Military action against assad.

[Harrystottle]

I don't anyone knows enough to confirm anything out there. It could absolutely be Assad, it could equally be rebels. Do we need to get involved?

 

Let's sit this out. The French are keen, let them have a go.

 

Exactly right.

 

There is no moral high ground in Syria; and we aren't talking about Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi here, we're talking about Russia - a major military power.

 

It's going to be interesting to see what Tweeting Trumpy actually does. If he attacks and kills Russians what does he expect the response to be?

 

The potential is there for this to escalate into a very serious situation and we shouldn't be chucking petrol on the flames.

[alchresearch]

What was he saying?

 

Video here:

 

[parkydave]

Stay out of it . Get proof of chemical attack and let Russia sort it . The consequences of getting too involved are frightening .This could all be fake news .

[blackydog]

What was he saying?

 

Basically that the evidence that the chemical attack actually took place is not reliable, in that it came mainly from Islamist militants. For the previous attack where we did respond, one of the reports of the attack came in before the plane involved in the suspected attack had taken off.

[Waldo]

Basically that the evidence that the chemical attack actually took place is not reliable, in that it came mainly from Islamist militants. For the previous attack where we did respond, one of the reports of the attack came in before the plane involved in the suspected attack had taken off.

 

That's possible for sure. I'm wondering though, if these Islamist militants have chemical weapons, why are they not using them against their enemies?

 

I think this definitely needs a lot more scrutiny before we jump in. For me, I don't know if any kind of action now, would be a good idea or not. We really need to be sure of the consequences of action and of non-action, and make the right strategic decision, that will bring long term stability to the region.

[Baron99]

Blair says we should take military action against Assad.

 

Fair enough. I'm willing to ride shotgun in Tony's jeep if he wants me?

[Car Boot]

Blair says we should take military action against Assad.

 

Blair also says we should hold a second, and perhaps even a third, EU referendum until we get the 'correct' result.

 

He's wrong on just about everything.

[mafya]

Blair needs to drop dead! He has the blood of many on his hands and surprise surprise none of his lads have joined the armed forces have they?

[Harrystottle]

Yes, let's just give Mr Blair a rifle and parachute him into Syria.

Adam Boulton on Sky was hinting at cowardice being a reason for not supporting war this morning. He can go as well, if they can find a parachute big enough.

[Anna B]

That's possible for sure. I'm wondering though, if these Islamist militants have chemical weapons, why are they not using them against their enemies?

 

I think this definitely needs a lot more scrutiny before we jump in. For me, I don't know if any kind of action now, would be a good idea or not. We really need to be sure of the consequences of action and of non-action, and make the right strategic decision, that will bring long term stability to the region.

 

Going into Iraq didn't bring stability though did it? The consequences were thousands dead (and still dying,) long term suffering, power struggles, and terrorism turned up a gear all over the world.

If we interfere it will end in more death and chaos, we'll get blamed for it by both sides and we'll be hit with even more terrorism as a result.

Do the Western powers even want stability in the middle east? According to Hilary Clinton the 'Arab Spring' was a deliberate attempt to destablise the region, and it certainly worked. Nobody trusts them any more. They are seen as having ulterior motives rather than humanitarian ones.