You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Surely after todays events international action needed? Diplomacy doesn't seem to working...
Assad regime needs to go....
Diplomacy doesn't seem to working...
But Saudi Arabia supplying the rebels with arms has kept the conflict going.
with Russia looking over the wall, the yanks wont flex their biceps.
A year ago today...
What International type Action would you propose?
Fwiw I don't really have a clue what could or should be done, If the Brits were to send any military type assistance would you be willing to join the expedition?
If the Brits were to send any military type assistance would you be willing to join the expedition?
Can't argue with that logic...
with Russia looking over the wall, the yanks wont flex their biceps.
Didn't stop them in the former Yugoslavia.
I don't think a bombing campaign is entirely out of question imo.
I think a bombing campaign is entirely out of question. The West now realises that the rebels are worse and less reliable than Assad.
[i]The Obama administration is opposed to even limited US military intervention in Syria because it believes the rebels fighting the Assad regime wouldn’t support American interests if they were to seize power right now, according to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Effectively ruling out US cruise missile attacks and other options that wouldn’t require US troops on the ground, General Martin Dempsey said in a letter to a congressman that the military is clearly capable of taking out President Assad’s air force and shifting the balance of the Arab country’s two-and-a-half year war back towards the opposition.
But he said such an approach would plunge the US deep into another war in the Arab world and offer no strategy for peace in a nation plagued by ethnic rivalries.
“Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides,” General Dempsey said in the 19 August letter to Eliot Engel. “The side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours... Today, they are not.” [/i]
The West's strategy appears to be to maintain arm supplies to the rebels through thoroughly undemocratic despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia so that Syrians can carry on killing each other indefinitely without one side winning outright.
Crazy to arm the rebels, it'll be the hard line Islamists who end up profiting in the end. Better the devil you know in Assad, **** or not.
See the middle east - nuke it - all of it.
See the middle east - nuke it - all of it.
But, where will I get my tahini from?
See the middle east - nuke it - all of it.
It was generally fine apart from small scuffles till we/the western nations decided to get involved regarding oil/territorial pissing disputes, been to Afghanistan/****stan/Indian kashmir, (along wi Morocco, Turkey) - not been to Iran or syria yet but iran will be on the cards at some point. Very nice people, shame about the idiots we funded or placed in power all those years ago that have led us to where we are today.
You could just as easily say [i]See the meddling war mongering USA and it's overseas policy? - nuke it - all of it[/i] and be just as wrong, there's decent folk everywhere you look,
You could just as easily say See the meddling war mongering USA and it's overseas policy? - nuke it - all of it and be just as wrong, there's decent folk everywhere you look,
I went for a more realistic option. 😉
See the middle east - nuke it - all of it.
I like it, could we include north and north east Africa, none of it would be missed bar the oil.
The news tonight was truly awful to watch!
been to Afghanistan/****stan/Indian kashmir, (along wi Morocco, Turkey) - not been to Iran or syria yet but iran will be on the cards at some point. Very nice people, shame about the idiots we funded or placed in power all those years ago that have led us to where we are today.
Lose the penis, go back and get back to me on that.
But yes we did screw it up but when you actually read the history books it seems to be a case of more than it already was, there are nice people everywhere and the level of dehumanization some people show is astounding. But I still don't care much for the culture though.
But yes we did screw it up but when you actually read the history books it seems to be a case of more than it already was
I guess it depends on what "history books" you read. How, for example, was Iran 'already screwed' when we helped overthrow its democratically elected government and installed a brutal Western friendly dictatorship ?
Start here for a slightly less simplistic outlook.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations#Shia.E2.80.93Sunni_in_Iraq
Your narrative of "it's entirely the wests fault" doesn't really chime with things like Iran and Iraq blowing the **** out of each other in one of the bloodiest wars since the end of vietnam.
