Off To War ?

Simmo explained it and yes it's a French speaking country. We offered and gave assistance

It will not go down well with some but some countries do welcome western assistance to prevent being taken over by nutters. Awful isn't it?
 
Last edited:
The failure in all these interventions, whether good intentioned or otherwise, is the lack of clarity in defining the likely outcome.
For me its simple- no clear acceptable outcome = no intervention.

At a tangent- why is it acceptable to blow people up with high explosive but not to poison them?
 
There's an international convention banning the use of chemical weapons, but I get your point, TS.
 
But I understand that Syria is not a signee of that convention ?
(So, does a convention agreement that you have not partaken in still make you beholden to it? Just a query.).
 
I don't know about the legal niceties, but it explains why the rest of the world feels a line has been crossed.
 
I smell a rat.

Assad's regime was, slowly but surely, winning this war. Certainly, their means of doing so are/were brutal in the extreme, but they we're definitely re-asserting in a big way, and the use of chemical weapons would therefore be just-about the stupidest strategic decision possible; their deployment almost certain to cause an escalation from beyond Syria's borders.

Why would the Assad regime do this?

They were clearly in the ascendency, and had managed to contain - more through luck of geography than judgement - the conflict to within their own country. They also had the implicit support of both Russia and China, which restricted any Western sabre-rattling to just that.

To deploy CWs last week is just wholly counter-intuitive to what was in their best interest.

Assad will eventually go down for other heinous crimes; answering either to a War Crimes court or his maker - whatever comes first. But I worry that there is a rush to judgement on the part of (mainly) Western nations, insofar as who used these weapons, is concerned. The West won't benefit from getting this wrong - indeed, if CW is in the hands of some of the more renegade elements of the Opposition, then it is very bad news indeed.

It's disappointing that, once again, some politicians come to a judgement based on pre-conceived notions, rather than a dispassionate assessment of the evidence.

Better that we let the UN inspectors find-out what they can, and then decide what the best course-of-action is, because we could very-quickly see a vacuum in Syria, filled with something even more odious than the Assad regime.
 
Last edited:
Same thoughts crossed my mind, GH.
Fwiw my simple view is:
The Baddies are mainly supported by a large number of normal people afraid of being massacred. The Goodies are supported by a motley collection of Nasties.

This is still sit on hands time.
 
Yes and see Galloway has already blamed the Jews

I'm not convinced the evil west are that enthused about Assads removal anyway. And despite paranoids views I'm certain intervention is not welcome

So on other hand if it was the rebels, then they could be thoroughly demonised and let Assad get on with ir
 
Grass. I think your theory is one for the dustbin. Will disappoint those who will be praying the evil west gets it all wrong but obamas administration is very cautious and yet they are unequivocal abou this. I reckon they have some pretty hard intelligence here

The last thing they will want to do is play into the hands of the knee jerk anti interventionists (who would rather see more chemical atttacks than a successful us and allies operation ).
 
clivex said:
The last thing they will want to do is play into the hands of the knee jerk anti interventionists (who would rather see more chemical atttacks than a successful us and allies operation ).
Click to expand...

Clive, you cannot really believe this - the above is the single most crass, stupid thing I have seen written on this forum, and that is saying something.
 
Your favourite paper ran a piece slamming the us rescue in haiti as imperialism. Go figure. There are plemty who are against intervention per se.
 
You also tgink iran russia and china let alone many other states will be happy to see the us nail this ? I don't think so
 
William Hague said several times today that all the evidence points to a chemical attack by Assad. Now, I don't doubt there was one nor who it was by but what evidence is he referring to?
 
As above. I reckon they have hard intelligence. After iraq and so on there is bound to be caution
 
Not possible, as they decided to act pre inspectors going in. Maybe they knew in advance what they would find..
 
Oh right. Its a conspiracy.

yawn

Not going to say it again after this but obama is very very risk adverse. They know
 
Last edited:
Where did I say that? I said they have already decided before any evidence is available. Read what I wrote.

Why is Ed Miliband refusing to back the govt motion? Don't you think Dave would have told him they have what he is asking for?

If they had this, why can't they have brought it straight to the UN?
 
Back
Top