' GLAD WE NEVER & I THOUGHT HE WAS SPOT ON "

As members of the UN Security Council, we are legally obliged to intervene in a state which commit such atrocities such as the Syrian regime has. The steps for solving a crisis like this are as follows, according to the UN:

1. Try to stop the crisis the democracy, ie, hold talks with the state in trying to stop it.

2. If step one fails, economic sanctions and an arms embargo on the state. (Only allowing aid into to the state to help the civilians)

3. If both step one and two fail then military intervention is used.

Personally, I want us to place a no fly zone over Syria, just like Libya. Help the rebels, by neutralising the Syrian airforce and hitting Syrian artillery and heavy tanks. However, Al Qaeda have infiltrated the true rebels which is why I don't want us to provide all the rebels with weaponry and launch a full blown invasion.

I hate seeing people being massacred by their own government who are charged with making sure the civilians have a good life. It makes me sick. I still want us to take out the North Korean regime. I was well and truely pissed off when our parliament chose to do f**k all. It sickened me.

You are correct about our (Britain's) legal international duties but I think for now you are wrong to assume that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack on his own people.

Before we take any of the above steps we (the west) have to be 100% sure who was responsible for what happened and not get involved simply because America doesn't like who is running Syria at the moment.

Its all about the wonga. Obvious to me, America are using Syria as an excuse to draw Iran into a war so them Yanks can get their grubby hands on the massive oil reserves there, which by the way is no longer tied to the American Dollar. The Yanks are skint and they are going around starting wars, conquering countries and nicking their assets all just to keep their greedy wallets full . I hope to god they don't start dropping bombs in Syria, the Middle East is like a tinderbox and ready to go off, all it needs is a spark!

Originally I was for going in after chemical weapons were used on innocent people but reading further into the conflict it seems both sides are being supported by unscrupulous people and either way we'd end up supporting people we should be fighting against. It's a very complicated situation and it's probably best we stayed out of it.

It's not about posturing or being anyone's puppet.

The day chemicals are being used on human beings and people think its NOTHING to do with us is the day I despair of humanity.

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/09/05 ... now-about/

Do you think we should side with a country that has used chemicals in not only foreign affairs but on its own people?

The use of chemical weapons is abhorrent, WHOEVER uses them. It's not about siding with any country, it's about taking a moral stand. This should be about the WORLD making a stand.

If you go in against Syria you are by default siding with America and they will be seen as allies, a country that has a history of such actions themselves.

It's not about posturing or being anyone's puppet.

The day chemicals are being used on human beings and people think its NOTHING to do with us is the day I despair of humanity.

There is no evidence that chemical weapons were used. The pictures of allegedly injured victims, mainly children for more shock value, do not show victims of chemical nerve agent (as claimed). They would not just have a "twitchy" arm, as the whole body would be convulsing, involuntary defacation and urination, loss of consciousness and stoppage of breathing are the more advanced signs of nerve agent attacks. Usually within a very short period after the attack, not a little twitch or cough, several hours later.
The injuries looked more like burns. Maybe from gas or petrol stoves (camping style burners) that a lot of them have in their houses?
The one major indicator is pin point pupils, none of the alleged victims were showing this.

It is not our business. Just let them get on with it. While they are killing each other they are leaving the rest of us alone.

Although most of the dictators in the middle east are and were (Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi) obnoxious, their removal leaves a vacuum that can be filled by multitude of factions, a lot of which would be regarded as extremists. It is a no-win situation. Western involvement is not just about stopping crimes against humanity or regime change, it is also economics. Modern armaments, as well as being very costly, have a limited shelf-life and it also costs money to decommission them. Therefore, it makes sense from an economics point of view to use them in a conflict when they can be tested in battle conditions; then rebuild the infrastructure in the aftermath and be paid in oil; then use the oil revenues to replenish the armaments with the latest version. There are plenty of horrible dictators and regimes in other parts of the world that are as bad, Robert Mugabe for instance, but they don't have the assets to pay for the infrastructure to be rebuilt. Accountants make wars!

Only read a few comments on here but most of you are clueless to what's going on in Syria!! You haven't seen half of it, it is horrendous. I'm military an have seen some pictures not released to the public or even MPs and trust me they need to be shown we should be in there.

