[Archived] The arabs are revolting

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Hindsight is 20/20 but a lot of people in the West supported the protesters in Tahir Square, it was on TV all the time, the "Arab Spring". Some people were very sceptic and see? This has turned out horribly.

I think the west was working on a combined attitude of sticking to principles and putting faith in people. The principle being democracy is better than dictatorship and the faith that people would uphold that democracy once they'd achieved it. I agree with hindsight it could very easily be described as being naive. I suspect the people in power in the west weren't actually as naïve as its general public, and were closer to the Russian view on the whole thing. The problem with outwardly holding that view is its the exact type of thing the liberals would go crazy and bring up the race issue about. In blunt terms it amounts to having the view that we need egotistical dictators to keep arabs in their place because otherwise they'll just vote in a load of religious nutjobs who are even worse. Possibly correct, but a PR disaster for the west to outwardly say.

[Steve Moss]

With all the posts you have posted in the past you come across as someone who would have loved Thatcher to have done away with elections, been Dictator for life and deported all ethnic minorities, sent in the tanks at any strike and revelled in any little bit of power you could grab so you can push people around. From what I can see is that you don't want to reform the system, but get rid of it completely and replace it with a system that means only people 100% like you can have a say in how the country is run. Those who are different will be sidelined, ridiculed and spat on. Workers, darkies, and anyone centreist/left wing will know their place-the gutter.

That's what you get from Theno's posts? You have a seriously warped way of viewing things, if that is your interpretation. In fact, I wonder if you're projecting a bit in that hate filled rant. Conservative world view + sarcasm + world weariness =/ fascist. It's the exact opposite, if you bothered to read history.

Lamenting the education system does not equate to wanting to eliminate it and leave the supposedly unwashed masses in ignorance. I would suggest to you that getting back to old-fashioned basics, and imposing real consequential standards, is probably more up Theno's line.

Lamenting the state of our political parties, where each is more or less interchangeable with the other, does not suggest that Theno supports dictatorship. I would suggest to you that he wants real choices amongst our political leaders, not the spineless drivel that both sides serve up.

As to the rest of the venom you spewed, seek counseling.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

The "Arab Spring" had some regrettable incidents, but nothing that compares to the carnage that has broken out now that the counter-revolution has taken place in Egypt. Call it what you want, but when Mubarak is about to go free, his generals control the government and the military is arresting or murdering everyone who opposes them this is most definitely a counter-revolution.

You can expect a few atrocities to be blamed on al-Qaeda (a group with no identifiable presence in Egypt) because General Sisi and his pals know that the Western media will eat that up without much critical examination. Whether or not Islamists are truly behind any of it is questionable, but those questions won't be asked.

The US and UK will go back to the traditional policy of "the enemy of my enemy..."

This might come as a surprise to the self-congratulatory idealists who believe that our government is committed to human rights and democracy, but we were quite happy with Mubarak until his position became untenable and we had to support the uprising against him. Once he was gone we sat back and contented ourselves to do business with whoever came next and now that his regime is coming back we'll wait the appropriate amount of time until people begin to look past the bloodshed and go back to business as usual. We have no commitment whatsoever to democracy or human rights if it suits our purposes to prop up a torturing tyrant, but the rhetoric sure helps some of us to sleep easier.

Hey, if Mubarak's guys really get a hold on the country maybe we could start using it for renditions again. Sorry, it couldn't possibly be rendition, we know what that means now, what else could we call it? How about involuntary holidays with some, err, vigorous spa therapies for people we think might have information we want.

[thenodrog]

The "Arab Spring" had some regrettable incidents, but nothing that compares to the carnage that has broken out now that the counter-revolution has taken place in Egypt. Call it what you want, but when Mubarak is about to go free, his generals control the government and the military is arresting or murdering everyone who opposes them this is most definitely a counter-revolution.

You can expect a few atrocities to be blamed on al-Qaeda (a group with no identifiable presence in Egypt) because General Sisi and his pals know that the Western media will eat that up without much critical examination. Whether or not Islamists are truly behind any of it is questionable, but those questions won't be asked.

The US and UK will go back to the traditional policy of "the enemy of my enemy..."

This might come as a surprise to the self-congratulatory idealists who believe that our government is committed to human rights and democracy, but we were quite happy with Mubarak until his position became untenable and we had to support the uprising against him. Once he was gone we sat back and contented ourselves to do business with whoever came next and now that his regime is coming back we'll wait the appropriate amount of time until people begin to look past the bloodshed and go back to business as usual. We have no commitment whatsoever to democracy or human rights if it suits our purposes to prop up a torturing tyrant, but the rhetoric sure helps some of us to sleep easier.

