Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

UN inspectors leaving Syria on Saturday and report then too. Could be an 'interesting' weekend in Damascus.
Edit: MP's apparently being told to be prepared to attend Parliament on Saturday or Sunday to vote on motion for action.

RobertKK wrote: »

Cameron and Obama have backed themselves into a corner. That is what we get when countries with big toys have poor leaders.

Watched the five on Fox news last night, funny it was the Democrats supporter who supported an attack, while the Republican supporters on the panel were against it. One saying if we (the US) attack we will be on the same side as Al Qaeda and look what happened in Benghazi, Also said it was not clear who carried out the chemical attack.
I turned it on expecting a bloodthirst but no, 4 out of the 5 were against it due to the reasons above, while arguing a token strike against Syria could do more harm than good.

I'm surprised the Republicans were against taking action when they, led by McCain, have been calling for an attack on Assad for a couple of years.

karma_ wrote: »

Russians starting to play hardball now. This could get hairy.

It's posturing and maintaining an image. Putin needs to look strong. He must be seen as standing up to the West and also being close to his allies in the region. At the end of the day, economic trade and partnership with the US is a thousand times more important than being allied to a regional pariah on a sinking ship.

I expect the Russians to push, as far as they can, without affecting economic ties with the US/UK/France and Germany.

Seaneh wrote: »

The EU relies on Russia far more than Russia relies on the EU.

If push comes to shove Russia just turns off he gas pipelines and the EU instantly ****ed.

Why would Russia want to pick a fight with the EU?

Russia will posture, object at the UN and that will be it. No intervention, no closing the valves.

It is hard to know what will happen or why. However, here goes with my 2cents worth.. The 'West' will launch a missile strike followed by a limited air strike immediately after. This will destroy Syria's air defences and chemical weapons sites. Who gains? The 'West' and Israel, as the capacity to launch a devastating attack on Israel will be removed and a major ally of Iran will be neutralised clearing the way for undisputed 'Western' control of the middle east and energy resources.

McD14 wrote: »

Curious what you're opinions on this guy's comments are?

Political opinion from a guy looks like he is preparing for the apocalypse.. might not be the most informed source. Probably better to read about it and make up your own mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

Not as exciting as secret chemical weapon plots to fund pipelines and all that, but typically a lot closer to the truth.

Brits are out...

Expect some serious rancour between Cameron and Miliband over this

Yanks might have to do this unilaterally.. or not at all.

RobitTV wrote: »

Breaking: Huge Blow for David Cameron as he loses vote to go to war in Syria in British Parliament, rejection of vote has shocked many.

British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

Bye bye William Hague.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Wouldn't be surprised if military intervention didn't occur now and the western states instead pursue other sanctions, or pursue the matter through the courts.

It'll still happen. The NYT has had an article up well before the vote saying Obama is prepared to act regardless of other countries, Congress etc. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?from=global.home

With the BBC witnessing a napalm style attack on Aleppo that left many school children with serious burns, I don't blame him. With any luck they take out as many runways and aircraft as possible to limit Assad's ability to do that sort of thing. (horrific video on BBC website)

Russians on the other hand must be utterly bemused by why the West are getting so exercised by Syrian civillians being gassed - from the Russian perspective it is utterly irrelevant if chemical weapons were used. There is no moral pressure on the Russian government to "do the right thing".

Yes the morally inferior Russians are too unenlightened to understand that chemical weapons are bad when used against civilians.

Vassalage is a commonly understood term. I'm not sure Russia has ever had an ally in the modern era

I know what vassalage means.

Russian allies:

Belarus
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
China
India
Nicaragua
Venezuela
Armenia
Azerbaijan

There are more, of course.

(their suspicion of NATO is ludicrous as demonstrated by NATO's adventures in Afghanistan)

It's not ludicrous. Gorbachev was promised that NATO would be disbanded upon the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. It wasn't. Now all it does it attempt to surround and isolate Russia. It is also suspicious of NATO because of it's power plays and doublespeak in Libya and potentially Syria. It's right to be suspicious of NATO. And how does the Afghan war negate these suspicions?

When something bad happens in the world people publicly wonder when the US will do something to save the human rights of the victims.

That's because it is the most prominent country in the world. Not because it is regarded as a special, country-size human rights-warrior by everyone.
In fact, I'd say it's the opposite at this stage. Most people these days see the USA as the self-serving malicious belligerent force that it really is.

traditional Russian stances to external forces has either been fear/hatred....or dominance/suppression.

That truly is some extraordinary stereotyping. You don't really believe this crap do you? Of the "Russian Bear"/"Soviet Union Reborn"/"Belligerent Reds" cold war myths? Do you think that the Russia today is in any way "traditionally Russian", as you call it? (I understand now that by "traditional" you mean "conventional" or "stereotypical", no?) It's super-capitalist, not a horrid dictatorship, is hostile towards gays, is technologically forward, it's not insular and it is very open to the outside world. There is nothing "traditionally Russian" about Russia today.

It's a modern, open country in a modern, open world. You are judging Russia by standards that were relevant maybe fifty years ago, like so, so many others are.

I also heard there was a small scuffle between a senior Tory minster and and a few other MP's. (it was off camera though)

David Cameron gagging to give someone a slap, I'm guessing.