Syria - Western Powers Respond To Alleged Chemical Attack

[P.K.]

From Aunty Beeb:

 

 

MPs debate Syria after ministers drop quick vote on action.

 

Story : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114

 

I've little time for Miniband but politicking or not imho it's the right response.

[Thomas Jefferson]

From Aunty Beeb:

 

 

MPs debate Syria after ministers drop quick vote on action.

 

Story : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114

 

I've little time for Miniband but politicking or not imho it's the right response.

 

It's good old fashioned warmongering on behalf of the corporations, and the right response would be to keep our beaks out of the Middle East.

[manxman1980]

Warmongering on behalf of the corporations? Any suggestions as to which ones would benefit from this?

[Thomas Jefferson]

Warmongering on behalf of the corporations? Any suggestions as to which ones would benefit from this?

 

Well, first of all, warmongering benefits the war industry. That should be obvious even to a 5 yr old.

 

But, leaving that aside for a moment, the State Department, back in 1945, said Mideast oil is a "stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest prizes in world history." According to the CIA World Factbook, as of 2012, Syria has proven Crude oil reserves of 2.183 billion bbl, and 240.7 billion cu m of proven natural gas reserves.

[manxman1980]

That would be the same "war industry" that has seen orders cancelled as part of the budget cuts to the UK Armed Services? BAE Systems have made significant redundancies over the last few years as Government spending has been reigned in. We have aircraft carriers without aricraft to operate from them and will probably soon have to share aircraft carriers with France.

 

Yes, a 5 year old might say the "war industry" because it is an obvious answer but that does not mean it is necessarily right. I have no doubt, however, that you have access to reliable sources of information that show that this conflict would result in an increase in orders and spending rather than just use up stockpiles?

 

Oil and Gas Industries are another obvious answer, however, that depends on whether they get access to the resources as part of any "victory" otherwise they need to hope it just drives the prices up of the existing supplies as production in Syria decreases or stops.

 

Personally I see very few benefits for a conflict in Syria because it is my belief that it could be the start of another prolonged campaign that threatens to be even nastier than the last few wars in that region. Such a conflict could also have massive repercussions for the relationships between the "west" and Russia & China. Do the USA, UK etc all really want to annoy these two countries? China is an emerging economy and a lot of Corporations will want to do business there. Russia supplies an awful lot of Gas to Europe on which the UK is very dependent.

[Domino]

That would be the same "war industry" that has seen orders cancelled as part of the budget cuts to the UK Armed Services? BAE Systems have made significant redundancies over the last few years as Government spending has been reigned in. We have aircraft carriers without aricraft to operate from them and will probably soon have to share aircraft carriers with France.

 

Yes, a 5 year old might say the "war industry" because it is an obvious answer but that does not mean it is necessarily right. I have no doubt, however, that you have access to reliable sources of information that show that this conflict would result in an increase in orders and spending rather than just use up stockpiles?

 

Oil and Gas Industries are another obvious answer, however, that depends on whether they get access to the resources as part of any "victory" otherwise they need to hope it just drives the prices up of the existing supplies as production in Syria decreases or stops.

 

Personally I see very few benefits for a conflict in Syria because it is my belief that it could be the start of another prolonged campaign that threatens to be even nastier than the last few wars in that region. Such a conflict could also have massive repercussions for the relationships between the "west" and Russia & China. Do the USA, UK etc all really want to annoy these two countries? China is an emerging economy and a lot of Corporations will want to do business there. Russia supplies an awful lot of Gas to Europe on which the UK is very dependent.

 

Taking all the points you make, and acknowledging that there will be another world war (a huge and disastrous one), maybe now is kick-off time while we still have a few fireworks to throw into the fray.

And before the middle east amasses more and more wealth that will be converted into arms.

 

My opinion yes, and many others too I believe.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I can't recall Israel ever being best mates with Syria - so they have plenty of reason to stir things up

Just jumping in briefly here, but Syria's occupation of Lebanon was a massive help to Israel. And Syria has strong interest in maintaining regional security for the sake of protecting its regime, as does Israel. Although Syria does not like what Israel stands for, they both have very similar interests.

[quilp]

 

 

I can't recall Israel ever being best mates with Syria - so they have plenty of reason to stir things up

Just jumping in briefly here, but Syria's occupation of Lebanon was a massive help to Israel. And Syria has strong interest in maintaining regional security for the sake of protecting its regime, as does Israel. Although Syria does not like what Israel stands for, they both have very similar interests.

