Possible action against Syria

[Johnuk123]

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.

That's right, as I have said how will we look to the many millions of Muslims round the world including here if we attack yet another Islamic country.

They won't see it as humanitarian not by any means.

 

[anthony263]

Maybe Russia should also get off its high horse and perhpas even publicly threaten to launch its own air strikes maybe that might help somewhat if they see even one of the Syrian governments allies deciding enough is enough.

China has shown it can be more stern with North Korea so perhaps Russia can do the same with the Syrian regime and the opposition.

Russia have raised a good point about the militants in the opposition forces which are those kind of people we dont want to get hold of nuclear weapons

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If we don't 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?

What has always worried me is the assumption made by our politicians that even if the case is not proved to their satisfaction, they still will seek legal advice to justify the use of force even if the full backing of the United Nations and even more worryingly, the Security Council, is not forthcoming.

Don't start worrying about repercussions from overseas against Britain, if it should occur that an attack on Syria is made by Britain...there will be cells of dedicated home-grown Islamic jihadists over here to give us enough nightmares. Do we really believe that we have seen the last of such matters that were visited upon the transport infrastructure of London not so many years ago.

Remind me....What humanitarian products did Britain produce at Porton Down..

 

[Oswyntail]

Really, what should happen is that a strong UN representation, preferably led by members of the Arab League, should enter Syria, prepared to defend themselves, and simply arrest those held to be responsible for the use of chemical weapons and take them off to a suitable venue for a speedy but correct trial.

 

[90sWereBetter]

The motion has been defeated in the Commons, 285 votes to 272. Now that is a surprise.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Really, what should happen is that a strong UN representation, preferably led by members of the Arab League, should enter Syria, prepared to defend themselves, and simply arrest those held to be responsible for the use of chemical weapons and take them off to a suitable venue for a speedy but correct trial.

The Secretary General of the Arab League has said they have no such plans to enter into Syria at present.

 

[Butts]

Really, what should happen is that a strong UN representation, preferably led by members of the Arab League, should enter Syria, prepared to defend themselves, and simply arrest those held to be responsible for the use of chemical weapons and take them off to a suitable venue for a speedy but correct trial.

Is this a serious proposition ?

Russia and China would exercise their veto !!

Led by the Arab League - you may as well use Dads Army - in that area only Israel would have such capability and would certainly not be welcome.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Secretary General of the Arab League has said they have no such plans to enter into Syria at present.

Most of their members run regimes that make Assad look positively saintly:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The motion has been defeated in the Commons, 285 votes to 272. Now that is a surprise.

Or democracy

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Most of their members run regimes that make Assad look positively saintly:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or democracy

One tends to forget that Iran is not the sole Shia Muslim stronghold in the Middle East, as Israel will vouch for, having been in conflict with Hezbollah in past years in Lebanon, who were notable recent late additions to the Syrian Alawite regime's military forces.

 

[Butts]

All these Middle Eastern troubles smack of the wars of succession in Europe 300 Years ago

 

[DarloRich]

What has always worried me is the assumption made by our politicians that even if the case is not proved to their satisfaction, they still will seek legal advice to justify the use of force even if the full backing of the United Nations and even more worryingly, the Security Council, is not forthcoming.

My personal view is that any action must have a cast iron UN mandate. Without we are on very dodgy ground. We also need Russia on side as they can bring pressure to bear on Syria hopefully before any intervention is required.

I think because of the use of chemical weapons we have no option but to become involved. We have invested so much time and effort in non proliferation that to fail to act in this situation renders all of that work pointless and simply encourages the other "rogues" to invest more effort in acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

I dont really want to get involved in a civil war in a country i care less than nothing about - however my point is that at some point, if we stand back, then someone will use such weapons against a country we DO care about.

Where do YOU draw the line.

 

[rdeez]

I'm glad this was defeated in parliament. Personally, I think we need to stop acting like the law enforcers of the world - we aren't, and it's silly to pretend we're capable of it. We're not. Not anymore. And the world, more often than not, doesn't want us to stick our nose in all the time.

Of course it's all down to our "special relationship" with the USA. Where they go, we are supposed to follow. I suspect what will bother Mr Cameron most of all is the grovelling apology he will now be forced to give to Mr Obama for not being able to join them in whatever action they decide to take. "Sorry, pesky democracy!" perhaps.

Of course, the situation in Syria is disturbing, but the evidence either way is far from clear cut. I do suspect Assad is capable of killing a few innocents without losing sleep to keep a grip on power, and yet I suspect the same of the rebels in order to secure power. The fact is we just don't know conclusively what is happening and who is committing what acts, and in my view, for there to be any action of any kind the evidence would need to be absolutely clear and there to be an international mandate.

