It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank0 min ago
War
// Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against his own people.
Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.
Government sources said talks between the Prime Minister and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue, but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.
As the preparations gathered pace, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, warned that the world could not stand by and allow the Assad regime to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people “with impunity”.
Britain, the US and their allies must show Mr Assad that to perpetrate such an atrocity “is to cross a line and that the world will respond when that line is crossed”, he said.
British forces now look likely to be drawn into an intervention in the Syrian crisis after months of deliberation and international disagreement over how to respond to the bloody two-year civil war. //
http://
Yes or No?
Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.
Government sources said talks between the Prime Minister and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue, but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.
As the preparations gathered pace, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, warned that the world could not stand by and allow the Assad regime to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people “with impunity”.
Britain, the US and their allies must show Mr Assad that to perpetrate such an atrocity “is to cross a line and that the world will respond when that line is crossed”, he said.
British forces now look likely to be drawn into an intervention in the Syrian crisis after months of deliberation and international disagreement over how to respond to the bloody two-year civil war. //
http://
Yes or No?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Thread's gone a bit quiet since John Kerry made his statement and apportioned blame:
US Secretary of State John Kerry has condemned what he termed the "moral obscenity" of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own people.
"What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality," Mr Kerry said at a news conference on Monday.
"Make no mistake," he continued, "President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people."
The US administration had additional information about the attack that it would make public in the days ahead, he added.
Furthermore, this article would suggest the US knows that the rebels do not have chemical weapons nor the capacity to deliver them, mainly because the Assad regime was ensuring they don't fall into the hands of the rebels.
http://
I'd hazard a guess that despite requiring the UN inspection teams to provide concrete proof for the naysayers, their operatives in the field (combined with satellite imagery) have gleaned more than enough evidence militarily of use of the weapons by the Assad regime. That evidence will be presented to the world very shortly.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has condemned what he termed the "moral obscenity" of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own people.
"What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality," Mr Kerry said at a news conference on Monday.
"Make no mistake," he continued, "President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people."
The US administration had additional information about the attack that it would make public in the days ahead, he added.
Furthermore, this article would suggest the US knows that the rebels do not have chemical weapons nor the capacity to deliver them, mainly because the Assad regime was ensuring they don't fall into the hands of the rebels.
http://
I'd hazard a guess that despite requiring the UN inspection teams to provide concrete proof for the naysayers, their operatives in the field (combined with satellite imagery) have gleaned more than enough evidence militarily of use of the weapons by the Assad regime. That evidence will be presented to the world very shortly.
I think you are probably right ChillDoubt. The idea that the rebels had the capability to fire, never mind possessed, such weapons, always seemed far fetched.
The question remains why on earth did Assad do it? From this perspective it seems crazy, but then he's been doing crazy things since day one: like embarking on a campaign of genocide against peaceful protesters, which was almost certainly going to degenerate into at the very least a serious conflict.
In fairness I don't think many of the "naysayers" on this thread deny that the attack was the work of Assad. They simply believe, wrongly in my view, that it is none of our business and we should stay out if it.
The question remains why on earth did Assad do it? From this perspective it seems crazy, but then he's been doing crazy things since day one: like embarking on a campaign of genocide against peaceful protesters, which was almost certainly going to degenerate into at the very least a serious conflict.
In fairness I don't think many of the "naysayers" on this thread deny that the attack was the work of Assad. They simply believe, wrongly in my view, that it is none of our business and we should stay out if it.
// In fairness I don't think many of the "naysayers" on this thread deny that the attack was the work of Assad. //
I am 50 / 50. At the moment, there isn't really any evidence that the Government side did it. There isn't any evidence yet there was a chemical weapons attack. The fact that Kerry, Hague and yhe rest are pre-empting the UN results, again reminds me of Blair's illegal war.
I am 50 / 50. At the moment, there isn't really any evidence that the Government side did it. There isn't any evidence yet there was a chemical weapons attack. The fact that Kerry, Hague and yhe rest are pre-empting the UN results, again reminds me of Blair's illegal war.
