Syria
 

Ohh dear, looks like another middle eastern war is about to get going.

UK is upset as are the French and US, oh and Canada at the back of the group are on the fence for now. (They should stay on the fence IMO)

But why will killing 2-3,000 people using cruise and other long range missiles make things any better? It's bad that they gassed a 1,000 people but killing 1,000's more ain't the answer.

Instead:
Just send in the SAS and kill the head guy who ordered the gassing but don't tell anyone who did it.

Re: Syria
 

Seems to be a very volatile issue, since Iraq everyone thinks the US starts wars for it's own benefit, even though it recently came out that the US didn't want to get involved before because it was thought that the rebel forces would not support US interests. That chemical attack was horrifying though, and those responsible should be held to account.

I hadn't heard anything about cruise missiles, I assumed it would be a more traditional military operation.

Re: Syria
 

Its not important what they think or do tbh. :rofl:

Now the Russians are going to be very grumpy and you've got to bet that the Russian-Snowden issue has a bearing on the US response.

Re: Syria
 

Just said on the news that they would "most likely start" with missiles, then go to land based fight.

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-08-27/s...uise-missiles/

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4aba4736-0...#axzz2dCSQTcMG

Hard to know who to gun for tho ehh ?

For sure tho !!! Gas will go up !!!!

Re: Syria
 

CBC radio allocated it a 5 second slot this morning..... we were AMAZED to hear ANY international news at all.

Re: Syria
 

He's been. Killing his own people for ages just seems to be an issue now with how he's doing it.

Re: Syria
 

Looks like they stepped over the line now, should have just continued to use conventional methods of killing.

Re: Syria
 

Who decides what and where the line is?, the UN?

Re: Syria
 

Obama says jump, UK say high high

Re: Syria
 

'Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.' (BBC)

So the supplier of 80%+ of the military equipment to the Syrian Army doesn't want their client knocked out of power. Strange, that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipme...he_Syrian_Army

Re: Syria
 

Obama needs some news story to distract people from the NSA spying; bombing some random third-world coutnry is always good.

Re: Syria
 

UK recalls parliament, Canada prorogues parliament.

How is getting involved supposed to help? A very expensive moral high ground. :Syria has been a shit place for years.

Re: Syria
 

We should not dismiss out of hand what the Russians are saying. It may be correct that some of the atrocities have been staged by the rebels (or the embedded Islamic militants) to goad the West into destroying the Assad regime, so that the Islamists can then take over.

Saddam, Gadaffi and Mubarak had their faults but they kept the God-botherers under control.

Re: Syria
 

Tell that to those that are being killed.

You appear to be an advocate for the withdrawal of all western forces from Iraq due to the number of innocent civilian casualties, but don't wish to offer the same protection for a similar number of innocent civilian casualties in Syria.

Re: Syria
 

Similar reaction from Iran, too:

"Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Wednesday that US intervention would be a "disaster" for the region.

"The region is like a gunpowder store and the future cannot be predicted," Mr Khamenei said, according to Iran's Isna news agency." (BBC)


I'm not sure how this one will play out, probably just a few well-aimed cruise missiles at the ophthalmologist and his regime?

Re: Syria
 

And Assad. Absolutely, Mubarak's and Assad's vice seems to have been money, while the other two openly supported international terrorism in one form or another as long as it was somewhere else. (Gadaffi stopped when he got bombed though). When Anwar Sadat got shot to pieces for trying to get along with Israel and Mubarak breezed into power he was considered (by us) the best president ever, a moderate and modern man friendly to the west. They all jailed anyone who could be a threat to their regimes, including Islamic extremists. The CBC today reports that the jihadis have a big recruiting drive on to pour fighters into Syria and we can't control who ends up running that country no matter what we do so maybe sending our few ships is a bad idea. Will they save lives should be the deciding factor. The drug and arms interdiction patrols they do in the gulf and anti piracy cruises still need to be done by someone. Rubbing out the engineers of the gas attack with a covert strike team just to send a message is a heart-warming thought, but unlikely imo. The mandate of. The mandate of the UN inspectors should have included checking out the cache of chemicals the army supposedly found but since the regime stalled them for nearly a week from getting into the target area that's probably won't happen. I think it was the army and Assad doesn't care because his back is to the wall. When he is gone the other civil war between the factions will continue.

Re: Syria
 

Oh for goodness sake, where have I commented on the withdrawal or otherwise from Iraq? Why don't you stop trying to catch people out?

I worry daily about Syria and Lebanon as I have a very dear friend living in Beirut who has family in Damascus. I have not heard from him for some months. So pardon me for an emotional response.

Oh yes and I have seen chemical weapons burns at very close quarters.

Re: Syria
 

Not to worry though, after all, the country is shit.

Re: Syria
 

Everything looked so normal last month too according to the videos on the Syria tube site.

Check out this video Syriatube:

http://youtu.be/4D3Q8DC-abU

Re: Syria
 

If you say so,.

Re: Syria
 

As someone not in the military I'll not be quick to advocate sending Canadian troops (or UK/US/FR/EU/whoever) into what will obviously turn into a complete disaster.

