Latest attack in Syria

[Jammybean]

Just watching BBC news, they were frantically trying to save a toddler who was convulsing . I feel physically sick.

I'd disagree about Assad and the world jumping all over him. It hasn't so far and he's seemingly comfortable this year since the initial assaults were repelled.

Just posted a thread in IABU. I can't believe we are again witnessing another human rights atrocity and no action is being taken. I'm with you Pan. Hague is taking a lead - Obama hasn't stepped up to the mark. The line has been crossed - he needs to put his money where his mouth is.

But I don't want him putting his money into giving weapons and ammunition to people that are no better than those that are already in power. It solves nothing....

Look at Iraq, Look at Afghanistan, look at Libya - what difference has been made to the lives of the people that live there since the West intervened? Precious little....

Why is Haque so determined when it comes to dealing with Assad, but does nothing when it comes to dealing with Mugabe?

Try not to let the media tell you what to think. Research for yourself & then make up your mind.

coming, thanks for those hints about opinion-forming. In fact, I've just formed one! We aren't as naive as you seem to imply

I don't think Hague is going out on a limb but he is stepping fwd, and I'd also suspect that Washington and no.10 are speaking as we type, and there's a few furried eye brows. It could be that the responses are being orchestrated (in fact highly likely), with a view to a UN resolution re intervention.

And Hague, well yes politicians are suspect, and I did hear today Billy Connolly's comment that we shouldn't vote for them as it only encourages them. But Tony Benn has a bit of time for him, so even as a Tory politician I'm not going to dismiss his contribution out of hand.

Excellent Pan, I assume you'll be popping down the recruitment office on Tuesday then as you're so keen to "go out on a limb"? (I've BTDT by the way)

Or do you just like to volunteer other people's loved ones & children for death & mutilation? (Because that's what'll happen, just like the 444 dead and the un-newsworthy amount of mutilated the UK has suffered in Afghan so far)

This is a bloody good case for National Service, if everyone's children had to serve, then maybe people would be less keen to send them off to war....

Do our Army not expect to have to go to war or have I missed something?

Okaaay! I said that H. isn't going out on a limb.

fwiw I don;t think you have BTDT, tbh. I am suspecting you are bigging yourself up a lot bit. But hey, who knows.

Pan lol

Holidaybug The same as the Fire Brigade expect to go to fires but don't want to burn to death.

I joined up at 17 because it seemed like a fun life, had a whale of a time in the last years of Cold War Germany, got a tan during the first Gulf War (the legitimate one) and then had the joy of helping pick up the pieces in post-UN Bosnia.

I left but still have mates who are serving in Afghan at the moment & know a couple that have died over there.

I certainly wouldn't want my kids joining up & going over to these places & dying so that the same oppressive regime can come back into power the minute we leave & luckily neither of them are that way inclined.

My main gripe is - it's easy to send other people's kids over there. If it has to be done, then it has to be for the right reasons. I'm not convinced that 1200 people being allegedly gassed is much worse than the 95,000 that died before them.

One easy way for the killing to stop is for the "rebels" to stop,but they're quite happy to keep the killing going too - why on earth would anyone think their government would be any better?

Look at Libya, before we "liberated" them they had fantastic quality of life - their health service was fantastic, standards of living were high. Now they're in the same state as half of the other shitty little dust bowls - that's what the West did for them.

Anyway, rant over. Have a good weekend!!

FWIW, I think the international community should have intervened well before this recent incident but that was vetoed by Russia and China. I know it's a complex issue and that intervention doesn't always produce the desired outcome. We'll see how events unfold over the next few days but I think we will see action in Syria. Not sure what form this will take and whether it will be effective but that is my gut feel.

What's BDTD??

BTDT - Been There Done That Happy

Ah, Thankyou :)

Just wanted to say that coming I totally agree with you.

Libya and Iraq were much better off, funnily enough, BEFORE we bombed the shit out of them. It does no favours to anyone but the arms trade.

When a country is on the cusp of being economically sound, we find these reasons to go in and free the shit out of them.

It's about keeping them poor little countries, not about liberation or freedom.

realpolitik

Interesting if true.

RT are reporting the US are going to bombard Syria on Monday. Russia have said Syria has weapons not before seen in the middle east, which is slightly troubling. I have a feeling Russia might retaliate, and who knows where that will lead.

