So, unless you've been living under a fairly substantial rock for the last 2 years, you're probably aware that sh*t has been hiting the proverbial fan down in Syria. Things seem to have escalated a bit recently though, with allegations of chemical weapon use on it's civillians coming from parts of the West.

 

Dave Cameron, backed by his Forgein Secretary William Hague, called for a vote in Parliament on whether to undertake military action, which would probably involve air strikes as opposed to an Iraq style troops invasion. Cameron lost the vote however, and came out looking a bit silly.

 

The American's it seems however, are pressing ahead with plans for military intervention, judging by this article on the BBC:

 

A US Senate panel has approved the use of military force in Syria, in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.

 

By 10-7, the Committee on Foreign Relations moved the measure to a full Senate vote, expected next week.

 

The proposal allows the use of force in Syria for 60 days with the possibility to extend it for 30 days. It prevents the use of US troops on the ground.

 

President Barack Obama is battling to build support at home and abroad for military action.

 

Despite Wednesday's vote, the bill's ultimate fate in the wider Senate is unclear. And the US House of Representatives must also approve the measure.

 

'Credibility on the line'

So far, only 21 senators have said they support or are likely to back the resolution, according to a tally by ABC News.

 

Thirteen have said they oppose or are likely to oppose the resolution, while 66 votes are undecided or unknown.

However, those numbers are expected to shift as the language in the resolution changes, the White House and its congressional allies apply pressure, and lawmakers hear from their constituents.

 

Earlier in the day, France - whose government has strongly advocated intervention - held an extraordinary debate in the National Assembly, though MPs will not vote on the matter as the country's president can mobilise the military without their backing.

 

The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is accused of using chemical weapons against civilians on several occasions during the 30-month conflict, most recently on a large scale in an attack on 21 August on the outskirts of Damascus.

 

The US has put the death toll from that incident at 1,429 - though other countries and organisations have given lower figures - and says all the evidence implicates government forces.

 

At a press conference on Wednesday in Stockholm, Sweden, President Obama said: "My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line.

 

"America and Congress's credibility is on the line, because we give lip-service to the notion that these international norms are important."

 

Mr Obama said he believed the US Congress would approve intervention, but stressed that as commander-in-chief, he had the right to act in his country's national interest regardless.

 

 

The situation is kinda complicated by the Russian stance, who are against the use of Military without UN approval and Putin has been close to the regime in Damascus in the past.

 

What do you think? Would you back British or American military action in Syria? Or do you think that we should stay out of their business?

I'm not too well informed on the matter but there is this guy on my facebook who is totally against it due to him saying that it would lead to WW3 with China and Russia backing Syria. Just how credible is this idea of a third world war or is he blowing smoke?

Your guy on Facebook is an idiot.

 

I wouldn't mind a bit of military action, but it has to be a whole UN thing, at least on paper, it can't just be America leading the way, because that would be a P.R. nightmare. Let everyone go in, under the U.N. flag, as an official U.N. mission, put peacekeepers in, have an election, get out, sort of a Yugoslavia kind of deal.

Your guy on Facebook is an idiot.

 

I wouldn't mind a bit of military action, but it has to be a whole UN thing, at least on paper, it can't just be America leading the way, because that would be a P.R. nightmare. Let everyone go in, under the U.N. flag, as an official U.N. mission, put peacekeepers in, have an election, get out, sort of a Yugoslavia kind of deal.

 

Aye, that's what I thought. Yes voters for the Scottish referendum are having a field day with Cameron trying to take us into another war and he's one of them.

[video=youtube;mq2jh3GKMto]

Russia's exact and total reaction will be

 

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/russia/Vladimir_Putin-World_Economic_Forum.jpg

 

And then it'll be back to beating up gay people and cooking bootleg heroin like usual.

Edited September 4, 201311 yr by John Hancock

Syria needs a smack on the wrist for sure but like Johnny boy said, it shouldn't just be the US running up in there with a depleted uranium wedgie.

Yeah, the international community needs to act like an international community, and the UN needs to do its ****ing job. A massive part of the point of the UN is to ensure WMD's like chemical weapons aren't used.

