Possible action against Syria

[sonic2009]

With the UK and many other countries thinking about action due to the Syrian regime, lets have a discussion on the plan that our country may get involved in another war.

Personally i think we should help out to stop Mr Assad from killing more people, but how can we be so sure it was his regime who carried out the chemical weapon attacks we saw last week?

If we do help out, what backlash do we face from the likes of Iran or Russia or possibly extremist groups? Another 7/7?

Discuss, are you for or against intervening against Syria?

 

[SS4]

Without independent information I'd rather maintain the status quo and not get involved. Perhaps those with the power to decide have more information than me though. Either way nothing should happen without Parliament's backing in a free vote.

Removing Assad will not stop the civil war, rather the rebel factions will continue to fight each other and I am concerned about an Islamist/extremist government bordering Israel and the Mediterranean.

 

[Johnuk123]

If Tony Blair is in favour you just know it's well wrong.

We shouldn't intervene in a Muslim tribal conflict at any costs I would have thought we might have learnt lessons by now.

If the ragtag bunch of foreign terrorists that are claiming they've been attacked with chemical weapons could do the same they wouldn't hesitate.

This is a civil war and as soon as we drop one cruise missile on Syria we have declared war on them - is that really wise.

At a time when the armed forces are being P45'd on a daily basis what utter stupidity it would be to start yet another crusade.

 

[sonic2009]

It concerns me that our country may attack Syria. With the likes of Russia & Iran as allies to Syria, this has trouble written all over it.

 

[starrymarkb]

I also find it scary that Cameron is trying to Whip the Tory MPs into backing him rather then having a free vote.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-middle-east-explained-in-one-excellent-letter-to-the-edi

The Middle East Explained In One Excellent Letter To The Editor

The basket case that is the Middle East summed up well there.

 

[ainsworth74]

I wouldn't worry too much about us doing anything unilaterally, after decades of defence cuts we simply do not have the military capability to do anything worth doing by ourselves (launching a cruise missile strike from a UK submarine would be akin to poking Assad in the arm and saying 'Oi, stop it').

In terms of a wider Western (read US with UK/French hangers on) military response I find myself rather split. Part of me believes that no one should be allowed to use chemical weapons against civilian populations and that therefore we should take action to ensure that such a thing can no longer take place. The pragmatic part of me believes that doing anything that may destabilise Assad further would, in the long term, be bad for the West. As detestable as he is, Assad's regime is far more preferable to us than a radical Islamic regime that would quite likely be the outcome of Assad falling from power. Also I'm not sure it's really worth irritating Russia on this issue.

Either way I'd be uncomfortable with taking action unless a) it was a result of a free vote in parliament and b) backed by the UN like Libya was.

 

[Aldaniti]

Assad is not a nice man. Do we know that those who Assad is fighting are any better? Like it or not, the culture of some people in some countries needs to be managed by strong government, a dictator if you prefer. We never learn from history. Leave well alone.

 

[Oswyntail]

I also find it scary that Cameron is trying to Whip the Tory MPs into backing him rather then having a free vote.

This is currently "understood" - for which read "imagined". What worries me more about the debate and vote is that, rather than objectively look at things, the various cliques are seeing it as an opportunity to embarrass the PM - which means that other groups will "rally" to him. When neither side actually knows what he hopes for, we could find us in a very sticky situation that no one wants.

 

[Monty]

I am not even convinced Sarin nerve agents were used, the images released by the media show absolutely no evidence of any type of nerve agent use. In addition to that the casualty seems to be far too low. The news reports hundreds dead and thousand(s) in hopsital whenin reality an proximity fused artillery shell loaded with this stuff could kill tens of thousands, Sarin is some nasty stuff it's got to be the most horrible way to die in 15 seconds. Personally I think we should stay out, the majority of the Middle East appear to hate us enough ready and it's wrong to ask yet more of our armed forces while their numbers and assess are being reduced at a disgraceful rate.

That said any action from us would be limited to a submarine launched cruise missile, non of our surface vessel lack such a capability, our army is stretched thin as it is, our Air Force might be able to before the odd airstrike but that requires friendly infrastructure and some of our 'allies' may object to using their bases for such a purpose.

 

[Morgsie]

I am hoping the UN Resolution that we are submitting to the Security Council tonight passes.

