Russia Warns West Over 'Illegal' Syria Intervention

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Russian foreign minister warns West that military intervention in Syrian conflict without UN Security Council approval would violate international law, as UN inspectors finally arrive at site of last week's suspected chemical weapons attack.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters that the use of military force by the West against Assad's regime without the approval of the UN Security Council "is a very grave violation of international law".

Speaking at a hastily convened news conference, he added that the West was currently moving towards "a very dangerous path, a very slippery path".

His comments came after William Hague today refused to rule out bombing Assad regime targets within days, warning that the Syrian regime could not be allowed to use chemical weapons against its own people “with impunity”, following an alleged attack last week in which at least 355 people were killed and 3,600 injured.

Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.

The British Foreign Secretary said "there is no possible explanation other than that [the alleged chemical attack] has been carried out by the Assad regime". » | Andrew Marszal | Monday, August 26, 2013

Assad Warns Failure Awaits US Military Intervention in Syria

THE GUARDIAN: President says chemical weapons allegations are politically motivated and all US wars since Vietnam have ended badly

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has dismissed as politically motivated western allegations that he used chemical weapons and warned Washington that any US military intervention would fail, in an interview published in a Russian newspaper on Monday.

"Failure awaits the United States as in all previous wars it has unleashed, starting with Vietnam and up to the present day," he told the Izvestia daily when asked what would happen if Washington decided to strike or invade Syria.

Assad said Syrian government forces had been close to where rebel forces say chemical weapons were used last week during the country's more than two-year-old civil war.

"Would any state use chemical or any other weapons of mass destruction in a place where its own forces are concentrated? That would go against elementary logic," Assad told Izvestia, a pro-Kremlin newspaper.

Russia has been Assad's most important international ally throughout the civil war, supplying his troops with arms and resisting pressure at the UN for tighter sanctions on Damascus.

Asked about the arms deliveries, Assad said: "I want to say that all contracts that have been concluded with Russia are being fulfilled." » | Reuters in Moscow | Monday, August 26, 2013

Inside Story: The Price of Intervention [in Syria]

What are the risks, costs and consequences of direct US military involvement in the Syrian conflict?

Related »

Britain Could Intervene Militarily in Syria in Months, UK's Top General Suggests

THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: Britain could intervene militarily in Syria in the next few months, the country’s most senior general has said.

Gen Sir David Richards said there were contingency plans in place for a “very limited” response in the case of a worsening humanitarian situation in Syria.

The admission is the most serious warning yet that Britain is preparing for some sort of military involvement in Syria. In the past week, British policy has moved from admitting that it wanted to help organise the disparate rebel groups to discussing full blown military intervention.

It comes on the eve of a meeting of the National Security Council this week which will be devoted to the Syrian civil war.

In an interview on the Andrew Marr programme on BBC1, General Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, suggested that Britain could intervene militarily this winter when desert temperatures plummet and lives are put at risk.

He said it would be a "huge effort", adding: “The humanitarian situation this winter I think will deteriorate and that may well provoke calls to intervene in a limited way. » | Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent | Sunday, November 11, 2012

My comments:

This is stupid. This is ridiculous. Leave Bashar Al-Assad where he is. Toppling him will lead to another hardline, Islamist state. What idiots we have at the top of our political establishment, what idiots we have at the top of our military. Can't this country keep its bleeding nose out of other people's squabbles for once? Does this little island have to involve itself in every conflict in the world? Let the Saudis sort it out! Let other Muslim nations sort it out! Why the hell should our troops risk life and limb for this non-cause? – © Mark

This comment can also be found here

Gen Sir David Richards has got to be stupid if he is mulling the idea of war in Syria. What does he want to start: the next world war? – © Mark

This comment can also be found here

AGAIN, we are going to do the Saudis' dirty work for them. One can only shake one's head. The British establishment is worse than stupid; it's criminal. We'll send our troops to risk life and limb for a country which finances the jihad against us. How stupid is that? – © Mark

This comment can also be found here