Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
OldCoals said:
I just don't understand why the US and UK are publicly so adamant they know Assad pulled the trigger when the inspectors are yet to report.

They have backed themselves into a corner now, their credibility will be shot, military action is guaranteed I am afraid.
Click to expand...

The inspectors report is not going to suggest who committed the attack, only confirm that one occurred. Obviously the US and UK have their own intelligence networks and they have received information indicating Assad is responsible.

I know some people are desperate to pin this on the Rebels, and leaning more towards Assad than the Rebels myself, I understand why. That said, I don't think we can deny that the Assad regime is not above using chemical weapons. This war is between two equally sinister sides.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
The inspectors report is not going to suggest who committed the attack, only confirm that one occurred. Obviously the US and UK have their own intelligence networks and they have received information indicating Assad is responsible.

I know some people are desperate to pin this on the Rebels, and leaning more towards Assad than the Rebels myself, I understand why. That said, I don't think we can deny that the Assad regime is not above using chemical weapons. This war is between two equally sinister sides.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, remember the 45 minute claim with Iraq? We were told that was from a legitimate source, it turned out to be not a lot more than some bloke down the pub heard someone say something.
 
dowie said:
the inspectors are establishing whether a chemical attack occurred - its become fairly apparent one has

as for who was responsible... tis fairly likely that the side which actually has chemical weapons was responsible
Click to expand...

how do you know the al nursa front has no chemical weapons? do you know something we don't?~
all we are saying is it seems likely they have them and they are islam fanatics who happily suicide bomb for the last 2 years do you think chemical weapon attacks is out of the question for a group like them?

You seem to be under the illusion chemical weapons are some kind of magic you need hundreds of centrifuges and modern technology for.

did you know 124,000 tons of gas were produced by the end of World War I?
It wouldn't have been manufactured in high tech labs either
 
OldCoals said:
As I said earlier, remember the 45 minute claim with Iraq? We were told that was from a legitimate source, it turned out to be not a lot more than some bloke down the pub heard someone say something.
Click to expand...

You're right, let us get rid of our intelligence networks and just flail around blindly in the dark! Or better yet, wait until we have the power of hindsight and then say 'Oh we should have done...'

There is always a risk of getting big decisions wrong. But to not make big decisions for fear of error is a far bigger crime for a leader than making a decision and getting it wrong.

For everyone instance of poor intelligence leading to a bad decision you can find, I can find one where failing to respond to intelligence led to a bad outcome.
 
arknor said:
how do you know the al nursa front has no chemical weapons? do you know something we don't?~
all we are saying is it seems likely they have them and they are islam fanatics who happily suicide bomb for the last 2 years do you think chemical weapon attacks is out of the question for a group like them?
Click to expand...

Seems fairly unlikely and there is no credible evidence they do have them... The 'false flag' idea is bordering on conspiracy theory nonsense at the moment.
 
Some chemical weapons like phosgene are trivial to manufacture, I think it can be taken for granted that any military group has access to chemical weapons, don't know why there's so much speculation on that point.
 
The Running Man said:
What's the one thing assad did not want? Western intervention on behalf of the rebels. What is the one thing that this chemical attack has brought now? Explain.
Click to expand...

* Perhaps Assad doesn't have full control over his troops.
* Perhaps he has received guarantees from Russia that there will be no intervention.
* Perhaps he is not a rational actor.
* Perhaps it was a genuine mistake/accident.
* Perhaps he hopes to dupe people like yourself into thinking the Rebels are responsible.

Of course it's possible this is a clever ruse on the part of the Rebels, but if Syria has lost control of it's chemical weapons you'd have thought they'd announce that.
 
The Running Man said:
What's the one thing assad did not want? Western intervention on behalf of the rebels. What is the one thing that this chemical attack has brought now? Explain.
Click to expand...

thats hardly sound reasoning.
assad is clearly a nutcase who thinks nothing of killing his own people. He has the support of russia and china and had the support of the west in the past. He also has a quite considerable military bought off the aforementioned countries.

i dont know who made the attack but i wouldn't be remotely surprised if it was assad.
 
Wonder what deal they done with china and Russia to stay out of this. I can't wait for the next W hague false comment.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
You're right, let us get rid of our intelligence networks and just flail around blindly in the dark! Or better yet, wait until we have the power of hindsight and then say 'Oh we should have done...'

There is always a risk of getting big decisions wrong. But to not make big decisions for fear of error is a far bigger crime for a leader than making a decision and getting it wrong.

For everyone instance of poor intelligence leading to a bad decision you can find, I can find one where failing to respond to intelligence led to a bad outcome.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty disingenuous spin on the Iraq 45 min claim.

It's pretty accepted now that the decision had been made by GW Bush to invade Iraq regardless and to be fair to Tony Blair, he was one of the main people holding Bush back. But when Bush finally told Blair he was going, Blair had to convince our parliament and so pressure was put on the intelligence dept to provide information that was needed to at least semi-justify the attack.

So it wasn't a 'mistake' it was willful mis-representation.
 
The Running Man said:
How do you work that viewpoint in to the last Un report that indicated the rebels had used chemical weapons earlier this year.
Click to expand...


wouldn't surprise me either - they are pretty desperate.

at the end of the day the lives of syrians are not important to either the west or the east - its about the geopolitical stability of the entire region - the west/east have different ideas about what is best in the long run.
 
Freakbro said:
That's a pretty disingenuous spin on the Iraq 45 min claim.

It's pretty accepted now that the decision had been made by GW Bush to invade Iraq regardless and to be fair to Tony Blair, he was one of the main people holding Bush back. But when Bush finally told Blair he was going, Blair had to convince our parliament and so pressure was put on the intelligence dept to provide information that was needed to at least semi-justify the attack.

So it wasn't a 'mistake' it was willful mis-representation.
Click to expand...

So then it had nothing to do with intelligence whatsoever and therefore criticism of intelligence on the Syria question has no basis. Unless you're suggesting Obama wanted to invade Syria all along...?

In any event, I don't have any problem with what happened in Iraq. We removed a dictator who was brutally subjugating his own people and secured access to oil which our economies needed. It was a win for us, and in the long run will be a win for Iraq. The fact Bush had to (allegedly) peddle a story about a threat to our own nations is simply evidence of the inherit weakness of the democratic system.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
* Perhaps Assad doesn't have full control over his troops.
* Perhaps he has received guarantees from Russia that there will be no intervention.
* Perhaps he is not a rational actor.
* Perhaps it was a genuine mistake/accident.
* Perhaps he hopes to dupe people like yourself into thinking the Rebels are responsible.

Of course it's possible this is a clever ruse on the part of the Rebels, but if Syria has lost control of it's chemical weapons you'd have thought they'd announce that.
Click to expand...

No they would not announce it, that would be the worse thing to do......
 
Biohazard said:
Well the press think we'll be at war within days so go figure. Britain at the forefront!

lmfao
Click to expand...

According to the news this morning lots of attack aircraft and transporters flying in to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. They have already decided despite the UN inspectors have not analysed their findings yet. Cameron should be wary, Iraq ended Bliar's political career, Syria may well end his career.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom