(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); So we all know about the Syrian Civil War that originated from the Arab Spring and the a few of Syrians Military Generals defecting and forming the Free Syria Army. With over 1,700,000 million refugee's having fled the country and Assad's use of chemical weapons, Western Powers are now readying to take action against Assad's regime. UN weapons inspectors have been shot at by snipers and mortar fire from the Syrian army on the way to a site which Assad has bombed constantly for days to look for chemical weapon evidence. The US has said the chemical weapon use was real although the UN has not released proof yet. It is apparent though that Assad had something to hid at the alleged site.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has stated;

"Make no mistake, President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapon against the world's most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny".

Along with basically telling the world that the US will hit Syria for their use of chemical weapons, John Kerry has stated that US forces are "ready to go" should the Barack Obama order a military strike.

Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled the UK Parliament on Thursday August 29th for a vote on military action in Syria which is a confirmation that the US and UK will strike if the Parliament votes in favour. The UK will not strike alone so this therefore confirms the US will accompany them with strikes.

Iran, China and Russia have issued threats against the US and UK if they proceed with military action, but the only country stupid enough to retaliate on Syria's behalf is Iran. Russia and China will not risk a war with two other Superpowers, especially if France joins in on the strikes which it has hinted towards. Israel will most likely enter the conflict on the side of UK/US soon.

With the sheer power and sophistication of the United Kingdom and United States military is logical to expect a military strike on Syria within minutes of the UK Parliament voting in favour. I assume that David Cameron will order Generals to launch missiles within minutes in order to not give Syria much time to react to hearing the outcome of the vote. The US constitution has a big enough loophole in it to allow the President to launch Tomahawk Cruise Missiles like he did in Libya two years previous.

So, do you expect the UK Parliament to vote Yes or No to military action in Syria which will ultimately decide if the US strikes also? Do you expect NATO to take control of the conflict are initial strikes? Do you believe France will join if it goes ahead? Will Russia, China and Iran carry out their warning threats? Discuss.

The US isn't the only country that does this though. I believe France would act as a lead nation against Syria with only US background support like in Mali currently and like vice versa in Afghanistan. The UK however wouldn't do shit without the US's involvement. Who said the French don't have balls? It will cost a fair bit of money but then again if it means stopping someone using WMD's on their own people and committing crimes against humanity I support the US for having the balls to stop them.

In order to understand why it's important you need to look at a map.

You must login or register to view this content.

Chemical weapons in the wrong hands could move to Yeman, Sudan, Iran, ****stan, Afghanistan. Yeman/Sudan is a big risk due to being pretty lawless. Yeman has one of the most active terror networks in the world right now.
Suez Canal is VERY important to global trade that why Egypt is important. She's a little busy trying to sort out her own problems but she very important in that area.
Jordan again very important.
Saudi Arabia again very important.
A couple more nations which are important near by like Turkey/Israel. Oil production to global trade routes.

So why attack?
Chemical weapons fears mainly and the fact it could unstable a couple stable important nations.

Welcome to the middle east ^_^
You must login or register to view this content.
This is another problem.

'Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!
Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.
But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!
Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!
Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.!
Gulf states are pro-U.S. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!
Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.'

From the FT times
Chart is from You must login or register to view this content.
You must login or register to view this content. the person who posted the chart first.

Proof of weapons strike any chemical weapon sites. If needed a no fly zone of course that may create a problem.

As much as I'd like the fighting to stop I don't believe the US should intervene. Going into Syria will just cause more and more problems in the international community. Hell, what if they do a good job, get Assad out of the Presidency and end up with a worse leadership than the one they had now?

It's more the fact we said 'on't use these weapons we do something' and not done anything :p
I rather these weapons don't fall into the wrong hands never used again by anybody. Of course the middle east is a already, messy we can stand by let people suffer or help to fix it.

A large majority of people are misinformed when it comes to Syria and they cannot be blamed; their positions on the situation are contingent on the twisted wording and misrepresentation of information from the likes of CNN, Fox, and MSNBC.

The "war in Syria" is not a rudimentary "civil war" predicated on government versus citizen. There are multple factions and terrorist organizations that are waging war in the region. You have the Assad regime, which is struggling to keep in power and is willing to neutralize their citizens in the struggle. They have their supporters, who are vowing to bring stability in the region with Assad staying in power. There are the Syrian rebels, who are being supplied weapons by the United States through Turkey as a response to Russia supplying weapons to the Assad regime. The weapons are then distributed to "volunteers", of which consists the FSA (Free Syrian Army). They are anarchists who claim to be secular, and their sole goal is to eliminate the Assad regime. The FSA is willing to go to any extent to accomplish their goal, as they have threatened to poison the water supplies of Pro-Assad civilians with chemical agents (which they indeed possess, some FSA members even were UN peacekeepers at one point in time as they possess their uniforms). Last but not least, you have the Al Qaeda factions. These terrorists see Syria as an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone; they will be advocating their radical ideologies in the region with terror, executing suicide attacks and assaults, while eliminating American soldiers who they despise for their imperialism and western culture.

So hitherto, from our epistemological situation we can logically deduce that foreign intervention is irrational, considering there is not even feasible evidence that the Assad regime carried out chemical attacks, which would be highly illogical and not beneficial for Assad in any way, while there is video evidence of the FSA executing these attacks (You must login or register to view this content.). These weapons undeniably resemble the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein used on his people in 1988. If the Americans have evidence of the Syrian Army committing these atrocities, why don't they present the evidence to the UN Security Council? Is the world supposed to believe the "Israeli intelligence" bullshit because Israel is the closest ally to America in the Middle East.

Now let's discuss the consequences of "limited air strikes". This is nothing more than a euphemism for a large scale attack on military compounds and strongholds in Syria. What happens if a couple Russians are killed in the resulting action? Accidents are inevitable in wars, and they can prove deadly in political turmoil which we face today. Ron Paul sheds some truth on the Syrian impasse and gets "cut-off" for the what, 8th time from CNN?



Vladmir Putin of Russia is well aware that the United States has no business in Syria, and he simply does not stress about the situation. He is seen just 2 days ago drawing a penis in a Siberian school.



You will be fed the "moral atrocity" card for days and weeks to come until the Americans act on their thirst for conquest, as it is nothing more than propaganda to fuel the war machine. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys", there are atrocities being committed from multiple factions in Syria as we have concluded. If you take notice to your favorited news stations, you will scarcely find any interviews with Syrian officials, rather so-called "rebels" who are not even Syrian and have their statements echo'd by western media outlets.

To create international tensions and possibly spark an all out world war is not in anyone's interests, and the American government is testing its limits, and you are their scapegoats.