The USA and the UK primarily as well as other nations are very much 'damned if we do and damned if we dont'. If we intervene in other countries domestic affairs we are criticised and if we don't and leave them to it we are criticised. Do we have either the moral right or even an obligation to interfere? I prefer to think not. Jeru this appeares to be a subject on which you hold strong opinions but just as a matter of interest and narrowing it down significantly how many citizens of the countries from our former Empire have benefitted significantlly from their independence?

In the past generation or so we've seen off the likes of Smith, Hussein and Ghaddaffi and didn't seem to get any thanks (and in fairness I don't think we helped conditions for the population by allowing different factions to become involved in power struggles). On the other hand we left the likes of Assad, Mugabe, Amin and a host of evil tin pot dictators alone to wreak havoc on their own citizens.

I know diplomatic affairs are very complex and tangled but I am of the opinion that our intention should be to be everyones friend. to mind our own business and leave well alone but to remain in contact with all parties at all times in order to be well placed to benefit from whatever outcome may unwind.

[broadsword]

The West should be given a right kicking for what it's done to Iraq. There was no need to go in there.

Afghanistan, an ill-thought out mess.

But this is what happens when you have a barely-functional chimp and his neo-con cronies running the USA.

As for "democracy", well that's a joke, it's a sham side-show. We have the illusion of democracy, but no real choice. We all have to be good little workers, working until we drop to pay for stuff we don't need, while we make the top 1% richer and the idle poor are made to be hate figures and parasites.

[thenodrog]

The West should be given a right kicking for what it's done to Iraq. There was no need to go in there.

Alternatively Bryan one might suggest that .... 'Saddam was given a right kicking for what he did to Kuwait. There was no need to go in there.

As for Afghanistan who knows? After 9/11 the entire world knew that countries harbouring terrorist fundamentalists and sworn enemies of the West would metaphorically get their collar felt. If you tweak a lions tail you must be prepared to take the consequences. If Ahghanistan / Pakistan had handed OBL over straight away they'd be much better placed now.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

The West should be given a right kicking for what it's done to Iraq. There was no need to go in there.

Afghanistan, an ill-thought out mess.

But this is what happens when you have a barely-functional chimp and his neo-con cronies running the USA.

As for "democracy", well that's a joke, it's a sham side-show. We have the illusion of democracy, but no real choice. We all have to be good little workers, working until we drop to pay for stuff we don't need, while we make the top 1% richer and the idle poor are made to be hate figures and parasites.

Iraq turned out to be a bad idea but there was a clear need unless you're happy with aggressive dictators all over the world pursuing nuclear weapons technology. Iraq was going the same way as North Korea but about 10 years behind. It seems a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to try to stop your enemies when all they've got a baseball bat instead of waiting for them go buy a gun. As it happened it was more trouble than it was worth and a lesson to the west that its easier to stay out of these things. Which is the exact reason we haven't been getting involved in Syria, with the result of at least 100,000 possibly preventable deaths. As thenodrog says, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I know its fashionable but instead of blaming the west all the time for not having a crystal ball to predict exactly what is the right level of involvement for each and every conflict that springs up around the globe, how about laying a bit more blame at the door of the protagonists directly involved? Islamic fundamentalism and militancy is the driving force behind most of the recent bloodshed. As long as there is a desire from some to forcefully impose a certain level of religious adherence on others, there will be conflict.

[broadsword]

Iraq turned out to be a bad idea but there was a clear need unless you're happy with aggressive dictators all over the world pursuing nuclear weapons technology.

Tell me, when does the invasion of North Korea start?

While we're waiting, try reading "The Eleventh Day", you might find it rather illuminating.

Please offer some proof that Iraq was a threat to the West.

There was no Islamic fundamentalism problem in Iraq. It just so happened that it was a convenient target for the US to use to show its strength post-9/11. That's why Bush was pushing his aides so hard to proof Saddam was behind 9/11.

If Islamic fundamentalism really is that much of a problem then why was Bush so cosy with the Saudis? Something to do with their resources, dare I say?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Tell me, when does the invasion of North Korea start?

While we're waiting, try reading "The Eleventh Day", you might find it rather illuminating.