Egypt is a bloody mess too. Their economies will be trashed by the end of this. What I didn't realise until today is that Syria paid off its debt to the world bank and had made deals over all European debt. Before the uprising the Syrian economy was in growth and had been all the time under what is basically a "socialist" government. They had started to make some free market reforms but these reforms were obv not happening fast enough! I suspect that when everything has calmed down foreign investment will pour in, which means one thing, business as usual for corporations and Western banks.

The "civil War" has all the hallmarks of a CIA coup d'etat scheme. I don't think for one minute that Syrian government would use chemical weapons right under the noses of the Weapons inspectors. According to
NicholasTeakozy's link " According to the army, symptoms appeared minutes after opposition militants detonated two explosive devices"

America has instigated two previous coups in Syria 1949 & 1957, the outcome of which wasn't entirely favourable and they have toyed with the idea of invading, Russia being the reason they haven't. www.us-foreign-policy-perspective.org/index.php?id=285

America is not above using or supplying weapons that have been banned. In Iraq they used banned white phosphorous. "Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry's fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: "White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out." www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

I doubt that Obama or Cameron are losing any sleep talking all night, the decisions were taken months ago, all that was needed was to make the threat "the red line" ensure that we all assimilated this into our thinking. For how long have we been talking about possible CWs????and then ensure that the "proof" was made available and that they had our support. They don't have mine.

If that is Israel's feelings - are you surprised?

Agree with Mini this is actually all cut and dried we are just being manipulated and when they think we are sufficiently horrified the US will strike. Terrifying., I loathe Obama think he is the very definition od a wolf in sheeps clothing

I'm not sure so that the US will be quick to attack. All signs are they're desperately trying not to get involved.

The last thing Obama needs is to be the president who drags the US into another conflict in the middle east after all the poltiical capital he's spent dragging them out of Iraq.

The US doesn't want to be seen as attacking yet another muslim country. Neither can they afford it. They're stretched financially and militarily after long drawn out conflicts in Iraq & Afghanistan.

And bear in mind that the 'rebels' are not a united group. The only thing they can agree upon is that they all hate Bashar.

Toppling the regime leaves a real mess in it's wake as we've seen in other countries. A vacuum of power which they'd all start fighting each other and the US be dutybound to try & sort out. All the time US soldiers are still dying.

There's simply no upside for Obama to getting involved and putting US soldiers in direct line of fire.

Personally I predict that the 'serious response' will be supply of arms and/or intel to the rebels. I really can't see the west putting boots on the ground at this stage.

NiceGuy can we be sure that America hasn't already been supplying "intel and arms" I'll find a link later to something I read a while back. It would seem that we have been training the rebels and equipping them long before this idea was mooted about in the press as a possibility.

In terms of popularity at home, this is the last thing Obama needs but presidents come and go and the imperialist warmongering continues, doesn't that tell you something?

Concur with mini.
It's all about creating foyers of instability and "Balkanization".
Seems like American foreign policy has very few options left but to let things fester and come to the rescue in pure comic style vintage superhero costume.
Thing is they don't understand the paradigm has changed.They do not have the humbling experience of colonialism to give them enough distance.
Europeans do seem to get it but are spineless.

So now the syrian "government" has allowed UN inspectors in to investigate.
Remember the night marie colvin and remi Ochlik died? in the fold of Arab league observers.?
Much ado about nothing. Its all posturing.

This is the piece I read the other day and couldn't find. From Le Figaro:-

According to our information, the regime?s opponents, supervised by Jordanian, Israeli and American commandos moving towards Damascus since mid-August. This attack could explain the possible use of the Syrian president to chemical weapons.

According to information obtained by Le Figaro , the first trained in guerrilla warfare by the Americans in Jordan Syrian troops reportedly entered into action since mid-August in southern Syria, in the region of Deraa. A first group of 300 men, probably supported by Israeli and Jordanian commandos, as well as men of the CIA, had crossed the border on August 17. A second would have joined the 19. According to military sources, the Americans, who do not want to put troops on the Syrian soil or arming rebels in part controlled by radical Islamists form quietly for several months in a training camp set up at the border Jordanian- Syrian fighters ASL, the Free Syrian Army, handpicked.

Translation via Zero Hedge