Britain and US pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria

cawacko

Well-known member
Sh*t is getting really really real.



Syria: air attacks loom as Britain and US pledge to use force within two weeks

Chemical weapons atrocity in Damascus marks a turning point for Obama, Cameron and Hollande



Western countries, including Britain, are planning to take unilateral military action against the Assad regime within two weeks in retaliation for its alleged use of chemical weapons on civilians in Syria.


David Cameron discussed launching missile strikes against key regime targets during a 40-minute telephone call with President Barack Obama on Saturday night and also with the French President François Hollande on Sunyda. While Downing Street said Western powers had not ruled out seeking UN endorsement for military action they added that they were also prepared to unilaterally.

“We cannot in the 21st century allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity and there are no consequences,” the Foreign Secretary William Hague said. A Downing Street source added: “We intend to show that an attack of this nature will not pass without a serious response.”

Mr Cameron is expected to cut short his holiday in Cornwall and return to London to chair a meeting of the Government’s National Security Council tomorrow. Downing Street said that the Prime Minister was also considering the recall of Parliament but added that it “all depends upon the timing”. Labour said it would expect” a recall “in advance of any decision being made”.

Any military action is likely to take the form of missile strikes from American naval forces in the region, which were ordered to move closer to Syria on Saturday.

Today, the new head of the UK armed forces General Sir Nick Houghton will meet with General Lloyd Austin, the US commander in the Middle East in Jordon. The pair are attending a pre-planned meeting of defence chiefs but are expected to discuss the planned action and possible targets “at the fringes” of the conference.

Government sources said it was too early to say whether British military personnel would take part in any of the attacks but would provide complete political support. “We are clear that there needs to be a serious response and our level of involvement is therefore clear on the political level,” they said. “On the military level it will be driven by operationally by what is needed.”

News of the planned attacks came on the day that Syria finally agreed to let UN inspectors visit the scene of the alleged chemical weapons attack, which the charity Médecins Sans Frontières said had killed around 350 people and left 3,600 needing treatment for “neurotoxic symptoms”.

However, Washington said the move was “too little, too late” and accused the Syrian government of having “something to hide” and delaying access for four days to cover up evidence.

The Western response it unlikely to be long lasting and is expected to consist of limited air strikes on key targets. It will allow Mr Obama to insist that America is capable and willing to take action over the use of chemical weapons which last year he described as a “red line” for the administration.

However, there are fears that any strike will inevitably drag the West further into the Syrian conflict and could lead to retaliation or terrorist attacks in the region either from Syria or its Iranian supporters. It is also likely to lead to condemnation from Russia and make any internationally brokered settlement that much harder. Significantly the Government said discussions with Russia over the response to the chemical weapons attack had so far only been at a “senior official” level.

A Downing Street source said that Mr Cameron would speak again to the American President either today or tomorrow and would also be engaging with other key European allies. He said: “If the Assad regime were innocent they wouldn’t have stopped UN inspectors from coming and they would have stopped shelling the area.

“Therefore we are into a scenario of, not has there been an incident and does the international community need to respond, but how should the international community respond? This is where our focus now is.

“The aim here is to have a clear, concrete response from the international community that deters further outrages and makes clear that we will stand up to the prohibition of chemical weapons. We need to show that their use will not go unchecked.”

Asked about getting a UN mandate from military action they said: “We are not excluding the UN route and we will keep engaging with UN partners and working the diplomatic machine. But we do not want the regime or its allies to use the UN to drag this all out. An attack of this nature passes without a serious response.”

They added that any attack would not be intended to sway the military balance between Assad forces and they Syrian opposition. “This is not about trying to shape the outcome of the Syrian conflict by military means. This is focused on the incident that happened on Wednesday.”

Mr Cameron may hope that the limited nature of the planned response may help him avoid having to hold a pre-emptive vote on military action in Parliament where he could face strong opposition not just from Labour but also his own backbenches who are concerned about the UK being increasing dragged into yet another Middle Eastern conflict.

A Downing Street spokesman said that Mr Cameron had “always been clear that MPs should have a chance to debate this type of issue” but he added: “He reserves the right for the Government to act and respond.”

However Douglas Alexander MP, Labour’s shadow Foreign Secretary said: “If the Prime Minister is now considering military options involving UK personnel then of course I would expect him to seek a recall of Parliament and to come to the House of Commons.”


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ge-to-use-force-within-two-weeks-8784435.html
 
How do you feel about this?

I get very torn on stuff like this. I have always said we shouldn't be the "global policeman," and that we should only use force to defend our own soil.

But sometimes, the atrocities being committed are too much - they're too overwhelming. Had we not been attacked in WWII, would we have sat by while the rest of the world's Jews continued to be exterminated?

It's very conflicting for a pacifist like me.
 
How do you feel about this?

I get very torn on stuff like this. I have always said we shouldn't be the "global policeman," and that we should only use force to defend our own soil.

But sometimes, the atrocities being committed are too much - they're too overwhelming. Had we not been attacked in WWII, would we have sat by while the rest of the world's Jews continued to be exterminated?

It's very conflicting for a pacifist like me.

I was pro going into Iraq in 2003. After that experience I've sort of changed my view on using U.S. power. Part of me says let the people in the Middle East deal with this. Then there is the realist in me that says we have to do what is in the best (economic) interest of our country and if that means we have to get involved then so be it. At this point in time I'd say don't go in. But considering President Obama said if they use chemical weapons are going in we have to back up those words so I'm ok with it.
 
I was pro going into Iraq in 2003. After that experience I've sort of changed my view on using U.S. power. Part of me says let the people in the Middle East deal with this. Then there is the realist in me that says we have to do what is in the best (economic) interest of our country and if that means we have to get involved then so be it. At this point in time I'd say don't go in. But considering President Obama said if they use chemical weapons are going in we have to back up those words so I'm ok with it.
how in the fuck is it in the US interest to "getting involved" in Syria??

We'll prolly lob some cruise missiles, and have some collateral damage..for what purpose?

Do we KNOW Assad use the chems?? I don't think so.

UN inspectors are going to the site near Damascus, the US has already said.."it doesn't matter" so what is that rationale?

A senior administration official dismisses Syria’s offer to grant access to the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack last week as “too late to be credible
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-UN-to-chem-attack-site&p=1298817#post1298817
 
I can't wait. There's a nuclear destroyer off the coast of Syria right now.


BOOM!

Well nuking a country is certainly a great response to said country (allegedly) using chemical weapons against their citizens. Certainly once a leader has murdered 200 or so of his own citizens in such a horrific manner, the best thing to do is disintegrate the rest of the citizens.

Are you going to claim sarcasm again Howey?
 
I was pro going into Iraq in 2003. After that experience I've sort of changed my view on using U.S. power. Part of me says let the people in the Middle East deal with this. Then there is the realist in me that says we have to do what is in the best (economic) interest of our country and if that means we have to get involved then so be it. At this point in time I'd say don't go in. But considering President Obama said if they use chemical weapons are going in we have to back up those words so I'm ok with it.

Yeah President Obama says if they use chemical weapons the US will attach them, and then Assad uses chemical weapons. I guess he must be a real madman huh?
 
Yeah President Obama says if they use chemical weapons the US will attach them, and then Assad uses chemical weapons. I guess he must be a real madman huh?

Who? Obama? Yeah, he's batshyte crazy.

You don't draw lines in the sand because that removes any flexibility to act according to developments in the big picture. Our amateur president drew this line as an expedient to silence critics in the Congress. Now he has to pay the piper.

Did Assad use the chemical weapons? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's like Assad claims; the rebels got ahold of the chemical weapons. Then what? We don't know, and the USA looks like it doesn't honor its commitments to either side.

Which, coincidentally, is the same impression we're creating in Egypt.
 
One thing is certain - scarcely anyone in the UK currently supports this insanity. If any British forces are used it will be a final proof of our colonial status under the tories.
 
Who? Obama? Yeah, he's batshyte crazy.

You don't draw lines in the sand because that removes any flexibility to act according to developments in the big picture. Our amateur president drew this line as an expedient to silence critics in the Congress. Now he has to pay the piper.

Did Assad use the chemical weapons? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's like Assad claims; the rebels got ahold of the chemical weapons. Then what? We don't know, and the USA looks like it doesn't honor its commitments to either side.

Which, coincidentally, is the same impression we're creating in Egypt.

Same for you brother .. Please stay on this board. Your insight will be immensely appreciated.
 
Who? Obama? Yeah, he's batshyte crazy.

You don't draw lines in the sand because that removes any flexibility to act according to developments in the big picture. Our amateur president drew this line as an expedient to silence critics in the Congress. Now he has to pay the piper.

Did Assad use the chemical weapons? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's like Assad claims; the rebels got ahold of the chemical weapons. Then what? We don't know, and the USA looks like it doesn't honor its commitments to either side.

Which, coincidentally, is the same impression we're creating in Egypt.
excellent!!/ I tend to disagree on Egypt, thinking the military had to do what it did.
But that's an honest disagreement - . This is a well structured post.
 
Who? Obama? Yeah, he's batshyte crazy.

You don't draw lines in the sand because that removes any flexibility to act according to developments in the big picture. Our amateur president drew this line as an expedient to silence critics in the Congress. Now he has to pay the piper.

Did Assad use the chemical weapons? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's like Assad claims; the rebels got ahold of the chemical weapons. Then what? We don't know, and the USA looks like it doesn't honor its commitments to either side.

Which, coincidentally, is the same impression we're creating in Egypt.

Which is why we shouldn't make commitments to non-Americans. EVER.
 
We need to get out of the middle east, and let the middle east deal with itself.

Bring our troops home.
 
I was pro going into Iraq in 2003. After that experience I've sort of changed my view on using U.S. power. Part of me says let the people in the Middle East deal with this. Then there is the realist in me that says we have to do what is in the best (economic) interest of our country and if that means we have to get involved then so be it. At this point in time I'd say don't go in. But considering President Obama said if they use chemical weapons are going in we have to back up those words so I'm ok with it.


so because Bush lied us into the Iraq war your going to let REAL people be gassed by their government ?


Man what a lot of damage Bush caused huh
 
Back
Top