Divide and conquer is all to easy when all you have to do is supply arms (which fuels your countries industry and economy), stir tensions and sit back, all the while applying a fake veneer of concern... welcome to western politics and the easy route to cheap resources.
because it's worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Action needed yes, proper plan needed harder to find.
A UN Backed peace keeping force makes sense but Assad would probably take that as an invasion and then things get worse.
To be honest, the misanthrope in me says if people are making money off the fact that idiots are willing to kill each other over hadith then fair play to them.
Darwin Awards etc.
Tom_W1987 - MemberYour narrative of "it's entirely the wests fault" doesn't really chime with things like Iran and Iraq blowing the **** out of each other in one of the bloodiest wars since the end of vietnam.
Yeah but you made that up .... "it's entirely the wests fault" isn't my narrative.
And actually your example of the Iraq Iran War is an excellent example of how the West interfered and encouraged war and conflict. And of course supplied weapons to both sides.
Still, you're apparently happy [i]"if people are making money off the fact that idiots are willing to kill each other"[/i] so we'll say no more.
And actually your example of the Iraq Iran War is an excellent example of how the West interfered and encouraged war and conflict. And of course supplied weapons to both sides.
I believe Russia supplied arms as well. Without western arms and without the Iranian revolution they would have still found a reason and means to kill each other on an industrial scale.
Yeah but you made that up .... "it's entirely the wests fault" isn't my narrative.
That's what you implied by trotting out the old Iran coup line. Yes it was deplorable, no it doesn't excuse the middle east from sorting it's problems out instead of continually blaming them on external conspiracies.
Right....i've lost the penis, or at least most of it.....quite a messy business considering all i had was a can opener and a plastic fork but job done none the less.
Ahhh damn.....just remembered......apologies tom but i'll have to excuse myself as i forgot i have a very rational refusal to get drawn into back n' forward debates on web forums, i'm more of a drone poster...i fly high n' silent and drop my point of view from a great height then buggeroff and go do something else as my attention span for engaging in such a pointless exercise is rather short lived.
....now....what did i do with my bell-end?.............
Why would the west want to stop this, the longer it goes on the more fanatics die that would otherwise be targeting western/US interests (Al Qaeda one one side, Hezbollah on the other).
The Russian and Chinese also don't want an end because its there weapons being used by most of the warring parties and hey, it just doesn't affect them at home and although they may not get cash at the moment I am sure they are making deals to get paid some how.
Lets not also forget that Russia has its big Mediterranean navy base there and is in no mood to loose that, whilst the NATO allies would no doubt like it gone (it would probably just go to Cyprus anyway!).
I feel sorry for the vast majority of Syrians who I expect don't want anything to to do with this bollox.
Its awfull whats happening and no matter how much we want to help im sure no matter what we do it will get worse and be our fault.
I for one am not willing to go to syria on the whim of our government wanting to be seen to do something and not knowing what to do beyond throw more weapons at it.
Why would the west want to stop this, the longer it goes on the more fanatics die that would otherwise be targeting western/US interests (Al Qaeda one one side, Hezbollah on the other).
Putty much my take on it, no one able to make a deciding blow seems bothered enough to do so.
Yeah but you made that up .... "it's entirely the wests fault" isn't my narrative.
And it shouldn't be, in person most folk are fine and decent people. Arrange them into a state, and they turn into asshats on a regular basis. The Armenian Genocide springs to mind. And the Ottomans and Persians managed 12 wars between 1514 and 1823 just between each other.
I take it the people happily saying just let em fight it out havent seen the videos of civilians (a large number of children) affected by the this latest alleged assad chemical attacks
its not pleasant
and thats not as grim as the one I caught a glimpse of on newsnight last night
What do you propose?
The footage on the news was pretty awful, I'm not going to watch them. If the UN will not act, which it wont, its hard to see what can be done. Some of the comments on this thread are, at best, distasteful.
That's what you implied by trotting out the old Iran coup line.
