Syria

[For Us All]

Don't envy Cameron for this decision. Do we anoint ourselves world police and intervene, or do we stand by as atrocities happen. What happened in Kosovo may still be in the back of their minds.

On the other hand do they provide weapons to rebels when many of the groups may actually contain possible terrorists. Remember, the US armed Osama bin laden. Having said all that, I think due to the use of chemical weapons, Cameron will have a strong moral argument, and even those who don't want us to get involved will understand the decision.

What makes the situation very volatile is the Chinese and Russians being allies to Syria. Throw Israel into the mix (who will likely have missiles thrown in their direction as the western representatives of the west), and the Middle East fuse is ready to be lit.

Personally I can't see Russia or china getting involved more than a war of words (and likely weapons provided by Russia to Syria), especially if its only strategic hits and no invasion.

 

What is the Russians and Chinese stance on this,do they support the use of chemical weapons?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

What is the Russians and Chinese stance on this,do they support the use of chemical weapons?

 

Their support of Syria surely makes them well placed to put pressure on Assad on this..although the horse has bolted somewhat if the regime is responsible for this atrocity

[Santa]

By the sound of things, from the way the Russians are dead against military action, it sounds like they've got an economic interest (ie oil) in the Assad regime staying in place.

 

The USA's recent interest in military action suggests there's an economic interest (ie oil) in them getting involved.

 

Military action could possibly be justified but once you realise that it will take the form of drone strikes, carpet bombing civilians and 'collateral damage', it probably isn't.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

To an extent it's right that Russia takes action that is in the interests of Russia and Russians..that's where their prime responsibility lies..if that means protecting important oil/gas sources and investments then there is a case for that

 

However the wider reponsibility to protect the victims of this should not be ignored....it's a question of what's right for Russia balanced with what's right for the victims...a very difficult juggling act

[For Us All]

Their support of Syria surely makes them well placed to put pressure on Assad on this..although the horse has bolted somewhat if the regime is responsible for this atrocity

 

Is there any conclusive proof that the Assad regime fired the chemical weapons?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Nor read/heard of any myself...wait and see

[For Us All]

Nor read/heard of any myself...wait and see

 

I believe that the UN are assessing the situation as we speak but whether they will be able to determine who fired the weapons is another matter.Might have been the rebels,might have been Al Queda,who knows.

Is somebody trying to frame the Assad regime to achieve there own aims,all a bit wishy,washy to me.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

. The UAE have been buying their military protection off the French.

 

Poor $0ds...one whiff of conflict and the buildings' automatic white flag will be runup ;)

[For Us All]

Syrian government blames the USA,UK and France of helping terrorists to use chemical weapons?

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1134206/syria-britain-encouraged-chemical-attacks

[Andyregs]

Syrian government blames the USA,UK and France of helping terrorists to use chemical weapons?

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1134206/syria-britain-encouraged-chemical-attacks

 

Seems he is too daft to understand subtle propaganda. He had an excuse that a minority might have believed, that the terrorists fired the weapons to create conflict. Once he starts spouting exaggerated conspiracy theories, all it does it is show the whole idea up as ridiculous and point the finger of blame firmly back to himself.

[The Wonder of You]

My only concern over carrying out any sort of intervention into Syria is what do we do after? We do not have enough troops to cope with policing the world!

We are not a superpower, and do not have resources to get tangled up in such a conflict if it were to turn long term. Every conflict in the region that we have been involved in has left a power vacuum that does not just sort itself out once we pull out.

Another concern is escalating into another Cold War scenario with a face off between east and west. I understand that Russia is not the force it was before the break up of the USSR, however I wonder would China take sides if this were to happen? Would we re-employ all troops and build up a defence force of the size and nature of the 70's and 80's, doubt very much if that would happen because no one has the money to spend on such a deployment.

 

 

In this particular instance I honestly do not know the answer its almost a damned if you don't and damned if you do.

