Let's hope it's better than Curveball's was back in 2002/03 then.

No it doesn't.

It suggests the effects are illegal i.e run counter to the Law of Armed Conflict and various Humanitarian Laws (which the Syrians may or may not be signatories to).

SCUDs per se are not illegal, what you do with them might be. Those same effects could be produced by an other heavy artillery, armour or air assets not just SCUDs. If you want to declare SCUDs illegal, then there's a whole lot of other military assets and capabilities in the line before them to be declared illegal at the same time.

Eclectic:
Having had to become conversant in the rules of war, aka LOAC, I don't give two figs what the cnuts at Amnesty International think or pontificate about. The use of a conventional weapon is not inherently illegal.

Should a government bomb and rocket its population? I'd say, generally, no. Is it illegal? That's a philosophical question. The "crimes against humanity" card is selectively played, so I find it a dishonest platform from where to preach. If Assad is gassing his own population, however, that charge may stick if it can be shown that it was his faction that did such things.

Once a civil war is underway, particularly a civil war where foreign powers are funding, feeding and arming those fighting a given government, your simple black and white interpretation is out the window.

I am not on side with Assad, I think he's a despot.

Problem is, he's the official and recognized government of Syria still. At the moment, he is dealing with an armed insurrection (from his point of view) that is funded and supported by foreign powers. It isn't as simple as you are trying to paint it. Also ...

Opinion does not equal fact, Eclectic.

Let that concept soak in for a moment, OK? ;)

EDIT2: Melchett01, thanks, I was editing as you were posting, I agree with your point.

Yugoslavia, part three.

Consider what it cost the people in Yugoslavia to become the six smaller nation states they are now.

Hint: it's red.

1. No free pass for Syria.
2. Who is going to put together a Dayton agreement that will get all parties in Syria to agree to the lines on the ground that you suggest? Like in Yugoslavia, there is a lot of mixing "on the ground" between groups. Well, there was before this civil war started.
3. Who besides you cares if the Sunni and Salafist sector is not adjacent to Israel? What Israel cares about probably doesn't matter to whatever parties would need to form to craft an agreement like the one in Dayton.

How many need to die before various parties are desperate enough to get involved in such a partition?

The Arab League have the money, men and equipment to take any action they see fit.

I don't see why the f#ck we are getting involved at all.

Eclectic, see here. Syria, shattered

As to the question of why Assad and the military would use chemicals. They had too. I've done a lot of research, I haven't kept the links, but it goes something like this.

The Syrian army has a top echelon of staff and units who are Alawite and control the major weapons such as chemical, aircraft etc; the bulk of the foot soldiers were Sunni.

Since the civil war started the army has had mass defections and, on the ground, massive casualties plus defections. Think our losses in Afghanistan but a hundredfold. They are now in the position where they hold there own sliver of Syria (see my link above), though even there they are under attack. Outside that area they hold the towns and the roads, but little outside.

Now, when it comes to rebel held towns and suburbs in those areas they don't have, or can't afford to lose, the ground troops to go into clear them. So they are increasingly relying on artillery and chemical weapons to try and crush them.

Not sure where this will end, but it will be messy.

Strategically, at the end of WWI the ME was a mess as the remnants of the Ottoman empire disintegrated. The winners deliberately divided the area up so that the new nations had a mix of the different religions, tribes, ethnic types etc and a ruling class from a minority to ensure some sort of consensus was required to govern. They'd been doing the whole "divide and conquer" thing for centuries, and it's lasted a 100 years - which isn't bad.

It's now all falling apart. The options are to try and stick it together again; try and engineer another solution which will last 100 years; or sit back and watch the carnage.

There are, as they say, no easy choices.

Best of luck whoever tries.

Somebody enlighten a simple ex-Met. Man please.

Just why should we bother to intervene, given that we don't/ haven't done so in other countries similarly self-destructing?

What is our strategic interest, other than remaining the poodle at the foot of the USA bed?

Is it just that Obama shot his mouth off over red lines and now has to put his missiles where his mouth is?

By my reckoning my entire Income Tax contributions over a lifetime will perhaps buy one Tomahawk and its share of the launch platform.

My understanding is that life for the Syrian "on the Clapham omnibus/ donkey" was rather better three years ago than it is now.

But what has it got to do with me, fed up as I am with post-colonial adventurism and the world daily hating us more and more?

Perhaps it would be best to ignore the shouting, shooting and looting and let them sort themselves out in due course, at which time one side or the other emerges from the rubble terminally weakened and insignificant.

I don't think so. I don't think the House of Commons can call on or order the PM not to commit UK forces to action. Simply debate. Stand to be corrected. He hasn't got the backing of the British public, I've seen several polls now that seem to indicate that at least (my opinion only again).
Perhaps he will ask Parliament for backing and the house will divide and vote?
I've just watched the PM walk into No10 Downing Street and was actually imagining him going into an immediate series of briefings -FO, Military, Conservative Seniors and Cabinet.
If he turns to his military advisors which I imagine are the Chiefs of Staff, and asks them "what can I do" what will they advise him? What can they offer him?
What actually will the PM be aiming to do with military action? Is that the first question they will ask him>?

My humble guess each service will offer a limited response solution. RN limited TLAM attack. RAF some sort of air attack and the Army some sort of SF ground attack. All aimed at chemical weapons stockpiles. Or a combined approach. Which on read-back actually will achieve very little in the scheme of things.

I'm very much against any form of further military action and intend to write to my own MP tonight and plead for us not to become involved with this any further. Praying that all our people remain safe and far from harms way.

