US/France/UK missile strikes on Syria, do you agree?

Simple poll - interested to see what the response is.

I disagree with the saving face..gesture bombing of last night..

That noticeably avoided Russian airspace..

Is it just a coincidence that these three countries have recently signed massive arms deals with Saudi Arabia and are now launching missiles to the benefit of the Saudi backed Islamist terrorists?

I've already said on the Political thread my thoughts on this.

Bombing sorties don't work. The superpowers should get out of the Middle East and leave those there to sort out there own affairs. The US/UK/Russia have no right to play the moral policemen here given their past histories in the region and around the world.

What happened to the US bombing the chemical factories last year? It achieved nothing.

I rest my case.

They bombed an airbase last year.

Ent wrote:They bombed an airbase last year.

Regardless - it still achieved nothing in terms of improving things in the Middle East. Bombings/wars/invasions have been going on in the Middle East since the end of the Second World War and it is still the most volatile region on the planet - proves that it achieves nothing.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Ent wrote:They bombed an airbase last year.

Regardless - it still achieved nothing in terms of improving things in the Middle East. Bombings/wars/invasions have been going on in the Middle East since the end of the Second World War and it is still the most volatile region on the planet - proves that it achieves nothing.

They've been left to their own devices for periods much longer than external intervention has occurred, by your logic that proves leaving them to it doesn't work.

Ent wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Ent wrote:They bombed an airbase last year.

Regardless - it still achieved nothing in terms of improving things in the Middle East. Bombings/wars/invasions have been going on in the Middle East since the end of the Second World War and it is still the most volatile region on the planet - proves that it achieves nothing.

They've been left to their own devices for periods much longer than external intervention has occurred, by your logic that proves leaving them to it doesn't work.

Leaving them to it should be the case. It is not our fight, it is not the US or Russia's fight. And certainly not worth getting into a cataclysmic Third World War over.

The idea of course is to prevent a further global war, hence what the UN treaty states.

Of course we could just let Russia develop chemical weapons and let Assad test them on civilians. That will do well for the future.

Obviously that may not be the case but you can see things may not be as straightforward as they appear.

I like the principle that if a government is using chemical weapons on its civilians or carrying out genocide the international community step in to attempt protect the victims.

It's not our problem is an abhorrent attitude.

You are presuming a heck of a lot and trusting in governments who have history in monumental man sausage-ups in the Middle East. The US were once allies with Iraq and armed Saddam Hussein and look what happened. The UK later went to war on the grounds that Iraq had WMD when it was later revealed they did not.

And lets not even go there with the Israel situation where the US defends whatever they do even though it involves some heinous stuff.

In short these countries carrying out retribution are in no position to be acting like guardian angels.

And no I am not excusing Russia - they are evidently culpable and should not even be in the region either.

No justification for spur of the moment bombings without seeking the approval of Parliament and with no long term strategy..

"The idea of course"

Bollox...A crappy Prime Minister struggling at home looking abroad to change her fortunes..

If it was about humanity....What about the Yemen ?,

The international community has a duty to act in these situations, as laid out in the terms of being in the UN, NATO etc

Making a balls of it in the past is not a reason to allow tyrants to use chemical weapons on civilians without impunity. We should learn from previous interventions, not avoid future ones.

The US has made some horrendous foreign policy decisions/strategies. Again not a reason to allow chemical weapons to be used on civilians. It was found there were no wmds in Iraq.

The sticking your fingers in the ears and ignoring what goes on in the world would have resulted in a German empire, further genocide etc etc

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No justification for spur of the moment bombings without seeking the approval of Parliament and with no long term strategy..

"The idea of course"

Bollox...A crappy Prime Minister struggling at home looking abroad to change her fortunes..

If it was about humanity....What about the Yemen ?,

Do you think every UN intervention, given the contents of the UN treaty and what the members sign up to is to gain political capita at home?

Foreign intervention is unpopular, strange logic to think May is using it to improve her fortunes.

She doesn't need parliamentary approval, parliament approved Iraq and Libya interventions and thy went brilliantly too.

Ent wrote:The international community has a duty to act in these situations, as laid out in the terms of being in the UN, NATO etc

Making a balls of it in the past is not a reason to allow tyrants to use chemical weapons on civilians without impunity. We should learn from previous interventions, not avoid future ones.