Only read a few comments on here but most of you are clueless to what's going on in Syria!! You haven't seen half of it, it is horrendous. I'm military an have seen some pictures not released to the public or even MPs and trust me they need to be shown we should be in there.

Will you volunteer to go in there?
Who's side will you be on? Taliban, local gangsters controlling certain areas or Assad?
Remember Blair had undisputed evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - still haven't found them though.

Only read a few comments on here but most of you are clueless to what's going on in Syria!! You haven't seen half of it, it is horrendous. I'm military an have seen some pictures not released to the public or even MPs and trust me they need to be shown we should be in there.

Will you volunteer to go in there?
Who's side will you be on? Taliban, local gangsters controlling certain areas or Assad?
Remember Blair had undisputed evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - still haven't found them though.

We got told we were more than likely going in the other week which clearly never materialised and yes I would. It's my job.

Only read a few comments on here but most of you are clueless to what's going on in Syria!! You haven't seen half of it, it is horrendous. I'm military an have seen some pictures not released to the public or even MPs and trust me they need to be shown we should be in there.

Will you volunteer to go in there?
Who's side will you be on? Taliban, local gangsters controlling certain areas or Assad?
Remember Blair had undisputed evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - still haven't found them though.

We got told we were more than likely going in the other week which clearly never materialised and yes I would. It's my job.

Whose side will you be on? The Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, local gangsters, Al Quaeda? Because if you are against Assad, then you are on their side. How can the government fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and support them in Syria? The UN has said there are so many factions fighting for their own personal gain that they do not really know who is on whose side.

Glas,

The reason why we haven't invaded yet is due to the terrorists infiltrating the true rebels. It's also the reason why we haven't provided arms to the rebels. What should happen is surgical strikes in Syria hitting airbases, naval bases and all arms depots so both the government forces and terrorists can't capture the weapons.

I'd like to see us or the yanks sending in special forces capturing or destroying all chemical weapons in the country. Then for the Arab League to create a peacekeeping force in Syria, to protect the civilians and let aid flow into Syria.

George Galloway will say anything if he thinks it makes himself look good, the man can't be trusted or taken seriously

Glas,

The reason why we haven't invaded yet is due to the terrorists infiltrating the true rebels. It's also the reason why we haven't provided arms to the rebels. What should happen is surgical strikes in Syria hitting airbases, naval bases and all arms depots so both the government forces and terrorists can't capture the weapons.

I'd like to see us or the yanks sending in special forces capturing or destroying all chemical weapons in the country. Then for the Arab League to create a peacekeeping force in Syria, to protect the civilians and let aid flow into Syria.

the reason why we havent invaded is because its not strategically possible we dont have the personnel for it nor have we yet to have the evidence on what position we would take

a surgical strike is all well and good except with no just cause you cant go bombing any military target because you leave the country defenseless and open to assaults which you will be responsible

I like your idea of the arab league picking up all the pieces after youve blown the crap out of Syria, why should the arab league pay for the mess youve created.

I think you find we will be responsible for the peacekeeping operations or if we wait for a security council resolution the UN will be responsible

So in short your going to blow up military targets just because they are there, illegal
your going to spend special forces teams into syria to destroy chemical weapons, you dont know where they are or whose got them
then after creating all this damage and chaos your going to wipe your hands walk away and tell the middle east to deal with it, great for diplomatic relations that will be

I've been saying to friends that international law is twisted and weird. Syria's civil war has seen people murdered and raped in horrific ways yet when there is a chemical attack suddenly the line has been crossed according to the international community? Why was the line not crossed when all these barbaric butcherings and rapings were taking place?

I just think that Western involvement in the Middle East has only made things worse and it's about time we focused on ourselves and getting our own shop in order before we start trying to help the world. How can we be expected to help others when we cannot help ourselves?

What has happened out there is terrible and someone needs to be held accountable but if the US is more than happy to stick its oar in then I suggest we just sit back and let them do their thing. We will be there for them if the real shit ever kicks off but I think they can handle it on their own.

I think that over the last few years this country has been sticking it nose (our troops) in far too many countries and subsequently, it has been realised that these countries need to be ruled with a big stick. After we've been there or aided the rebels in taking over a regime, there is mayhem. Just look at Iraq after all these years of 'FREEDOM'.