So, this Syria thing...

[Tubey]

If Iraq hadn't happened, this would have passed with a huge majority. Ever since that cluster**** many MPs on all sides are too scared to put their name to an intervention.

Spot on.

Well no, they're waiting for the report, as it's not 100% obvious who has committed the act. Of course there's a high chance it was Assad, but they're takng the softly approach. I'm not sure what's right and wrong anymore, all paths lead to needless death.

Can see the logic in that but I feel that losing a vote now pretty much kills any chance of action without UN approval, which obviously will never happen due to Russia and China having interests of their own.

On that note, how utterly useless is the UN with these kinds of matters?

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Surprised at this to be honest. Next time there's a chemical attack somewhere that concerns our interests, we have no moral high ground to retaliate now. Government have basically just endorsed the use of chemical weapons, as long as it doesn't concern us.

I agreed with Cameron - a quick strike from the air to just hammer home the point that chemical weapons are not on, then leave it at that.

Would never happen - Syria has a highly sophisticated, Russian built, integrated air-defence system. Before strikes could take place on defined military/govt targets they would have to limit the capability of this system.

That could take weeks of bombings/cruise missile/drone strikes - very smelly and very nasty for all concerned.

 

[Tubey]

[/B]

Would never happen - Syria has a highly sophisticated, Russian built, integrated air-defence system. Before strikes could take place on defined military/govt targets they would have to limit the capability of this system.

That could take weeks of bombings/cruise missile/drone strikes - very smelly and very nasty for all concerned.

That's what I'm talking about though - the drone/missile strikes, not manned flights.

Basically a smacked arse for Assad. People are right, the Syria civil war is none of our concern, but the use of chemical weapons is.

 

[Elong]

Can see the logic in that but I feel that losing a vote now pretty much kills any chance of action without UN approval, which obviously will never happen due to Russia and China having interests of their own.

On that note, how utterly useless is the UN with these kinds of matters?

Yeah, hopeless, takes so long to get anything done, people on the streets are being butchered on both sides and people sit in their suits in committees pissing around, it's the most upsetting thing about it. Takes 2-3 days to write up a report ffs, people are dying.

Still, there's evil on both sides, it will be a strong decision to side with either.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

That's what I'm talking about though - the drone/missile strikes, not manned flights.

Basically a smacked arse for Assad. People are right, the Syria civil war is none of our concern, but the use of chemical weapons is.

These things are never quite so surgical or clinical, and generally lead to more innocents getting killed...I'm all for waiting for more information/clarification, before thinking about a method of retaliation.

 

[Moomin]

How will Syria react to strikes is the big worry??

Will they attack Israel for a reaction??

The tension is unreal in that part of the world, its like a EO match day thread when were 1 nil down.

 

[edge]

well now the uk has joined the other 191 countries in the un that dont intend to bomb syria, why the outrage that we are some how cullable in some way if it happens again havnt evey other nation in the un got the same thing to think about as us.

 

[Mrk]

 

[Raymondo077]

Hello Osama,, really sorry but Mummy and Daddy say i,m not allowed play with you anymore.

 

[bignev23]

I find it a bit strange that approx 100,000 people have been killed over the last two and a half years by guns bombs and artillery in Syria and its rarely been a major story on the news but when a few hundred are killed by suspected chemicals the media and Cameron an Co goes nuts. It seems its acceptable to slaughter if your using Arms(probably sold by us) but kill even a few with chemicals and you've crossed some sort of line.

I can obviously see that chemical weapons are horrendous things but so are all the other weapons used which have caused even more casualties.just find it a bit weird once the word 'chemical' is used there is outrage.Surely whatever weapons kill the most people should cause the most outrage or is a 2,000lb cluster bomb or a machine gun or whatever classed as a humane way of killing people.

Syria is a mess at the moment and I don't think it'll be sorted out any time soon especially when buffoons from all over the place think they have the best solution.

 

[davek]

HaHaHaHaHa.....Cameron acts the big bollocks on the world stage telling the Yanks they need to pull their finger out and get with the programme...then his own Parliament tells him to **** off and humiliates him.

It's sweet as a ****ing nut.


Touch for that you posh ****.

 

[Mrk]

Even if I disagreed with his objective I begrudgingly respect Cameron for the way he handled it, he let parliament have a chance to decide at the earliest possible moment and when they said no he accepted it. Stark contrast to Blair in 2003.

 

[Jib in lad]

when they said no he accepted it

LOL what else could he do shake his fist and say you bastards .

 

[Mrk]

when they said no he accepted it

LOL what else could he do shake his fist and say you bastards .

No, he could disregard the vote and sanction war anyway.

 

[davek]

Even if I disagreed with his objective I begrudgingly respect Cameron for the way he handled it, he let parliament have a chance to decide at the earliest possible moment and when they said no he accepted it. Stark contrast to Blair in 2003.

Yes, what an honourable man. I suppose he'll just have to go back to waging war on the British people now.