We must obey International Law rather than the events of Iraq

 

[ainsworth74]

Stretched thin as it is, our Air Force might be able to before the odd airstrike but that requires friendly infrastructure and some of our 'allies' may object to using their bases for such a purpose.

Actually that's one thing we do have in the area, an airbase, RAF Akrotiri on Cyrpus would be well placed to conduct such an operation. Tanker support would be needed but that again is something we have. The main issue would be that we don't really have the capability to carry out suppression of enemy air defences by ourselves on a large scale meaning that it would be a high risk operation for any RAF jets committed to the action.

But unlike Libya we do have a base in the area.

 

[Johnuk123]

Russia has said it will retaliate in 'unusual' ways when the cruise missiles start.

We get about 15% of our gas through a Russian pipeline and Europe gets 25% so you can bet that will be turned off as soon as it's cold.

And of course when crude oil prices soar when the war starts Putin stands to gain more than anybody as Russia is now the worlds biggest oil supplier.

So when we can't drive our cars and we're sitting at home wrapped in a blanket as we have no power we will be able to console ourselves it was well worth it as we stopped a few Muslims killing each other for a bit.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Just putting aside the 'possible' use of chemical weapons for a bit, we haven't had a great deal of success intervening in the Middle East recently (arguably, ever!). Look at Iraq, hardly stable - 50 people killed in a car bomb today, Libya is still in a mess (but very under-reported) and further east you have Afghanistan. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Johnuk123 (sorry, but that's going on some of your previous posts!). It is not our problem and launching cruise missiles is likely to do more harm than good....and, yes, if Tony Blair supports it, we should be worried. ( I recall Private Eye's citation for him to be made Pope, because he has 'worked tirelessly to bring peace to the Middle East through war'

 

[NSEFAN]

There must be a reason that we are picking on Syria at the moment. There are horrible things going on around the world all the time, but we only ever get involved when it suits us.

The next thing I wonder is who is going to make money out of this conflict, if we get involved?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let us not forget the Jewish lobby in the highest echelons of American politics and it does indeed seem very strange to me that two large Muslim countries such as Syria and Egypt that have common borders with Israel are presently two countries in a state of flux.

Just how long will it take the "so-called Christian" Western nations to realise that the Sunni and the Shia sects of Islam have been at odds with each other for over 1,400 years and that what is often quoted as "Christian Crusader" intervention is one that will not see acceptance from either side.

A reading of the history of the Alawite sect of Islam that currently holds sway in Syria is recommended reading for forum members who may be unaware of this matter in the Syrian region.

Can you imagine the outrage that would have been felt in Northern Ireland had any "well-meaning" Islamic group of countries had decided that they objected to the post Battle of the Boyne conflict and the following 400 years conflict there and threatened to take similar military actions to resolve matters..:roll:

 

[anthony263]

Seems the Air force have sent 6 Typhoons from the uk down to Cypress and Russia are now deploying some of their naval force to the region including the flagship of the black sea fleet which is currently in the north atlantic. Syria have also sent a letter to the UK parliament according to Sky news which I am watching.

Seems even the Russians are thinking something could happen. Isreal are quiet for now but how long before they make a move I wonder

 

[Johnuk123]

Why would Assad use chemical weapons in a war he was winning knowing it would cause this backlash.
If he was going to use them surely he would have done it ages ago.

I see these weapon inspectors are only going to say they've found chemical weapons or not they have no remit to figure out who actually used them.

If it's found that the terrorists in fact used them will we be dropping a few cruise missiles on them, somehow I think not.

No wonder so much of the Islamic world hate us and want to kill us, this will be the 4th Muslim country attacked in a row.

This has all the hall marks of a false-flag event simply to escalate the conflict.

This has the potential to turn into a massive middle east war of huge proportions which the informed people have always said would happen eventually.

 

[anthony263]

Well If it is proof that the some elements of the rebel forces used chemical weapons to gain an international attack against the government forces then the west needs to take a step back and seriously re-evaluate.

I did have some doubts that the government forces would have been stupid enough to do something like that especially since they knew it would provoke the reponse we are seing now.

The syrian government if they knew they did not carry out this attack should have just let the UN inspectors in rather than delay things til a few days after the attack since I think that didnt do the syrian government any favours.

If the rebels have and have used chemical weapsons then this should send alarm bells rining even in Russia and perhaps a miltary reponse should be launched against the rebels

 

[BlythPower]

The next thing I wonder is who is going to make money out of this conflict, if we get involved?

