Should the UK join the US in an attack on Syria?

Should the UK join the US in an attack on Syria? NOT Boots on the ground.

  • On reflection - yes. CW are vile and their use cannot go unpunished.

    Votes: 67 35.1%
  • On reflection - no. None of our business, not in our AOR.

    Votes: 124 64.9%

  • Total voters
    191
  • Poll closed .

Baglock

On ROPS
On ROPs
On the business of starting WWIII. The Turks shot down a Russian aeroplane and it didn't start WWIII. After some bluster Putin rather backed down.

The west has tended to act predictably when faced by creatures like Putin and Kim Jong Il. They've tended to get things their way because we've played by the rules they set.

Kim Jong Il has come to the table because Trump has wrong-footed him and thrown the rule book away. Likewise with Putin. He didn't think we would react to the Salisbury attack. Suddenly it isn't business as usual. That's just been reconfirmed in Syria. His threats have been ignored.

We live in interesting times. The consequences of getting it wrong could be devastating but that goes for inaction as well as action.
With regards to Kim Jong Un, surely this whole episode will further convince him to never give up his nuclear weapons programme?

As demonstrated twice in the past year the USA can bomb other states who lack the big nuclear stick with impunity.

You are never safe unless you have nukes,is the lesson for KJU to take away from this episode
I believe that response may be why I queried you believing them newsworthy. BBC to me may be biased, but they are more than happy to show detrimental stories about the U.K. the U.K. govt and U.K. policy overseas and in the U.K. RT do none of that, in fact they promote all Russian actions
I see leftists and rightists whining about the BBC's bias regularly.

This is an indication that it's doing a decent job, in my view
 
I see leftists and rightists whining about the BBC's bias regularly.

This is an indication that it's doing a decent job, in my view
I've heard that argument too, particularly those with a 'left of centre bent' outlook :)

I do like to hop between say Sky and BBC just to see how they're reporting the same story. I then look at RT to see 'the wibble'
 

Baglock

On ROPS
On ROPs
I've heard that argument too, particularly those with a 'left of centre bent' outlook :)

I do like to hop between say Sky and BBC just to see how they're reporting the same story. I then look at RT to see 'the wibble'
I'm firmly wedged in centre in most areas.

Care to share your thoughts on what lessons tubby will take away from this episode?

Obviously, I don't think that the response to the chemical attacks should have in any way be driven by what the North Koreans think.

However, an unintended consequence is the reinforcement of (what I've read is) his belief that he needs nukes to deter a Western driven overthrow of his regime.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
Speculation that Russia will launch cyber attacks on the UK

Russia has launched a “dirty tricks” campaign against Britain and the US in the wake of the Syria airstrikes as Boris Johnson warned of the need to be prepared for retaliatory attacks.

Whitehall sources on Sunday night confirmed a Pentagon analysis that showed a 20-fold increase in Russian-sourced “disinformation” being spread online since the cruise missile attacks on Syria in the early hours of Saturday.
There are fears that it could be a precursor to a campaign of cyber attacks by the Kremlin, and the Foreign Secretary said Britain must take “every possible precaution” to guard against it.
Talked to one or two people knowledgeable about cyber security. Consensus was the the UK would come off worst, mainly because Russian (and China) employ large teams of hackers to try and ferret out commercially sensitive information, while the numbers of people involved in cyber defence on the government's behalf is much smaller.

In addition (personal knowledge) a substantial percentage of major UK companies have some measure of exploitable vulnerabilities and are vulnerable in some degree to hacking. What the equivalent is for the Russians, I have no idea.

Wordsmith
 
I'm firmly wedged in centre in most areas.
I disagree, but there you go.

Care to share your thoughts on what lessons tubby will take away from this episode?
He's getting what Tubby I, II and III have always wanted. To be at or near the 'top table' in discussions. A meeting with Xi pre-empted the impending meeting with Trump.

If Tubby III was using CW (or BW, or NW [other than testing], he has all hence the unanimous UNSC Resolutions), it might be a point. Tmk, he's not. His rhetoric has quietened down a lot since the last sanctions, ship intercepts and of course the Winter Olympics. I say quietened down as in what he appears to have said to the PRC and RoK aren't echoed in his media, but there's less of the 'super mighty pre-emptive strike' rhetoric.

Obviously, I don't think that the response to the chemical attacks should have in any way be driven by what the North Koreans think.
The one a year ago might have unsettled him. Apparently it was to do so. I haven't heard Tubby III mentioned (yet) with regard to this case as it's clearly a case of denying Assad's CW manufacture and storage facilities.

