Syria

[pinkpolkadot]

Are you really sure it was Assad who used chemical weapons? The UN inspectors can only confirm what and where, not whom.

Is it really beyond comprehension that the rebels could launch a chemical attack with the purpose of enticing the rest of the world in to a conflict. From a strategic military point of view, who has most to gain from using chemical weapons? Assad might be a maniac, but he isn't an idiot. He would know what the wider ramifications of gassing his own people are. Would he really use them as a means of suppression knowing it is the one thing that will bring in the big guns, if for years he could get away with killing his own people using more conventional weapons.

And it also makes me laugh that thousands more people have dies in atrocious attacks by Assad over the past few years but this one attack is what we all feel is terrible?

I agree with this, to me it doesn't make sense for Assad to do this, he already had the upper hand, why would he then use chemical weapons knowing full well this would provoke a response from the US etc... who had made clear their 'red line'. It makes more sense that the rebels may have done this out of desperation, but I don't think any of us are likely to find out for sure.

With regards to your last para I am certain this is mainly down to the power of mainstream media, quite scary really that they pick and choose which events they want people to react to and how.

 

[Mummy Bean]

Did the UK actual vote against it tho...as it was only by 13 votes, and it was said at least 20 MP's didn’t make the vote. I agree with MarineWag poor David Cameron - after the fall out of Iraq/Iran he did the right thing took it to the people and still got called weak.

Cant imagine what part he played in today’s G20 summit.

I also not sure what there plan is - as what as an opposition are we fighting for, on the one hand a dictator who along with his party is destroying his country and apparently has used chemical weapons and then on the other side a load of militant rebels with no real leader - and who are apparently (according to my little knowledge from the BBC) are being backed by Al Qaeda - so who do we want to win, what ultimate outcome do we want?

Do we go in bomb there military bases and then leave?

I have lot of ppl on FB who think this whole thing is just a cover up for the Snowdon fiasco - i mean obviously there is terrible atrocities happening in Syria - but why suddenly have US/Nato what to step in. Surely if we are the all powerful why are we currently not doing any more to help Egypt out with the 000's being killed or various parts of Africa that are still in civil war.

It deff a difficult one - what is worse to stand by and let such horrific acts continue or to jump in and perform horrific acts ourselves. Maybe we should focus more a political resolution and spending the money on humanitarian aid for the millions of Syrian refugees

 

[OmarsMum]

This was on FB today. I don't know how true it is, but it's worth reading

https://www.freedominfonetwork.org/...n-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-10-months

 

[pinkpolkadot]

This was on FB today. I don't know how true it is, but it's worth reading

https://www.freedominfonetwork.org/...n-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-10-months

Yes I read about this, wouldn't surprise me one bit if it is true, let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time

 

[Shadowy Lady]

I see that our lovely PM (Stephen Harper, Canadian prime minister) as per usual doesn't have anything constructive to add :/ I'm counting the days till he steps down!!!

I'm against military strike always! It just never works and I do not believe the excuse of "chemical weapon". Saddam used chemical weapon on his own ppl for years in the 80's and no one said anything. Maybe because Saddam was also fighting Iran and it was to the West advantage to support him. Yet US decided to attack Iraq 20 or so years later when Saddam decided he wanted to sell his oil in euro which puts US at disadvantage. Wars are all about money and nothing else. It's truly discusting!

This is a sad sad situation. No matter what happens innocent people will die but def more will die faster when there's a military strike.

 

[Andypanda6570]

Assad is willing to surrender his chemical weapons!!!! Hope this ends this horrible conflict

 

[Piper84]

Assad is willing to surrender his chemical weapons!!!! Hope this ends this horrible conflict

Do you actually think it's as simple as that?

The state the Levant is in, with warring factions and religious sects who have hated each other for centuries, means an end to this kind of conflict is not as easy as chemical weapons being surrendered.

 

[Andypanda6570]

Assad is willing to surrender his chemical weapons!!!! Hope this ends this horrible conflict

Do you actually think it's as simple as that?

The state the Levant is in, with warring factions and religious sects who have hated each other for centuries, means an end to this kind of conflict is not as easy as chemical weapons being surrendered.

Yes I do think like that, it's called hope..

 

[Piper84]

Assad is willing to surrender his chemical weapons!!!! Hope this ends this horrible conflict

Do you actually think it's as simple as that?

The state the Levant is in, with warring factions and religious sects who have hated each other for centuries, means an end to this kind of conflict is not as easy as chemical weapons being surrendered.

Yes I do think like that, it's called hope..

I didn't ask if you think like that. I asked if you think it's as simple as that.

If anyone is interested, here's a good explanation as to why it is far more complicated than Assad surrendering the chemical weapons that haven't already been stolen from him by some fraction or other: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/08/Levant_Ethnicity_lg-smaller1-zoom.jpg

It's a bit different from Democrat vs. Republican.

 

[sparkle_1979]

Couple of years later ��

 

[sparkle_1979]

What's peoples thoughts now? Personally I just don't know ��

 

[Tiff]

What aren't you sure about?