The US has made some horrendous foreign policy decisions/strategies. Again not a reason to allow chemical weapons to be used on civilians. It was found there were no wmds in Iraq.

The sticking your fingers in the ears and ignoring what goes on in the world would have resulted in a German empire, further genocide etc etc

And can I point out what talking did in Northern Ireland. It achieved peace.

As for what happened with Germany you know that was far different as in one country invading and conquering other countries - totally different altogether.

All it needs now is Russia to retaliate and we run the risk of having a Third and final World War on our hands. Not what is needed due to macho posturing.

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No justification for spur of the moment bombings without seeking the approval of Parliament and with no long term strategy..

"The idea of course"

Bollox...A crappy Prime Minister struggling at home looking abroad to change her fortunes..

If it was about humanity....What about the Yemen ?,

She doesn't need parliamentary approval, parliament approved Iraq and Libya interventions and thy went brilliantly too.

Really? Try telling that to the traumatised and dead British troops in Iraq war started on the basis Iraq had WMD which we later found out they did not.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No justification for spur of the moment bombings without seeking the approval of Parliament and with no long term strategy..

"The idea of course"

Bollox...A crappy Prime Minister struggling at home looking abroad to change her fortunes..

If it was about humanity....What about the Yemen ?,

She doesn't need parliamentary approval, parliament approved Iraq and Libya interventions and thy went brilliantly too.

Really? Try telling that to the traumatised and dead British troops in Iraq war started on the basis Iraq had WMD which we later found out they did not.

Sarcasm is lost im afraid.

Parliamentary approval does not always result in perfect foreign policy decisions.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Ent wrote:The international community has a duty to act in these situations, as laid out in the terms of being in the UN, NATO etc

Making a balls of it in the past is not a reason to allow tyrants to use chemical weapons on civilians without impunity. We should learn from previous interventions, not avoid future ones.

The US has made some horrendous foreign policy decisions/strategies. Again not a reason to allow chemical weapons to be used on civilians. It was found there were no wmds in Iraq.

The sticking your fingers in the ears and ignoring what goes on in the world would have resulted in a German empire, further genocide etc etc

And can I point out what talking did in Northern Ireland. It achieved peace.

As for what happened with Germany you know that was far different as in one country invading and conquering other countries - totally different altogether.

All it needs now is Russia to retaliate and we run the risk of having a Third and final World War on our hands. Not what is needed due to macho posturing.

A wonderful summary of the troubles in Northern Ireland there, your insight is incredible. Imagine if the British government had used chemical weapons on republicans (rather than just shooting unarmed civilians dead during a civil rights march). There was also international involvement and mediation, notnjust "leaving them to it".

Ent wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Ent wrote:The international community has a duty to act in these situations, as laid out in the terms of being in the UN, NATO etc

Making a balls of it in the past is not a reason to allow tyrants to use chemical weapons on civilians without impunity. We should learn from previous interventions, not avoid future ones.

The US has made some horrendous foreign policy decisions/strategies. Again not a reason to allow chemical weapons to be used on civilians. It was found there were no wmds in Iraq.

The sticking your fingers in the ears and ignoring what goes on in the world would have resulted in a German empire, further genocide etc etc

And can I point out what talking did in Northern Ireland. It achieved peace.

As for what happened with Germany you know that was far different as in one country invading and conquering other countries - totally different altogether.

All it needs now is Russia to retaliate and we run the risk of having a Third and final World War on our hands. Not what is needed due to macho posturing.

A wonderful summary of the troubles in Northern Ireland there, your insight is incredible. Imagine if the British government had used chemical weapons on republicans (rather than just shooting unarmed civilians dead during a civil rights march). There was also international involvement and mediation, notnjust "leaving them to it".

Talks brought peace after years of attempting force which failed and flamed the conflict.

Seems you cannot bring yourself to admit that bombing and invasions and mini-wars against Middle East states just do not work and make situations a darn sight worse hence we are where we are at the moment.

I voted against, on this poll. To be honest I am against military action in the majority of situations - only recent examples where I feel ground troops (but not bombing) justified were to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Rwanda.

