Syria - What happens next?

[Finnegan]

I really don't understand why the US and UK seem intent on acting before the UN have concluded their report into the chemical attack.

Operation Syrian Freedom?

[ADK]

I'm just finding this so strange.

 

Surely a chemical attack would be the last resort of a desperate man, this is a man who is actually winning the war now, had decisive victories over the last 6 months and the attack was carried out in Damacus where he enjoys considerable support.

 

Something really doesn't work out, if the 'rebels', sorry Al Queda have pulled this off and managed to convince the World it's Assad what on earth is it going to end up like?

 

What do we do? Get rid of Assad and leave the opposition to it? Maybe the guy who eats human hearts can run the place?  There seems to be no plan whatsoever in place and we seem very keen to start raining missiles down. It's like ten years ago all over again.

 

I'm not one who generally goes in for the tin hat tales but something here doesn't seem quite right at all.

 

I read something interesting that said that Syria had manufactured large quantities of chemical weapons and had stockpiles at over 50 locations across the country, considering the rebels captured many army bases and stockpiles it would seem highly possible there are rebels with chemical weapons.

 

Personally I'm sceptical about the government forces using chemical weapons, if they were ever going to use them then surely it would either have been from the outset or as a desperate last stand / act of retaliation. I don't trust the USA when it says it has "conclusive evidence" government forces used chemical weapons. They also had evidence of WMD in Iraq which turned out to be bollocks.

[James.]

Don't like this at all... Regarding why US and UK won't wait until the inspectors conclude their report the Guardian says the following:

 

The British and American governments have until now dismissed suggestions that military action should be delayed until the UN weapons inspectors in Damascus have reported, arguing that it is already obvious that chemical weapons were used and that the inspectors' report will not say which side was responsible for their deployment.

 

This strikes me as a very rash justification for not delaying. What about finding out exactly what chemical weapons were used and as such how likely it would be for each side to have access to those particular chemicals?

 

This war has gone on for 2 years yet now the US, UK and France all of a sudden seem to be clambering over each other to start firing missiles. I would have hoped that we would have learned from previous experience that rushing into a war before conducting the proper investigation rarely ends well. Worrying.

[ADK]

I think the real reason is that the government appears to be winning and we don't want that.

 

We'll attack Assads military from the air for a few months and hope that does enough to weaken him and allow the rebels to start winning the war.

[James.]

I think the real reason is that the government appears to be winning and we don't want that.

 

We'll attack Assads military from the air for a few months and hope that does enough to weaken him and allow the rebels to start winning the war.

 

And then we'll implement our plan for the country once the rebels win.

 

We do have a plan don't we?

 

Don't we?

[ADK]

I think the aim is to weaken Iran and also to remove Syria from Russia/China's sphere of influence.

[Jon the Hat]

The remit will not be regime change, it will be to warn Assad that we can take him out if we want to, to try and stop him using chemical weapons.

[James.]

I think the aim is to weaken Iran and also to remove Syria from Russia/China's sphere of influence.

 

I'm talking more about a tactical plan around what happens to Syria if the rebels win. From what I can make out the rebels don't exactly look like the most pleasant of characters to be running a country.

 

The remit will not be regime change, it will be to warn Assad that we can take him out if we want to, to try and stop him using chemical weapons.

 

Because we know for sure he's using chemical weapons?

[bovril]

I'm talking more about a tactical plan around what happens to Syria if the rebels win. From what I can make out the rebels don't exactly look like the most pleasant of characters to be running a country.

 

 

It doesn't matter if they're sons of bitches as long as they're our sons of bitches.

[Guest MattP]

Why the hell would anyone believe what Obama is telling anyone?

 

The man is clearly a compulsive liar who will do absolutely anything to get what he wants.

[Parafox]

I'm talking more about a tactical plan around what happens to Syria if the rebels win. From what I can make out the rebels don't exactly look like the most pleasant of characters to be running a country.

 

 

Because we know for sure he's using chemical weapons?