I don't need to imply anything, I'm perfectly capable of saying precisely what I mean. If I believed that "it's entirely the wests fault" then I would say so, I don't need you to put words into my mouth.
And "the old Iran coup line" is a fact - Britain was actively involved in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a brutal Western friendly dictatorship.
I see no point in pretending it didn't happen or that it didn't help to shape the situation which exists today.
Still, I don't suppose any of that will impress someone who is so callous and lacks the intellectual tools to formulate an intelligent argument that they have to rely on cretinous comments such as this :
Tom_W1987 - MemberTo be honest, the misanthrope in me says if people are making money off the fact that idiots are willing to kill each other over hadith then fair play to them.
Darwin Awards etc.
piemonster - Member
What do you propose?
at the very least a no fly zone
however russia is the problem there
anything must come with an earnest effort to offer assad a peacfull exit
It really is a lose-lose situation, do nothing and the atrocities continue, intervene and you'll likely create a failed state where there will still be plenty of conflict and atrocities (the rebels are far from united). At least doing the former doesn't cost money and US/UK soldier's lives.
The record of the West's dealings with the Middle East...this must be approaching an all time low...can it get any worse? As long as there is money on the table for the defense industry to sell more weapons, yep, it can.
So we offer Assad a peaceful exit then what? Look at the mess in Egypt for an indication of what would follow and the last thing we want are people like the Muslim Brotherhood to gain more ground in the region. I don't know the answer but a kind of feel like we would have been better to have left these dictators in place as unpleasant as they are, instead of trying to directly overthrow them or, as we've done more recently, engineer internal uprisings when there is no political infrastructure in place. Definitely a case of better the devil you know. Unfortunately in Syria it's too late and we have more brutal bloodshed to come whatever happens to Assad.
In among all the really serious stuff here, this made me LOL:
Ahhh damn.....just remembered......apologies tom but i'll have to excuse myself as i forgot i have a very rational refusal to get drawn into back n' forward debates on web forums, i'm more of a drone poster...i fly high n' silent and drop my point of view from a great height then buggeroff and go do something else as my attention span for engaging in such a pointless exercise is rather short lived.
Thank you, Soma! 😆
I don't need to imply anything, I'm perfectly capable of saying precisely what I mean. If I believed that "it's entirely the wests fault" then I would say so, I don't need you to put words into my mouth.And "the old Iran coup line" is a fact - Britain was actively involved in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a brutal Western friendly dictatorship.
I see no point in pretending it didn't happen or that it didn't help to shape the situation which exists today.
Still, I don't suppose any of that will impress someone who is so callous and lacks the intellectual tools to formulate an intelligent argument that they have to rely on cretinous comments such as this :
Apart from quoting the Iranian coup, did you formulate an argument that challenged my position that we just screwed up the middle east more than it already was. No, you attempted to make a smart alec reply with possibly the oldest single liner when it comes to middle eastern problems. My original "narrative" post was mostly aimed at somafunk, unfortunately as I was tired that wasn't clear.
I'll post a video for you though because a subtle and in depth response to such childish attempts at winning an argument, with some of my own opinions... would be lost on you.
The West is being nosey again at the affairs of others as usual. 🙄
I would encourage the Western superpowers to involve then invite the opposing superpowers to do so too (be fair) but most importantly they should nuke each other by proxy big time.
Then out of sympathy the West & EU should open the door to free immigration from all over (world) and stop your Jibba Jabba about not allowing free immigration ... there, there ... you have now achieve sainthood.
My sympathy to the innocence and may they rest in peace. You are now free from this maggot infested world.
Apart from quoting the Iranian coup, did you formulate an argument that challenged my position that we just screwed up the middle east more than it already was. No, you attempted to make a smart alec reply with possibly the oldest single liner when it comes to middle eastern problems. My original "narrative" post was mostly aimed at somafunk, unfortunately as I was tired that wasn't clear.
What "smart alec reply with possibly the oldest single liner" ? What a bizarre thing to say.
