Syria, WMD

**Rheghead** · 23-Jul-12, 16:59

The Syrians have finally admitted that they have chemical weapons, the Assad regime promises not to use them on their own people saying they are for external threats only. The Assad regime blames the uprising on terrorists that are being supplied by countries such as Turkey. So have they opened the door for using those weapons on the countries which supply the rebels?

Where is it all heading?

Can a totalitarian regime claim legitimacy if it has to kill to survive?

**billmoseley** · 23-Jul-12, 17:53

this one is all very complicated too many fingers in this pie. there is stuff in syria the russians wouldn't like us to know about and as they are all buddy buddy with china now i say lets stay well out of it. i think he will use these weapons and then it will be interesting what is done. No the regime has no right to to kill to survive. But if we revolted here do you think the army would open fire on fellow brits?

**Corrie 3** · 23-Jul-12, 19:09

WMD ?????

What we need is Tony Blair and George Dubya back again to send our army in there immediately !!!!.....Oh hang on, we cant, they are all guarding the Limpicks!!!!

Never mind, I am sure Assad will come to a bloody, sticky end very soon!!

C3...................

**Rheghead** · 23-Jul-12, 19:28

Originally Posted by Corrie 3

WMD ?????

What we need is Tony Blair and George Dubya back again to send our army in there immediately !!!!.....Oh hang on, we cant, they are all guarding the Limpicks!!!!

Never mind, I am sure Assad will come to a bloody, sticky end very soon!!

C3...................

Well at least we have an admission so no need for a dodgy dossier.

**Gronnuck** · 23-Jul-12, 20:53

Why would/should we be interested in what happens to Syria? It's a sovereign nation regardless of who or what governs it. It's the job of the UN to mediate and bring about an amicable solution; let it earn its keep. There has been wars of one sort or another in the Middle East for the last sixty years and there have been all manner of attempts to promote peace none of which have been successful. Britain doesn't have the clout, diplomatically or militarily to get involved. We could leave it to Tony Blair the UN Middle East envoy to sort out but I suspect he's too busy making a living advising foreign investment banks.

**theone** · 23-Jul-12, 22:31

WMD? A weapon of mass destruction? Surely that's the whole idea.

There's not much point in having a weapon of minor destruction.

There's actually a lot to be said for chemical and biological weapons. Kill your enemies but leave the buildings, roads and bridges intact for the future winners to enjoy the spoils of war.

Tongue in cheek maybe, but the UK/France/UN has a lot to answer for in respect to the differences in the way they treated Syria and Libya.

**ducati** · 24-Jul-12, 09:04

Originally Posted by theone

WMD? A weapon of mass destruction? Surely that's the whole idea.

There's not much point in having a weapon of minor destruction.

There's actually a lot to be said for chemical and biological weapons. Kill your enemies but leave the buildings, roads and bridges intact for the future winners to enjoy the spoils of war.

Tongue in cheek maybe, but the UK/France/UN has a lot to answer for in respect to the differences in the way they treated Syria and Libya.

There is a big difference, Libya was armed largly with WW11 surplus British weapons. Syria is armed to the teath with modern Russian and Chinese weapons.

**Rheghead** · 24-Jul-12, 11:01

Some commentators have described Assad as a cornered injured wolf that will do anything to stay in power. That Anything could be to attack a neighbouring country in an attempt to unite factions within his own country. Would it be in our national interests to stand idly by and let Assad do that?

**Gronnuck** · 24-Jul-12, 16:06

Originally Posted by Rheghead

Some commentators have described Assad as a cornered injured wolf that will do anything to stay in power. That Anything could be to attack a neighbouring country in an attempt to unite factions within his own country. Would it be in our national interests to stand idly by and let Assad do that?

The only obligation we would have would be to Turkey which is a member of NATO as are we. Iraq to the East might become unstable and inflame its political, ethnic and sectarian problems. Jordon to the south already has political, ethnic and sectarian problems. IMO we have every excuse to stand back and let the other NATO members support Turkey. Our tired overstretched military has enough to keep it busy with securing the Olympics and negotiating Resettlement Courses etc. prior to discharge. We have to accept that our national interests are limited by what diplomatic 'clout' we can exert in the area and that isn't very much.

