Aug 29, 2013 3:37 PM GMT
Just my opinion.
Ex_Mil8 saidI disagree. Once there is a consensus for action between the US, Britain and France, there should be limited strikes on Syria's command and control centres and perhaps on military airfields and missile sites. Assad should be left in no doubt that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.
Incidentally, I'm not jumping on the bandwagon. I was predicting this course of action two months ago.
HereAndThere saidBritain is not with us. Most of the American public is against this. Nobody who hates us now over there is suddenly going to change their mind if we shoot a few missiles over there once again. This is insane.
It's the Syrian's problem or if you prefer to look at the region, then it's an Arab / Middle East problem - let THEM figure out what to do about it. Wouldn't it be nice if some of the other Arab nations would team up with Israel and they would work TOGETHER to solve one of the problems in THEIR REGION?
Lincsbear saidIt`s a very difficult situation, but staying out may be the least worst option.
I can`t see how dropping a couple of hundred US cruise missiles on Syrian government/military bases will improve the situation, other than making western governments feel better now they`ve been seen to do something, anything, against a regime they disapprove of.
Syria`s in the midst of a very nasty civil war, with both sides committing atrocities against the other. The so called 'rebels' are a very dodgy bunch, factional, and hating each other nearly as much as they hate the Assad government itself; pro-western secularist democrats, but also militant Islamicists, and al-Quaeda sympathesisers. If it`s proved they have used chemical weapons will the US have to punish them, too?
The vote in the House of Commons also reflects the fact that Cameron and his government are ones of limited authority, divorced from the country and even his own party. British public opinion has finally been expressed in our parliament!
Any military strike by the US on Syria, however one off and punitive from a western viewpoint, will not be seen as so there or in the wider Middle East. It will be seen as siding with the rebels against Assad, and the first step in a western campaign of regime change.
It is likely to exacerbate anti-western views there, and further afield like highly unstable Pakistan.
jock_1 saidUnfortunately, with the United States being the only super power left, we have to be concerned with Syria because the whole Middle East is a house of cards.....you take away the wrong card and the whole house falls down! If that happens its trouble for the whole world. Some events the U.S. can stay away from, but I am afraid that genocide is not one of them.
Zeriel saiddo you know why america is always hated ? in big financial loss & million of people in US living below poverty line ?
coz , US always uses your hard earned money driven taxes on fighting EVERYONE while millions are hungry , jobless there
why does it fund the same rebels ( now in syria ) who beheaded nick berg , daniel pearl & so many INNOCENT americans though they're still gonna hate america ?
didn't you google what these rebels did - beheading shias , greek orthodox , christians , yazidis , druze all
infact 89% killing in civil war are by them & not Assad
even the chemical attack
I hate obama , he's a terrorist in real
its time to kick terror of these sunnis , who killed ,hacked & disturbed us in iraq , lebanon ,jordan,egypt, saudi , yemen ,
stopd america doing wrong with your Money , yes its ur tax !
instead focus on using that money in developing ur own nation
plus if rebels win , homo sexuality will be punishable to death as its pure wahabbi sunni islam ,
think of it