It's bound to be a talking point over the next few days. How do you see it? For what it's worth I see it thusly: 1. We'll assume it was chemical weapons that were used, but by whom? Who has the most to gain, Assad (from wiping out some civilians) or the rebels (from implying it was Assad and thus bringing down the wrath of the western world on their enemy)? 2. Would you trust American "evidence"? 3. Do you think that the Americans might be trigger happy (or at least some of them, like Halliburton and friends)? 4. Would you trust the rebels (with their jihadist members from dodgy organisations)? Would you trust Assad? Would you trust any of them? 5. What would a couple of cruise missiles and a bomb attack actually achieve? Do we know the outcome we are looking for, and the likely chances of getting it? 6. What's the risk if it all goes pear-shaped? 7. What is so special about killing people with nerve gas, when it seems quite OK to napalm them (burn them to death) or cluster bomb them (maim and kill) or do any number of other horrible things to them. Assad and co have been doing all these things (with the possible exception of napalm - I know nothing about this). So what's so special now to justify a knee-jerk reaction? Alternatively, if you think that Assad did use chemical weapons, beyond reasonable doubt, does the international community just look dangerously spineless if there is no retribution? Just remember what happened when we got tough with the last guy to use chemical weapons - Saddam. I'm quite glad I'm not a politician.
Did we not go into Iraq on the premise of looking for WMD's and didn't find any, what is to say this is any different ? With Syria maybe not nuclear, but still pretty nasty. With Afghanistan winding down do we really need something else to go to? With all your points they are all valid IMO And no i wouldn't want to be a politician either!
Would you trust American "evidence"? Yes in the same way I would trust a Nigerian with my bank details I guess as we speak Haliburton AKA US Government are already drawing up very lucrative Syrian contracts
If you dont use it, you lose it. People complain about military intervention. Then they also complain about how a expensive an army is sitting around doing nothing. And then theyll complain about who is going to protect them when they have reduced there defences. Who'd want to be a politcian?
I always maintain hope about my homeland. I always wish it would one day stop being so stupid. It's a bit like hoping your lottery numbers would come up. Then I look at Hague (and his incredibly annoying northern drawl - quite a feat) and think - these people are supposedly bright. Didn't they learn anything from Iraq? And now they are trying to bounce us into another war with no clear objectives. At least Milliband seems to have some idea about recent history.
The issue with chemical weapons is their dispersal is very similar to that of mustard gas (also a chemical weapon technically) ie wind dependant, so instead of it being a targeted assault, the collateral damage is much higher than desired. Are the yanks trigger happy, of course they are. Are they happy to deceive the public with faulty evidence? I don't think so, although that is a much greyer area. Im sure people will interpret information in a way that suits their desires (political or otherwise) Will it go pear shaped and are we in line to be attacked. Yes and no. Of course it will go pear shaped, but as soon as anybody tries to attack the allies, their country will end up looking like East London in the sixties in a matter of days Would I want to be a politician? Depends how hot my secretary is :smile:
Two years too late! The Syrian insurgency against Assad was started in 2011 by well-meaning and idealistic rebels who wanted freedom and democracy for their country. But those guys got no support from anybody, least of all us, as the western world happily stood by watching them being slaughtered. They are long gone. At present the conflict is between Assad's murderous tyrannical regime, and groups of murderous Islamists keen to replace him with their own tyranny. Both groups are well supported by outside interests. One would rather like them both to lose. Obama's problem is that if the conflict spreads into Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Israel etc and becomes a general meltdown, he will be blamed for not preventing it. The real question is, is the best chance of avoiding general meltdown for the USA to intervene, or not to intervene? A difficult dilemma. Leaving aside that the best time for intervening was two years ago, as far as I can see they will be obliged to intervene at some point. The poison gas issue, although of no practical relevance, has become an important psychological touchstone - it could provide a useful excuse for intervention if one is needed.
Good points. And that is very much how it appears to me. They will intervene if they wanted to anyway, without the never gas thing, and they won't if they didn't - gas or no. So that leads me to suspect that they do want to intervene, and that can only be to have another attempt at establishing hegemony in the region with an eye to Iran. In which case, it's going to be another bloodbath - especially for the people who live there. The West has no clue how to organise (even if it were possible or desirable) a load of murderous Arab tribes. So they shouldn't bother trying. Firing bombs and guns is the easy bit (as they found out in Iraq). As Pete says - there aren't really any goodies here. When Assad goes, it will be an Islamist republic which will be ungrateful for whatever help it was given (cf Libya). Do you want to get involved in stuff that we are fairly powerless to prevent? Where is the budget for this?
its just a mess and other than snippets of tv news I dont purport to know much or want to get all deep and into this but part of me says let them sort their own crap out. its very sad - but its their problem and their's to keep and they have some pretty big mates too aka russia and china and the weapons support they would receive through the backdoor would never end...
Megiddo was a site of great importance in the ancient world. It guarded the western branch of a narrow pass and trade route connecting Egypt and Assyria. Because of its strategic location, Megiddo was the site of several historical battles...... ........the place is now loosely referred to as Armageddon..........
Quick question. Why are all the Worlds serious conflict troubles in none Christian Countries? Why do all the starving people live in Africa?
Because: 70 years ago, the "Christian" countries were tearing themselves apart. We've worked through it. (Only took a couple of millennia). The Arab countries have oil and control the short cut to the east. You think we'd give a rat's arse otherwise? The starving people live in Africa because the African countries are entirely dysfunctional and don't make any sense (arbitrary borders, collections of disparate tribes). The sort of societies that took centuries to evolve in Europe, China and Japan only kicked off with colonialism some time in the 19th century. It's going to take time folks, assuming that the indigenous peoples have any real aptitude or desire for participative democracy.