Well, every time the US tells us to launch a cruise missile, they very kindly sell us its replacement.

 

[Oswyntail]

.....
Just how long will it take the "so-called Christian" Western nations to realise that the Sunni and the Shia sects of Islam have been at odds with each other for over 1,400 years and that what is often quoted as "Christian Crusader" intervention is one that will not see acceptance from either side....

And, of course, that local rivalry had its roots at least another 1,400 years before that. Even to see the conflict in terms of Islam is only seeing a fraction of the picture. The culture is based on a lethal mixture of nomadic tribes in a land that is generally resource poor but with pockets of immense wealth. Fighting is the inevitable result.
Both the Government and the "rebels" are likely to hold chemical weapons, and there is growing evidence that both sides have used them. The region is no stranger to their use. No amount of force will have any controlling effect on either side, except possibly to unite them (temporarily) against invaders. Regime change will only bring temporary relief (if that). If outside powers wish to protect themselves, they should simply agree to let all parties get on with it and slap down firmly any overspill, or make it irresistably worth the effort of all parties to make their behaviour more acceptable. Imposing western ideas of democracy is not any sort of answer.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let us not forget that Russia has its very own Islamic problems in its Southern Caucasus states such as Dagestan and Chechnya, not forgetting both North Ossetia and South Ossetia, where any action they were seen to be taking against Muslim countries in the Middle East would very quickly rebound on them.

 

[DarloRich]

My default position is that we shouldn't get involved and we should let them fight it out unless there is some strategic interest in our becoming involved. My view on foreign policy is that we should do whatever is in the best interests and safety of this country and its people.

However in this case the escalating factor is that chemical weapons have been used, by whichever side, against a civilian population. The western democracies can not allow that to happen, especially considering the vexed issue of non proliferation.

Surely in order to try and prevent further uses of such weapons punitive air strikes could be justified in order to degrade the regime or the rebels ability to deliver further chemical attacks or attacks with something worse.

The problem for us comes in trying to win over a skeptical parliament and people, twice bitten by Iraq and Afghanistan, and then doing so without a UN resolution. To me we MUST have this resolution before launching any attacks.

Finally, those attacks must be limited to targeted airstrikes against military or command and control facilities. These airstikes must last for a strictly limited period and in no way shape or form should ground troops enter Syria, nor should we help arm or train one side in the conflict.

 

[Johnuk123]

My default position is that we shouldn't get involved and we should let them fight it out unless there is some strategic interest in our becoming involved. My view on foreign policy is that we should do whatever is in the best interests and safety of this country and its people.

However in this case the escalating factor is that chemical weapons have been used, by whichever side, against a civilian population. The western democracies can not allow that to happen, especially considering the vexed issue of non proliferation.

Surely in order to try and prevent further uses of such weapons punitive air strikes could be justified in order to degrade the regime or the rebels ability to deliver further chemical attacks or attacks with something worse.

The problem for us comes in trying to win over a skeptical parliament and people, twice bitten by Iraq and Afghanistan, and then doing so without a UN resolution. To me we MUST have this resolution before launching any attacks.

Finally, those attacks must be limited to targeted airstrikes against military or command and control facilities. These airstikes must last for a strictly limited period and in no way shape or form should ground troops enter Syria, nor should we help arm or train one side in the conflict.

Are you saying that British lives can be lost to try and stop Muslims killing each other ?

Tell me which Muslim country would be happy to loose soldiers lives in coming to our aid if we were in a similar position.

I am surprised that anybody on here would be in favour of attacking a 4th Muslim country in a row.

By the way there is really no such thing as an airstrike that only kills soldiers, those facilities you mention have as many civilians in them as military. All the talk of cruise missiles going in through bedroom windows are a bit fanciful to say the least.

 

[DarloRich]

Are you saying that British lives can be lost to try and stop Muslims killing each other ?

Tell me which Muslim country would be happy to loose soldiers lives in coming to our aid if we were in a similar position.

I am surprised that anybody on here would be in favour of attacking a 4th Muslim country in a row.

By the way there is really no such thing as an airstrike that only kills soldiers, those facilities you mention have as many civilians in them as military. All the talk of cruise missiles going in through bedroom windows are a bit fanciful to say the least.

I am saying limited airstrikes could be justified to punish whoever is responsible for launching chemical weapon attacks. The use of chemical weapons cant be allowed to go unpunished or the whole system of non proliferation falls into disrepute.

