"A red line has been crossed" - Is Syria next??!!

You'd have to be a tad slow to think Syria does not have chemical weapons, mainly since they said so. Robert Fisk's opinion means jack all here, the Syrian government aren't about to take him into top secret facilities and say here look chemical weapons.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-07-23/Syria-violence-rebels/56425402/1

And North Korea can strike the US mainland right?

I'm not saying that Syria does not retain deadly chemical weapons - but take into account that a State may try to make itself look bigger and stronger by making unsubstantiated claims. Again, I am not saying that Syria does not have chemical weapons - they might well indeed have such, yes.

I know for a fact the Syrian army are no pushover, plus they have the backing of Russia, China and Iran.

The US should keep their nose out of it by all means.

It's a serious case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Simply idly standing by will mean that they receive quite a bit of condemnation for "not doing anything" or not enough. Of course, if they enter, it will only mean more deaths, and the opposition has some quite major radical Muslim elements to it.

On my part i am simply not willing to support the continued murder of 80,000 and counting from a tyrant and so will fully support any military action that they choose to take (no doubt we would join them although its possible that Turkey and Israel could take the lead on this one) however what i don't want to see is us sticking around getting suicide bombed.

It really doesn't seem like they're your bog-standard "freedom fighters" seeking democracy and freedom....

As a side note, would the US/NATO step in if it was found that the chemical attack was performed by the rebels, and intervene on the side of Assad?


Edit: Something else that bugs me, is that nobody (news) seems to be touching on the possibility that the chemical weapons may have come from opposition forces. It seems there is hard evidence that they were used, but it is simply just assumed that it was the Syrian Government that released it.



Except he hasn't murdered 80,000 people.

The death toll of the entire war is close to 70,000. Nobody actually knows which side has killed more civilians.

Sarin gas was used. Where would the rebels get hold of something like that? Syria does not just leave them lying around and their bases where they keep this stuff are very heavily guarded. They know if those bases were in danger of being lost the US would likely step in to secure them.

We shouldn't get involved. The opposition aren't freedom fighters who want democracy. They're mostly islamist insurgents and Al-Qaeda sympathisers. The Syrian people would probably be worse off under their control. Assad is a vile dictator, but do the people living there even want democracy? I can't imagine it being more stable than Iraq.

The Iraq war cost America trillions of dollars and they have very little to show for it. 70,000 lives is nothing. If they spent the Iraq war money on the third world countries they could have eradicated poverty for good and saved tens of millions of lives.

The method of killing seems fairly irrelevant to me. Whether it's chemical weapons, bullets, starvation, or dehydration. It's truly bizarre when so many people support humanitarian intervention, Libyan no fly zone, the French in Mali, Afghanistan, and yet scream and shout about Britain's 0.7% foreign aid budget. America only spends 0.22%. It's truly shameful. They all bristle when they see people being shot and reach for their guns, yet turn their backs on those dying every day.