Support NeoGAF

[Jezbollah]

We know the weapons were fired from the direction of a Syrian army base and we have yet to see the rebels possess any kind of weaponry able to fire those specific shells used in the chemical attack (140mm M14 Artillery Rocket of Soviet origin).

We have intercepted phone calls from Syrian commanders to a leader of a chemical weapons unit demanding to know why those were used.

Syria also refused to let the U.N inspectors in unless they specifically didn't investigate where the rockets came from.

I'd say it's pretty damning evidence.

There was a whole lot of pretty damning evidence with Iraq in 2003, I seem to remember.

 

[kitch9]

That doesn't negate the possibility of Assad (or his subordinates, clandestine organization, mole people) from having used those weapons, nor justify it depending on the point you're making. Same goes for Assad (or the mole people).

Nobody knows a damn thing. The US and Russia both claim they have evidence damning the opposition of their interests, while not disclosing said evidence and running around inquiries. There's no clear picture on where these stockpiles are if the facilities are truly out of commission and no longer a factor, so there's lack of a specific target. Targeting city centers would be disastrous, as the civilian toll would have the US facing heavy sanctions that the UN will have little to no choice but to enforce. And let's not ignore the elephants in the room that are China, Iran, and Russia, of the last who is making it clear that they have the capability to and will likely respond.

Arguing for one side or the other is the behavior of fools given that the outcome of either side coming out on top will not be pretty for anyone. Assad wins, terrorist attacks will likely continue in the region. Rebels win, and it's likely we'll see a repeat of when the Mujahadeen forced out the Russians in the sand box.



I don't think we can call the current FSA the same as the initial FSA. They weren't spring buds in the beginning either, but that's civil war for you. I'm friends with quite a few Bosnians who fought in their civil war a couple of decades back, and it's not as black and white as many like to think. One moment you're fighting for one side because that's who holds your city, and the next day it's the other. Alliances change, and you can't turn away the devil when you're getting your ass handed to you. You're fighting to keep it away from your city, or your neighborhood, or your house even. You do what's best for your family, and many times you're forced into that path through threats or honor/shame. You don't want to be the guy who says no when recruiting comes through the block.

This is probably the best reason for why we should stay out of it, but chemical weapons are a serious issue to the UN and are illegal. Standing by and doing nothing about that particular issue when sanctions will have no effect undermines what many already consider a useless global authority, for lack of a better term.

My point was it would be crazy to drop bombs because we have no idea who the bad guy actually is.

 

[Ding-Ding]

There was a whole lot of pretty damning evidence with Iraq in 2003, I seem to remember.

This argument should have no barring on Syria.

Cameron is not Blair. Obama is not Bush

Bush & Blair fabricated evidence for the means to invade Iraq. They invented that there were WMD's in Iraq and they had the means to fire them at western assets. Both were proven to be false (hell Blair pretended a student thesis was an intelligence document).

As a former member of the British Army myself, I can tell you that Cameron is correct when he says that there will never be one piece of intelligence that proves 100% what the facts are. In civil wars confusion reigns supreme.

What we do know is chemical weapons are in play and we know they were fired from the direction of an army base.

Iraq was a mistake no question. However it shouldn't stop us from trying to protect people who have no means of protecting themselves against a chemical attack on a large scale.

 

[Fabrik]

Much more important than 'proving' the Syrian regime did this (because it seems clear) is respecting the international institutions and processes we, the community of nations, claim to be committed to.

I'm in favour of intervention, but only multilateral intervention after the UN has been allowed to do its job and sufficient evidence has been put in front of the world's nations.

It doesn't seem clear at all. Who has the most interest in using chemical weapons? El Assad would be crazy to use them. He perfectly knows the West is just waiting for that excuse to intervene.

 

[Big Baybee]

It doesn't seem clear at all. Who has the most interest in using chemical weapons? El Assad would be crazy to use them. He perfectly knows the West is just waiting for that excuse to intervene.

Saying it'd be crazy of him to do it doesn't mean that he or someone under him used chemical weapons.

