Good Luck With That France!

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23795088

[emmie]

it won't just be France though will it, we will follow suit i expect if they and others enter this war..

[doctordb]

I think the USA, France and the UK should sit this one out.

This is an ideal opportunity for all those against 'western intervention' to do it their way.

[emmie]

because no one every says thank you for your help, what usually happens is that we get involved, then the two sides take it out on the invaders?

[sandyRoe]

With Russia and China both against intervention there doesn't seem much The West can do no matter what the French say.

[FredPuli43]

M. Fabius represents a President who is deeply unpopular for, in the public mind, doing nothing, and who is well down in the polls. Time for a little sabre rattling ! Nothing will happen unless he has allies, and the US is not showing any great enthusiasm.

[emmie]

why would the US show any enthusiasm, they are already embroiled in wars they can't win, conflicts that keep getting their soldiers killed, we should stand back and let them get around the negotiating table.

[anotheoldgit]

If the Syrian government are proven without doubt, that they have used chemical weapons, then it is a matter for the UN, (not separate countries), to take the action necessary, so as to bring the perpetrates before a war crimes tribunal in the Hague.

[emmie]

that will be precisely never... UN doesn't seem to have many teeth left these days.

[doctordb]

Why aren't countries like pakistan and Iran rushing to the aid of their muslim brothers?

Perhaps Belgium, Germany and south africa could tell the US "we've got it covered".
It's a long shot but maybe even the U.N could take it seriously.

[emmie]

are you actively seeking an all out war in the ME, lets hope that Pakistan doesn't get involved, nor Iran, they have enough trouble in their own countries.

[AB Editor]

"If the Syrian government are proven without doubt, that they have used chemical weapons, then it is a matter for the UN, (not separate countries), to take the action necessary, so as to bring the perpetrates before a war crimes tribunal in the Hague."

Ideally, yes.

"that will be precisely never... UN doesn't seem to have many teeth left these days."

It was sort of designed with stopping the use of teeth in mind. It is the nature of the organisation.

[emmie]

is the UN effective?

[BlueToffee]

We've got ourselves into enough trouble over the years meddling in other people's affairs, about time we took a back seat and spent some money on our own people instead of on arms to use in other countries.

[AB Editor]

Isn't the real problem that Syria has a "proper" army so regime change would be a brutal bloodbath with high cost on either side?

[AB Editor]

"is the UN effective?"

No.

[douglas9401]

The UN?

UNwilling
Unable
UNfathomable
UNbelievable

Wee Willie Hague told not to let the door hit him on the ass on the way out.

[AB Editor]

"We've got ourselves into enough trouble over the years meddling in other people's affairs, about time we took a back seat and spent some money on our own people instead of on arms to use in other countries."

Well, that bit is tricky. BAE make quite a lot of money for the UK so, in some ways, a bit more war is good for the British economy.

How you feel about this morally is a different matter (but not one that was mentioned)

[doctordb]

So with no US intervention, any ideas?

[BlueToffee]

Morally AB, I think we should meddle less. Just my opinion.

[Zeuhl]

/it is a matter for the UN, (not separate countries), to take the action necessary/

The UN has no military.

If they wanted to take 'action' with a military element, they would need to ask member states to provide forces.

So we could be in there anyway