Now, even if one has a more hawkish approach to military intervention than me, surely you have to admit the timing on this one is poor. If you were to intervene in Syria then the time to have done so would have been several years ago when the united (and mainly secular) opposition to Assad still had some strength and influence. Over the recent years however, aided by Russia, Assad has been able to kill off (literally) these original sources of opposition, leaving it as a battle of Assad vs the islamists. Yes, the islamists have had some big setbacks, but so many people have been forced to Syria that there is no way a proper functioning democracy could take hold there - the original forces of opposition have either been killed or been driven abroad.

Bombing Syria right now therefore is counter-productive and is more likely to help strengthen the hand of the islamists in the medium to long-term, formenting the next generation of terrorists in the same way that the power vacuum in Libya post Gadaffi did there.

The situation in Syria is horribly complex and near impossible to solve, but ultimately some form of agreement with Assad probably needs to be brokered, but keeping him in check - this will though need cooperation with the Russians, but the recent rhetoric against Russia won't help with this necessary piece of realpolitik.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Ent wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Ent wrote:The international community has a duty to act in these situations, as laid out in the terms of being in the UN, NATO etc

Making a balls of it in the past is not a reason to allow tyrants to use chemical weapons on civilians without impunity. We should learn from previous interventions, not avoid future ones.

The US has made some horrendous foreign policy decisions/strategies. Again not a reason to allow chemical weapons to be used on civilians. It was found there were no wmds in Iraq.

The sticking your fingers in the ears and ignoring what goes on in the world would have resulted in a German empire, further genocide etc etc

And can I point out what talking did in Northern Ireland. It achieved peace.

As for what happened with Germany you know that was far different as in one country invading and conquering other countries - totally different altogether.

All it needs now is Russia to retaliate and we run the risk of having a Third and final World War on our hands. Not what is needed due to macho posturing.

A wonderful summary of the troubles in Northern Ireland there, your insight is incredible. Imagine if the British government had used chemical weapons on republicans (rather than just shooting unarmed civilians dead during a civil rights march). There was also international involvement and mediation, notnjust "leaving them to it".

Talks brought peace after years of attempting force which failed and flamed the conflict.

Seems you cannot bring yourself to admit that bombing and invasions and mini-wars against Middle East states just do not work and make situations a darn sight worse hence we are where we are at the moment.

You have a very simplistic approach and understanding of very complex situations and seem to think it is acceptable to stand by and watch tyrants use chemical weapons, displace and ethnically cleanse their people.

Great stuff.

Ent wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Ent wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Ent wrote:The international community has a duty to act in these situations, as laid out in the terms of being in the UN, NATO etc

Making a balls of it in the past is not a reason to allow tyrants to use chemical weapons on civilians without impunity. We should learn from previous interventions, not avoid future ones.

The US has made some horrendous foreign policy decisions/strategies. Again not a reason to allow chemical weapons to be used on civilians. It was found there were no wmds in Iraq.

The sticking your fingers in the ears and ignoring what goes on in the world would have resulted in a German empire, further genocide etc etc

And can I point out what talking did in Northern Ireland. It achieved peace.

As for what happened with Germany you know that was far different as in one country invading and conquering other countries - totally different altogether.

All it needs now is Russia to retaliate and we run the risk of having a Third and final World War on our hands. Not what is needed due to macho posturing.

A wonderful summary of the troubles in Northern Ireland there, your insight is incredible. Imagine if the British government had used chemical weapons on republicans (rather than just shooting unarmed civilians dead during a civil rights march). There was also international involvement and mediation, notnjust "leaving them to it".

Talks brought peace after years of attempting force which failed and flamed the conflict.

Seems you cannot bring yourself to admit that bombing and invasions and mini-wars against Middle East states just do not work and make situations a darn sight worse hence we are where we are at the moment.

You have a very simplistic approach and understanding of very complex situations and seem to think it is acceptable to stand by and watch tyrants use chemical weapons, displace and ethnically cleanse their people.

Great stuff.

And you seem to have a very aggressive approach of bomb a country and to hell with civilians getting killed and to hell with it not solving anything. A great way to take us a step closer to World War Three.

Who said anything about that? Again overly simplistic approach, I support the targeted destruction of chemical weapon factories to prevent them being used on civilians.

If it was isolated to that then no issue, well apart from waiting for the independent experts going in to check for evidence of chemical weapons and the US, UK and France deciding to just go in without confirmation of this.
But you cannot ignore the bigger picture in this, the conflict in Syria is but a pawn in a much larger game, and once one piece is taken then other much larger pieces start to fall.

I think the UN inspectors were denied access by Syria.

