Most of you will have heard about the situation in Syria, the use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians supposedly by the Assad regime. Hundreds have been killed and the Syrian people are calling for international action.

France, United Kingdom and the US have published reports giving 'evidence' that such weapons were used.



Prime Minister, David Cameron, held a vote in the house of commons calling for support of military action in Syria. The vote was close but the majority felt the UK didn't need to get involved.

There was a recent G20 summit in which the leaders of the world met to discuss the financial crisis, but the main topic of conversation was Syria. The meeting concluded with no answers to our questions and the report states countries remain 'divided'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23982181

France and the US leaders would like to take action but other countries have been hard to persuade. Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is skeptical about the evidence published in the 3 reports and believes the Syrian rebels carried out the attacks in order to provoke international action against the regime. It should be noted that Russia is allied with Syria however.

US president, Barack Obama, now has the task of persuading his politicians (and their respective constituents) to vote yes to military action. Recent polls state that a large majority of Americans are against any military action, possibly due to the invasion of the middle east in the early 2000s. There is the worry within the international community that if America (most powerful military) does not stand up to these attacks, that no one will.

The Assad regime has blamed the rebels and says it is ready to defend itself against any military action.


Many countries are involved, but will they step up and take action against these heinous crimes?

What is your opinion, do you think your country (or any for that matter) should get involved in this?

It's a problematic time for any Western nation to consider intervening in the Syrian civil war.
The war has been going for over 24 months and the only Western response has been condemnation of killing civilians.

Public opinion has been shot by the Iraq war, it has shown the consequences of trusting faulty intelligence.
The Coalition forces went in believing Saddam Hussein had WMDs and 9 years on, 4,805 coalition force troops dead and zero WMDs found.

There's also the question of the possible aftermath if a military strike happens - increased acts of terrorism and tension between Western and Arab states?

What is the United States' endgame - Regime change?
It has been repeatedly said, the United States is not seeking a regime change, but what happens after the strike - does Bashar al-Assad just surrender or does he say "I just took on the strongest nation in the world and I survived"?

Some very good points there Connor. I agree with you, intervention could possibly lead to further acts of terrorism in the West, something which the initial invasion aimed to prevent.

Assad certainly seems quite defiant in his actions to defend his country but what was suprising to me is that there seems to have been no denial from him or anyone representing him? Strange when the allegations are so wild and would lead to a war crimes tribunal at a later date.

He's defiant 'cause he hasn't been challenged before, he has been able to conduct attacks against the rebels.
Moreover the rebels have been compromised by influential terrorist groups, as they offer support.

For reference on whether to offer direct support to the rebels at this stage, during the 1980s the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, a group of Afghan fighters known as the Mujahideen were supported by the US, UK and China, to force the Soviets out.
One of the Commanders for the Mujahideen was a man called Osama bin Laden.

Also, if there was a military strike would it send a message to North Korea and Iran, countries that intend to create nuclear weapons?

For two years, I've been watching Syrian people getting killed and murdered by all possible and impossible means. Innocent people dying everywhere. The word "Disaster" does not describe what goes on in Syria right now.

As you can see in the picture, These civilians were attacked by chemical weapons, they're using onions to evade the effect of chemicals
Four people died in this attack.

What 'evidence' is needed? It's all clear to everyone in the world
And the word 'rebel' Do you actually believe this?? This word have been used by Assad's units for two years to cover their heinous crimes.

With all my respect, I don't think that military action from western countries is supported as we've learnt a lesson from what has happened in Iraq in 2000, because.. we don't know what would happen when Assad is overthrown with the US military in Syria.

All the money that was sent to Syria by many countries to support civilians was tracked down and taken by Assad's troops, which was used to buy more weapons to continue the disaster.

The only military action should be taken by Arab countries, But it's leaders aren't willing to make any move considering this...
Well not all Arab countries can help due to current events as in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. But many Arab countries as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Dubai aren't willing to take any decision about this and don't ask me why because I've already wondered before you.

I believe that one day Syrian people will get what they've been looking for since 2012. Freedom
As for Assad, I hope that his end will be much worse than Gaddafi's.

