Britain is planning to join forces with America against Syria within days

[Ardemax]

Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against his own people.

Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.

Government sources said talks between the Prime Minister and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue, but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.

As the preparations gathered pace, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, warned that the world could not stand by and allow the Assad regime to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people “with impunity”.

Britain, the US and their allies must show Mr Assad that to perpetrate such an atrocity “is to cross a line and that the world will respond when that line is crossed”, he said.

British forces now look likely to be drawn into an intervention in the Syrian crisis after months of deliberation and international disagreement over how to respond to the bloody two-year civil war.



Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10265765/Navy-ready-to-launch-first-strike-on-Syria.html

What a horrendous, horrendous thing to do. Or, as someone on Reddit neatly put it:

"Wow It's great that we can afford to chug off to the middle east again and drop a few billion on fighting a war with no obvious "good" side. I'm glad its more important than spending all those billions updating infrastructure and creating sustainable careers for our citizens. sigh​"

He's right and our government is loony.

Thoughts?

[dbgtz]

There's clearly some ulterior motive to this, just the question as to what it is.

[Ardemax]

There's clearly some ulterior motive to this, just the question as to what it is.

And it's not oil this time, interesting...

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't believe these chemical attacks were by the Syrian Government (and even if they were, why is being gassed so much more worse than being ripped to shreds with a machine gun? and above all, none of it is any of our business) - and why do I think that? well for the very simple logic of this:

1) Syrian Government uses chemical weapons in full knowledge that it would bring in the world's superpower and great powers in against it.

2) Syrian rebels/terrorists use chemical weapons against innocents in order to frame the Government (which is winning the Civil war) in order to bring in outside powers to help they [the rebels] against the Syrian Government.

Now which of these seems the more believable to you lot? Think about it and use some logic - just as when Iraq was being invaded, those of us with our heads screwed on asked why, if Saddam had WMD, he was not using them against British and American forces? I mean duh.


There's clearly some ulterior motive to this, just the question as to what it is.

Encircling Iran.

There's a huge war going on inside Islam at the moment with the Sunni world (Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, UAE and Qatar all led by Saudi Arabia) against the Shia world (mainly Iran and Syria) - and the battlegrounds are Syria, Iraq and Bahrain where the two demographic groups meet. Added to that, there's also internal strife inside each side of these Islamic factions.

The aim at the moment of the west is to knock away Iran's only remaining Arab friend - Syria.

[dbgtz]

I don't believe these chemical attacks were by the Syrian Government (and even if they were, why is being gassed so much more worse than being ripped to shreds with a machine gun? and above all, none of it is any of our business) - and why do I think that? well for the very simple logic of this:

1) Syrian Government uses chemical weapons in full knowledge that it would bring in the world's superpower and great powers in against it.

2) Syrian rebels/terrorists use chemical weapons against innocents in order to frame the Government (which is winning the Civil war) in order to bring in outside powers to help they [the rebels] against the Syrian Government.

Now which of these seems the more believable to you lot? Think about it and use some logic - just as when Iraq was being invaded, those of us with our heads screwed on asked why, if Saddam had WMD, he was not using them against British and American forces? I mean duh.

I'm pretty sure there is actually hard evidence the rebels used it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The media is sickening to watch - no other voices being heard in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, BBC News, Sky News... all peddling the government line over Syria. And what's with the Syrian Government being called 'Assad regime' on BBC and Sky? why is the unelected and hardcore Saudi Government for example not referred to as the 'Abdullah regime' but is instead referred to as the 'Saudi Government'?

See what I mean by media pro-government bias in my other thread? it's disgusting. And as my Dad said just before - this is even less believable than Iraq. I would absolutely love (and hope) for Putin to step in and say to Obama and Cameron: you mess with Syria, you deal with Russia. The ****houses would soon back down because the only fights the west picks nowadays are with tinpot countries who can't smack us back.

[GommeInc]

I'm pretty sure there is actually hard evidence the rebels used it.
There most likely is, but it seems the mainstream media is making up its own mind :/ The BBC keep saying "the Syrian Government deny using chemical weapons", which is an attempt to stick blame on them. If they really have not used them, the media would simply say nothing or mention the rebels, which are the real terrorists if I recall correctly.

I'm shocked the plan the US has of arming the rebels is still being mentioned. If the US had any sense (of which they lack anyway but it's good to be hopeful), they would simply stay out of it as they only increase any problems, and dumb old Britain panders to their every call and becomes a target. I still don't see why we don't start cutting ties with them to be honest :/

[Grig]

I don't believe these chemical attacks were by the Syrian Government (and even if they were, why is being gassed so much more worse than being ripped to shreds with a machine gun? and above all, none of it is any of our business) - and why do I think that? well for the very simple logic of this:

1) Syrian Government uses chemical weapons in full knowledge that it would bring in the world's superpower and great powers in against it.

2) Syrian rebels/terrorists use chemical weapons against innocents in order to frame the Government (which is winning the Civil war) in order to bring in outside powers to help they [the rebels] against the Syrian Government.

Now which of these seems the more believable to you lot? Think about it and use some logic - just as when Iraq was being invaded, those of us with our heads screwed on asked why, if Saddam had WMD, he was not using them against British and American forces? I mean duh.



Encircling Iran.

There's a huge war going on inside Islam at the moment with the Sunni world (Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, UAE and Qatar all led by Saudi Arabia) against the Shia world (mainly Iran and Syria) - and the battlegrounds are Syria, Iraq and Bahrain where the two demographic groups meet. Added to that, there's also internal strife inside each side of these Islamic factions.