However, an unintended consequence is the reinforcement of (what I've read is) his belief that he needs nukes to deter a Western driven overthrow of his regime.
Time will tell. I doubt it personally. But this is where I disagree with other posters.

The bigger question is what does DPRK (aka Tubby III) want in exchange for 'complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula'? Withdrawal of all US forces? Irrespective of the US's views, are RoK going to accept that? The other side is what is the'deal' that is implemented? I'm particularly thinking in terms of inspection regime and what happens if he doesn't comply? Back to the UN for another veto?
 

Baglock

On ROPS
On ROPs
I disagree, but there you go.


He's getting what Tubby I, II and III have always wanted. To be at or near the 'top table' in discussions. A meeting with Xi pre-empted the impending meeting with Trump.

If Tubby III was using CW (or BW, or NW [other than testing], he has all hence the unanimous UNSC Resolutions), it might be a point. Tmk, he's not. His rhetoric has quietened down a lot since the last sanctions, ship intercepts and of course the Winter Olympics. I say quietened down as in what he appears to have said to the PRC and RoK aren't echoed in his media, but there's less of the 'super mighty pre-emptive strike' rhetoric.


The one a year ago might have unsettled him. Apparently it was to do so. I haven't heard Tubby III mentioned (yet) with regard to this case as it's clearly a case of denying Assad's CW manufacture and storage facilities.


Time will tell. I doubt it personally. But this is where I disagree with other posters.

The bigger question is what does DPRK (aka Tubby III) want in exchange for 'complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula'? Withdrawal of all US forces? Irrespective of the US's views, are RoK going to accept that? The other side is what is the'deal' that is implemented? I'm particularly thinking in terms of inspection regime and what happens if he doesn't comply? Back to the UN for another veto?
I don't think he'll be persuaded.

He simply wants to preserve his position from external threats.

Nothing but nukes offer the same level of protection
 
I don't think he'll be persuaded.

He simply wants to preserve his position from external threats.
His family's destiny.

Nothing but nukes offer the same level of protection
They tend to be quite expensive, not just the development but the maintenance. Particularity if your principle test site is rubble.

Selling the technology onwards can cause a lot of grief. Allegedly to Vietnam and Indonesia.

Even if your country is a basket case, having less baskets to put your case in is going to have an effect.

Bottom line I believe you're talking about is will the CW strikes in Syria have made Tubby III more inclined to keep his CBRN offensive capably contrary to UNSC sanctions? Until we see the outcome of any talks, that is far too early to say I believe. We can all speculate
 
His family's destiny.


They tend to be quite expensive, not just the development but the maintenance. Particularity if your principle test site is rubble.

Selling the technology onwards can cause a lot of grief. Allegedly to Vietnam and Indonesia.

Even if your country is a basket case, having less baskets to put your case in is going to have an effect.

Bottom line I believe you're talking about is will the CW strikes in Syria have made Tubby III more inclined to keep his CBRN offensive capably contrary to UNSC sanctions? Until we see the outcome of any talks, that is far too early to say I believe. We can all speculate
To be fair, anyone on here who has attempted to reason with @184461 should be prime candidates for any future negotiations with fatty Kim.
 
To be fair, anyone on here who has attempted to reason with @184461 should be prime candidates for any future negotiations with fatty Kim.
He promised to go. Him, Piers Morgan and Dennis Rodman. Funnily enough, when called on it he soon showed his true colours. :)
 
Labour now wheeling out the argument that you can't use military force in a humanitarian crisis and doing so goes against the UN Charter..

Did Labour not use military force in Kosovo to prevent a humanitarian crisis?
 
Inspectors' visit to suspected Syria gas attack site delayed
Why the delay? We've been shown the buses leaving with civilians and 'rebels'. We've been told the Russians have inspected the site and found 'no evidence'. Surely it's in Assad's interest to get the OPCW FFM on site and examining as soon as possible, to prove CW wasn't used. Resolution 2118 also talks about access.

Maybe a few more days of 'cleansing' the area are required? Any attempt to blame the strikes is frankly farcical. After all, weren't people driving in the streets and 'shouting praise for Assad' the same day?
OPCW inspectors arrived in Damascus on Saturday and had planned to head to Douma, on the outskirts of the capital, on Monday. But the British delegation to the OPCW said Russia and Syria had not yet allowed inspectors access to Douma.

