The first reports of chemical weapon usage some time ago were vague enough that it really wasn't clear who if anyone used them. I'm pretty sure little action will be taken unless there is a pretty firm case against the Syrian regime. If it turns out to be a faction of the rebels I'm not sure at all what will happen.
This is all very different than Iraq according to the current administration. The reasoning is that Iraq was, you know... Bush. Aside from that, I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to who used those chemical weapons, if any were actually used. The Jihadis would kill a million people if they could pin the blame on Assad and get western help. And once in power, they'll immediately begin killing westerners.
Saoudia Arabia and Qatar are pulling strings too , they want more religious and political influence in Syria.....and meanwhie oil prices go up... It's a morbid chess game in my opinion.
If they get in power they'll probably try. In the mean time they'll likely kill a considerable number of their own. The Kurds apparently are already having problems with them but seem to have the upper hand.
Jilly Carrell Mr Cameron, and those voting in the commons on Thursday, regarding the civil war in Syria, a plea from a military wife and mother: Our troops have been engaged in combat almost constantly for the past 15 years. We have made enormous sacrifices in the name of "democracy", in the pursuit of non existent weapons of mass destruction, in the hunt for Osama B.L., in the fight against terror, in the fight against the poppy fields. Do we need to intervene again in the warring in the Middle East? Do our husbands need to leave home again in pursuit of what is deemed to be right by our politicians? Do our children need to spend months waiting and wondering if their parents will come home? Politicians. Use OUR vote wisely. We have suffered done our duty, you have made many of us redundant, in thanks, and thousands of men and women have either paid the ultimate sacrifice or been critically injured in the name of world peace. I'm just a woman, cleaning the kitchen floor before school starts back next week. But please listen as I know I speak for many other military families. We await your response on Thursday. An army wife.
Indeed. The evidence is weak; who used what chemicals? The floorplan is muddled; so many factions fighting for supremacy, so many different, varied backers, all seeking to subvert power, and gain ascendancy. Once again, why does the west need to get involved? I read the UK white paper on Iraqi WMD, and was flabberghasted at its lack of content. 55 pages of imaginings and irrelevant mumblings. What was worse was Colin Powell's performance at the UN. I've never seen such an unconvincing performance. It was obvious the man didn't believe what he was selling. Once we start getting directly involved, we'll be expected to stay to clean up the damn mess. I'm against military adventurism; if we go in, we have an obligation to stick for the long haul. I'm fed up with the various factions that try to manipulate local and Western opinion, and get us to do their dirty work. I'm also tired of people that seem to think that these wars can be resolved in 6 months or less, and the troops'll be home for Christmas. Syria is another looming Quagmire. Let the Saudis go in with their multibillion dollar armed forces (top ten in armed spending per year) (M1 Abrahms and Leopard 2s, F-15Es, Tornados, Eurofighters) . When did Western armies become proxies fighting for Wahhabism against Iranian sponsored Shiite expansion? It aint our fight, and like someone that tries to intervene in a domestic argument, no one will be grateful we went there. Another thing that bothers me even more is the kind of conspiracy crap that is going emerge from any involvement; "The West sent in the SAS, and fired those rockets..." "The west only wants the Oil", "Obama is Asma's love child". Save my tax dollar, and spend it on almost anything else but another useless Middle Eastern venture, that is only going to give cause for more Jihadism.
On the assumption that chemical weapons have been used by Assad - do we all sit back and forget that these evil, indiscriminate, banned weapons have just killed over a hundred people? There simply has to be some punishment or they will become routinely used. Sadam used chemical weapons against the Kurds but did not dare use them against Coalition Forces only because he knew the consequences would be catastrophic.
Appears that you are correct. My mistake. I still stand by what I said previously, though. I doubt that the rebels have the capability to deliver Sarin via missile on such a large scale. Again, this isn't to say that the rebels haven't used chemical weapons.... Either way, we should stay out of it.
On the assumption that it was Bashar Al-Assad. So why is it up to my brothers to go and die to "punish" a regime, 5,000 kms away, that is killing its own citizens and foreign fighters, most of whom are engaged in a Jihad against a secular regime. These same "freedom fighters" many of whom would only too happily eradicate the Christian minority, or drive them into refugee status, and prevent women from seeking a fulfilling life? Syria never signed the Convention on Chemical Weapons. Neither has North Korea. Or Angola. Of course, the US used Agent Orange which caused and continues to cause some rather disturbing defects in Vietnam... Leaping up and getting all indignant, considering the history of the West, is not endearing us to other nations, most of which have quite long memories. Why do "we" need to do the punishing? Who appointed us World Police? The Wahhabis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? That's fantastic; the west pays in life and hard cash, gets the blame when everything goes pie shaped, and the Wahhabis get to spread their oppressive, venomous brand of slavery. Is killing 100 people sufficient cause to interfere? In that case we still have to seek justice for the murder of the Armenians in Turkey 1915. Or the Tibetans in 1955, or the Aborigines in Australia. When do we invade these countries? "Nothing contained in the present United Nations Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll" Show me where they found the Saddam's chemical weapons in 2003... Oh, that's right, after ten years of searching, they have 500 degraded munitions that were so badly corroded they couldn't be used... He couldn't have used them even if he wanted. Yeah, go Colin Powell! They never found anything that could have been used.