Has intervention anywhere in the middle east/north africa/central asia ever really improved matters?

Re: Syria
 

I don't agree with this but it would depend upon what they are tasked to do.

An ominous gathering of force may persuade the regime to act reasonably.

That would depend upon how you define "improved matters"

Re: Syria
 

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

We have Western and Middle Eastern governments giving weapons to Al Qaeda and their friends to attack the Syrian government. How do you expect them to respond?

Now, suddenly, our 'rebel' friends are losing and Assad supposedly chooses to drop chemical weapons on them despite the fact that Obama has said it would be justification for America to bomb them (because chemicals are icky while bombs are not). The UN sends a team to inspect the supposed attack, but our 'rebel' friends shoot at them so they can't reach the site.

That makes total sense.

Re: Syria
 

Of course, there are a large number of assumptions stated there.

Are you suggesting that no one is arming the Assad regime?

Do you believe that the Assad regime was justified in using chemical weapons?

I have no idea what is happening on the ground, just as I have no idea whether a gathering of force (as opposed to talking about doing so) would have the desired effect.

Unfortunately, the UN security council has shown time and time again that it is not really prepared to act to protect civilians.

Re: Syria
 

Its an internal matter and has nothing to do with other countries.

Re: Syria
 

That's one way of looking at it

Re: Syria
 

.....I think the answer to that might be NO!

But why do 'we' decide to intervene in some situations, but just leave other Monsters to do what they want to the local populace with impunity...Zimbabwe and the Congo spring instantly to mind, but there are loads of others, with just as many innocent poor sods being slaughtered daily.

Re: Syria
 

Is it what politicians want to be seen doing, or when what happens becomes more public knowledge? When you can ignore the wife beater next door until he beats her out on the front lawn?

Syria has had an appalling human rights record for years, under both Al Assads. There was no freedom of expression, even expats had to watch what they did abroad for fear of reprisals to their families back home. Torture and disappearances have long been inflicted on the people by this government.

Saddam used mustard gas against Iran, the US and the UK knew and did nothing because the wanted rid of the Iran govt.

So it has nothing to do with human rights and saving civilians but what the politicians can get out of it.

Re: Syria
 

I think the key factor in most of these interventions is oil, gas, minerals etc. If you have nothing to offer to the west then they politicians turn a blind eye

Re: Syria
 

It's hard to imagine someone wanting to pay $1,410,000 for a Tomahawk cruise missile + delivery to target, without them wanting some sort of ROI.

Re: Syria
 

What did Bosnia offer the West?

Re: Syria
 

And now on CBC news it says 'Syria Strike Needs Security Council Approval, UN Says' of course, the US already knew that... :D

Re: Syria
 

Serbia at the time was a last bastion of socialism.

Re: Syria
 

They should fire missiles at their bases, the government, and where the chemical warfare is held, and try as far as possible to avoid the innocents (women, children, and rebels). Hopefully many of the children are now over the border? It's disgusting they were targetted by their own government, and there should be repercussions for that. Even more importantly, I don't want these chemical weapons being used on a more global level, so time to nip that in the bud right now, rather than leave it and give it a chance to escalate, which was a mistake that occurred with the Iraq war I believe.

Re: Syria
 

Who did it though?

One rumour going round is they did this just to get the US involved ?

http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/eviden...ons-not-assad/

When the UN inspectors tried to check it out they got shot at and forced to leave.

Re: Syria
 

And then they replaced the damaged vehicle and turned around and proceeded to the area where the victims were. A short delay, and it's unclear who was sniping at them and it didn't happen again. If the inspectors' mandate was to determine who made the attack I doubt they would of been let in. If it was the government delivering the gas in an artillery barrage, the week of constant shelling they poured into the same area before allowing the inspection team in will have destroyed most evidence. I think there's going to be some restructuring in the area and it isn't going to please everyone.

Re: Syria
 

Bosnia was because of its postion within eastern europe and letting it carry on could have destablised the whole region. Their are odd conflicts that buck the trend but in the most part there is motivation behind everytime UN, UK,US etc go in.

Why have the Chinese invested heavily in Africa and Latin America because of oil, minerals etc, its not a war I grant you and yet it's not a charity effort by them either. Why do Russia always get in a tiz about places like Syria ?, because Russia does a great deal of arms exporting to a lot of despot countrys.

If you are in some small desolate country with no resources and no means to buys arms then no one really cares what happens, there is no motivation

Re: Syria
 

In this case is the "someone" not the "taxpayer"?

Re: Syria
 

Of course there is motivation. The question is: What is the motivation?

I thought your argument was that those that wish to go in wish to do so to exploit the assisted country's resources.

Somalia, Korea, Rwanda, Cyprus, Lebanon, Mozambique & Sierra Leone?

Re: Syria
 

Re: your last point. Generally, no, it doesn't. It is interesting to see, however, that the UN in the DRC is now shooting at the baddies (and shelling them). I have thought for some years that the only way to deal with those gits is to start killing them. The UN seems to have grown some balls.