Syria...

[Egbutt Wash]

Syria seemed to be pottering along quite nicely until Saudi Arabia and Qatar started showering dosh and arms on Sunni chavvy Rambo wannabees.  If they had give the young chavs Mk7 GTI's instead of AK47s then peace and happiness would reign in Syria now.
 
Diplomacy involving the Saudis and Qataris would be more useful than bombs.  Perhaps the chavs would prefer the new Mercedes A45 AMG, I know I would.

[bobotheclown]

The UN needs to step up and do more. The first point of their charter states:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

ref: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

[Bill_the_Bear]

The UN is a waste of time and always has been.  It has almost 100 years history of talking and taking no action and the various dictators etc of this world have well learnt this lesson.  Things have hardly improved with China and Russia now throwing their weight around.

[mac7]

Absolutely agree the UN is a waste of time in situations like this - except perhaps for helping to independently establish the "facts".

Personally I think we should wade in with a decent military response and clear the way for a more democratic, safe and stable Syria - provided that is what the majority of Syrians actually want.

Problem for me is the thought of another decade of buggering about like we've done before in the region.

What if after all this a nerve agent was used on Birmingham or Glasgow or Leeds?

Now there's an idea 

[admc6]

Absolutely agree the UN is a waste of time in situations like this - except perhaps for helping to independently establish the "facts".

Personally I think we should wade in with a decent military response and clear the way for a more democratic, safe and stable Syria - provided that is what the majority of Syrians actually want.

Problem for me is the thought of another decade of buggering about like we've done before in the region.

What if after all this a nerve agent was used on Birmingham or Glasgow or Leeds?

Now there's an idea 

Safe and democratic....just like how we helped Libya?

[VR6Lee]

FFS We could be sitting pretty here.....   

We're out of it, and if they blast each other to sh!t we could be the only big players left 

Restart the Empire 

[Jay]

Good old back stabbing labour party! giving Syria, and the other Mickey Mouse countries the green light to use indiscriminate chemical weapons... maybe just a little bit timid over making about another WMD scenario taking place... Oh hang on a minute! that was Tony Blair FFS
God help this country if it doesn't show conviction like Maggie did, and had the balls to sort out the Falklands!
This was not about putting troops on the ground, or oil, this was about putting some Cruise missiles though peoples letterboxes!
If it could be proved without doubt, that the Syrian Govt were to blame, then a decision should have been a no brainer
British, and American Intelligence services are amongst the best in the world, and should be trusted in situations like these... potentially thousands more innocent Syrians could now well die, in horrific circumstances due to this in my opinion, very poor decision!
Chemical attacks are the lowest of the low

Thom

While I agree using chemical weapons is disgusting, Israel used them against Palestinian civi's in 2008 - the US also directly used them in 2004, not long ago.
The US supplied them with the weapons and we're the US's biggest bum chums making us just as bad as them, we should have told them where to go stick their heads after that.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/08/322755/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesnt-want-you-to-talk-about/

[Bill_the_Bear]

While I agree using chemical weapons is disgusting, Israel used them against Palestinian civi's in 2008 - the US also directly used them in 2004, not long ago.
The US supplied them with the weapons and we're the US's biggest bum chums making us just as bad as them, we should have told them where to go stick their heads after that.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/08/322755/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesnt-want-you-to-talk-about/

Erm.... no.

Firstly .ir is Iran.  Does Iran have any bias towards Israel or the US?  I'll let you figure that one out yourself.

Secondly, White Phosphorous is not the same as Sarin.

Thirdly, regarding this specific claims that Iran is making.  Fallujah cannot be described as "civilian targets" can it?  And the UN HQ in Gaza that Israel attacked was occupied by Hamas, not by civilians.  The use of incendiary weapons against ruthless genocidal terrorists (whether you agree with the tactic or not) cannot be considered comparable to the use of Sarin gas against a civilian population by its own military for the purposes of intimidation and ethnic cleansing.

Lets not be under any illusions here about who the bad guys are.

[VR6Lee]

Putin's letter to Obama through the New York Times. One Nil to VVP 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.


Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

[Bill_the_Bear]

I'm not even gonna read his letter.  He is a mafia boss and a murderer supporting a genocidal lunatic.  I felt physically sick when his buddy pal Assad appeared on the news trying to look all calm and reasonable and statesman like earlier and had to turn the channel over.  Both of these "men" have earned their place amongst the tyrants of history.