Please offer some proof that Iraq was a threat to the West.

There was no Islamic fundamentalism problem in Iraq. It just so happened that it was a convenient target for the US to use to show its strength post-9/11. That's why Bush was pushing his aides so hard to proof Saddam was behind 9/11.

If Islamic fundamentalism really is that much of a problem then why was Bush so cosy with the Saudis? Something to do with their resources, dare I say?

That's exactly my point, the invasion of North Korea can't start because we've let it get too far. As soon as a country gets nuclear weapons, the prospect of invading it goes from messy to insane. Why was Saddam so interested in getting nuclear weapons if not to achieve a level of military capability that would allow him to throw his weight around without the risk of being attacked? Iraq wasn't a threat to the west, it was a threat to all the countries around it as the Gulf War clearly showed.

A convenient target to show strength, how ridiculous. This argument becomes impossible once all the conspiracy theories start popping up because there's no way to prove them either right or wrong. In the absence of clear evidence, Ockham's Razor is the best approach. Hussain, a proven military expansionist, was rebuilding his military. Therefore we got rid of him. Simple as that.

Of course Islamic fundamentalism is a problem, its a problem in all countries where there are people with a will to oppose it, or oppose the certain type of it that's being forced on them. The impact its having is nothing to do with the west, despite your determination to involve us. In Syria its Shia vs Sunni, in Egypt its secular vs religious, as it was in Iran until the secular opposition was stamped down.

America's alliance with Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm not saying its up to us to police it, I'm saying its a problem.

[broadsword]

A convenient target to show strength, how ridiculous. This argument becomes impossible once all the conspiracy theories start popping up because there's no way to prove them either right or wrong. In the absence of clear evidence, Ockham's Razor is the best approach. Hussain, a proven military expansionist, was rebuilding his military. Therefore we got rid of him. Simple as that.

You are wrong, wrong wrong.

Try reading the book, the quote about invading Iraq is attributed to Rumsfeld.

Iraq had no potential for WMD's, so you can park that nonsense. North Korea won't be invaded since it isn't a convenient target. Iran presents more of a danger, why hasn't Iran been invaded. Actually Israel is more of a danger than Iran, ooops, that's an ally of Israel.

Occam's razor doesn't explain jack when the truth is inconvenient to you and the evidence doesn't stack up. Save that for philosophical premises, that's what it's meant for.

[Audax]

As far as Iraq goes, I certainly can't tell if it was a good or bad decision. In fact, though Saddam was real mean to some people overall, I think the welfare of the country may not have been that bad. Also, what I wonder about is if Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq and connected to Saddam and I have no reason to think they were, they sure showed up big time in Iraq.

Now, I can't buy the premise that Iraq was at least solely, the USA flexing its muscles post 9/11 because these Democrats all below said these things pre-Invasion or when the invasion was initialized not GW Bush.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

So how could they be saying these things??? There was a leadup.

Also, an Obama appointee, Lt. Gen. James Clapper thought there were WMDs in Iraq. It's hardly as simple as being some sort of unilateral decision by Bush.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/declassified/2010/06/07/will-clapper-nomination-reopen-the-saddam-wmd-controversy.html This mainstream source discusses it a little.

Anyway, I have a lot of doubts about this being a good war, a good decision but I don't look at it as totally Bush's war or that Saddam was a big threat.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

You are wrong, wrong wrong.

Try reading the book, the quote about invading Iraq is attributed to Rumsfeld.

Iraq had no potential for WMD's, so you can park that nonsense. North Korea won't be invaded since it isn't a convenient target. Iran presents more of a danger, why hasn't Iran been invaded. Actually Israel is more of a danger than Iran, ooops, that's an ally of Israel.

Occam's razor doesn't explain jack when the truth is inconvenient to you and the evidence doesn't stack up. Save that for philosophical premises, that's what it's meant for.

Oh yeah, try reading a book by some liberal America-hating author, that'll convince me. I may as well tell you to read the Daily Mail.

What was stopping Iraq acquiring WMDs? Give anyone who's rich and determined long enough and they'll manage it. All you need is money and you can buy the materials and the scientific expertise. Yeah and North Korea isn't a convenient target because its got nukes and China on its side who's got nukes. You are actually aware that Korea was invaded aren't you? Iran hasn't been invaded for the reason I mentioned earlier, Iraq has proven its too messy and expensive and it has a good chance of making things worse. Israel more of a danger than Iran?? What a load of leftist horse****.