Britain’s Ambassador Peter Wilson said at a news conference in The Hague that the United Nations had cleared the inspectors to go but they had been unable to reach Douma because Syria and Russia had been unable to guarantee their safety.

“Unfettered access (is) essential,” a British statement said. “Russia and Syria must cooperate.”
Looks like the EU are in favour of the strikes and considering more measures against Assad's govt
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson made this clear on Monday as he arrived at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, telling reporters: “I’m afraid the Syrian war will go on in its horrible, miserable way. But it was the world saying that we’ve had enough of the use of chemical weapons.”

The 28 ministers endorsed the missile strikes and considered steps to deepen Assad’s isolation.

“The European Union will continue to consider further restrictive measures against Syria as long as the repression continues,” they said in a statement after their talks.
 
Labour now wheeling out the argument that you can't use military force in a humanitarian crisis and doing so goes against the UN Charter..

Did Labour not use military force in Kosovo to prevent a humanitarian crisis?
You may be aware that periods in time can be split into two VERY distinct periods and each has a different relevance to followers of religion.

The difference between B.C. And A.D. has never been more apparent to followers of their desciple!!











I refer to 'Before Corbyn' and 'After Deliverence' and the belief of Corbynistas that the party's existence before Corbyn being leader had no relation at all to Corbyn's Labour :)
 
Just to be clear I believe these attacks were carried out by the Syrian regime forces. What I don’t understand is why they would do it as after American retaliation last year why would you risk some of you’re key military assets (through the expected US retaliation) just to kill a handful of rebels? I have wondered if the personnel firing these shells had enough training to identify them as CW or if it’s just a case of “if it fits it gets fired”. This is pure speculation as I said however I’m open to other suggestions.

I could see Assad pushing to consolidate the odds and sods then bit for regional devolution/autonomy for the Turkmen and Kurds before focusing on the SDF. I do however stand by my point that I don’t think we shorten the length of the war by significantly damaging Assad.
It’s a possibility that it could be down to poor training, but it could easily be down to malicious intent with Assad thinking he’s got enough top cover from Putin to push for an end to the conflict.

There’s certain weapon systems out there that no matter how bad things get, you keep control ofsonfarvwe’ve had claims of rebels managing to get aircraft on the ground when they have no ability to fly anything bombing themselves. Claims that rebels are gassing themselves. Claims that HMG is manufacturing Russian chemical weapons to kill pro western Russian dissidents in our own country, and a general high degree of ignoring international law.

This conflict has been dragging on for a hell of a long time. I sdon’t nose Assad wants things wound up as quickly as possible. Some bean counter somewhere will be telling Assad and put in how much this conflict is costing, and contrary to popular belief, wars aren’t good for economy’s.
 
Labour now wheeling out the argument that you can't use military force in a humanitarian crisis and doing so goes against the UN Charter..

Did Labour not use military force in Kosovo to prevent a humanitarian crisis?
They did but under a clear UN mandate UNSCR 1244 which made it legal. FWIW the continued veto's in the UNSC means it has no power or right to legally enforce 'peace' which will lead to these kinds of decisions as there seems to be no alternative. Has the UN has finally reached an end ,much as the League of Nations did?
 
Dunford, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff said there’d been no movement of personnel or CW from the sites hit during the Pentagon briefing on Friday evening, Saturday morning in the UK
Well, my comment was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek, but we know the Russians were given advance warning of the planned strike. Is it conceivable that they didn't pass that intelligence on to their friends, because with friends like that, who needs enemies? Is it also conceivable that having received that rock solid intelligence that the Syrians didn't act on it to reduce the effects of the incoming strike?
 
Well, my comment was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek, but we know the Russians were given advance warning of the planned strike. Is it conceivable that they didn't pass that intelligence on to their friends, because with friends like that, who needs enemies? Is it also conceivable that having received that rock solid intelligence that the Syrians didn't act on it to reduce the effects of the incoming strike?
It's all quite feasible of course. I'm just quoting what Dunford said.

The problem they've got though is if the Russians are told at 0300C, they get hold of their people at 0315C. They (may pass on the information to their) Syrian counterparts at 0320C, that gives them forty minutes to drive to work and remove anything they've been working on, knowing a TLAM or Storm Shadow is on its way to land at 0400C.

If the strike info was passed on I doubt I would want to be anywhere near work personally.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top