I gave the example of Britain's involvement in overthrowing the democratically elected government in Iran and establishing a brutal dictatorship in its place, because it provides an excellent example of Western interference and the negative consequences it's had.
And btw its news, this "oldest single liner". Only 4 days ago the United States acknowledged its role in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran :
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23762970 ]CIA documents acknowledge its role in Iran's 1953 coup[/url]
And incidentally why are you talking about "the middle east" ? somafunk comment referred to a range of countries from Morocco to Afghanistan, you do realise that the Middle East doesn't mean Morocco and Afghanistan, don't you ?
I'd worry less about a nations asshat behaviour 60 years ago, and worry more about its asshat behaviour today.
Otherwise you'll be permanently enraged by every nation 100% of the time. I'm struggling to think of a nation/people that hasn't behaved like complete gits at one time or another.
There's no need to be "enraged" piemonster. Recognise past mistakes, learn from them, and don't repeat them. It can all be done in a calm and level-headed manner.
I find it all a bit ironic when the west (UK in particular) protests and becomes precious when the pupil heeds the lessons of its teacher, and then emulates its behaviour.
[url= http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html ][/url]
@piemonster - it would be good if we could focus just on the issue at hand but when there are people who either remember first hand, or whose parents were subjected to this treatment, it has direct relevance to what is happening today across a large area.
There's no need to be "enraged" piemonster. Recognise past mistakes, learn from them, and don't repeat them. It can all be done in a calm and level-headed manner.
Very noble Ernie, but as you know those in power learn that there is too much money and influence to be acquired to be worrying about the messy consequences for others to clear up.
As they say, "protecting our interests", what group of individuals interests in the west are they protecting? 😉
People seldom do what they claim to believe in, the do what is convenient for them and "may" repent later.
I thought this article was a pretty good summary of the current position:
39838/andrew-j-tabler/the-day-after-assad-wins
From Foreign Affairs.
[url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Near_East ]Since the year dot....[/url]
It's not like they haven't got form....blaming western powers is simplistic and a western-centric view
The record of the West's dealings with the Middle East...this must be approaching an all time low...
Well, there were the Crusades. And the Napoleonic wars. And the general nastiness during WWI and WWII. On the other hand, the Ottomans weren't particularly nice to the Greeks, and the medieval islamic armies invading Europe probably weren't all that pleasant, either.
So no, I don't think this is an all time low. Pretty much normal behaviour, if history is anything to go by.
It's just that during our interaction with them we showed them some nice shiny new and more effective toys with which to wage their wars on one another.
Harder to create carnage with swords than with Ricin and nuclear weapons.
nickc i think youll find that beating the crap out of each other has been going on everywhere since the first human picked up a stick
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe[/url]
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England[/url]
its only fair to mention that the middle east was also the birthplace of... farming, writing, metullurgy, mathematics, science, cities, animal breeding etc etc
Kimbers, good point, well made. 🙂
My point, badly made is that whilst a certain level of blame can be rightly placed at the feet of western govts ( especially post 1918 and the discovery of oil, there are also centuries old enmities that stoke the fires of conflict in this region. To label everything from Tunisia eastwards as "imperialist western influences" is simplistic
its only fair to mention that the middle east was also the birthplace of... farming, writing, metullurgy, mathematics, science, cities, animal breeding etc etc
Is that actually true, I doubt all of them?
Regardless of the past involvements.
Start new ... Stop intervening in other countries' affairs or you will get plenty of headache later on.
You simply cannot tell others how to leave their lives.
The West never gets the message ... never.
Stop bothering on others' affairs! Simple.
🙄
well farming has been shown to have started elsewhere about the same time although many of our present crops and famred animals can all be traced back genetically to the fertile cresent
the earliest writing discovered has come from meopotamia
as Uruk the first city again from Iraq (mesopotamia)
and again the earliest worked metal was copper from Iraq
its arguable that a lot of developments occured in prallel in different points around the world but as the middle east is the first step out of africa its logical that a lot of '1sts' occured there as the new environment created new challenges and spurred on advances
kimbers - Member... its arguable that[b] a lot of developments occured in prallel in different points around the world[/b] ...