However any military action can only be based on a UN mandate. I no way do i think ground troops should be involved.

I am surprised that anyone on here considers the use of chemical weapons to be acceptable.

 

[NSEFAN]

I am surprised that anyone on here considers the use of chemical weapons to be acceptable.

It's not that it's acceptable, but recently Britain, France and America have been trying to play world police, and only end up fanning the flames.

Whatsmore, there's a good chance that at least some of the weapons used in this conflict were manufactured by us in the first place. Those rebels won't be building their guns from scratch. If we really wanted to stop the fighting then we'd stop building weapons in the first place.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why does Britain believe that it has the right to intercede with the veiled threat of "we will teach them a lesson that will be shown as an example for chemical weapons never to be used again". Do those in power here really believe what they are saying has that particular end-game in mind ?

If so, such naivety beggars belief..

 

[Johnuk123]

I am saying limited airstrikes could be justified to punish whoever is responsible for launching chemical weapon attacks. The use of chemical weapons cant be allowed to go unpunished or the whole system of non proliferation falls into disrepute.

However any military action can only be based on a UN mandate. I no way do i think ground troops should be involved.

I am surprised that anyone on here considers the use of chemical weapons to be acceptable.

I don't think we should get involved but that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable that chemical weapons have probably been used by both sides.

Syria has a bang up to date Russian air defence system so that's where the loss of life would come from if air power is used. This is no Iraq where it was easy.
As Syria can easily bomb Cyprus and will if poked there's more potential deaths. This has the potential to escalate out of all recognition, it certainly won't end with only Syria involved.

Why do you think this country once again has to be the worlds policeman, haven't we done more than our fair share.

If any countries want to get involved in this crazy crusade let a few of them have a go instead, there's enough of them.
My son who has recently returned from his 2nd Afghan tour is always banging on about how a lot of the other coalition partners hardly ever leave secure bases.

I reiterate not one of our military should in any way be put at risk to solve a civil war that cannot ever be solved.

These tribal spats have been going on for hundreds of years, chemical weapons although terrible still kill you like a bullet does.

The worst thing about all this is - for once it isn't the Americans leading the call for war it's us.
The Yanks must really regret having the so called chemical weapon red line as up to now the 120,000 deaths somehow passed them by. They are very reluctant to start another war Obama is not like Bush.

 

[DarloRich]

It's not that it's acceptable, but recently Britain, France and America have been trying to play world police, and only end up fanning the flames.

Whatsmore, there's a good chance that at least some of the weapons used in this conflict were manufactured by us in the first place. Those rebels won't be building their guns from scratch. If we really wanted to stop the fighting then we'd stop building weapons in the first place.

Why does Britain believe that it has the right to intercede with the veiled threat of "we will teach them a lesson that will be shown as an example for chemical weapons never to be used again". Do those in power here really believe what they are saying has that particular end-game in mind ?

If so, such naivety beggars belief..

I dont want another war and i certainly dont want our ground troops involved, but we have to support the premises that the proliferation and use of chemical, nuclear or biological weapons can not be allowed. I think that reluctant we have to take limited punitive action.

If we dont take a stand when does it become unacceptable for you? When such weapons are used inside Syria, when they are used in Lebanon, against Israel or against us?

 

[NSEFAN]

I dont want another war and i certainly dont want our ground troops involved, but we have to support the premises that the proliferation and use of chemical, nuclear or biological weapons can not be allowed. I think that reluctant we have to take limited punitive action.

If we dont take a stand when does it become unacceptable for you? When such weapons are used inside Syria, when they are used in Lebanon, against Israel or against us?

To an extent, we have to let other countries sort out their own problems. People are naturally conservative and changing a society for the better is a slow process. Just look at the bloody history of our own country to see how long it took for us to settle down. If we interfere with that process and try to accelerate it we may well do more harm than good in the long term.

As awful as this may sound, not getting involved may be the lesser of two evils. If we were actually in a position to stop the killing , then I would support us taking action. I do not however believe that we will be able to help, because we have a bad track record when it comes to these things. All we do is effectively replace one regime with another, and the people still continue to suffer anyway.

Moreover, if you don't go around the world rattling cages, the chances of you getting bitten are going to be reduced. Granted, there will always be one nutjob nation that thinks it's a great idea to start picking on other countries, but then this is what defence is for. Given how many mass killings go on in the world today, it's not realistic for us to step in and help everyone.