co durham boy

Exactly , i'm sure the silence from the Arab League tells us everything we need to know .

Most of these people are sandwiched between hating the very ethos of the West yet praying for intervention from the same entity when it suits .

Let it rot

weasel decentral

I don't agree at all; if you judge it to be an event to intervene into then how can the method of killing make a difference?

Deciding to intervene on chemical weapon use is an attempt to draw a line in the sand and say if you cross this we have a justifiable basis to act. It's an arbitrary choice designed only to make action seem acceptable.

US/UK or any other intervention will certainly not improve the situation of the people in the country imo.
Assad remaining in power is the best of the bad choices available.

Millhouse

Why? What's so bad about using chemical weapons vs. loads of regular explosives? Or opening fire on people sitting in a mosque quietly protesting?

There is no reason for us to go to Syria. We will get caught up in the politics without any resources to grab in the meantime. Even Afghanistan makes sense (trillions of dollars of mineral wealth) - Syria doesn't.

Personally, I think fat Dave is just trying to look tough.

edit to add - that said, I'm quite excited. Give it 2 years and I reckon I'll have loads of work there unless it becomes Iraq

Ronnie Biggs

This has thankless task written all over it. Why we would even consider getting involved is beyond me - have we learnt nothing from the last two pointless wars? This is a regional matter and best sorted out by the Gazillionairres in this region.

Blue Cat

why can't Britain just keep their noses out

Bahtatboy

Why, oh why, should an impoverished country thousands of miles away, and arguably an even-more impoverished one even further away, attempt to sort out an issue involving races / tribes / governments with which they have no direct association, in a country surrounded by the "brothers" of that country?

'king madness.

And Millhouse hits the nail on the head regarding death by other means. Are we intervening in North Korea? Algeria? Burundi? Pakistan? Iran? Sudan? where far more innocent people have been killed? Just because the Daily ****ing Mail has photos of dead children on its front page we have to react. Its time extreme (and I mean extreme) pressure was put on Syria's rich and powerful neighbours to step up to the mark and earn some respect.

Blue Cat

I reckon if they put this to a public vote the vast majority of Britain would say no, let Syria sort it out themselves.

martinbkk

I agree that the Brits should recognise their position in the scheme of things and make as much out of this as Slovenia and Latvia are doing.

There should however be all necessary encouragement for those in the region to control matters in their own backyard. Money, material, tech support on the ground but all action taken in the name of the adjacent sovereign states.

Irishbeekeeper

well for one, chemical attacks can cover a huge area with less ballistics involved i.e. a shell of normal artillery will probably level a building (if hit right) and indiscriminately kill maybe 14-15 people depending on the number of people in it ofcourse, whereas the same sized shell of mustard gas or sarin or chlorine, depending on wind conditions etc, will probably cover the area of a small village and will indiscriminately kill many many more, including women and children and old people

and...in 2 years it is going to be worse than iraq, way worse!

but I DO reiterate that there should be no attack on Syria
although someone who would just LOVE to see a regime change would be Israel, in my opinion

DOHDUBMAN

I think a newspaper did a vote...Around 75% said no

Then again it may of been the daily mail if so that fact is complete and utter rubbish

OleJanx

One view I've heard is that the west keeps selling all this bloody military equipment to the Gulf states and Saudi, so why don't they actually use it for once instead of parading it about?

Boomhauer

This outrage is bull@#$% ; how many times now the US,UK,France have accused Assad of chemical weapon use...

Where's the proof it was Assad; claim has not be substantiated but Cameroon and NeoCon Americans are itching to attack Assad. The itching/bellicose behaviour by the Western powers is proof they are looking for an excuse/pre-text to bomb Assad.

Assad is bad but those Salafi/AQ/Saudi funded and supported rebels are worse. The bastards are carrying out etnic cleansing of Syriac Christians, and Sunni Kurds and Shia will also be killed and or forced out if these Wahabis take power.

Cameroon is just doing Saudi and non Qatari Gulf government's bidding, and probably Israel to a lesser extent.

flares

Isn't Assad (and regime) guilty of a heinous war crime so should be hauled in front of The Hague and banged up indefinitely?

scrubbedexpat141

Cool, so lets allow the Iranians to build Nukes...it's just another bomb after all...

Millhouse

You miss the point. The weapons shouldn't exist in the first place. But when we have sold them to the countries in the past we shouldn't be horrified when they are used.

1,300 dead in a chemical attack is nothing. 100,000 are already dead.

And killing children - yes, it's bad, but life is life and I don't really see the difference between killing kids with starvation (North Korea) or normal weapons than with chemicals.

Anyway, fat Dave seems to have lost the vote. Common sense has finally prevailed (for now at least).