The aim at the moment of the west is to knock away Iran's only remaining Arab friend - Syria.

Interesting. The fact is, America claims to have so much evidence, yet I'm still to hear it. It would be great to see how this plays out in Congress. Interestingly, the Republicans have so many different views in terms of this, that's it's really about forming coalitions in Congress whether to attack or not. I can tell you it'll be close.

[Kardan]

I don't believe these chemical attacks were by the Syrian Government (and even if they were, why is being gassed so much more worse than being ripped to shreds with a machine gun? and above all, none of it is any of our business) - and why do I think that? well for the very simple logic of this:

1) Syrian Government uses chemical weapons in full knowledge that it would bring in the world's superpower and great powers in against it.

2) Syrian rebels/terrorists use chemical weapons against innocents in order to frame the Government (which is winning the Civil war) in order to bring in outside powers to help they [the rebels] against the Syrian Government.

Now which of these seems the more believable to you lot? Think about it and use some logic - just as when Iraq was being invaded, those of us with our heads screwed on asked why, if Saddam had WMD, he was not using them against British and American forces? I mean duh.



Encircling Iran.

There's a huge war going on inside Islam at the moment with the Sunni world (Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, UAE and Qatar all led by Saudi Arabia) against the Shia world (mainly Iran and Syria) - and the battlegrounds are Syria, Iraq and Bahrain where the two demographic groups meet. Added to that, there's also internal strife inside each side of these Islamic factions.

The aim at the moment of the west is to knock away Iran's only remaining Arab friend - Syria.

Because there's international laws over chemical weapons but not ripping people to shreds with guns :P

If there was hard evidence that the government was behind these attacks, then I would fully support action being taken, but alas, there isn't - and really, there's more evidence for the rebels conducting the attacks. At this stage, we should stay out of it I think.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If there was hard evidence that the government was behind these attacks, then I would fully support action being taken, but alas, there isn't - and really, there's more evidence for the rebels conducting the attacks. At this stage, we should stay out of it I think.

But let's say that the Syrian Government genuinely did conduct these chemical attacks - what would air strikes achieve? even if you disable the Syrian airforce, the ability to launch chemical attacks remains as they weren't launched from the air anyway. And also, wouldn't disabling the air force of the Syrian Government make the use of chemical weapons to a desperate and collapsing regime more likely? I know if I were in a situation that was getting worse and I had chemical weapons - I would certainly use as my last resort just as Britain would have done the same in the event of a German invasion in WWII.

And then there's the question of, if you do cause Assad to topple - who takes over? what happens to Syria? the idea that bombing the country will solve anything is astounding ... I mean, what is the objective of such an airstrike?

[Kardan]

But let's say that the Syrian Government genuinely did conduct these chemical attacks - what would air strikes achieve? even if you disable the Syrian airforce, the ability to launch chemical attacks remains as they weren't launched from the air anyway. And also, wouldn't disabling the air force of the Syrian Government make the use of chemical weapons to a desperate and collapsing regime more likely? I know if I were in a situation that was getting worse and I had chemical weapons - I would certainly use as my last resort just as Britain would have done the same in the event of a German invasion in WWII.

And then there's the question of, if you do cause Assad to topple - who takes over? what happens to Syria? the idea that bombing the country will solve anything is astounding ... I mean, what is the objective of such an airstrike?

Personally, I wouldn't know what the 'correct' cause of action would be if it were the government, but something would need to be done. You are probably totally correct that airstrikes wouldn't achieve anything.

My view is simply this: If I was living in Syria and my government were launching chemical weapons, I would pretty much accept anyones help - and considering the US, UK and France are some of the biggest powers, it's our duty to step in when something's wrong. As I said before though, a large part of this is dependent on who is launching the attacks.

As for your last point, who knows what will happen afterwards. But surely (if it were the government), Assad being gone is a better thing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

...considering the US, UK and France are some of the biggest powers, it's our duty to step in when something's wrong. As I said before though, a large part of this is dependent on who is launching the attacks.

Is it? so is it your own moral duty to step in, or the duty of other men your age? or is that just politician-speak? :P


As for your last point, who knows what will happen afterwards. But surely (if it were the government), Assad being gone is a better thing.

Is it? i'm not sure about that - the minority groups of Syria, particularly the Christians, disagree with you that Assad being gone is a better thing.

[Kardan]

Is it? so is it your own moral duty to step in, or the duty of other men your age? or is that just politician-speak? :P



Is it? i'm not sure about that - the minority groups of Syria, particularly the Christians, disagree with you that Assad being gone is a better thing.

I reckon it's our country's duty to go and step in given the position we are in. Personally, I wouldn't, no :P

And about Assad, I'm speaking purely on the Chemical weapon attacks/No chemical weapon attacks. I know I'd rather have no chemical weapon attacks.

[myles]

why cant i as a british citizen have a say in this

[Kardan]

why cant i as a british citizen have a say in this

We elect our MPs, and our MPs said no... :P

Or do you mean a referendum sort of thing? I reckon that would take a long time to set up :P

[Ardemax]

why cant i as a british citizen have a say in this

Because if we gave everyone a "say" in everything going on we wouldn't get anywhere. Your "say" is with your MP who is acting on your behalf in Parliament.

[myles]

Because if we gave everyone a "say" in everything going on we wouldn't get anywhere. Your "say" is with your MP who is acting on your behalf in Parliament.
bnp?

just kidin i dont know who i would freakin vote