I bet that is the case ... 😀
The West and EU were still cavemen like in those days ... 😆
Every other secret service thriller story seems to have assasins for hire at every turn. Can't governments just use these to take out the problem leaders, that way the ordinary folk can get on with their lives.
nick1962 - MemberEvery other secret service thriller story seems to have assasins for hire at every turn. Can't governments just use these to take out the problem leaders, that way the ordinary folk can get on with their lives.
Yaaaa ... but then they can't claim the credit for being shaddy but I still like that idea because that will be fun to see them having no private life. Yes, it will be fun to see Western/EU/Other Leaders get assassinated on telly all the time. Make them work for their money/career as politician.
I think a bombing campaign is entirely out of question. The West now realises that the rebels are worse and less reliable than Assad.
I just had a lolz
I knew this was going to happen from the backroom conversations and gossip being had between political advisers I know.
Maybe I should have taken a bet out at Ladbrokes.
Great, just great - isn't this all we need right now - getting ourselves involved in yet another pointless war we can ill afford with no likely good outcome either way.
Yes the scenes in Syria are terrible beyond belief, but what right have we to meddle when history has proved that the likelyhood is that we will just make things worse through our misguided actions. Wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan etc have all been pretty much a disaster thanks to our UK/US military intervention. In particular how hypocritical is it of the US to decry the use of chemical weapons in Syria when the US developed and relied heavily on chemical weapons during their own Vietnam campaign.
Diplomacy is the only way forward, not military action. Bombing Syria or sending in the troops makes us just as bad as those fighting in the first place.
When oh when will we finally learn our lesson not to stick ourselves into other peoples business where we're not needed or wanted.
chemical weapons
Technically agent orange wasn't really a primary chemical weapon. It was a herbicide designed to break down foliage and make things such as the killing of vietcong with gunships somewhat easier.
It did however have the unintended and covered up side effect of being toxic to...well just about anything that lives being a teratogen/carcinogen..... causing all sorts of long term effects. That's quite different from say the US deciding to drop Sarin gas all over Hanoi.
The rest I agree with, part of the reason why Ernie disagreed with me on the possibility of a bombing campaign is that I never underestimate the extraordinary depths of human idiocy.
I'd like to add that it will probably turn out to be the rebels who used the stuff. I bet we won't bomb them though? In case we anger the extremist types. I have a gut feeling this is about appeasing islamists, to show them that the west isn't always out to **** them by doing things like taking East Timor off them. Geopolitically that's all we have to gain from a limited intervention, that and Mrs Cameron being able to sleep soundly because "some Syrian children have been saved by my husband".
If I was feeling really, really cynical I'd say Obama and Cameron have dragged us into this because some Syrian lady on Newsnight called them weak. Can't have people questioning their masculinity now can we?
Quosh to bits that hitler **** killing his own people to death with chemical weapons... yeah, I'll go with that, if you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, y'know, before sending in what will be Massive bombardment that will possibly kill even more innocent kids. Prove to me beyond a shadow of adoubt that it will be a legitimate and internatinally snctioned and legal intervention and I'll be ok with it.
Sigh....
I prefer to take a more simplistic view of the situation.
If the Syrian forces are using chemical weapons on its civilian population isnt it right that the international community act?
If the British government used the army and turned on the electorate i would want/expect other countries to come to my aid.
Obviously try diplomacy first....but if that fails then depose the current leader, castrate their military and see what happens....the repurcussions arent always pretty but if humanity spent the entire time worrying about the consequences of actions then nothing would ever get beyond the talking stage.
If the British government used the army and turned on the electorate i would want/expect other countries to come to my aid.