 

[Ovek]

Iraq was a mistake no question. However it shouldn't stop us from trying to protect people who have no means of protecting themselves against a chemical attack on a large scale.

Yes Iraq was a mistake actually no it wasn't a mistake it was a travesty that cost many civilian lives, so don't you think we should step back and at the very least wait for the UN report instead of trying to ram this through parliament?

And don't believe the chemical attack is the reason to wanting to remove Assad, it might be the excuse but not the reason.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

This argument should have no barring on Syria.

Cameron is not Blair. Obama is not Bush

Bush & Blair fabricated evidence for the means to invade Iraq. They invented that there were WMD's in Iraq and they had the means to fire them at western assets. Both were proven to be false (hell Blair pretended a student thesis was an intelligence document).

As a former member of the British Army myself, I can tell you that Cameron is correct when he says that there will never be one piece of intelligence that proves 100% what the facts are. In civil wars confusion reigns supreme.

What we do know is chemical weapons are in play and we know they were fired from the direction of an army base.

Iraq was a mistake no question. However it shouldn't stop us from trying to protect people who have no means of protecting themselves against a chemical attack on a large scale.

If you don't mind me jumping in.

I agree with your take bar the last part, no military action has been undertaken when we have heard of entire neighbourhoods being purged but now chemical weapon usage means we run in guns blazing. Pardon my cynism but makes no difference if persons are marched out of their house and shot or gassed.

Surely something could ha e been do e to halt the flow of weapons some kind of effort to secure the borders clamp down on smuggled weapons, not providing aid to the rebels. Assad is far from ideal but perhaps better the devil you know. By giving the rebels tacit support and military support in the beginning have we not prolonged this war where it is obvious the rebels cannot win without overt outside backing. Hezbollah and the Iranians will support Assad overtly to think the rebels have a chance without similar backing from the west is folly IMO.

 

[Ding-Ding]

It doesn't seem clear at all. Who has the most interest in using chemical weapons? El Assad would be crazy to use them. He perfectly knows the West is just waiting for that excuse to intervene.

Whats unknown is if he ordered the use or if this was a rogue elements within either government or the miltary (the least likely, though not impossible is rebels).

Syria has many different factions that have taken up arms on both sides. The most likely is that this is an attack by a rogue faction with elements of the Syrian government involved. If Assad didn't order it, then he has completely lost control and this becomes a free for all, with further chemical weapons usage. Especially if the international community sits by and says a chemical attack is no excuse for an international response

 

[Ovek]

Saying it'd be crazy of him to do it doesn't mean that he or someone under him used chemical weapons.

How do we know they were fired from the military base anyway? Did the rebels(and I'm using that term loosely) tell us?

 

[Fabrik]

Saying it'd be crazy of him to do it doesn't mean that he or someone under him used chemical weapons.

Maybe but we still don't know. It's all too vague. And a single unproven instance doesn't justify an intervention that will probably kill more civilians.

 

[Big Baybee]

Maybe but we still don't know. It's all too vague. And a single unproven instance doesn't justify an intervention that will probably kill more civilians.

In the end I don't think there will be any air strikes or whatever Obama wants to do. This situation is too sticky. Wishful thinking?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Good on them. I think militaries should be used strictly for defense of the homeland.

 

[Atilac]

Good on them. I think militaries should be used strictly for defense of the homeland.

You also think that during WW2 when the US pulled the UKs ass out of the fire?

 

[Best]

Pleased that Cameron has let democracy reign. Feels silly to celebrate either outcome at the moment, unless you're looking for a cheap way to get one over the government.

You also think that during WW2 when the US pulled the UKs ass out of the fire?

Oh boy

 

[Liha]

Iraq was a mistake no question. However it shouldn't stop us from trying to protect people who have no means of protecting themselves against a chemical attack on a large scale.

Who protects the people in Basra before the contaminated earth?

 

[kurtrussell]

I hate to be that guy who invokes Godwin`s law, but I wonder if some of the posters on here advocating a wait and see approach would have adopted the same stance after the Germans invaded Poland?