No doubt it is more complicated than any of us can comprehend, is that an excuse to allow innocent civilians to die horrible deaths?

The civil war in Syria has largely gone free of interference, I am happy for the line to be drawn at the use of chemical weapons.

Why would Assad - whos already won the civil war - use chemical weapons on his own people knowing what repercussions it would bring?

Until we had proof it was Assad it should have atleast went to parliament, but May didnt want that because she knew she's lose the vote and look even worse than she does now.

If it was Assad then I think military action should still be a last resort. Recent history shows us that intervention only destabilises that area further. Part of me wants to just leave them alone until they grow up, like a moody teenager but theres far too many innocent lives at risk. Its a very difficult subject that needs to be very carefully scrutinised and debated before taking rash action.

Samo wrote:Why would Assad - whos already won the civil war - use chemical weapons on his own people knowing what repercussions it would bring?

Until we had proof it was Assad it should have atleast went to parliament, but May didnt want that because she knew she's lose the vote and look even worse than she does now.

If it was Assad then I think military action should still be a last resort.  Recent history shows us that intervention only destabilises that area further.  Part of me wants to just leave them alone until they grow up, like a moody teenager but theres far too many innocent lives at risk.  Its a very difficult subject that needs to be very carefully scrutinised and debated before taking rash action.

Precisely.

Samo wrote:Why would Assad - whos already won the civil war - use chemical weapons on his own people knowing what repercussions it would bring?

Until we had proof it was Assad it should have atleast went to parliament, but May didnt want that because she knew she's lose the vote and look even worse than she does now.

If it was Assad then I think military action should still be a last resort.  Recent history shows us that intervention only destabilises that area further.  Part of me wants to just leave them alone until they grow up, like a moody teenager but theres far too many innocent lives at risk.  Its a very difficult subject that needs to be very carefully scrutinised and debated before taking rash action.

Because he's a pillock, chlorine is heavier than air (so getting into basements, where people were hiding) and Russia/Iran have been blowing smoke up his backside. Nothing that he's doing/done suggests he's a normal human being does it?

I'm tempted to agree with you though, re. the leaving them to it. Don't let them out of the region and let them butcher each other.

The UN doesn't help. ****ing useless organisation that can't do anything until it's too late and it's hamstrung by China/Russia always being on the opposite side of any debate cf. UK/France/US. It's going the way of the League of Nations and we know what happened there...

Problem with 'leaving them to it' is that vast numbers of syrians quite rightly want to leave.

It should be right and proper that we help to offer them sanctuary - it would be with any other government - but even indirectly there is price to pay for so doing, not least with dealing with rising xenophobia.

The questions are then should we do something and what can we do that is practical, and I don't think it is an easy question to answer at all.

Doing nothing is problematic, because nothing will change except for the worst.

On the other hand carrying out a superficial bombing raid with targets pre-agreed with one of the protagonists on the other side looks pretty and leads to no publicity damaging casualties amongst the aircrew, but it doesn't achieve anything except being seen to do something.

Ent wrote:Who said anything about that? Again overly simplistic approach, I support the targeted destruction of chemical weapon factories to prevent them being used on civilians.

1. No evidence chemical weapons were used yet.
2. If they blew up Chemical factories why are there people walking around near the blasts without special clothing ??


People like you scare me you are so gullible..

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Why would Assad - whos already won the civil war - use chemical weapons on his own people knowing what repercussions it would bring?

Until we had proof it was Assad it should have atleast went to parliament, but May didnt want that because she knew she's lose the vote and look even worse than she does now.

If it was Assad then I think military action should still be a last resort.  Recent history shows us that intervention only destabilises that area further.  Part of me wants to just leave them alone until they grow up, like a moody teenager but theres far too many innocent lives at risk.  Its a very difficult subject that needs to be very carefully scrutinised and debated before taking rash action.

Because he's a pillock, chlorine is heavier than air (so getting into basements, where people were hiding) and Russia/Iran have been blowing smoke up his backside. Nothing that he's doing/done suggests he's a normal human being does it?

I'm tempted to agree with you though, re. the leaving them to it. Don't let them out of the region and let them butcher each other.

The UN doesn't help. ****ing useless organisation that can't do anything until it's too late and it's hamstrung by China/Russia always being on the opposite side of any debate cf. UK/France/US. It's going the way of the League of Nations and we know what happened there...