I agree Langley I too only a humble ex ranker and I truly think we are heading towards an utter disaster and a terrible shame and mistake. I am actually ashamed to have a Prime Minister like Cameron. He seems too young, unintelligent, un-travelled, inexperienced...self important.. false.
What is it with this current crop of Parliamentarians? Have they not had enough of it yet? Perhaps if they were to shed their suits and go abroad into these areas and actually see the blood and the tears close up they wouldn't be so keen to order our people to the fight. To witness the craziness of it all.
I actually rarely write or post on Prune - I have little of interest to say, am not particularly intelligent and am more that prepared to simply read other peoples more intelligent thoughts, stories and adventures, but these recent days have driven me mad. I cannot actually believe what I hear coming out of the mouths of the British Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister.
Enough.

Thank you!

My wife has forbidden me to mention Syria, apparently I am becoming terminally boring on the subject.

I am a lifetime patriot/ monarchist/ armed forces supporter and hitherto true blue Conservative voter.

Gay marriage was the last straw for me, so I cannot say that this Syria nonsense will make me abstain or vote UKIP, but the posturing just confirms me in my opinion of Cameron and his abject party.

Abstain or UKIP it is.

Langley and Hanngarshuffle

I find that I agree with most of your thoughts re any engagement in Syria. Having said that, as to why should we do something, I always feel compelled by the humanitarian call. Pictures and revelations over the recent weeks have been shocking and one cannot help but feel for the ordinary folk in Syria caught up in all of this. I'm not naive though and I know that military action is the bluntest of tools. What to do - in all honesty I do know what is correct course of action. What I would say though, and I am walking on eggshell saying it, your vote after all is your concern, but please please think very careful about UK IP - they are not an honourable party. Please do not take offence, I respect your right to vote and your right to choose, I am just very very wary of UKIP.

TomJoad, whats the alternative to UKIP besides not voting?
Tory = warmongers
Labour = warmongers
Lib Dems = not as bad as the above two but lovers of the EU. Plus they were part of the government that conducted military action in Libya. Impossible to vote for any of those three.
So besides BNP and Green, it does not leave much choice besides UKIP!
Besides Nigel Farage seems against any military action in Syria, for that reason alone his party is worth voting for. If Camerloon and Hague do go to war I look forward to seeing the look on their faces when they lose the next election, being voted out due to being the losers that they are.

Gentlemen,

It's a bit disturbing to see the subject matter drifting from Syria to UKIP. There's some really good comment on this thread which is a world away from the bellicose posturing and fantasy espoused by our erstwhile, beer swilling (allegedly), Foriegn Secretary. It's also the only place I can now find where a discussion can be had (on Syria), with no preconceived "guilty party". I don't know where this crisis is going, hopefully we will not be involved, but I really (as a UKIP member) don't believe UKIP have a dog in this fight. I just hope the fat git who represents us at the trough will take note of the many E mails he will have received today and vote against any military action, before proof. I know at least 20 of my ex service mates have fired them off to him today.

Smudge

Ronald - like I said I don't profess to have the answer, and I am not aligned to any party; no lover of either tory or labour. Yes abstain or accept that you are not voting on a single issue and petition the hell out of your MP. I don't think Cameron will push us down that path, and I don't think Labour would go for it either - the public mood in the country certainly wont. I may be proved wrong - hope not. I don't know maybe I have UKIP wrong but I think we have seen the face of that type of party before and they are not what I want to represent Britain.

cameron-recalls-1-1-522x293_zpsf4d6c578.jpg Photo by egnsean | Photobucket




Just the look on this morons face in the above link is enough to make anyone vote UKIP, i know i will!

Eye Bleach, please.

Can you wear those clothes and be taken seriously? Apparently so!
Can you vote for anyone with a beard? If you are a LibDem or Green!

By their clothes shall ye know them.

Eclectic, not much difference between Liebour and Tory:-

Liebour = Afghanistan and Iraq
Tory = Libya and possibly Syria.

The last two are far smaller in terms of UK military forces deployed but it does not make them any less wrong. Sadly the Lib Dems were part of the government that carried out the attack upon Libya.

I just saw on the news Cameron foaming at the mouth over war, baby brother Milliband seems keen so far, Clegg also seems keen.

So for anyone who is opposed to these pointless little interventions there is not choice other than UKIP.

This is an important issue, most of us seem against UK intervention in Syria, a strong message has to be sent to the political elite of the three old parties that we the people are sick and tired of what they are doing. Supporting a new party is likely the best way to go, probably the only way to go.

I say no more ...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

Lets get back to the original point and away from 'party' politics and ask the questions:

1. What are the rules and legality of action/s
2. What are the briefings given to all party leaders under Privy council rules.
3. How solid is the intel, remember the so called intel prior to GW II, lies and more lies given as the truth, remember the late Dr David Kelly.
4. What is the end game and exit strategy.
5. What is the cost likely to be both human and financial.
6. Tell the Arab states that this is their problem and not ours, they have the money and resources.
7. Who secures any remaining CW.
8. Assad would be a fool not to disperse his weapons and delivery systems.

I am of the opinion that the UK needs to stay far away from this and only support Jordan and Turkey dealing with the refugees. If Assad and his regime are severely hit by western forces, how will that play in the Arab and wider world. If as a 'wounded animal' he attacks Tel Aviv with Scud mounted CW, will we support the inevitable strike back with nuclear weapons by the Israeli's.

This is, as I have said, that we need to stay away and not pander to politicians sense of importance and inflated moral outrage. They have done nothing about the North Koreans, the rampant kleptocracy's and murderous failed states in Sub Saharan Africa, so why start with Syria.

CW is an abomination, but so is the hacking off of arms legs and mass rape of men women and children in Africa, but we do nothing about that and many more have been killed and injured there than in Syria. I suspect even speaking out on this would be declared as 'racist' by the so called liberal elite and soft and indeed poor politicians we have today. None are statesmen/women that measure up to some we have seen in the past.