Anything less is putting us on very dodgy ground and opening the possibility of another prolonged, painful war with less than rosy outcomes (look at the situation in Afghanistan now - stable democracy? Hardly). And of course, at the end of it all, a large chunk of the world has their opinion of us lowered, and domestically, we bring upon ourselves a renewed risk of terrorism.

After all - it was Iraq and Afghanistan that put us on the radar for terrorists, and as a result we sadly now live in an age of paranoia, draconian terrorism laws that have such wide interpretations they can be used in virtually any circumstances to deprive a person of their civil liberties, and such shocking and backward measures as racial profiling for stop and search purposes.

And all this is without mentioning the potential economic and human cost of becoming involved in another conflict.

 

[IanXC]

I wonder whether the US and France will now still feel the need to wait, or whether the old timetable is back on?

For Britain, I guess Cameron has the option of bringing a new motion to the house post Weapons Inspectors Report. Also there is the question of whether we provide Air Defence to Cyprus during a possible operation by America and/or France, which I would have thought we will, and then whether we allow our bases to be used by the participant countries...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder whether the US and France will now still feel the need to wait, or whether the old timetable is back on? For Britain, I guess Cameron has the option of bringing a new motion to the house post Weapons Inspectors Report. Also there is the question of whether we provide Air Defence to Cyprus during a possible operation by America and/or France, which I would have thought we will, and then whether we allow our bases to be used by the participant countries...

I should well imagine that any British military base/airfield in Cyprus is well within the range of the Russian-supplied missile system possessed by Syria.

 

[IanXC]

I should well imagine that any British military base/airfield in Cyprus is well within the range of the Russian-supplied missile system possessed by Syria.

Indeed. I can imagine that Britain will end up covering the defence of Cyprus. There's 6 Typhoons and an AWACS already deployed apparently, and I can imagine there are Type 45 destroyers on the way - I suppose its ultimately possible that the Sea Viper system may see its first use in anger.

 

[Johnuk123]

Last nights vote against war could well turn out to be a famous turning point in that this country may in future stay out of things.

If we acknowledge that we're a very small island in sharp decline in both importance and influence and above all military capability it will be a very good thing.

 

[Oswyntail]

Is this a serious proposition ?
Russia and China would exercise their veto !!
Led by the Arab League - you may as well use Dads Army - in that area only Israel would have such capability and would certainly not be welcome.

Semi-serious. If the UN is to be seen as the legal enforcer of the various conventions that ban chemical weapons, it has to do something; Russia and China would probably accept that. Using the Arab League members to head the "mission" would dilute any accusation that it is a Western Crusade, and it would not necessarily be their "Dad's Army" providing the muscle.
One problem is that war crimes are rarely prosecuted promptly and effectively, so the UN loses authority. Showing the will to go after the responsible individuals could have a salutary effect.
And, yes, I do realise that the UN is a paper tiger, and that acting through law rather than bombs to address this situation is unlikely.

Or democracy

Sadly, I suspect that the right result has come about for the wrong reasons. Many Labour votes would have been cast simply to try to expunge the slimy feeling the party has had since Blair's adventure; many Conservative "rebels" more naturally inclined to bash towel-heads would have seen the opportunity to stick two fingers up to the coalition without any consequence; many coalition "supporters" would have gone against their own feelings because they felt their leaders needed support. The idea that Cameron was pinning his reputation on winning the vote was entirely in the minds of the press, as is the idea that the result has "plunged the Government into crisis". Of course the motion was phrased in terms of action, because, if it hadn't been there would have had to have been another debate if it had been passed.
But, as you say, that's democracy - never works the way it should.

 

[table38]

The idea that Cameron was pinning his reputation on winning the vote was entirely in the minds of the press, as is the idea that the result has "plunged the Government into crisis".

I suspect also, in some sections of the media, in order to deflect attention away from the behaviour of Milliband who initially said he would support the government in action against Syria, but then when he found out which way the wind of public opinion was blowing, changed his mind and voted against the government (despite Cameron complying to all of his demands re legal advice and evidence)

Personally I'm glad we are not taking action, but at least Cameron was consistent and stood up for his beliefs.

 

[Aldaniti]

Well, possibly the most amateurish politics I've seen in a while. Cameron has made a tactical blunder, that is clear, but William Hague's almost bombastic response to this complex issue, and the inevitable U-turn, ought to result in his resignation/dismissal as Foreign Secretary. Ed Miliband doesn't some out of this well in my book either. If it wasn't for some of his wiser MP's he would have joined Cameron without quarrel earlier in the week. Another politician not fit for high office I'm afraid. In theory, these people are supposed to be well educated individuals, but few of them seem to have studied history. At least we can take some comfort that there were enough wiser and principled Tory MP's to make a difference.