Assad is winning the war..

Why would he need to do this ??

It is the obvious question....He isn't stupid..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Why would Assad - whos already won the civil war - use chemical weapons on his own people knowing what repercussions it would bring?

Until we had proof it was Assad it should have atleast went to parliament, but May didnt want that because she knew she's lose the vote and look even worse than she does now.

If it was Assad then I think military action should still be a last resort.  Recent history shows us that intervention only destabilises that area further.  Part of me wants to just leave them alone until they grow up, like a moody teenager but theres far too many innocent lives at risk.  Its a very difficult subject that needs to be very carefully scrutinised and debated before taking rash action.

Because he's a pillock, chlorine is heavier than air (so getting into basements, where people were hiding) and Russia/Iran have been blowing smoke up his backside. Nothing that he's doing/done suggests he's a normal human being does it?

I'm tempted to agree with you though, re. the leaving them to it. Don't let them out of the region and let them butcher each other.

The UN doesn't help. ****ing useless organisation that can't do anything until it's too late and it's hamstrung by China/Russia always being on the opposite side of any debate cf. UK/France/US. It's going the way of the League of Nations and we know what happened there...

Assad is winning the war..

Why would he need to do this ??

It is the obvious question....He isn't stupid..

Hasn't stopped him using chlorine and barrel bombs on civilian targets to date.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Ent wrote:Who said anything about that? Again overly simplistic approach, I support the targeted destruction of chemical weapon factories to prevent them being used on civilians.

1. No evidence chemical weapons were used yet.
2. If they blew up Chemical factories why are there people walking around near the blasts without special clothing ??


People like you scare me you are so gullible..

1. Syria will not let the UN inspectors in, Darin gas has been used (and verified) multiple times in Syria, most recently in 2017. Russia and Syria have acknowledged this but blame the opposition and international community for staging these attacks.

2. I'm not an expert in chemical weapons but only 1 of the 3 buildings targeted was thought to be a storage facility, the gas may have been destroyed rather than released in the missile strike (you would hope so anyway otherwise it defeats the purpose.

For the tin foil hat brigade id have thought people showing up in haz mat suits immediately after the strikes on "secret" weapons factories would have fed into conspiracy more.

Alternatively the US, Britain and France have faked this chemical weapons attack or carried it out themselves- so they can act and look great and improve their fragile domestic political standing - even though military intervention is very unpopular politically. Makes perfect sense....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Ent wrote:Who said anything about that? Again overly simplistic approach, I support the targeted destruction of chemical weapon factories to prevent them being used on civilians.

1. No evidence chemical weapons were used yet.
2. If they blew up Chemical factories why are there people walking around near the blasts without special clothing ??


People like you scare me you are so gullible..

Re. 1 - what you mean is, no evidence that you have access to. Very different and I have no idea why you think you should be privy to the necessary intelligence.
Re. 2 - With respect, you have no idea what chemical weapons were being targeted with those strikes; nor do you have any idea of the weather conditions or what the effect of the missile detonations on the chemicals was/is.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Why would Assad - whos already won the civil war - use chemical weapons on his own people knowing what repercussions it would bring?

Until we had proof it was Assad it should have atleast went to parliament, but May didnt want that because she knew she's lose the vote and look even worse than she does now.

If it was Assad then I think military action should still be a last resort.  Recent history shows us that intervention only destabilises that area further.  Part of me wants to just leave them alone until they grow up, like a moody teenager but theres far too many innocent lives at risk.  Its a very difficult subject that needs to be very carefully scrutinised and debated before taking rash action.

Because he's a pillock, chlorine is heavier than air (so getting into basements, where people were hiding) and Russia/Iran have been blowing smoke up his backside. Nothing that he's doing/done suggests he's a normal human being does it?

I'm tempted to agree with you though, re. the leaving them to it. Don't let them out of the region and let them butcher each other.

The UN doesn't help. ****ing useless organisation that can't do anything until it's too late and it's hamstrung by China/Russia always being on the opposite side of any debate cf. UK/France/US. It's going the way of the League of Nations and we know what happened there...

Assad is winning the war..

Why would he need to do this ??

It is the obvious question....He isn't stupid..

Why does any mass murdering dictator do what he/she does? Maybe he thought this would speed the end and thought having Russia/Iran onside would protect him from blowback?