Syria crisis: UK to put forward UN resolution

[T_i_B]

As good a time as any to ask what everyone here thinks of the possibility of Britian getting involved in military intervention in Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23864124

The UK is to put a resolution to the UN Security Council later on Wednesday "authorising necessary measures to protect civilians" in Syria.

The resolution will be put forward at a meeting of the five permanent members of the council, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said on Twitter.

Mr Cameron said in another message: "We've always said we want the UN Security Council to live up to its responsibilities on Syria."

"Today they have an opportunity to do that," he said. The draft resolution would condemn the "chemical weapons attack by Assad", he added. Mr Cameron will chair an emergency meeting of the UK's National Security Council at midday local time (11:00 GMT) to discuss possible responses to the crisis.

[truebrit71]

1. Meet the new poodle, same as the old poodle...

[fedsron2us]

2. Cameron is clearly acting as the US proxy here

because the UK and the rest of the European powers simply do not have the capability to mount a serious attack on the Assad regime. Given that this posturing is going down like a cup of cold sick with the vast majority of the UK population you have got to wonder what offers or threats have been made to our beloved PM to get him to commit political suicide in this manner. BTW anyone who checks out the military forums such as ARRSE will find that the prospect of yet another conflict is not wildly popular with some of the people who might have to do the fighting and dying, particularly given Osborne's enthusiasm for slashing the armed forces budget

[Jeneral2885]

3. quite true

There only Tomahawks from British submarines and air strikes, possibly from Turkey, since Cyprus sorts of opposes military action

[non sociopath skin]

4. Before I answer that, could someone tell me ...

... pace Diane Abbott ... whether the plan is to go in on the side of the Nasty Dictator in the black hat or the jihadis in the other black hats.

If neither, then wouldn't it be better to leave the humanitarian stuff to the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Medecins sans Frontieres who are less likely to drop bombs?

The Syrian civilians, bless them, have probably had enough of those already.

The Skin

[fedsron2us]

5. Amen to every word of that post

The one thing that is almost not going to be destroyed in any attack are any chemical weapons which are pretty easy to disperse and hide. It will be conventional military and civilian infrastructure that will be hit which inevitably means that civilians are going to be on the receiving end as they lose access to power and water as well as suffering casualties from the inevitable collateral damage. All war mongers also need to remember that the Syrian government is much better armed than Iraq was at the time of Gulf War 2 or Libya prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi so politicians might find that the casualty and equipment attrition is not all one way. I also want it explained to me by some British politician why we should be backing rebel forces heavily infiltrated by Salafists whose long term aim is the destruction of the West and who are guilty of their own atrocities against Christian, Shia and other minorities in Syria.