Feels silly to celebrate either outcome at the moment, unless you're looking for a cheap way to get one over the government.

Labor party politics, dude. It distracts from the comparisons of their decision to enter Iraq and from the fact that current economic policies are finally starting to reverse the catastrophic damage they caused to the economy.

 

[War Peaceman]

Oh please, this was more about sticking Cameron than anything else. Democracy actually failed today because party whips were used, instead of giving MP's a free vote.

While about 40 conservative & Libs voted against this, its well known that Labour used a whipped vote.

The ironic thing is that it was Labour who used false intelligence in regards to WMD to invade Iraq. With that war hanging over this country like a dark cloud, this country now wont act when chemical weapons are now in play in Syria.

While I have always been against military action in Syria, chemical weapons have always been my red line, as noone in country can fight back against that.

Democracy didn't really fail though because what polls suggest the public overwhelmingly support at this point - no military intervention - was what Parliament decided. That a whipped vote ensured that this happened reflects that parliamentary representation does not equal public opinion, which is a separate problem.

There isn't really anything ironic about Labour and Iraq - Ed Milliband has never been a hawk and is trying to win over the sort of voters that were lost when Labour went into Iraq. There was of course an element of tactics to it, but the right thing was done.

Note: the right thing is not refusing to intervene but in reflecting the overwhelming public opinion on the matter. Public opinion shouldn't always be the barometer for politics, but in foreign policy is a lot more cut and dry than, for example, social issues.

EDIT: I may be wrong here, but I don't believe Labour were even being anti-intervention. They just wanted a more reasoned approach to intervention - due process via the UN, IIRC.

I hate to be that guy who invokes Godwin`s law, but I wonder if some of the posters on here advocating a wait and see approach would have adopted the same stance after the Germans invaded Poland?

You do realise that the invasion of Poland was more of a last straw. They'd already remilitarised the Rhineland, annexed Austria, the Sudetenland, and subsequently Czechoslovakia? Not to mention the allied powers were not prepared for war in the slightest. Those delays were actually necessary in order for Britain to catch up to Germany in its production capabilities as well ensuring that radar covered the British Isles more completely. I digress, your example is completely invalid.

 

[dapperbandit]

You also think that during WW2 when the US pulled the UKs ass out of the fire?

Oh god here we go.

The full extent of the whole "Savin' yer Ass in Werld War Two" was the Lend-Lease agreement which sent supplies and munitions to the UK

 

[kurtrussell]

Oh god here we go.

The full extent of the whole "Savin' yer Ass in Werld War Two" was the Lend-Lease agreement which sent supplies and munitions to the UK

Yup. Even then, Churchill still had to order the destruction of one of his own ships as a statement of intent before the US would commit to support.

 

[Ding-Ding]

If you don't mind me jumping in.

I agree with your take bar the last part, no military action has been undertaken when we have heard of entire neighbourhoods being purged but now chemical weapon usage means we run in guns blazing. Pardon my cynism but makes no difference if persons are marched out of their house and shot or gassed.

You might think that but there is a difference. Up till now, you could argue that civilian deaths are just casualties of a conventional war and they were not targeted directly (no matter how smart weapons get there will always be civilian casualties).

Chemical weapons being fired at a populated area proves that they just dont give a shit about civilians. Its that plain & simply. Hense why its been so many peoples red line.

With Russia as a permanent member of the UN and supplying weapons to Assad, the UN will be unable to respond. Hense why western nations were forced to supply weapons to the rebels to counteract Russian shipments

 

[TCRS]

 

[dapperbandit]

I love that for some of these papers the vote on Syria has to compete with Rolf Harris pervert stories for the front page.

 

[War Peaceman]

I love that for some of these papers the vote on Syria has to compete with Rolf Harris pervert stories for the front page.

That is a hell of a picture of Rolf, to be fair.

 

[cyberheater]

I've never been less proud to be british. Shameful voting by our ministers.

 

[Goodlife]

I've never been less proud to be british. Shameful voting by our ministers.

Give over mun

 

[diamount]

You also think that during WW2 when the US pulled the UKs ass out of the fire?

Herp derp like we burned down washington cos that is so relevant

 

[diamount]

I've never been less proud to be british. Shameful voting by our ministers.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

If only the Tories showed some backbone in 2003.

 

[dapperbandit]

I've never been less proud to be british. Shameful voting by our ministers.

Michael Gove pls go

 

[Ding-Ding]

Ed Milliband has never been a hawk and is trying to win over the sort of voters that were lost when Labour went into Iraq.

Milliband is a hawk, this is the 2nd time he has pulled this stunt to try to weaken the government (the first was over the EU budget). He used the whips then to force a government defeat, even though Labour MP's were against the proposal. Same thing has happened again.

Is he chasing votes, you betcha. Thats the difference as noone can say Cameron & Clegg was chasing votes by willing to get involved within a civil war.

Does the public want this, no. However, this is because of Iraq & Afghanistan, not Syria. If you took them two wars out of the equation, I bet the british public wouldn't be quite so hesitant.

So its ironic that Labour, who were primarily responsible for British involvement in them wars, should suddenly have cold feet when women & children are gassed.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

You also think that during WW2 when the US pulled the UKs ass out of the fire?

What - like how the Battle of Britain was over before the US were even dreaming of entering?

That first major defeat of Germany without your help - that sort of ass out of the fire?

 

[kitch9]

I've never been less proud to be british. Shameful voting by our ministers.

LOL.

I'm actually with Labour on this one. Lets just chill and figure out who's actually doing what. I have a friend who works in Syria and the situation is not as grave as the media will have you believe, people are actually going about their lives.

 

[Ravensmash]

I've never been less proud to be british. Shameful voting by our ministers.

Yeah, because it's such a wise idea to jump into military action in an extremely uncertain scenario alongside an overwhelming lack of public support.

 

[Seanspeed]

I'm fine with this considering we haven't heard back from the investigators yet.

I would, however, hope they reconsider their position if stronger evidence comes to light.

 

[Goodlife]

Milliband is a hawk, this is the 2nd time he has pulled this stunt to try to weaken the government (the first was over the EU budget). He used the whips then to force a government defeat, even though Labour MP's were against the proposal. Same thing has happened again.

Is he chasing votes, you betcha. Thats the difference as noone can say Cameron & Clegg was chasing votes by willing to get involved within a civil war.

Does the public want this, no. However, this is because of Iraq & Afghanistan, not Syria. If you took them two wars out of the equation, I bet the british public wouldn't be quite so hesitant.

So its ironic that Labour, who were primarily responsible for British involvement in them wars, should suddenly have cold feet when women & children are gassed.

I'm guessing you missed the amendment put forward by Labour then?

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Milliband is a hawk, this is the 2nd time he has pulled this stunt to try to weaken the government (the first was over the EU budget). He used the whips then to force a government defeat, even though Labour MP's were against the proposal. Same thing has happened again.

Is he chasing votes, you betcha. Thats the difference as noone can say Cameron & Clegg was chasing votes by willing to get involved within a civil war.

Does the public want this, no. However, this is because of Iraq & Afghanistan, not Syria. If you took them two wars out of the equation, I bet the british public wouldn't be quite so hesitant.

So its ironic that Labour, who were primarily responsible for British involvement in them wars, should suddenly have cold feet when women & children are gassed.

Er.... surely they're best served to know about making mistakes and have learnt from it.

Afghanistan has a worldwide coalition - even then it was a complete disaster.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Yeah, because it's such a wise idea to jump into military action in an extremely uncertain scenario alongside an overwhelming lack of public support.

The thing is Lord Ashdown came out with that.

 

[TCRS]

The rebel MPs:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/syria-debate-tory-rebels

Even Sir Peter Tapsell voted against Cameron..

 

[War Peaceman]

Milliband is a hawk, this is the 2nd time he has pulled this stunt to try to weaken the government (the first was over the EU budget). He used the whips then to force a government defeat, even though Labour MP's were against the proposal. Same thing has happened again.

Is he chasing votes, you betcha. Thats the difference as noone can say Cameron & Clegg was chasing votes by willing to get involved within a civil war.

Milliband has never been hawkish, there is no evidence to suggest he is, really. David Milliband, for sure, but Ed has always been a lot more skeptical and keen to learn the mistakes of Iraq.

You do know that war tends to have a positive effect on the sitting government, right? Think, Falklands. I'm not suggesting that is the reason they would prosecute it, but I don't think it is far from their minds either.

Also Labour didn't vote against intervention, they wanted a due process to it. Which seems reasonable, really. There was a sizeable element of tactics to it but at the end of the day, this isn't something we should be rushing into either. We should do it properly this time.

Not to mention there are practical reasons against intervention - what are the extent of our involvement? Who are we replacing Assad with - the rebels are not exactly pro-West (not that that should be a problem, but it will be)? How do we secure a safe Syria? What about the chemical weapon stashes (if they exist)? There was no real plan at hand, hence why we need to be more thorough in the planning.

 

[FreedomFighter]

Common sense is common in the House of Commons, I see.

Still, that vote is a little too close for comfort.

 

[Goodlife]

Also Labour didn't vote against intervention, they wanted a due process to it. Which seems reasonable, really. There was a sizeable element of tactics to it but at the end of the day, this isn't something we should be rushing into either. We should do it properly this time.

Not to mention there are practical reasons against intervention - what are the extent of our involvement? Who are we replacing Assad with - the rebels are not exactly pro-West (not that that should be a problem, but it will be)? How do we secure a safe Syria? What about the chemical weapon stashes (if they exist)? There was no real plan at hand, hence why we need to be more thorough in the planning.

Exactly this.

 

[Ovek]

So its ironic that Labour, who were primarily responsible for British involvement in them wars, should suddenly have cold feet when women & children are gassed.

Or perhaps the Labour party have learnt the lessons of the past and now want a more cautious approach to going to war(again), something the Conservitives apparently didn't.

 

[TCRS]

Common sense is common in the House of Commons, I see.

Still, that vote is a little too close for comfort.

A second vote was scheduled which is why many who were against intervention still voted for the government but would have voted against an intervention the second time. But it's a decided matter now I guess.

 

[Brera]

After Iraq, I'm really ashamed to be a Labour supporter.

I'm for military strikes, this shit is getting ridiculous. I agree we need to be cautious but all signs point to the fact that some part of the Syrian war machine has taken this action. Authorised or not.

It's sad that all those 80s action flicks depicted the 2010s like this. Turns out they were right.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

You also think that during WW2 when the US pulled the UKs ass out of the fire?

In your blinkered universe Japan didn't exist?

 

[Ding-Ding]

I'm guessing you missed the amendment put forward by Labour then?

Political manoeuvring, nothing more. The fact that it was tabled before the main vote was just a way to try to divide the sitting government.

The ammendment was shit anyway. Labour would know there isn't a smoking gun that will prove everything they required to allow for surgical strikes. Even if there was one, it would take a cease fire and unrestricted access to find it.

Everyone else knows that, well apart from labour

Er.... surely they're best served to know about making mistakes and have learnt from it.

Afghanistan has a worldwide coalition - even then it was a complete disaster.

The issue with Afghanistan wasn't intervention, it was mission creep.

Labour didn't learn any lessons from Iraq, they just learned a lesson from a general election. Thats like saying the BNP is not a racist party as they no longer use racist rhetoric to go chasing votes.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

The current rationale is that a Rebel government will be good for us, since they are pretty close to Saudi Arabia.

I don't even.

It will at least be much better for the region. Assad should step down now.

 

[SKINNER!]

Ha, France trying to get into US's good books after Chirac fucked up the last time.

However, Germany said it would not participate in military action.

So how long before the US rename German beer and sausages?

 

[PJV3]

Let the fucking Arab league bomb Syria.

 

[cyberheater]

When you have a Syrian jet dropping incendiary bombs on a playground full of kids. It's time to act.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=665405

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594
that kid shaking with his arms held out with the skin melted off his body...