**Kasper King** · 24-Jul-12, 17:06

There is a big difference, Libya was armed largly with WW11 surplus British weapons.
No Russia, France and China supplied Lybia, this country has never made AK47's, Mig's, Silk Worm missles, etc.

**billmoseley** · 24-Jul-12, 19:18

it seems that in these wars that terrorists seem to get a foot hold in these countries so maybe it's not the syrian government we need to worry about using them but the terrorists getting them and shipping them who knows where. maybe the russians americans and chinese would do better working together to neutralise this threat instead of bickering

**ducati** · 24-Jul-12, 20:00

Originally Posted by Kasper King

There is a big difference, Libya was armed largly with WW11 surplus British weapons.
No Russia, France and China supplied Lybia, this country has never made AK47's, Mig's, Silk Worm missles, etc.

You will find, if you google, plenty of evidence.

**whitechina** · 26-Jul-12, 19:00

You might be interested to know who it is that's stirring up this rebellion...........

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/19/157030...syrian-bombing

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...an-opposition/

Good old Uncle Sam is at the root of all this.Who's next on their hit list I ask????

**ducati** · 26-Jul-12, 20:59

Originally Posted by whitechina

You might be interested to know who it is that's stirring up this rebellion...........

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/19/157030...syrian-bombing

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...an-opposition/

Good old Uncle Sam is at the root of all this.Who's next on their hit list I ask????

I think you will find it is the people being oppressed by a oppressive regime that are rebelling. I don't actually think they needed any stirring up.

What next? Mitt Romney covertly backing the SNP?

**Phill** · 26-Jul-12, 23:55

Originally Posted by whitechina

Good old Uncle Sam is at the root of all this.Who's next on their hit list I ask????

Were they behind it or seized an opportunity! And there are brits on the ground there too helping making things happen.

**oldmarine** · 27-Jul-12, 15:48

I hope my country can stay out of it. I already been in too many wars and lucky to get out alive.

**whitechina** · 27-Jul-12, 18:07

Originally Posted by ducati

I think you will find it is the people being oppressed by a oppressive regime that are rebelling. I don't actually think they needed any stirring up.

What next? Mitt Romney covertly backing the SNP?

If what you say is the case then this "uprising" would have happened a long time ago.And the same could be said of Tunisia and Egypt,and now Bahrain.If you watch some of the more indepth reporting from the likes of Russia Today,Al-Jazeerah,and France 24 then you'll notice an awful lot of American weapons (M4 assault rifles) and also SLRs,such as those the British army used to use.That alone is an indication as to who is stirring things up.
What would you rather have?A stable Syria under Assad,or a failed state riven by religious tensions which in the long run will become a hardline Islamic state hostile to the west and helping to train and supply terrorist groups over here?
Did you even bother to read the articles I provided links for?

**billmoseley** · 27-Jul-12, 18:43

i do watch all the other worlds news channels. i think that russia and america have an under hand role in what is going on. my blood boils when you think that if the big 2 Russia and America got together they could put a stop to it in no time. But hey who cares about a few thousand dead people.

**ducati** · 27-Jul-12, 22:44

Originally Posted by whitechina

If what you say is the case then this "uprising" would have happened a long time ago.And the same could be said of Tunisia and Egypt,and now Bahrain.If you watch some of the more indepth reporting from the likes of Russia Today,Al-Jazeerah,and France 24 then you'll notice an awful lot of American weapons (M4 assault rifles) and also SLRs,such as those the British army used to use.That alone is an indication as to who is stirring things up.
What would you rather have?A stable Syria under Assad,or a failed state riven by religious tensions which in the long run will become a hardline Islamic state hostile to the west and helping to train and supply terrorist groups over here?
Did you even bother to read the articles I provided links for?

No! I didn't. I form my own unshakeable opinions. I do not accept oppressive regimes just because they may be more convenient.