US and British Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

[Ehks]

He said the US had concluded that the Syrian government carried out the large-scale chemical weapons attack against civilians last week.

For who does know, this isn't the first chemical attack in Syria. The only reason they are responding to this, is because the rebels are now losing and they can't bare see that happen.

Before the chemical attack, the rebels were settling in Ghouta (The Western Suburban of Damascus - where the chemical massacre took place).
(- Ghouta was the rebels' last strategy point to capture Damascus, the capital of Syria.)

They were preparing for a battle against the Syrian Regime to capture the capital, it was an opportunity they wouldn't want to miss. The rebels were certain of one thing, that the Syrian military was unaware of it. However, it turned out that the Syrian Regime had already received intelligence information about it, and were well prepared.

Their attempt failed. In fact, they had no option but to pull back from the beginning of the fight.
What's weird is, their retreat was fast and the moment they disappeared chemical missiles were fired.
None of the rebels were infected, only military personnel and civilians.
( The Syrian Regime were winning before the chemicals were even used, so there was no reason for them to fire it. )

[eymas]

Russia is to send an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean, according to Russian news agancy Interfax.

The country is strongly against any military intervention in Syria, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov believing it would seriously destabilise the region.

Russia has started to pull its citizens out of Syria as the likelihood of military action increases.

It flew 89 people out of the country on Tuesday night and 28 more on Wednesday morning.

The reports come after US President Barack Obama said any strike would be to "send a shot across the bow" to deter future chemical weapons attacks.

He said the US had concluded that the Syrian government carried out the large-scale chemical weapons attack against civilians last week.

President Obama said the US had examined evidence and did not believe the rebels possessed chemical weapons or the means to deliver them.

But he added that the US had not yet made a firm decision about how to respond.

More follows...

Reminds me of This.
I wonder when WW3 will be declared.

[Reece]

Britain's joint intelligence committee (JIC) has concluded it is "highly likely" that the regime of Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attacks in Syria last week that have prompted moves towards launching military strikes.

In an echo of the buildup to the Iraq war in 2003, Downing Street took the rare step of releasing the assessment of the JIC to support its case that the Assad regime was responsible.

But the assessment was mainly based on "open source" evidence such as video footage of the victims and a judgment that the opposition does not have the capability to launch such an attack.

Downing Street sources said the intelligence, outlined by David Cameron to Tory MPs at a Westminster meeting, presented a "compelling and conclusive" case of the involvement of the Assad regime in the chemical attack.

MPs, who are due to hold an initial non-binding vote on Thursday night, are being put on notice that they may have to return to Westminster on Saturday or Sunday to authorise military action in a second vote. Tentative plans for the first weekend sitting of parliament since the Falklands war in 1982 are being made amid signs that the White House is willing to show Britain some flexibility but cannot wait indefinitely.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235094/Jp_115_JD_PM_Syria_Reported_Chemical_Weapon_Use_with_annex.pdf

[KhornateMonkey]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23877247

live updates including parliament discussion (house of commons)

[Frank_Hawk]

[KhornateMonkey]

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

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

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

But - in an unexpected turn of events - MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians.

Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament does not want action and "the government will act accordingly".

It effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime.

Poll by the Daily Express

[Mikal]

Yes!

Looks like the UK will not be taking any action against Syria after all, but will probably end up intervening if the US carries on with their plans, as the US will more than likely need the help with the threat of Russia and Iran, unless they actually decide to follow the British parliament and not do anything directly.

[Dolfagr]

Good call by UK, there is certainly a presence of fear in case of a retaliation strike by Russia and Iran.

[Reece]

Parliament not agreeing doesn't mean anything. The PM can still declare war if he chose too, the same thing happened for Iraq, the cabinet advised him not to but he did so any way. So I wouldn't rule out British intervention just yet.

[Dolfagr]

Parliament not agreeing doesn't mean anything. The PM can still declare war if he chose too, the same thing happened for Iraq, the cabinet advised him not to but he did so any way. So I wouldn't rule out British intervention just yet.

The current Government in my opinion should resign. They guaranteed an intervention just a few days ago and they could not fulfill full co-operation within the parliament in order to pass the vote. That made UK look very weak in my opinion.

[Mikal]

Good call by UK, there is certainly a presence of fear in case of a retaliation strike by Russia and Iran.

Lol no, you clearly don't understand what goes on in the British Parliament, the prime minister still and probably will end up going to war should the US continue with it's plans, as he still wants to launch attacks on Syria anyway, and has told the world that.

Why would anyone fear Russia and Iran when the force that would actually attack Russia and Iran out numbers them by millions, should they even bother to attack NATO or any other allied countries.

The current Government in my opinion should resign. They guaranteed an intervention just a few days ago and they could not fulfill full co-operation within the parliament in order to pass the vote. That made UK look very weak in my opinion.

Made the UK look very weak? If anything it showed how independent the UK is from the US, as alot of people seem to say that the UK follows the US with every turn they make, this is proof that, that is bullshit.

[KhornateMonkey]

The current Government in my opinion should resign. They guaranteed an intervention just a few days ago and they could not fulfill full co-operation within the parliament in order to pass the vote. That made UK look very weak in my opinion.

Britain can stand taller in the world. Setting a good example of democracy and saying after the mistakes of Afghanistan and Iraq, that we are not going to launch ourselves into wars without any endgame and without public support.

Why would anyone fear Russia and Iran when the force that would actually attack Russia and Iran out numbers them by millions, should they even bother to attack NATO or any other allied countries.

There many different things to fear apart from their armies.

[Dolfagr]

I am not saying what the UK parliament voted for is not good, in matter of fact it is a very good example of showing the way so that US can do the same. However the government only a few days ago warned of a military attack and now are backing out. Making promises they cannot fulfill does make UK look weak..

Mikal in all seriousness, only UK and US would be able to face a possible Russian threat. The rest of your NATO allies would still remain neutral to avoid a war with Russia, Iran and China.

[KhornateMonkey]

Making promises they cannot fulfill does make UK look weak..

Our government makes U-Turns all the time, it's common for them to do this

[Mikal]

I am not saying what the UK parliament voted for is not good, in matter of fact it is a very good example of showing the way so that US can do the same. However the government only a few days ago warned of a military attack and now are backing out. Making promises they cannot fulfill does make UK look weak..

Mikal in all seriousness, only UK and US would be able to face a possible Russian threat. The rest of your NATO allies would still remain neutral to avoid a war with Russia, Iran and China.

The UK can fulfill it's threat to Syria, infact it had a submarine with the missiles near by ready to launch, along with it's airbase in Cyprus on high alert, it's only because of the unexpected vote by MP's that the submarine and airbase won't be used, you say only the UK and US could face a possible Russian threat, but you forget that other NATO countries such as France and Germany also have fairly powerful military forces, for example France has an aircraft carrier, where as the UK currently does not (though 2 new aircraft carriers are currently being built for the UK and 1 is due to be completed this year), Germany also has alot of advanced military capabilities, but does seem to try to stay out of warfare however it is likely they would join the UK and US in any war with Russia and Iran, as would other NATO countries, wether they are as powerful as others or not, there would be no point in them being in NATO if they were not going to defend other NATO countries.

But I can't see Russia or Iran attacking either way, too risky for all sides.

Forgot to mention, China is likely not to even intervene in any war between the UK/USA/NATO vs Russia/Iran, after all the US is what keeps China going with all it's imports from China, to lose the US would damage the Chinese economy seriously, well, would damage any future growth anyway.