 

[DarloRich]

So essentially the consensus is that we should walk on by while weapons of mass destruction are used against civilians. If that isn’t enough to act what is? When do you think things have gone too far?

We are simply allowing other states to progress with their NBC weapons plans with this decision. How can we protest about anyone holding such weapons if we won’t act to stop their use? This decision undoes years of non proliferation works and treaty obligations and paves the way for other rouge states to acquire and use such weapons.

 

[SS4]

So essentially the consensus is that we should walk on by while weapons of mass destruction are used against civilians. If that isn’t enough to act what is? When do you think things have gone too far?

We are simply allowing other states to progress with their NBC weapons plans with this decision. How can we protest about anyone holding such weapons if we won’t act to stop their use? This decision undoes years of non proliferation works and treat obligations and paves the way for other rouge states to acquire and use such weapons.

Used by whom though? The UN inspectors are only there to confirm if they've been used. Assad would have everything to lose and those fighting him everything to gain by using chemical weapons so I can't understand why the regime would do so.

Of course our news, being rebel propaganda, has no problem claiming the regime did it

This vote was only to proceed without the UN, I'm sure Cameron will find some way to get around it.

 

[DarloRich]

Used by whom though? The UN inspectors are only there to confirm if they've been used. Assad would have everything to lose and those fighting him everything to gain by using chemical weapons so I can't understand why the regime would do so.

Of course our news, being rebel propaganda, has no problem claiming the regime did it

exactly - we need hard eveidence of who is repsonsible so that the right people can be punished. We need the UN inspectors report and a UN mandate before we undertake any action.

 

[SS4]

exactly - we need hard eveidence of who is repsonsible so that the right people can be punished. We need the UN inspectors report and a UN mandate before we undertake any action.

I have no problem taking action against whoever did it and iirc the vote was whether or not to take action without UN approval. I fear that if it turns out to be the rebels who used them then nothing will be done.

edit: hard evidence is hard to come across in war with claims, counterclaims and subterfuge so I won't be surprised if there is no hard evidence

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

exactly - we need hard eveidence of who is repsonsible so that the right people can be punished. We need the UN inspectors report and a UN mandate before we undertake any action.

Not quite sure how the 'right' people could be punished....if it (use of chemical weapons) was authorised by Assad and/or his top entourage, I would imagine that they won't be the ones to suffer in a missile attack, more likely to be lowly conscripts or civilians.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...5dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.

Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.

“There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is the latest position in the United Nations on this matter ?

 

[GWRtom]

ignore

 

[Oswyntail]

Used by whom though? The UN inspectors are only there to confirm if they've been used. Assad would have everything to lose and those fighting him everything to gain by using chemical weapons so I can't understand why the regime would do so.....

Of course you are making the assumption - which the media seem to encourage - that Assad takes the decisions. I could quite see local commanders using whatever they see is necessary. No one would believe Assad if he claimed not to have authorised them, and that those guilty would be punished.

I have no problem taking action against whoever did it and iirc the vote was whether or not to take action without UN approval.

IIRC, the vote was simply to authorise action, if it was deemed necessary. It was really a paving action. What the vote has "achieved" is to make any action, against whichever side, almost impossible. No wonder there were reports of Syrians celebrating with the Union Jack :roll:

hard evidence is hard to come across in war with claims, counterclaims and subterfuge so I won't be surprised if there is no hard evidence

Even worse in a civil war. At least if you have a war between Liliput and Brobdignag a massacre of Liliputions affords the probability that it was the Brobdignagians what done it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This vote was only to proceed without the UN, I'm sure Cameron will find some way to get around it.

If the United Nations are marginalized if the decision reached by them does not meet with the approval of some of the big players in the Security Council, then what useful purpose in Security Council military matters is it performing ?

It appears that certain countries can make their understanding of a UN mandate to suit whatsoever fits their military objectives at any time to suit themselves.

 

[rdeez]

to deflect attention away from the behaviour of Milliband who initially said he would support the government in action against Syria, but then when he found out which way the wind of public opinion was blowing, changed his mind and voted against the government (despite Cameron complying to all of his demands re legal advice and evidence)

All my other opinions on Ed Miliband aside, personally, I'd rather have a leader that listened to public opinion and changed their stances accordingly, rather than one who stood by a position in the face of public hostility.

This IS democracy, after all, no? And democracy is about respecting the wishes of the people, right?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

All my other opinions on Ed Miliband aside, personally, I'd rather have a leader that listened to public opinion and changed their stances accordingly, rather than one who stood by a position in the face of public hostility.

This matter is something that will always be one upon which Tony Blair would claim to be "statesmanship" rather than any other standpoint.