 

 

No we don't because we're Foxes fans, not world leaders or the Secret Service. You wouldn't expect MI5 or Mossad or the Pentagon to know that Pearson had used the 5-3-2 formation, now would you

[Merging Cultures]

Basically the UN is inept.

 

I have had the unfortunate responsibility to work with them in West Africa and the Balkans. Saturday mornings were spent negotiating the UN vehicles that had crashed into the UN barricades after a night of drink driving. Brilliant.

 

The UK and US should not wait for them to make their report, which will say that chemical weapons have been used.

 

They need to protect the innocent now. The difficult is not picking a side, because as we know, neither side is really worth sh*t. But then you end up stuck there for years, so a quick hand over to the corrupt and rather rubbish UN should happen... if only they worked better.

[James.]

No we don't because we're Foxes fans, not world leaders or the Secret Service. You wouldn't expect MI5 or Mossad or the Pentagon to know that Pearson had used the 5-3-2 formation, now would you

 

Why be facetious? My point is we are hearing the same lines we heard pre-Iraq. It's just "WMD" has been replaced with "chemical weapons". The fact is the UN inspectors haven't concluded their report and (regardless of totally irrelevant stories about their ineptitude as per previous poster) there are not yet any legal grounds to start launching missiles.

 

Why, after 2 years of doing fúck all, are we frothing at the gash to start attacking Syria? Why not wait until we have more information?

[leicsmac]

Why the hell would anyone believe what Obama is telling anyone?

 

The man is clearly a compulsive liar who will do absolutely anything to get what he wants.

 

Just like any other politician then. But he does make the lies sound good. 

 

No we don't because we're Foxes fans, not world leaders or the Secret Service. You wouldn't expect MI5 or Mossad or the Pentagon to know that Pearson had used the 5-3-2 formation, now would you

 

And therein is the problem. Some information is clearly 'need to know', but you can hardly expect public support for this kind of action if you're not going to show conclusive evidence to them as to why its needed. They can't have their cake and eat it. That's how the whole Iraq fiasco started People (rightly) mistrust world leaders and the Secret Service due to varying past lies, so if they want the public on board they need to come up with the goods. Or they can go without and face the big backlash.

[bovril]

Why be facetious? My point is we are hearing the same lines we heard pre-Iraq. It's just "WMD" has been replaced with "chemical weapons". The fact is the UN inspectors haven't concluded their report and (regardless of totally irrelevant stories about their ineptitude as per previous poster) we have no grounds or evidence to start launching missiles.

 

Why, after 2 years of doing fúck all, are we frothing at the gash to start attacking Syria? Why not wait until we have more information?

 

That's a mental image of Hilary Clinton I don't need.

[Zingari]

Why the hell would anyone believe what Obama is telling anyone?

 

The man is clearly a compulsive liar who will do absolutely anything to get what he wants.

He's not a liar he's a puppet that probably believes the lies he's told by the real power behind the throne .

Just like all Presidents and PM's 

[The God Emperor]

He's not a liar he's a puppet that probably believes the lies he's told by the real power behind the throne .

Just like all Presidents and PM's 

exactly! the sooner we step up and free ourselves from the secret rule of Zionist space lizards the better.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

ROSWELL WAS A WARNING!

[Jordan]

I think the aim is to weaken Iran and also to remove Syria from Russia/China's sphere of influence.

This.

BTW, although I am somewhat skeptical about the circumstances behind the August 21 chemical incident, it is worth nothing that the Arab League has condemned Syria for launching a chemical weapon attack. They stopped short of endorsing Western military involvement but that's hardly surprising considering Syria's proximity to a certain Middle Eastern area of great geopolitical concern.

I am concerned with the rush to action. Sure, it may well be necessary to act ASAP in light of new evidence in order to protect civilians but, as others have said, this is a dangerous and complex situation. Rushing into military action with a poorly-conceived endgame may well be worse in the long run.