No Ockham's Razor doesn't explain jack, its a theory for figuring out what's most likely for things we don't know about. You don't know what the truth is, you have your opinion based on some liberal propaganda and a few books that I'm sure don't give a definitive answer unless you're looking for one.

Anyway I'll leave you to it Dr Cox, there's little point discussing something with someone who treats it less as a discussion and more as a pompously-delivered lesson. Your technique of repeating the word wrong to people who disagree with you is about as conceited and superior as it gets. It seems 90% of people who've left uni in the last 5 years have this delusional assumption that their political position is the absolute truth, funny how those who go on to become high-up politicians seem to grow up a bit and start altering that position.

[broadsword]

Well, you have me all wrong. Ooops, that word again.

You don't have a clue about the book, either.

Occam's razor states the simplest explanation of an entity is to be preferred. As I say, I believe that that is applicable to philosophy, rather than current events. It seems your imnterpretation of it is to apply it to current events and get personal with people you disagree with. Still, I suppose that saves you the effort of having to read anything other than the spoon-feeding mass media.

And please tell me who's broken more UN resolutions, Iran or Israel?

I don't know who Dr Cox is, but I perhaps your discussion skills are in need of some polish.

[thenodrog]

Dunnos about the rather flimsy reasons that the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan and no doubt some people could pontificate all day about them BUT I'm sure some military strategist type might point out how "fortuitous" it now is to have strong, well trained and well equipped military bases established either side of ones sworn enemy.

[Steve Moss]

Dunnos about the rather flimsy reasons that the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan and no doubt some people could pontificate all day about them BUT I'm sure some military strategist type might point out how "fortuitous" it now is to have strong, well trained and well equipped military bases established either side of ones sworn enemy.

That's strategic thinking. Which we aren't allowed to do, apparently.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

The USA and the UK primarily as well as other nations are very much 'damned if we do and damned if we dont'. If we intervene in other countries domestic affairs we are criticised and if we don't and leave them to it we are criticised. Do we have either the moral right or even an obligation to interfere? I prefer to think not. Jeru this appeares to be a subject on which you hold strong opinions but just as a matter of interest and narrowing it down significantly how many citizens of the countries from our former Empire have benefitted significantlly from their independence?

In the past generation or so we've seen off the likes of Smith, Hussein and Ghaddaffi and didn't seem to get any thanks (and in fairness I don't think we helped conditions for the population by allowing different factions to become involved in power struggles). On the other hand we left the likes of Assad, Mugabe, Amin and a host of evil tin pot dictators alone to wreak havoc on their own citizens.

I know diplomatic affairs are very complex and tangled but I am of the opinion that our intention should be to be everyones friend. to mind our own business and leave well alone but to remain in contact with all parties at all times in order to be well placed to benefit from whatever outcome may unwind.

How many former colonies have had a real crack at independence?

The governments that outgoing colonial powers installed and the use of World Bank loans has ensured that European nations retained de facto control in most of those countries.

Alternatively Bryan one might suggest that .... 'Saddam was given a right kicking for what he did to Kuwait. There was no need to go in there.

As for Afghanistan who knows? After 9/11 the entire world knew that countries harbouring terrorist fundamentalists and sworn enemies of the West would metaphorically get their collar felt. If you tweak a lions tail you must be prepared to take the consequences. If Ahghanistan / Pakistan had handed OBL over straight away they'd be much better placed now.

Saddam had previously been armed to the teeth and encouraged to start a war with Iran, which was only necessary because the CIA removed Mohammed Mossadegh in order to maintain ownership of Iranian oil for UK and US corporations. When Saddam went into Kuwait it was because Kuwait was undermining the price of oil, thus further straining the war-torn economy of Iraq. The CIA knew of Saddam's intentions and did nothing to dissuade him from his invasion, then when he had been chased back to Baghdad he was left in place because we still felt that we needed a strongman in the region to counter the radical regime in Iran.

In Afghanistan, Mullah Omar only asked for evidence linking bin Laden to 9/11, then he said he would turn him over. We have no reason to disbelieve his word, but no evidence was forthcoming, none has been provided to this day and the CIA has admitted they have no credible evidence to prove criminal wrongdoing on his part.

