Non footy:... Now I am not taking sides or anything as we only know what...

...we are fed by the media, but:

Hague, Kerry, Cameron etc. seem to be itching to get into Syria. HOWEVER, what I want to know is.....

IF (and it is a very big IF) the chemicals were delivered by heavy artillery, how can it have been the rebels? MY understanding (again from what we have been fed by the media so it may be way off the mark) is that the opposition have NO heavy artillery of their own to speak of otherwise they would have defended themselves using it rather than taking the pastings they have and having to resort to guerrilla tactics. The Govt forces seem to be the only side capable of deploying artillery purported to be the delivery method for the chemical shells.

Alarming though that the opposition have been heavily infiltrated by foreign Jihadist fighters. Could end up with an unstable Syrian state under Taliban/Sharia law if the West go in as well as alienating further Russia, Iran and half the middle eastern states. Besides can we afford another war and have we an army with sufficient morale, backup and resources to engage in such a conflict?

Just asking?

 

My understanding is that they are not going to enter syria but carry out a missile attack against the suspected launch sites

 

The WMD excuse for Iraq is a little to fresh for me to back any kind of military action...humanitarian aid for the refugees yes,
and then keep our noses out.

 

Should keep our ******* beak out of it, for once.

 

It's all a bit scary, and surely the cons of getting involved outweigh any pros. I understand people are suffering - and we should try to help those civilians - but missiles, intervention? It's nothing to do with us and unless the UN decides to intervene we shouldn't even be talking about it.

We don't need to follow the US down any more rabbit holes into unwinnable wars against invisible enemies.