Syria megathread- is British government desperate for another war?

[number27]

I have voted on this poll, against any intervention. This is how I feel about Britain getting involved in another foreign conflict, and that I would hate for any more of our boys and girls to die on overseas soil. I suppose it would be different if the conflict was on our shores, directly aimed at British people, and even though it is very sad what is happening to people in other countries, I would hope that all our efforts were directed at finding a peaceful resolution to this terrible situation. My heart goes out to them, but at the same time I care deeply about our own sons and daughters and dads and uncles/brothers....etc

[JanetJ123]

I have voted on this poll, against any intervention. This is how I feel about Britain getting involved in another foreign conflict, and that I would hate for any more of our boys and girls to die on overseas soil. I suppose it would be different if the conflict was on our shores, directly aimed at British people, and even though it is very sad what is happening to people in other countries, I would hope that all our efforts were directed at finding a peaceful resolution to this terrible situation. My heart goes out to them, but at the same time I care deeply about our own sons and daughters and dads and uncles/brothers....etc

 

As the poll shows the population are massively against any intervention by 8 to 1. I think we are seeing a fundamental change in our role in the world. About time too. The UN should sort the issues out.

 

I think the UN has bottled it in the past and hoped Uncle Sam would help them out. Not any more..

[number27]

As the poll shows the population are massively against any intervention by 8 to 1. I think we are seeing a fundamental change in our role in the world. About time too. The UN should sort the issues out.

 

I think the UN has bottled it in the past and hoped Uncle Sam would help them out. Not any more..

 

From what ive seen and heard on the news recently, it seems that you are smack on, as they say. I cant believe that Russia are seeking a verbal resolution. A chap who has spent some time in Russia was on radio 2 today, telling us that even though Russia has a dictator for a leader, the Russian people are relatively happy with their lot, as the only opposition to Government are people who only wish to be "The President", and have no other real views than what the Russian advisor's suggest. To me, this speaks volumes about how foreign countries work, and sometimes these ideals dont conform with British/US/French beliefs, but hey, maybe we ought to just get used to it, and spend more time negotiating peace as opposed to the threat of military intervention.

[Harleyman]

A loss of face (even if only perceived) is highly important to some cultures.

 

Particularly that of a billions-populated country to the south of Russia, which will eventually throw its gauntlet on the Pacific table.

 

Remember what happened the last time the US retreated from its few imperialist ventures (yes, there were a few) into outright isolationism, and got to be perceived by all and sundry as neutral and most likely to remain so?

 

Mark my words: in realpolitik terms, in years to come, this clear and unequivocal back-tracking by Obama (all laudable that it is, and I agree with the 'pragmatic' points you have put across) will come back to haunt the US, if not the world.

 

Note that this is not a criticism as such, nor a complaint or argument that the "US should just go in and sort it". It's just an observation about an expected consequence, because I've never known any action (or inaction) occur in a vacuum.

 

[cynicism overdose]

 

It would not surprise me one bit to eventually learn that Assad's chemical attack was a maskirovka with the full knowledge and backing of Putin/the FSB (maybe even at their initiative, who knows?), precisely calculated to exploit Obama's ad lib and to have the effects/outcome it's had. After all, what's with gassing a few hundred civilians more, in a game of brinksmanship/realpolitik played at that level.

 

I mean, is it just me who finds the fact that Assad is OK in principle with the idea of Russia getting control of and 'destroying' all of Syria's WMDs, less than 2 days after the mere idea was proposed by Putin (that most steadfast and longest of long-time allies of Assad), check-mating Obama very publicly in the process, a bit convenient?

 

[/cynicism overdose]

 

In a world where two main powers Russia and China still like to play their little cold war games now and again against the USA then Obama has a difficult job to do.

 

Some in the world see Putin as the 'man with a sensible solution and peacemaker" now that he's convinced Assad to hand over all his WMDs and in turn see Obama as the "sabre rattler".

 

The fact is that with his promise over the WMDs Putin has now taken "ownership" of the situation. He will have to see that Assad produces within a reasonable amount of time or leave Obama with the option of carrying out strikes.

 

If there is reason to believe that these WMDs could at some time be used against America either by Assad (improbable) or more likely by some terrorist group such as Al Qaeda or Hezbollah (more likely) if they were to somehow get their hands on them then Obama would be well within his rights to take measures to destroy them completely with or without the UN security council approval

Edited September 12, 2013 by Harleyman

[I1L2T3]

He's been outmanoeuvered by Putin, on a global scene positively burning under the media's spotlights no less, that is for sure.