Iraq turned out to be a bad idea but there was a clear need unless you're happy with aggressive dictators all over the world pursuing nuclear weapons technology. Iraq was going the same way as North Korea but about 10 years behind. It seems a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to try to stop your enemies when all they've got a baseball bat instead of waiting for them go buy a gun. As it happened it was more trouble than it was worth and a lesson to the west that its easier to stay out of these things. Which is the exact reason we haven't been getting involved in Syria, with the result of at least 100,000 possibly preventable deaths. As thenodrog says, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I know its fashionable but instead of blaming the west all the time for not having a crystal ball to predict exactly what is the right level of involvement for each and every conflict that springs up around the globe, how about laying a bit more blame at the door of the protagonists directly involved? Islamic fundamentalism and militancy is the driving force behind most of the recent bloodshed. As long as there is a desire from some to forcefully impose a certain level of religious adherence on others, there will be conflict.

We are happy with dictators all over the world, we've supported enough of them and even continue to do so where it serves our interests. As for the nuclear capabilities, Iraq had made no demonstrable attempt to restart its nuclear programme since the Israelis destroyed the Osirak reactor, which itself was nowhere near what would be necessary to enrich weapons-grade material.

Even if you are going to go and remove a dictator it would be best if you made that your stated purpose from the outset and had a practical plan for how you avoid the sectarian slaughter that was inevitable in the aftermath.

Dunnos about the rather flimsy reasons that the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan and no doubt some people could pontificate all day about them BUT I'm sure some military strategist type might point out how "fortuitous" it now is to have strong, well trained and well equipped military bases established either side of ones sworn enemy.

The bases either side of Iran are no more useful for strategic attacks than the bases the US already had in Saudi, Kuwait and Diego Garcia. Afghanistan is a long way from any meaningful target in Iran and Iraq barely an advance over Kuwait.

That's strategic thinking. Which we aren't allowed to do, apparently.

Seriously, look at a map. The border with Afghanistan is four or five hundred miles of unpopulated deserts, salt flats and strategically useless territory, then probably another hundred miles from a reasonably sized US military base on top of that.

We haven't imposed stable political opposition to Iran in Afghanistan or Iraq, and if we're completely honest Iran is stretching its influence into Afghanistan and Iraq in ways that has really worried a lot of people in Washington.

[Audax]

See you never know what the truth is but the story is sure out there of a lot of people in Syria hit with chemical weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23777201

So if the ruling government did this, West might intervene. UN certainly should at least.

[Baz]

See you never know what the truth is but the story is sure out there of a lot of people in Syria hit with chemical weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23777201

So if the ruling government did this, West might intervene. UN certainly should at least.

I find this appalling, and I cannot believe how the UN has allowed the regime to openly attack its own people. Time for the UN to grow a pair and begin to do something other than pontificating about this.

[Mike E]

I find this appalling, and I cannot believe how the UN has allowed the regime to openly attack its own people. Time for the UN to grow a pair and begin to do something other than pontificating about this.

The UN remind me of that 'all-talk-no-action' scene from LifeOfBrian.

[Steve Moss]

Those looking for the UN to do something will be disappointed. It takes moral courage to make a stand and the UN is neither moral nor courageous.

It'll be up to a few countries to resolve the issue, same as always.

[Audax]

The reason this situation is a little delicate is because Syria has been backed by Russia and were backed by the USSR back in the old days.

Well, we can't know for sure where the poisonous gas came from, that's the thing, it's probably from the Assad regime side, hope they can find out the source.

[Baz]

Well seems their allowing the inspectors. I suspect the crucial evidence has been removed in the interim.

[neekoy]

Who really benefits though from this incident? Certainly not the Syrian regime who surely would have known this would have been reported and used as an argument against there tenure as ruling party.

Is it that much of a stretch to suggest the rebels have used it against there own people in and effort to expedite UN military action?

[thenodrog]

Who really benefits though from this incident? Certainly not the Syrian regime who surely would have known this would have been reported and used as an argument against there tenure as ruling party.

Is it that much of a stretch to suggest the rebels have used it against there own people in and effort to expedite UN military action?

Nothing in that neck of the woods would surprise me tbh. We've all seen hamas / hezbollah / taliban terrorists setting up bases in schools and hospitals and carting suicide bombs dressed in burkhas etc for donkeys years. They aren't afraid to fight dirty thats for sure.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Looks like there is a good chance we are going to see air strikes on Syria pretty soon. We have the RAF base in Cyprus that could be used by UK, French and US aircraft. Also the US has a drone base in Jordan. Both UK and US have ships in the area to deliver Tomahawk strikes.