My bet is that nothing happens this time, at least not until the weapons inspectors report back, or some other event unfolds.

Curse AFP and their lack of research lol. Still the design is the same age just they took 3 decades to build the Typhoon [BURN]

Any Syrian action has nothing to do with protecting civilians or punishing the use of chem weapons. Its to cover up failures of security agencies - Looking past the propaganda what this really is is the Wests inability to control the flow of larger weapon systems onto the black market. The UN is now defunct as Russia has its finger (weapon systems including chems) in too many loony pies and has to veto any action to stop the West finding out the weapons are Russian. The West has backed itself into a corner with no option but to strike to stop these weapons falling into the wrong hands having to wreck further the credibility of the UN in the process or risk larger scale attacks on home ground.

The Russians have deployed missile destroyers to the Mediterranean. Putin really is craving for status.

Well there goes any military credibility the UK had left. If the UN / NATO had a backbone it'd demote the UK from key membership status. Still, not engaging in military action was the correct course.

Does raise one very key question:
What would stop the US from attacking a country it sees as 'a danger to US national interests'?

The UN no longer has any strength to its 'word' and the US ignores it (again). Western Allies like Spain, Holland, Germany, Italy ... and now the Uk ... are all opposed to military action but we, like the UN are being ignored. If the UN decided to boot the US out and impose sanctions how long would it take for the House of Reps & The Senate to impeach the White House or would it side with the President in support for its ideals? ... Then what? If words fail and the US is ignoring all reasonable diplomacy from the UN and its allies do you turn to military action to protect the Americans target? This is the position the Russians are in at the moment. Were left with the possibility that a NATO member state will attack (or be attacked) by another ... effectively toying with the idea of a WWIII. How much of the words forces would it take to defeat the American War Machine in the name of 'whats right' Vs 'Freedom' and how much of the world would be left habitable?

The idea of Dave in a cut half red dress with a G36 scares me

If history has taught us anything, it's that this doesn't mean we won't invade Syria. Just this time every "activist" will be complaining about it facebook instead of myspace

I don't know why everyone thinks a war between Russia and America would be some kind of apocalyptic event; the US would suffer a single casualty to a faulty spring in an AR-15 and loose all public support, while the Russians would mobilize their entire army for about 20 seconds, then run out of money.

Post apocalyptically speaking were all f*cked

Hey, maybe Dave will let those MPs go to Syria like they asked to go see if there's anything worth invading for and then get MI5 or someone to make sure they don't' come back and then invade as a result...

Welcome to the coalition of the unwilling and reluctant! Let's grab a seat and talk about pacifism. Don't mind Greece and Turkey squabbling with one another in that corner back there. They hate each other but to the outside world they also hate Western wars.Barely ever before I've read a more dead-on assertion. Is that really true? The UN is just as powerful as the security council's permanent members allow it to be and so far the US have been unwilling to change anything about it, even when being vetoed up and down the rainbow by others. That's because they don't mind either raising that veto hand every once in a while if otherwise the council would pass a resolution that could hurt their interests. That's true for the US, it's true for the contemporary bullies China and Russia and it is true for France and the UK.

I heard some long range surveillance teams are deployed to the area around Syria

This post has been edited by Hornet85: Aug 30 2013, 17:34

Greetings from cloud-cuckoo-land! Today the German government announced Germany will not participate in military strikes against Syria. "A hundred hours of negotiations" would still be better than "one minute of shooting" (easy to say when it's not you who is being shot at). It was to be expected since we're in an election, still I don't know whether to " " or to " ". Does anybody honestly believe the rebels and Assad would be ready to talk to each other? The hatred runs incredibly deep down there and both sides have committed unspeakable atrocities. Why would they even enter negotations?

Translation: We're more than happy to give the Syrian people the same "opportunities" Chamberlain gave ours.

You Brits really have a hard-on for the war, have you not.
The more proper translation would be: "Since we want to win another term we can't ruin our chances by doing something the average Hans has only disdain for."

