant dismissal of the suffering of the Syrian people as patronising and insulting. I always try to think about how I would feel if these things were happening to my own family. However, that only gets you so far because it isn't possible to intervene everywhere people are being brutalised. Then there is the geo-political element to it. For Syria that means the involvement of Russia and China and what replaces the Assad regime.

I would personally vote against any military action because the risks are too high for what comes next. I suspect it will pass for two reasons: it would probably bring down the government if it was defeated and also it is easier for us to say we are against than it is for an MP to vote against and effectively declare that murdering Syrians with chemical weapons doesn't warrant a response. I would find that incredibly difficult to do if I were a MP.

 

[mrsblue]

How is that relevant? Are you suggesting that military action can't be taken against someone if they've been invited round for tea?

No of course not! Just illustrating how the wind's can rapidly change.

I care. If the Assad regime did give the order then they have committed mass murder. If someone else did it then it is an attempt to drag other parties into a civil war. Who did it is crucial and I care because I'd like to think someone else would care and do something if the British government deployed chemical weapons against its own citizens.

Chemical weapons have been banned for nearly 100 year's,Whoever did it will possibly be never proven.

Learning from mistakes is clearly a good thing but it can be easy to be paralysed by them as well. No one is proposing a ground invasion of Syria as far as I am aware. Syria is also not Iraq and al Qaeda are nowhere near the force they were then they filled the power vaccum in Iraq after the invasion.

I find these issues extremely difficult. I find the instant dismissal of the suffering of the Syrian people as patronising and insulting. I always try to think about how I would feel if these things were happening to my own family. However, that only gets you so far because it isn't possible to intervene everywhere people are being brutalised. Then there is the geo-political element to it. For Syria that means the involvement of Russia and China and what replaces the Assad regime.

I would personally vote against any military action because the risks are too high for what comes next. I suspect it will pass for two reasons: it would probably bring down the government if it was defeated and also it is easier for us to say we are against than it is for an MP to vote against and effectively declare that murdering Syrians with chemical weapons doesn't warrant a response. I would find that incredibly difficult to do if I were a MP.

The Middle East is highly volatile and life appears worthless within the region,Egypt recently gunned down nearly 1000 in cold blood yet this massacre prompted very little outrage ,Syria in the last 2 year's has seen death on a biblical scale yet as soon as chemicals are used the world is up in arm's,Iran seem intent on attacking Israel whilst Palestine also want their pound of flesh,Yet Israel have nuke's which could easily lead to WW3.

Diplomacy is the only way forward.

 

[Neil_F]

Diplomacy is the only way forward.

How is it going so far?

I'm amazed that anyone can be so sure of their own convictions. Personally I wouldn't rule anything out. Perhaps you are just much more intelligent than me and can therefore understand exactly what will happen with 100% accuracy. I'm afraid I can't.

 

[mrsblue]

How is it going so far?

I'm amazed that anyone can be so sure of their own convictions. Personally I wouldn't rule anything out. Perhaps you are just much more intelligent than me and can therefore understand exactly what will happen with 100% accuracy. I'm afraid I can't.

You admit you don't want military action,Yet pour scorn on the diplomatic route,What exactly do you think the west should do?

 

[Neil_F]

You admit you don't want military action,Yet pour scorn on the diplomatic route,What exactly do you think the west should do?

I admitted that I wasn't sure but would probably vote against military intervention if pushed. Diplomacy clearly hasn't worked either and I am at a loss as to what could be done.

I was pouring scorn on your cast-iron certainty that diplomacy is the only option in all circumstances.

 

[Jam_Man]

Thats the problem, there is no easy solution to anything that happens in the middle east.

Its still baffling why the people running countries thought after 9/11 that invading Iraq and Afghanistan would solve anything.

 

[mrsblue]

I admitted that I wasn't sure but would probably vote against military intervention if pushed. Diplomacy clearly hasn't worked either and I am at a loss as to what could be done.

I was pouring scorn on your cast-iron certainty that diplomacy is the only option in all circumstances.