Personally I say the US stays out of it. I'd prefer for the US to be a neutral country, and focus more on the issues in our own country first. Instead of spending so much money on Defense we need better schools, better healthcare, increased help for impoverished people, and just all around help for Americans. I don't think it should be America's job to be the world's police as we seem to think we are.

The Arab states won't do anything on their own in case of reprisal, for instance if Israel fired LORA ballistic missiles onto Regime held area you can expect a response.

Furthermore, Israel, Lebanon and Syria have been in conflict for the past 65 years - particularly between the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, an ally of the Syrian regime and IDF, Israeli Defense Forces.
Iraq is still recovering from the Iraq war and wouldn't attack since Iran is an ally of Syria.
Saudi Arabia support the Syrian Opposition by giving firearms.

But as I said, 15 to 25% of the Syrian rebels, opposition whatever, are from terrorist organisations such as Al-Nusra Front, Syrian associate of Al-Qaeda.

I personally think its time for other countries to intervene, its just sick to see civilians being treated like that in their own country.

Some form of military actions needs to be implemented but problem is it will take so long and cost so much and cause so much damage and bring another war..

I personally think its time for other countries to intervene, its just sick to see civilians being treated like that in their own country.

Some form of military actions needs to be implemented but problem is it will take so long and cost so much and cause so much damage and bring another war..

This is what I agree with, but the question begins first with:

"Why is Syria even harming their own people?"

I just makes me wonder what EXACTLY are they trying to achieve by hurting their own people. It just makes me sick seeing how some countries are killing their own, when some others are doing a lot to impress theirs.

But then again, do you guys think that our military and the others really need to get involved? Wouldn't it just make the situation worse?

Because the 'rebels' are trying to overthrow the Assad regime. Chemical attacks are being used as a warning to stop the rebels from continuing, but also as a show of power. Oh, dictators.

Am I the only one who thinks the circumstances are nearly the same as WW2.


A country harming their own people
Economy in depression?

Hm.

The international community did set a standard, that chemical weapons were not really to be used.
So, eventually, either militarily, or politically, something will be done in the long run
In the short term; i am more surprised they havent asked for all stocks to just be surrendered to the UN etc to be disposed of, to remove one antagonist form future play (and lessen future concerns of "omg theyre going to gas people again"

Now, I do not believe personally, that any military action is going to do anything, but inflame the situation to the point of, world war.
If america and france go against any UN decision not to allow military intervention, they are in effect aggressors, and committing an "illegal" act. Of which Russia and China will play to their advantage, in line with their support of Assad, AND their tone of "no illegal military actions"
Now if this is the case, this will split as much of the EU as it does the UN, G7, G8, G20 as both sides are very polarised.
Not only that, but it will inflame tensions between turkey and iran. involving lebanon, the countries to the south, and across the Mediterranean.

If "they" (referring to any countries who partake in military action) do do military strikes, Assad will make sure there is a high chance of civilian casualties - as indeed the BBC has been reporting movements of military into civilian areas and viceversa. Which will cause yet more controversy on an international level

If we also side with the rebels more forcefully, there is a chance al-qaeda and any other militant terrorist groups will attempt to seize control "once assad is removed" from power. so we swap one problem for another.

If we side with the rebels, it is a fight to the death for Assad, which completely rules out longer term political and diplomatic solutions, of which, granted, there is less than a hope in hell of getting a diplomatic solution

Thusly - we do nothing, and atrocities occur, and such attacks may have a metaphorical green light
the world says do nothing and rules out attack - countries who do take action, will be penalised, isolated and also made  atarget on their own.
the world says do something - any specified countries who are prepared to, do so with lawful jurisdiction, will ignite political tensions with russia and china still, and among the arab states
upon point#3 as addition, if we do something, there is still a chance it will go badly wrong for "we" the non syrians in general

between a Rock and a hard place
but diplomacy and trying is the only way forward, thats not going to ignite huge problems, full scale wars, remove peace treaties in the arab states and ruin the world economy and trade by default.