Syria

lvader

PaulF81 wrote: »

dream on.

I never expect it to happen, hardly anyone really wants peace.

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That was never going to happen.



It would.

But that also falls under the category of "no good options".



Couldn't agree more.

Hence why any action against Assad should ideally have been enough to hurt and make him think twice before gassing/napalming his own people again, but not enough to change the balance of power in the conflict.

Do you think there is anyone who could judge and plan that to get the balance right? I would doubt it.

Rinoa

sabretoothtigger

ha I think theres a general military principle its never that wise to give away your ineffectiveness. Its probably best we do nothing then a muted strike thats almost encouraging to him by its pointlessness

To say we should have supported Assad is pretty sickening. Not militarily but with grain I guess thats fair if it was given to all

purch

bump...................................

TruckerT

There now seems to be no Western leader who is prepared to take responsibility for any kind of attack on any part of the Syrian conflict. Maybe we just have to accept that there will never be 'one world'. Just as it turned out that Saddam had no means to attack the West, there seems to be no suggestion that Assad has the means to attack the West. Some say that there would be a very good case for the West to attack the opposition forces rather than the Assad regime because AQ etc pose the greater threat.

TruckerT

OffGridLiving

TruckerT wrote: »

There now seems to be no Western leader who is prepared to take responsibility for any kind of attack on any part of the Syrian conflict. Maybe we just have to accept that there will never be 'one world'. Just as it turned out that Saddam had no means to attack the West, there seems to be no suggestion that Assad has the means to attack the West. Some say that there would be a very good case for the West to attack the opposition forces rather than the Assad regime because AQ etc pose the greater threat.

Perhaps if the West just stayed the hell out of Middle Eastern politics and stopped propping up corrupt governments, then the world would be a better place. Every intervention since the Suez crisis has been a disaster.

I cannot express how pleased I was when the commons came back with a 'no' vote for action in Syria. It's gotten to the point where I'm starting to support Scottish Independance just because it will reduce the RoUK to a much smaller state, only able to support a much diminished military that cannot carry out aggressive actions overseas. My wish is to have the same approach to foreign relations as the Scandiavian countries, Switzerland, and to a certain extent, Germany. Even China has the good sense to keep out of other country's internal business.

grizzly1911

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Perhaps if the West just stayed the hell out of Middle Eastern politics and stopped propping up corrupt governments, then the world would be a better place. Every intervention since the Suez crisis has been a disaster.

Protecting interests - usually oil, mineral supply and lucrative export, engineering, logistics contracts for western (predominately US) companies, more than likely financed by the west who then expect repayment for ever more.

OffGridLiving

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Protecting interests - usually oil, mineral supply and lucrative export, engineering, logistics contracts for western (predominately US) companies, more than likely financed by the west who then expect repayment for ever more.

And yet countries other than the UK, US and France manage to do business without holding a gun to their customers heads.

ash28

I imagine there will have been atrocities from both sides of the civil war in Syria, however we (the west) only appear to be interested in one side.

We're quite happy to support al Qaeda, al Nursah, Jihadists and other groups and I have a suspicion that, as a populace we're being manipulated.

When Colin Powell stood up in front of the UN in February 2003 and made his speech he said

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa

My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.

Except the facts were lies.........and I believed them and our own government at the time.....now I believe nothing.....we killed thousands of people based on lies.

Google Curveball and Iraq war for one source of fabricated evidence.....there is plenty more. Iraq is still in a state of low level war.......

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-real-story-of-curveball-how-german-intelligence-helped-justify-the-us-invasion-of-iraq-a-542840.html

What I would like to see is Cameron, Hague, Obama, Kerry and Hollande go on a fact finding mission to Syria and then report on their findings.