Far more intelligent people than myself are calling for diplomacy rather than any futile attack,Assad must be insane to gas his own people so if he is mad what stop's him from firing missiles at Cyprus which then involves Britain which in turn will demand a serious response from us,So it goes on and on !

Military action should only be carried out with UN backing,Failing to get such backing I suggest this country steer's well clear.The Russians think that Assad is being set up and I tend too agree with that view.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Far more intelligent people than myself are calling for diplomacy rather than any futile attack,Assad must be insane to gas his own people so if he is mad what stop's him from firing missiles at Cyprus which then involves Britain which in turn will demand a serious response from us,So it goes on and on !

Military action should only be carried out with UN backing,Failing to get such backing I suggest this country steer's well clear.The Russians think that Assad is being set up and I tend too agree with that view.

US intelligence intercepted a telephone conversation involving high-ranking members of the Syrian regime which effectively admitted guilt, and the rebels lack the technology/weaponry required to launch an attack of this size and scale. I'd say it's without question that the Assad regime committed the act, and Russia's stance tends to be that a military strike wouldn't necessarily solve the issue and risks endangering the wider region, rather than absolving Assad of guilt.

 

[mrsblue]

US intelligence intercepted a telephone conversation involving high-ranking members of the Syrian regime which effectively admitted guilt, and the rebels lack the technology/weaponry required to launch an attack of this size and scale. I'd say it's without question that the Assad regime committed the act, and Russia's stance tends to be that a military strike wouldn't necessarily solve the issue and risks endangering the wider region, rather than absolving Assad of guilt.

If that is true about the phone conversation then America should air it to the Russians and the wider world ,That action would condemn Assad without question,Until any such airing I tend to think it is about regime change.You have to ask why America Did not broadcast ASAP.

 

[EastStandBlue]

If that is true about the phone conversation then America should air it to the Russians and the wider world ,That action would condemn Assad without question,Until any such airing I tend to think it is about regime change.You have to ask why America Did not broadcast ASAP.

It's intelligence. When was the last time any country, let alone a superpower, intentionally aired privately gathered intelligence?

 

[Cricko]

I don't know if this is true or not, if it is, it is very worrying indeed.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/08/...yria-ahead-of-parliamentary-vote-on-thursday/

 

[Jam_Man]

If that is true about the phone conversation then America should air it to the Russians and the wider world ,That action would condemn Assad without question,Until any such airing I tend to think it is about regime change.You have to ask why America Did not broadcast ASAP.

The unrest in Syria has been going on for ages. If they wanted a reason then they have taken long enough to do so, and as others have said, the new regime might not be the better option anyway.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

If Al Queda is not the force it was then that is largely due to special ops and drone strikes; both are credible for Syria; against Assad and some of the similarly murderous militias.
The truth of that type of action is that it is state assassinations & a really HUGE step against a national regime and singular secular section of that society.

 

[Shrimper]

There is no reason for us to get involved in other people's issues. Yes, it's sad what's happening but the UN should be sorting it out alongside both sides. Mind you, the UN is pretty pathetic these days.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Drop bombs on Syria and World War 3 comes a step closer.

 

[Ricey]

Get in there, job security for me. Once we pull out of Afghanistan my job becomes majorly at risk as they are planning major cuts so another conflict will hopefully prevent a lot of good people losing their jobs including myself. Selfish? Yes but you have to look after no.1 cause no one else will.

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

WW3 is getting closer !
whilst us the French and of course the world's policeman America rev up for missile strike's.

.

What about the rest of Europe?. Have Holland, Germany, Italy, Spain etc jumped on the bandwagon to demand action, and if not , why not?. Never fails to amaze me how we always step on the Podium first to condemn, whilst others as per usual follow from the back. Why dont we ever do that.

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

Drop bombs on Syria and World War 3 comes a step closer.

Probably be the next reason to delay Fossetts by another few months!

 

[mrsblue]

Get in there, job security for me. Once we pull out of Afghanistan my job becomes majorly at risk as they are planning major cuts so another conflict will hopefully prevent a lot of good people losing their jobs including myself. Selfish? Yes but you have to look after no.1 cause no one else will.

You like playing at war!

Putting your life on the line for a few quid is mind blowing ,Good luck to you.