 

If anything, proof that the KGB trained its people really very well, way back when

 

Where does this leave Cameron and Hollande? Both rushed to rubber stamp the air strikes. Cameron even recalled parliament with only the flimsiest evidence available at that time.

 

People question Miliband's tactics but it looks like we had a lucky escape. If those strikes had gone ahead the world would be a different place already.

[number27]

Where does this leave Cameron and Hollande? Both rushed to rubber stamp the air strikes. Cameron even recalled parliament with only the flimsiest evidence available at that time.

 

People question Miliband's tactics but it looks like we had a lucky escape. If those strikes had gone ahead the world would be a different place already.

 

Could it be the changing of the world, and the "Growing Up" of once silly leaders?

[Harleyman]

Wait until they start working on getting Assad's WMDs out of Syria and turned over to an international control commission.

 

It will be nothing short of a nightmare just in logistics alone and someone was saying on the news the other day that they will need about 200,000 personnel to see it through from start to finish and all the while in the middle of a civil war.

 

There are many in this part of the world who are highly sceptical and the Pentagon is still going ahead with plans to carry out strikes if ordered

[harvey19]

Syria is not a signatory to the International Chemical Weapons Convention which prohibits production, use or stockpiling of chemical weapons.

This is now going to change as they are going to become a member of the convention.

If they were not a member when chemical weapons were used were they entitled to use such weapons(if it was the government forces that used them) ?

[I1L2T3]

Syria is not a signatory to the International Chemical Weapons Convention which prohibits production, use or stockpiling of chemical weapons.

This is now going to change as they are going to become a member of the convention.

If they were not a member when chemical weapons were used were they entitled to use such weapons(if it was the government forces that used them) ?

 

The USA also has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons. Over the decades it developed many weapons platforms for delivery of them. It's in the process of decommissioning its stockpile but missed the 2012 deadline for completion.

[L00b]

Where does this leave Cameron and Hollande? Both rushed to rubber stamp the air strikes. Cameron even recalled parliament with only the flimsiest evidence available at that time.

 

People question Miliband's tactics but it looks like we had a lucky escape. If those strikes had gone ahead the world would be a different place already.

Like the Cons or loathe them, Cameron maoeuvered masterfully on this one, the opposition walked right into the Conservatives' voting trap. I still don't particularly like the guy, but am slowly gaining a healthy dose of respect for his political instinct and moves, here and at the EU level.

 

Cameron knew fully well that he'd lose the Commons vote if he refused Labour's amendment, and my guess is that -for all the rethoric- he did not actually want to comit the UK to the strikes as his advisers will have been perfectly aware of the lack of public support for same...so guess what he did? Refused the amendment, so the vote ended up 'no strikes' and the opposition end up being the baddies condoning Assad's baby-gassing tactics.

 

Witness Cameron and Hague consistently and very insistently refusing to entertain even the mere thought of a 2nd vote about the strikes, when the opposition started suggesting the possibility of a 2nd vote a day or two after: as soon as a journalist or another would ask Cameron or Hague, it was a knee-jerk "no, no ,no, British public has spoken, Parliament has made decision, there will not be a 2nd vote".

 

So contrary to the earlier kick-Assad-in-the-nuts rethoric, that's what very clearly tells me that the vote-losing has been deliberate.

 

Hollande is desperate to shift France's attention away from domestic issues and to start "making a name" for himself. He's currently considered the most useless, softest/wettest presidential lettuce leaf ever by a majority of the public opinion (I'll still have a bet that he won't finish his mandate, btw). There isn't any more public support in France than in the UK for battering down Assad's door, France has also had its share of caskets inbound from the 'Stan.

 

It will be nothing short of a nightmare just in logistics alone and someone was saying on the news the other day that they will need about 200,000 personnel to see it through from start to finish and all the while in the middle of a civil war.

It took the EU about a decade, if not longer (can't remember exactly), to eventually organise a 'proper' decommissioning procedure and location for the chemical share of Western Europe's iron harvest.

 

There was certainly still none in 1997, when I did my national service, as gas shells were still being simply stockpiled in the meantime (the EU had outlawed their controlled disposal at sea first, then sat on its proverbial about an alternative for donkey's years).

Edited September 13, 2013 by L00b
added comment on Harleyman's post with linky