Off To War ?

Because the UN are not mandated to say who used the weapons and will not do so. They will tell us the weapons were used. Fantastic

Milliband is opposing because he and his party would rather there was no intervention

Yes Bar. About the sum of it.
 
Last edited:
The situation in Syria is so ridiculously complex and risky that I`m amazed people can be certain that either intervention or non-intervention is the right course of action. On balance, my gut reaction is that intervention is the riskier option but I could well be wrong. A terrible dilemma for the politicians. I hope they get it right.
 
I am in the same boat as DD. I am a non-interventionist by heart, but I think that action may be warranted in this instance.

I think they should be very careful what they do. Speed is not of the essence. War is very much like a pop tart. Once you pop, it is very difficult to stop. The goal should be to put an end to the conflict as swiftly as possible. My view is that they go to Iran and Russia to discuss action and what form it should take, but make out that there needs to be a consequence to events earlier this month.

All in all, it is a thorny issue. Very complex. Assad is a cu.nt. But he is not unique in that regard.
 
Last edited:
Bar the Bull said:
I am in the same boat as DD. I am a non-interventionist by heart, but I think that action may be warranted in this instance.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the word 'may' is key for now until evidence is presented. If they have evidence, it should be shown (it is hardly risky to national security, is it?) and I can't see how they have if the UN inspectors are days away from finishing.

Surely the best thing to do is let them finish their job, and then take action if evidence found.

To just say 'they know' is, unfortunately, the approach only an imbecile would take, and is reminiscent of the approach by many to Iraq. They knew then too, didn't they?
 
I think we should stay the hell away from this.

Let someone else "help" this time.

I couldnt care what has happened, who gassed who, it's not worth the life of one British soldier.

Syria is not our problem
 
They clearly cannot divulge where and how they got their intelligence. That would be madness
 
In some ways harry I agree. Certainly there was no intervention in sudan and sri lanka was there ?
 
Clive, I've just seen enough of all these conflicts..it never ends!

I hate the Middle East and everything to do with it...ring fence the dump and let them sort themselves out.....better still, let Israel sort them out
 
Last edited:
It's an ex-French colony/protectorate. Let them do it.

Personally I would be for non-intervention unless something was happening which directly impacted our country or our interests.

Basically it looks like a no-win situation to me.
 
This sums up my thoughts better:

Any resort to military action should always be approached carefully, on an evidential base, and within a clear legal framework – and only after full consideration of the aims, objectives and consequences. At this stage, we consider that these criteria have not been met and therefore that the case for military action in Syria – or the UK’s participation in it - has not yet been made.
The Scottish Government believes that the UN inspectors should be given the time and the full support of the international community to complete their investigations.
​
 
Thanks fu. Am I alone in noticing the poor English and punctuation used by this (presumably) "highly educated" civil servant.

Now Britain has two choices (which others can now obsess about). Either stand aside and be "little englanders" or step in and be imperialist bullies. Perfect scenario for the Brit haters here
 
Why does everything have to be so extreme with you?

When did anyone call the Government either of those things?

Do stop trying to be always so extreme and looking for an argument .. it is tiresome for everyone else.
 
clivex said:
They clearly cannot divulge where and how they got their intelligence. That would be madness
Click to expand...

According to the BBC, they have little evidence that is not open-source i.e. public domain, and the security services themselves believe to a probability of only 75%-80%, that the Syrian regime used these weapons.

Unless the Government produce something much more concrete, there is no way the UK should be considering intervention.

I ask again; where is the Arab League plan to address this situation?
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
According to the BBC, they have little evidence that is not open-source i.e. public domain, and the security services themselves believe to a probability of only 75%-80%, that the Syrian regime used these weapons.

Unless the Government produce something much more concrete, there is no way the UK should be considering intervention.

I ask again; where is the Arab League plan to address this situation?
Click to expand...

Cameron spent the afternoon in the commons backtracking, saying of course you cannot be sure, you have to make a judgement, we know the rebels don't have CWs so... . In other words, it is as several on here have said - they don't (currently) have any evidence.
 
harry said:
Try researching the 450 odd British soldiers killed in Afghanistan and how many kids have lost their fathers instead of trying to be a little p***k?
Click to expand...

Harry, you are clearly not reading the news.

I suggest you go to another thread as this thread, and any possible intervention, has nothing to do with soldiers getting involved on the ground, so as to why twice now you have linked that to this topic I have no idea.

A bit like what you were on about in your cracking cricket thread..
 
There are many states around the world whos citizens will definitely not want to get involved. No. lets make that most. i suppose they are all small minded xenophobes too

Grass
If that is true then yes, but think Obama would be taking that risk?

To be fair to the arab league, which is difficult, they probably dont have the resources for necessary strikes and even if they did they would probably misdirect the missiles at each other anyway

A lot os made of AQs influence on the rebels but Syria is far from a Pakistan or Saudi, from what i gather. Also In Iraq AQ were booted out by their Sunni "brothers". One way or another they would have to have some sort of popular support to prevail and seems that that is highly unlikely
 
harry said:
I couldnt care what has happened, who gassed who, it's not worth the life of one British soldier
Click to expand...

Clive, you really are a moron. I didn't say the English are xenophobic, I pointed at Harry, and this quote in particular. And you to a large degree.

Not England, nor its people.

Please stop taking something, exaggerating it greatly and turning everything into an extreme. You should read your posts back on there.
 
Back
Top