You know, I just wish they'd tell the truth like that for once. Western media societies have degenerated so thoroughly that even though everyone knows why they won't jump on the bandwagon they'd still suffer a crushing a defeat for admitting to the obvious.
I think it's because it'd hold the mirror up to certain people.

What a weird world: we want our leaders to tell us the truth but those who do we won't make leaders.

But the majority of people don't want them to have another term (they're dicks, all three parties).

In military news, looks like the US are up to something 10+ C-17s have overflown here today throughout the day compared to the usual 0-1 for a Saturday.

And the French are more than happy to strike.

Though being an ex French mandate I suppose they consider it somewhat their issue to resolve, much as with ex French territories in Africa.

Hollande is a dud and now that he's seen his popularity with the French has risen after the successful Mali intervention (albeit only from "bloody asshole" to "asshole") he wants another war to catapult him out of his hole.

The difference is the financial impact of the Iraq / Afghanistan war on public spending had a direct impact on the British general publics daily lives. Dumping 100bn from the GDP on the war, 120bn bailing out the banks and 50bn selling off our Gold reserves cheap at the height of a recession has crippled literally everything. Transport fares are hugely expensive, hospital A&Es are closing, schools are overcrowded and wages are falling as inflation rises. All we've had for 5 years now is massive cuts in basic services whilst the cost of those services left have doubled ... all this hardship caused by the lies of a few men that Iraq had chemical weapons it could use to strike British interests within 40 mins.

Everybody (including war loving muppets like me) sat up and said hang on a minute, we've been down this road already, we know where this leads. Lets sit this one out and finish clearing up the mess from the last war at home first

Its taken the entire country, 3/4 of the MPs, the UN, NATO and half the worlds leaders to stop Cameron from single handedly dragging us all into anther war. Doesn't get much more dangerous or tyrannical than that!

As of today Germany has withdrawn all her troops from the last forward operating base in Kunduz province, putting an end to four years of resolute operations in Afghanistan and another eight years filled mostly with pointless inaction and politically-induced asshattery.
Even in the view of the latter and although the military involvment never exceeded 6000 troops at any given time, the human and material costs of the past 12 years are rather staggering...

58 German soldiers, police officers and civilian officials lost their lives,
359 German soldiers, police officers and civilian officials were wounded*,
65% of which due to hostile activity.

* definition: physical injury requiring 72 or more hours of hospitalization.

About 1000 soldiers have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder. No numbers exist on how many suicides have been related to the war.

57 ground vehicles and 2 aerial vehicles have been written off as total losses. No totals exist on how many times (reparable) combat damages was inflicted on equipment.

The direct costs of the Afghanistan deployment amount to 7.2 billion EUR. The indirect costs - for example the acquisition of military equipment not explicitely meant for but as a reaction to the Afghanistan war - added another 2 billion EUR to the aforesaid figure.

The war spawned 25 recipients of the Ehrenkreuz für Tapferkeit (in international protocol equivalent to Conspicuous Gallantry Cross (UK) or Distinguished Service Cross (US)). Even though no "kill counts" or comparable official figures exist, non-government organizations estimate ((debatable)) German military operations led to the deaths of 649 insurgents and to the capture of 160, moreover to the deaths of at least 150 civilians and 6 Afghan troops (friendly fire).

"58 German soldiers, police officers and civilian officials lost their lives,
359 German soldiers, police officers and civilian officials were wounded*"

Any numbers on blue on blue?

Afghan -blue on blue attack> German: 5 KIA, 12 WIA
German -friendly fire accident> Afghan: 6 KIA

Actually Afghans shooting at coalition forces is known as "Green on blue", it's only blue on blue when coalition troops fire on each other. That there is a distinction shows pretty well that no one really trusts the Afghan troops.

This post has been edited by JdB: Oct 31 2013, 15:14