Gutless. The stench of appeasement

[Zippy]

So what do we do if it is proved that one of the terrorist groups involved used chemical weapons, who do we invade then ?

Then we don't because we'll have to find out who sold them said weapons. And I don't think invading <major nuclear power> is an option.

[minestrone]

I thought the Labour MPs cheering after the vote was particularly distasteful.

They were acting as if they had won a vote over free eye examinations, not determining humanitarian actions to a war torn country.

[Mich the Tester]

I thought the Labour MPs cheering after the vote was particularly distasteful.

They were acting as if they had won a vote over free eye examinations, not determining humanitarian actions to a war torn country.

Indeed. A revolting bunch of inadequates.

[doodab]

Let's say Assad has lost control of one of his chemical weapons depots and it's now in the hands of Al-Qaeda and their chums; Assad isn't going to shout out to the world that he's lost control of a depot as that would diminish his position and of course his planet sized ego. Britain piles in and attacks Assad's forces; wouldn't we then be assisting a force that uses chemical weapons as opposed to clamping down on a hideous regime?

Something we can be fairly certain of is that neither the UK, the US, the Israelis or any other vaguely sensible government want this stuff falling into the wrong hands, and I doubt the Russians would be too chuffed with it happening either given their own problems with Islamic terrorists and the obvious risk to their upcoming staging of the Olympics it would present.

Regardless of our politicians track records when it comes to dealing with it, we and many other countries do spend a great deal of money gathering intelligence, and we often share it with our allies and vice versa, so while it may not be entirely accurate all of the time, the intelligence services probably do have a reasonable idea of the likelihood of this having happened.

My opinion is that if it had happened, and they knew it had happened, it would be publicised and acted upon, as the case for going to war in order to get whatever had been stolen back and ensuring security & destruction of the remaining stockpiles would be considerably stronger than the current one.

The Israelis in particular have already mounted several bombing missions and I have no doubt they would be in there like a shot if they thought the jihadists had got hold of significant quantities of chemical weapons. That is why I don't believe the rebels have access to this stuff, at least in sufficient quantity to do this sort of damage.

Of course, it might be that they do, and special forces are already in there doing the dirty work as we speak.

[doodab]

As I understand it the general consensus is that the Syrian stockpiles of sarin and mustard gas are home made.

[d000hg]

I thought the Labour MPs cheering after the vote was particularly distasteful.

They were acting as if they had won a vote over free eye examinations, not determining humanitarian actions to a war torn country.

Cheering because you think a victory has been won which will avoid killing many innocents sounds quite appropriate. It's a decision which actually means something for once.

[amcdonald]

Then we don't because we'll have to find out who sold them said weapons. And I don't think invading <major nuclear power> is an option.

So if the Syrian regime is implicated we invade Syria, anyone else we just ignore them and invade Syria anyway

But if it was the Syrian regime the mostly likely people involved would be the palestinian terrorists proping his regime up

Terrorists aren't well known for following the rules of war, the geneva convention etc

[Mich the Tester]

As I understand it the general consensus is that the Syrian stockpiles of sarin and mustard gas are home made.

So surely they would have evidence, like pictures of Syrian airforce planes dropping bombs just before the chemicals take effect, or missiles being fired a few seconds before people start coughing their guts out? Show it. You know, I want to be persuaded, for what it's worth.

[Mich the Tester]

Cheering because you think a victory has been won which will avoid killing many innocents sounds quite appropriate. It's a decision which actually means something for once.

No, I don't think there's any place for cheering in all this.

[MaryPoppins]

Cheering because you think a victory has been won which will avoid killing many innocents sounds quite appropriate. It's a decision which actually means something for once.

You reckon that's why they cheered?