The invasion of Iraq was not the beginning of a war. The US was already in a state of war with Iraq, honoring a cease-fire that began when hostilities ceased at the end of the Gulf War. Iraq invaded Kuwait and we had a defense treaty with Kuwait. We threw them out and halted short of actual invasion with a cease-fire agreement. We were still in a state of war with Iraq. For that cease-fire to continue, Iraq had to honor the many conditions imposed by the cease-fire agreement, most notably complete and open inspections of every military and industrial site in the country. Any single violation was justification to resume hostilities under international and US law, and there were many dozens of violations of the cease-fire agreement through those years and all of those violations were noted by UN observers. I only bring that up because the propaganda version has replaced the actual facts of the matter. We didn't need to find WMD's for legal justification to invade Iraq - we were already at war with Iraq and they had violated the terms of the cease-fire. The violations (most of them) were simply blocking inspectors from various sites at various times. I'm only speaking of legal justification here. I will not argue with anyone who argues on ethical, moral or common sense grounds that invading Iraq was unwise. Those are subjective matters with which I don't completely disagree. Syria? They have not invaded a neighboring country, so we have no business there. Furthermore, the people this administration is supporting are the same Jihadis that are killing westerners throughout the world. Why would the US or any western power back Al Qaeda?
I agree with you, KB. It wasn't necessary, except for all the arguments made at the time by UK gov and US were pointing out that Saddam had such an arsenal of WMD, that it was a threat to world peace. I read the UK white paper, and have seldom read so much dreamed up trollop in my life. Colin Powell's case in the UN, wasn't "ceasefire violations" it was WMD. That was the US gov's standpoint.
When evil is fighting evil, don't help either side. We don't need to bomb another ME to make Obama feel like he is living up to his "red line" statement nonsense!
Yup, we're on the same page here. Bush should have just declared the cease-fire agreement violated and resumed hostilities.
Seems the politicos might actually be listening to the people who pay their wages for a change- "David Cameron tonight ruled out UK involvement in military action against Syria after his authority and international standing were dealt a severe blow by defeat on the issue in the Commons. In what is thought to be an unprecedented parliamentary reverse over British military action, Tory rebels joined with Labour to inflict a humiliating defeat on the Prime Minister. A motion backing the use of force ‘if necessary’ in response to last week's deadly chemical weapons attack was rejected by 272 votes to 285, majority 13. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed Britain would now not be involved in any military action in Syria." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2405633/Syria-conflict-David-Cameron-humiliated-losing-Commons-vote-possible-military-action.html#ixzz2dP8btm00
There is a chance for a second vote once the results of the investigation is finalised. Either way...A military should not be used to "punish" anybody...it should have a mission to acheive. We should choose our fights and stop imposing our standards on others, and respect soverignty - we would demand no less.
If my vote counted: Let us not intervene. They need to work their own business out, yonder... Impressed to see the UK vote against action. Canada says it won't participate in an attack either. NKorea just terminated a bunch of people, and imprisoned many more under brutal circumstances. ..No love for the NKorean folk- no airstrikes planned for the injustice called NK.
"Whacking" your ex-lover hardly equates chemical weapons use. Bill Clinton would probably send balloons with a note that read "Damn, wish I had thought of that." Also, Syria has no known nuclear weapons, not so for North Korea. That is Kim Jong-un's "Get out of jail free." card.
I can only assume this comment was aimed me, because I said "aint our fight, and like someone that tries to intervene in a domestic argument, no one will be grateful we went there." 1) A domestic argument is not an argument between ex-lovers. It usually refers to people that are still living together, and so still have very strong ties to one another. 2) Have you ever tried to intervene in a spat between two lovers? Its actually very precarious, because suddenly, they may both become extremely hostile to you. At least in the West. I don't think Japanese actually argue at all. Perhaps they just glower at each other. 3) I wasn't saying the domestic argument "equated chemical use". I was saying, by intervening in a fight that isn't ours, we will likely end up fighting at least some of those factions that are today fighting Assad. I think the analogy stands. But sorry if it flew over your head. I can only assume English is not your first language?