The American people have grown weary of war, and perhaps aren't as clued in to what's going on in Syria as they were about Egypt, Libya, etc. [edit to add public opinion polling shows a substantial majority of Americans oppose American military involvement in Syria]. However, I don't think the White House will even bother trying to sell this one before taking action.

[bovril]

exactly! the sooner we step up and free ourselves from the secret rule of Zionist space lizards the better.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

ROSWELL WAS A WARNING!

 

I take it that's sarcastic. Do you really believe then that the president is solely responsible for foreign policy decisions and in no way influenced by the military and oil industry?

[I am Rod Hull]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMHDBL7CNA4

[The God Emperor]

I take it that's sarcastic. Do you really believe then that the president is solely responsible for foreign policy decisions and in no way influenced by the military and oil industry?

I was just being silly of course. I think its less to do with the oil industry comanding the president than it is trying to America maintain the main source of its power at the moment. that is the us dollar being the worlds reserve currency.

I wouldnt be suprised if later on we find out that assad bought some weapons or any expensive item and used chinese currency like gaddafi did.

America needs the dollar to be the reserve currency so that the the fed can keep printing as much as they need it to.

[breadandcheese]

Why be facetious? My point is we are hearing the same lines we heard pre-Iraq. It's just "WMD" has been replaced with "chemical weapons". The fact is the UN inspectors haven't concluded their report and (regardless of totally irrelevant stories about their ineptitude as per previous poster) there are not yet any legal grounds to start launching missiles.

 

Why, after 2 years of doing fúck all, are we frothing at the gash to start attacking Syria? Why not wait until we have more information?

 

There is a question over who fired the weapon, but it is not in any doubt that chemical weapons were used, so it is completely different to Iraq in that respect.  The European countries, America, the Arab League all blame Syrian government forces for it.  Russia say it was rebels.  

 

The question of why after 2 years is simply down to the red line of a chemical weapon attack.  If the gas attack had not happened, then there would be no intervention.  I think we do have to say that the use of chemical weapons in civilian areas is a red line and so if Assad's forces have used chemical weapons in that way, then there should be repercussions to show that it is not to be repeated.  Otherwise, what is to stop them being used by anyone else, in any future wars.

 

Admittedly, I'd like to see the evidence like everyone else before any action is undertaken, but I'm surprised at the stance of some where, even if it is proved that Assad's forces launched chemical weapons on a civilian area, killing all those people with a mere handful of shells, it doesn't matter, we should leave him to it.  The "look away now" approach does make me wonder that if the Rwandan genocide was happening today, would we have intervened or left it to occur.  

 

I know this makes me sound like a war-mongerer, and I'd much rather it was slowed down, with discussions at the UN and with Russia to find a solution, but with the use of chemical weapons, we can't look the other way whilst civilians die from gas attacks.  Maybe it is better that it's done outside the auspices of the UN, because then it gives the UN deniability, allowing them to operate in Syria without fear of having been seen to take a side.  

[Parafox]

Why be facetious? My point is we are hearing the same lines we heard pre-Iraq. It's just "WMD" has been replaced with "chemical weapons". The fact is the UN inspectors haven't concluded their report and (regardless of totally irrelevant stories about their ineptitude as per previous poster) there are not yet any legal grounds to start launching missiles.

 

Why, after 2 years of doing fúck all, are we frothing at the gash to start attacking Syria? Why not wait until we have more information?

 

 

Yeah, so show me the money. I agree with you and I wasn't being facetious. The point I was trying to make was that, here we are, football fans on a forum saying the US and it's allies (or whoever) should do this, that and the other, based on speculation and probable untruth's. It's fine to have a view but, as you said, facts are needed before we, as individuals, can really make our minds up and put forward a view based on the reality. The reality here is, someone used chemical weapons, the fact is, so far we don't know who.

[Jon the Hat]

Well Ed Milliband has made himself rather unpopular!!

[Parafox]

Well Ed Milliband has made himself rather  even more unpopular!!

 

 

Fixed!