US/UK attack Syria

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Different situation altogether, we will see who is correct in the coming days.

oh really?

looks pretty much a copy of previous situations...... WMD threat, they have enough "evidence", US standing for democracy and all etc.

[RedSauce]

oh really?

looks pretty much a copy of previous situations...... WMD threat, they have enough "evidence", US standing for democracy and all etc.

I don't think nerve-agents are considered WMD's

[Bunk]

I'll say one thing, if I was one of these UN inspectors I certainly wouldn't be going for a drive in the woods anytime soon

[proggy]

I don't think nerve-agents are considered WMD's

Quite, and the fact is there was a chemical weapon used against civilians and there seems to be evidence it was from the government.

[Bunk]

I don't think nerve-agents are considered WMD's

I'm pretty sure they are. Sarin, VX etc are very nasty indeed.

[Mich the Tester]

Perhaps Mr Cameron and Mr Obama don't want to end up with the reputation of Mr B Liar and Mr Bush. Or maybe, just maybe, they're a bit more decent than their predecessors and would like to try and do things properly this time around; personally I think they've both made mistakes but at the moment I'm still prepared to believe that Cameron and Obama are basically decent individuals trying to make an extremely difficult decision that they both know they can't really get right. Perhaps they wonder whether it's wise to drop bombs in a region that already suffers from a lot of conflict, and perhaps they're concerned that attacking chemical weapons facilities might release huge amounts of poison into the environment and kill thousands more civilians. As usual proggy thinks it's as simple as his own little bundle of nerve endings.

[RedSauce]

I'm pretty sure they are. Sarin, VX etc are very nasty indeed.

I stand corrected, a quick google indicates they are.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Perhaps Mr Cameron and Mr Obama don't want to end up with the reputation of Mr B Liar and Mr Bush. Or maybe, just maybe, they're a bit more decent than their predecessors and would like to try and do things properly this time around; personally I think they've both made mistakes but at the moment I'm still prepared to believe that Cameron and Obama are basically decent individuals trying to make an extremely difficult decision that they both know they can't really get right. Perhaps they wonder whether it's wise to drop bombs in a region that already suffers from a lot of conflict, and perhaps they're concerned that attacking chemical weapons facilities might release huge amounts of poison into the environment and kill thousands more civilians. As usual proggy thinks it's as simple as his own little bundle of nerve endings.

I think they have done a better job at presenting themselves as such and Obama is definitely better than Bush (though not sure that's really saying anything!), though I strongly believe they have little choice in the overall scheme of things and that there is a greater force at play - call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever but I really don't believe the outcome is affected by the person at the front.

[EternalOptimist]

FWIW, I dont think there is absolute proof that chemicals were used. I would err on the side of caution with this because of the nature of the conflict.
A lot of ordinary munitions give off horrilble poisonous fumes, and its often a while before you can be sure what is being used. The detector kit is not very good and can spark an alert when you are doing the dishes.
No sane person has ever used them since Abyssinia afaiaa, although there are claims that the Iraquis used them at home and abroad, and, to be honest, ordinary munitions can be just as blooming deadly. Even Adolf and Josef didnt resort to nerve agent. not in the field anyway.

If they were used, no circle of hell will be deep enough for those responsible and its a sure-fire way on how to lose a war. Nobody wants to be friends with anyone who uses a 'dirty' weapon

even if they were fired by a rogue, they should never have been issued

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

FWIW, I dont think there is absolute proof that chemicals were used. I would err on the side of caution with this because of the nature of the conflict.
A lot of ordinary munitions give off horrilble poisonous fumes, and its often a while before you can be sure what is being used. The detector kit is not very good and can spark an alert when you are doing the dishes.
No sane person has ever used them since Abyssinia afaiaa, although there are claims that the Iraquis used them at home and abroad, and, to be honest, ordinary munitions can be just as blooming deadly. Even Adolf and Josef didnt resort to nerve agent. not in the field anyway.

If they were used, no circle of hell will be deep enough for those responsible and its a sure-fire way on how to lose a war. Nobody wants to be friends with anyone who uses a 'dirty' weapon

even if they were fired by a rogue, they should never have been issued

Something similar to what I was saying - I am pretty sure Assad had little to do with the decision to use them, if they were used at all. And if they were used I suspect it had the authorisation of countries outside Syria as it serves their interests best.