UK to provide armoured vehicles and body armour to Syrian opposition fighters - Polidicks

[quote] [B]The UK is to provide armoured vehicles and body armour to opposition forces in Syria "to help save lives", Foreign Secretary William Hague has said.[/B] It will offer millions of pounds in "non-lethal" equipment, including search and rescue, communications, and disease-prevention materials. Mr Hague said it was a "necessary, proportionate and lawful" response to "extreme human suffering". ... He announced a £13m package of logistical and humanitarian support for areas under opposition control which he said was possible after changes to the terms of the EU's arms embargo were agreed last week. [img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/66231000/jpg/_66231587_syria_refugees_624_6mar.jpg[/img] [/quote] [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21684105]BBC News[/url]

Let's hope this war ends soon.

Good move. Doesn't seem like there could be any diplomatic repercussions, either. Support for Assad seems almost non-existent these days.

If they really wanted to assist them, just give them a few tanks or artillery pieces and teach them how to use it.

Hell yeah, that's my country.

I hope there is no hidden agenda or some kind of ultria motive to doing this

I wonder how many of those refugees will return to Syria once the war is over.

I'd prefer if we just stayed out of middle east all together.

I'm afraid those armored vehicles might be used against us one day.

[QUOTE=TehAgentGuy;39819766]I'm afraid those armored vehicles might be used against us one day.[/QUOTE] They are unarmed vehicles, they can only be used defensively

[QUOTE=smurfy;39819799]They are unarmed vehicles, they can only be used defensively[/QUOTE] Such things cannot be modified?

[QUOTE=smurfy;39819799]They are unarmed vehicles, they can only be used defensively[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39819814]Such things cannot be modified?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1wSAzzalwXc/TXUZ3FUOU7I/AAAAAAAAAJc/Wo28OayXrbo/s1600/Technical2.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=smurfy;39819799]They are unarmed vehicles, they can only be used defensively[/QUOTE] When they are carrying a bunch of soldiers towards your own men they are being used defensively? Even forgetting that, as people said they can be modified but you can even have them modified professionally to have modern weapon systems on them rather than mad max style modifications.

[QUOTE=Scrappa;39819907]When they are carrying a bunch of soldiers towards your own men they are being used defensively? Even forgetting that, as people said they can be modified but you can even have them modified professionally to have modern weapon systems on them rather than mad max style modifications.[/QUOTE] I think it's very cynical to think that as soon as Syria sorts itself out they'll start attempting to take on the rest of the world as well.

[QUOTE=Scrappa;39819907]When they are carrying a bunch of soldiers towards your own men they are being used defensively? Even forgetting that, as people said they can be modified but you can even have them modified professionally to have modern weapon systems on them rather than mad max style modifications.[/QUOTE] But Mad Max style modifications are kickin' rad. :(

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;39819915]I think it's very cynical to think that as soon as Syria sorts itself out they'll start attempting to take on the rest of the world as well.[/QUOTE] There is a strong Islamist presence within the rebel forces. It's not dominant, but the idea isn't all that far out as people think, sadly.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39819932]There is a strong Islamist presence within the rebel forces. It's not dominant, but the idea isn't all that far out as people think, sadly.[/QUOTE] They're the front line forces essentially. They fight the most battles, and capture the most weaponry.

This isn't exactly good. I don't support the SAA or the FSA. On one side it's a holy war, and on the other it's assholes who shoot anyone and don't care. I hope it doesn't come around to bite them in the ass.

We don't have money they said. Have to cut back on things they said. But we suddenly can afford to send armored vehicles and body armor to a rebellion.

EDIT [QUOTE=Scrimp;39819737]I'd prefer if we just stayed out of middle east all together.[/QUOTE] That may have been good idea in the early days but I feel maybe too much involvement in the middle east in the past means we cant just ignore them as more and more problems are going to creep up. I guess we didn't get involved in early days of the revolution was because the war could have swung either way, now that the Syrian army is losing I guess its good to arm the rebels so they think of us as allies when they become a new nation.

[QUOTE=dunkace;39820159]We don't have money they said. Have to cut back on things they said. But we suddenly can afford to send armored vehicles and body armor to a rebellion.[/QUOTE] The equipment may be surplus or older models that are out of date for the UK but not for the rebels. Depends on what exactly is being given.

Arming another Taliban, right. As if Libya with radicals seizing everything after the revolution wasn't good indicator. Seriously, it's "get involved from the beginning, before radicals rise their heads" or "invade the country and enforce order". There's always "stay as far away as possible" option, but that's not really an option for countries that are close to the conflict zone. [editline]6th March 2013[/editline] [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/06/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE92516Q20130306]Pffft[/url]

[QUOTE=gudman;39821161]Arming another Taliban, right. As if Libya with radicals seizing everything after the revolution wasn't good indicator. Seriously, it's "get involved from the beginning, before radicals rise their heads" or "invade the country and enforce order". There's always "stay as far away as possible" option, but that's not really an option for countries that are close to the conflict zone. [/QUOTE] Then why doesn't Jordan and Turkey send the rebels stuff to fight with?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39821204]Then why doesn't Jordan and Turkey send the rebels stuff to fight with?[/QUOTE] My take is that they're too afraid of UN's reaction to intervene without any sanctions. Don't know much about Jordan tbh, but from what I know, Turkey struggled to have good relations with European contries for quite some time to risk throwing it out the window. After that shelling of Turkey's border I was surprised that their army wasn't already there.

Good, now they can keep their UN peacekeeper hostages safe in a APC.

They should send aid to civilians, regardless of which side they're on, and none to fighters, regardless of which side they're on.

[QUOTE=gudman;39821317]My take is that they're too afraid of UN's reaction to intervene without any sanctions. Don't know much about Jordan tbh, but from what I know, Turkey struggled to have good relations with European contries for quite some time to risk throwing it out the window. After that shelling of Turkey's border I was surprised that their army wasn't already there.[/QUOTE] If the UK is sending arms, I'm sure they'll approve of Turkey doing the same then without pissing off Europe.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39821455]If the UK is sending arms, I'm sure they'll approve of Turkey doing the same then without pissing off Europe.[/QUOTE] Well I believe sending these "supplies" wasn't UK's sole decision, there must've been some consults in the UN about this. Now that one agreement or another is reached, maybe Turkey will send something too. If it won't get cancelled because of this insane hostage situation going on. Or Turkey is considerate and takes into account that the very arms they'll send may end up used against them. In any case, tough decision that one is.