 

Otherwise, the US and the UK should just tell the UN to **** off like the pointless, useless, toothless waste of money it is and leave the world to sort its own shit out, by and large. At that point military action in Syria would only be if the situation threatened our security.

But what do you do when a few nations funding them so no. No the un is good for somethings but not this its down to each country to act or not act. It would be nice if the un would do it but when russia and china sit on the security council nothing will happen so. Yes to acting but with un if possible but alone if needed

The west needs to stay out of Syria, it's Civil war. The UK, America and everyone else in Europe needs to leave this well alone

The west needs to stay out of Syria, it's Civil war. The UK, America and everyone else in Europe needs to leave this well alone

 

http://fitsinglemom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/jackie-chan-wtf-face-meme-i9.jpg

Russia's exact and total reaction will be

 

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/russia/Vladimir_Putin-World_Economic_Forum.jpg

 

And then it'll be back to beating up gay people and cooking bootleg heroin like usual.

 

Is it wrong that I'm thinking of making that my new desktop wallpaper?

 

On topic, I really don't know enough to make an informed opinion. Like, is there actual evidence of who fired these chemical weapons? Who would take over if the Syrian government was deposed?

 

I dunno, part of me thinks that if the Syrian government did use chemical weapons on it's own people then they need a kick up the a*s, but then I'd be reluctant to get involved without some kind of concrete evidence. I don't think anyone's prepared to take a politician's word for it anymore since we got stung with the whole "Saddam Hussein can nuke you in your bed in less than 15 minutes" bullhonky last time.

http://fitsinglemom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/jackie-chan-wtf-face-meme-i9.jpg

 

Was I not clear with my comments?

Perfectly clear, perfectly stupid.

Perfectly clear, perfectly stupid.

 

Explain

Explain

 

Make me....

 

Nah kidding. A totally non-interventionist position is fundamentally flawed. As decent human beings there should always be a point where we prepared to intervene. Blanket saying we should not get involved if indeed a highly armed regime is systematically using chemical weapons on its own citizens is just ignorant.

 

If you wanted to put some caveat on what conditions need to be met before you'd consider intervention then that's one thing. Saying "F*ck it, it;s their problem" isn;t.

But why should we intervene?

http://pinkie.ponychan.net/chan/files/src/134038682542.png

Because it's nice to help people?

 

The Libyan Revolution, the Korean War, the Kosovo Crisis, the Bosnian Crisis, the Second World War, the Gulf War, the Sierra Leone Civil War, the Northern Mali Conflict, Operation Just Cause, Operation Uphold Democracy... wars of intervention work, and they make the world a better, more stable place in the long run. The only major wars of intervention that have gone wrong have either been because the mission itself failed (Bay of Pigs, Somalian Civil War) or because the intervention itself was dishonest (Vietnam, Guatemala).

 

Also, because it's kind of the law. The use of chemical weapons is an international war crime.

Edited September 5, 201311 yr by John Hancock

Because it's nice to help people?

 

The Libyan Revolution, the Korean War, the Kosovo Crisis, the Bosnian Crisis, the Second World War, the Gulf War, the Sierra Leone Civil War,

 

And all these places are better are they?

Erm... yes? You're saying Libya was better as an extremist Muslim dictatorship that openly supported and funded terrorist attacks in Britain, Korea was better when North Korea was in charge of the South too, Kosovo and Bosnia were better when all the Muslims were being slaughtered, Poland, Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia were all better under Nazi occupation, Kuwait was better as part of Iraq, and Sierra Leone was better as a warlord run anarchy? Don't be silly.

 

I'm assuming you didn't entirely think it through, but you basically just said the world would be a better place with Colonel Gaddafi, no South Korea, Hitler, a Nazi Empire, no Jews left in Eastern Europe, no Muslims left in South-Eastern Europe, no Kuwait, an oil rich Saddam Hussein through the 1990s, and a state of constant, unending warfare in West Africa.

Edited September 5, 201311 yr by John Hancock