I cannot help be feel this has been contrived. We have waited two years and watched while this has played out. We have been supplying the rebels with arms, training them, giving them surveillance information.
But Assad is now winning and the rebels are near defeated. Why would Assad use chemical weapons now? If he'd had them he would have used them years ago.
All very reminiscent of Iraq and WMDs. Assad has said UN inspectors can go and inspect. UN inspections didn't help Saddam because the evidence was faked and the invasion went ahead anyway. Gromit.
-----------------------------------
That sounds more 70/30 in favour of Assad than 50/50, to me at least!
As my earlier link shows, government forces are the only one's with access to chemical weapons and it is known that they were in the process of securing them.
As for:
There isn't any evidence yet there was a chemical weapons attack. The fact that Kerry, Hague and yhe rest are pre-empting the UN results
Seriously? You don't believe the pictures and video from several sources that bear out eye-witness testimony?
The woman on the floor chewing on an ET tube, the limp and expressionless children with pinpoint pupils, the adults with classic symptoms of nerve gas attack, the dead animals with no obvious outward signs of injury?
I don't want to directly post a youTube link to graphic contect on this site, therefore just type 'Horror after alleged chemical attack in Syria' into youTube to see the CNN report that contains ITV footage gained from an independent source. Be warned, it's reminiscent of Halabja.
But Assad is now winning and the rebels are near defeated. Why would Assad use chemical weapons now? If he'd had them he would have used them years ago.
All very reminiscent of Iraq and WMDs. Assad has said UN inspectors can go and inspect. UN inspections didn't help Saddam because the evidence was faked and the invasion went ahead anyway. Gromit.
-----------------------------------
That sounds more 70/30 in favour of Assad than 50/50, to me at least!
As my earlier link shows, government forces are the only one's with access to chemical weapons and it is known that they were in the process of securing them.
As for:
There isn't any evidence yet there was a chemical weapons attack. The fact that Kerry, Hague and yhe rest are pre-empting the UN results
Seriously? You don't believe the pictures and video from several sources that bear out eye-witness testimony?
The woman on the floor chewing on an ET tube, the limp and expressionless children with pinpoint pupils, the adults with classic symptoms of nerve gas attack, the dead animals with no obvious outward signs of injury?
I don't want to directly post a youTube link to graphic contect on this site, therefore just type 'Horror after alleged chemical attack in Syria' into youTube to see the CNN report that contains ITV footage gained from an independent source. Be warned, it's reminiscent of Halabja.
"... We have been supplying the rebels with arms, training them, giving them surveillance information....". where is the evidence ?
It was Syrians who screeched that tongue wagging joy when the vids of 9/11 were broadcast. Their allies Russia & Iran probably supplied nerve agents.
Syrians abhorrent suffering is their internal war whereas our disasters were external attacks.
It was Syrians who screeched that tongue wagging joy when the vids of 9/11 were broadcast. Their allies Russia & Iran probably supplied nerve agents.
Syrians abhorrent suffering is their internal war whereas our disasters were external attacks.
our involvement will do neither, it will however provoke yet another batch of British servicemen and women being killed in a foreign war if soldiers do go in as peacekeepers or other. If we drop bombs on Assad and his followers that will do as much damage as the current debacle that is Afghanistan, no one likes us, no one will thank us, and we will be held to account by both sides. There is no 100 percent proof that chemical weapons were used, and even if that were the case where is the actual proof that Assad's people did this. The rebels are not some Robin Hood types fighting against the King, they are armed, dangerous and not with one sole aim, as they are not one cohesive band, but many factions, each with their own agenda. If we do intervene, then Cameron, Hague will be sending the wrong message, that the west knows best, no it doesn't.
sandy, they are all beleaguered, don't you see that, many of these countries have been under one dictator after another, but the world is marching on, technology has changed all of that, where once people did not have a way to communicate, get information, now they can via mobiles, internet, and they have learned that freedom can be theirs, only it comes with a price, as in Syria, Egypt, Bahrain, you name it, their citizens will continue to die, as did our people when we were threatened in both world wars, it's the price you pay if you don't want to be told what to do, when to do it, and have no democratic voice on who is in power.