What, like circumcision and a distaste for bacon sarnies, perhaps?

[Lonan3]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

 

David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action

 

British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

A government motion was defeated by 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament does not want action and "the government will act accordingly".

It effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime.

And it comes as a potential blow to the authority of Mr Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to the opposition Labour Party's demands for more evidence of Assad's guilt.

[P.K.]

Right now I should imagine the "news" teams of rags like The Rail, Excess, Torygraph etc are scurrying around desperate to put a positive spin on this particular shit sandwich. Expect headlines like "Labour betrays Syrian innocents by offering succour to the murderous Assad regime" etc etc and "Cameron shows great statesmanship" etc etc and so on and so on....

 

Pass the sick-bag Alice!!!

[slinkydevil]

Miliband is still a cock though.

[Paul_Peel]

Political showboating aside I do feel we have woken up into a much more dangerous and broken world this morning. Throughout all of the the recent past we have lived safe in the knowledge that WMD were simply unacceptable, there were no if's, no but's and no grey areas, it was black and white. In that world even pariah states needed to tread carefully. Today however, a very dangerous precedence is being set where it is, if not alright, then at least tolerated to use these weapons is some circumstances, relatively secure in the knowledge that the world powers will be hamstrung by weak politicians and misguided public opinion.

 

In turn this frees up individuals and states to grow stockpiles of these weapons since, lets be honest if images of hundreds of children dead from WMD does not elicit an effective response designed to prevent further use then no one is going to seriously stand in the way of mere proliferation.

 

A Pandora's box has been opened and unless the world acts very quickly I really fear it may very soon be too late to close it again.

[magneto]

Political showboating aside I do feel we have woken up into a much more dangerous and broken world this morning. Throughout all of the the recent past we have lived safe in the knowledge that WMD were simply unacceptable, there were no if's, no but's and no grey areas, it was black and white. In that world even pariah states needed to tread carefully. Today however, a very dangerous precedence is being set where it is, if not alright, then at least tolerated to use these weapons is some circumstances, relatively secure in the knowledge that the world powers will be hamstrung by weak politicians and misguided public opinion.

 

In turn this frees up individuals and states to grow stockpiles of these weapons since, lets be honest if images of hundreds of children dead from WMD does not elicit an effective response designed to prevent further use then no one is going to seriously stand in the way of mere proliferation.

 

A Pandora's box has been opened and unless the world acts very quickly I really fear it may very soon be too late to close it again.

Emotive claptrap

 

Paul as you feel so strongly I suggest you mosey on down to your local SFA recruiment Mosque where beard and extremist Saudi Wahabism will be provided and get on with it.

 

Enjoy the liver of your enemies

[Paul_Peel]

 

Political showboating aside I do feel we have woken up into a much more dangerous and broken world this morning. Throughout all of the the recent past we have lived safe in the knowledge that WMD were simply unacceptable, there were no if's, no but's and no grey areas, it was black and white. In that world even pariah states needed to tread carefully. Today however, a very dangerous precedence is being set where it is, if not alright, then at least tolerated to use these weapons is some circumstances, relatively secure in the knowledge that the world powers will be hamstrung by weak politicians and misguided public opinion.

 

In turn this frees up individuals and states to grow stockpiles of these weapons since, lets be honest if images of hundreds of children dead from WMD does not elicit an effective response designed to prevent further use then no one is going to seriously stand in the way of mere proliferation.

 

A Pandora's box has been opened and unless the world acts very quickly I really fear it may very soon be too late to close it again.

Emotive claptrap

 

Paul as you feel so strongly I suggest you mosey on down to your local SFA recruiment Mosque where beard and extremist Saudi Wahabism will be provided and get on with it.

 

Enjoy the liver of your enemies

I'm sorry magneto but I just don't see how flippant religious stereotyping moves the debate very much further forward

[Albert Tatlock]

It's all very well talking about missile attacks etc. But what happens after that? There are no simple answers to this one.

 

There's no plan A yet, never mind a Plan B. All that will happen is a lot of additional carnage, and the civil war will carry on. The main probelsm is there are bad guys who would use chemical weapons on both sides.

 

The only possible solution to try and bring about a peace that I can see is a Russian led UN troop deployment. 100K Russians, 20K USA, 20K others (or better still 50K Russian, 50K US and 20K others). If peace is really the objective, people have to start swallowing pride to achieve it, whilst giving the UN some teeth.