 

My own preference would be to let the region sort itself out! Called that selfish and uncaring if you like but do we really want to start seeing more of our troops coming home to be repatriated?

[Andyregs]

My only concern over carrying out any sort of intervention into Syria is what do we do after? We do not have enough troops to cope with policing the world!

We are not a superpower, and do not have resources to get tangled up in such a conflict if it were to turn long term. Every conflict in the region that we have been involved in has left a power vacuum that does not just sort itself out once we pull out.

Another concern is escalating into another Cold War scenario with a face off between east and west. I understand that Russia is not the force it was before the break up of the USSR, however I wonder would China take sides if this were to happen? Would we re-employ all troops and build up a defence force of the size and nature of the 70's and 80's, doubt very much if that would happen because no one has the money to spend on such a deployment.

 

 

In this particular instance I honestly do not know the answer its almost a damned if you don't and damned if you do.

 

My own preference would be to let the region sort itself out! Called that selfish and uncaring if you like but do we really want to start seeing more of our troops coming home to be repatriated?

 

It depends what intervention they are talking about. Missiles into a few key bases or ground troops. I'd be surprised if it was the latter.

As for china, as you say its extremely unlikely. Their interests are very much linked to the west now. Their population is their strength as well a their weakness. I'm sure unread that once having a lot of children was part of their policy to make them able to defend themselves, however then due to the size of the population they resorted to the 'one child' policy'. This has now cause a massive issue with an ageing population. The last thing china wants or needs is a war. Their route to world power is the rate it's economy is growing. A Cold War would drain its resources (and the geography of world would make it a lot less worrying than the first Cold War. The Russians had the iron curtain, whereas there would be half a world between us and them), and an actually world war would lead to the aptly labelled 'MAD' (mutually assured destruction). There will be posturing here or there, but I'd be amazed if it escalated into anything that serious.

As I said earlier, it's a hard decision, do we anoint ourselves world police, or sit back and let atrocities happen. From the First World War onwards we have a record of getting involved in other peoples conflicts, sometimes for the right reasons and sometimes not, but there are also question marks over conflicts that we didn't get involved in (or at least not quick enough). It's a no win situation morally (war is always a choice between the best of two evils) just as its a win win situation politically (we have an undeniable moral argument with chemical weapons being used, but also a population won't take a government to account for not taking us to war, especially after so many others).

What happens after is a problem, and one their people have to sort out eventually, as democracy can't be forced. Whether its external countries being involved such as Iraq or Afghanistan, or it's an internal revolution like Egypt, it's a rocky road either way. However our objective can't be to force democracy. It has to be to defend innocent life. Then whatever happens afterwards, whoever takes over at least knows that any such action against their own people will not be tolerated.

It's so easy for us to debate it here, but imagine having to make the decision, knowing either way, that whatever choice you make will end up with people dying.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The above will be on next years's A level history exam followed by the word "discuss" ;)

[Barcroft]

I've followed this quite closely, but on the whole I think there's no option but to fire missles for a few days. Not an easy decision though.

 

Britain, France and the US should go about targetting places weapons are manufactured, weapons stores, and presidential buildings. Ideally the place Assad is staying if they know where that is.

 

What they need to avoid is targetting anything anywhere near where civilians could become victim.

 

Staying well away and doing nothing would send completely the wrong message to any world leaders who intend using chemical weapons. Cameron is right IMO to say that we shouldn't invade, but simply punish them to show that this sort of thing won't be tolerated.

[Barcroft]

Stay out.Cameron is getting sucked in just the same way as Blair did with the super gun,weapons of mass destruction.Did we ever find these so called weapons that we were told WERE there.No we didn't.With all the cut back we have had to the armed forces how would our armed forces cope?

 

STAY OUT.

 

Talk about missing the point. They aren't even considering going in to look for weapons of mass destruction.

 

Sadly I fear the wrong decision will be made because the public are aligning this with Iraq when it's got barely any similarity.