Depends who the good guys are. Your relying on those trying to other throw the government being the good guys.
They may well be, they also may well prove just as bad. Do you trust the UK government to pick the good guys and not just the guys likely to make money and/or provide a strategic ally?
I doubt very much that the UK will go into this without the view of getting long term economic or strategic gains from this.
Am I alone in not "getting" the chemical weapons bit? Of course, that is a terrible thing to do and cannot be condoned. But the terrible bit is killing your own people (or killing anyone for that matter). Is there really a red line between bombing or blowing up someone's appartment, shooting them in cold blood in their street, air strikes, summary executions and the use of a gas or some other toxin. In the end, the result is the same....murder. And that is abhorrent. The method is secondary....are we to accept cold blooded murder in the form of a sniper bullet?
A drone or a missile from a far off sub is a remarkably cowardly (if sensible) method of killing others. Should we condemn that method of murder in the same way.
To be clear, I am not condoning the use of chemicals in any way. Nor am I in favour of our military intervention. But I just fail to see why such a distinct line is made between different forms of appaling acts. Why is one method of inlicting horror more or less acceptable morally?
Am I alone in not "getting" the chemical weapons bit?
No. It doesn't take much imagination and an unfiltered image search to know there are many horrible ways to kill
A drone or a missile from a far off sub is a remarkably cowardly (if sensible) method of killing others. Should we condemn that method of murder in the same way.
Yes
But I just fail to see why such a distinct line is made between different forms of appaling acts. Why is one method of inlicting horror more or less acceptable morally?
I don't know this for certain. But I feel it's being used to provide the political excuse for intervention rather than genuine government level concern.
Indeed piemonster and that is a terrible mistake IMO
I think a bombing campaign is entirely out of question. The West now realises that the rebels are worse and less reliable than Assad.I just had a lolz
Well I was of course referring to a "bombing campaign" simular to the one carried out in Libya which was maintained until the rebels had achieved victory. The US has made it clear that such a bombing campaign would be out of the question as they now consider that the rebels are worse, or at least no better, than Assad.
To be fair I did not consider the possibility of "punitive" strikes which will have no strategic value. The suggestion is that the strikes will probably not even last days but merely last hours, not so much of a campaign then.
Other than killing some people and shifting the momentum slightly away from the Syrian government, but not enough to give the rebels a significant boost to achieve victory, I can't see how it will make any difference other than maintaining a stalemate.
And so a conflict which has tragically already cost 100,000 lives will trundle on and more people will die.
Meanwhile the US, the UK, France, and Israel, will have the satisfying spectacle of watching Hezbollah killing Al-Qaeda, vice versa, and Al-Qaeda attacking a regime which stubbornly refuses to serve US/zionist interests. Although this will almost certainly have long term negative consequences for the West, as past history has a tendency to prove.
I whole heartily agree with THM’s views of questioning the so called red line of chemical weapons ...
How about Eygpt and the double standards for our supposed “moral obligation” ??
But hey… if you need to use the Suez canal you turn a blind eye to a military coup that wasn’t a military coup 🙄
Personally, I think this situation is a strong argument for a unified European Armed Force, both in terms of the collective decision making and in terms of spreading the liability and responsibility more broadly. Ideally I would prefer a UN military force with a clear mandate and no national strictures. Pigs might fly and all that, but when did we/the US get elected as the worlds Police Force? Frankly this sticking our noses into other peoples business is getting a bit tedious.
In addition to all of that we've just cut the bejesus out of the armed forces. How the hell can they be expected to take on yet another ridiculous and unenforcable policing action with both hands tied to one foot yet again??? I do wonder what our reaction would have been had Libiya or someone interfered in Northern Ireland........ oh yeah 😳
when did we/the US get elected as the worlds Police Force?
1991 is my suggestion
hhhmmm ... Russia and China should flex their muscles now or at least use some of their "hi-tech" weapons by shooting down few drones or perhaps few of the fighter jets. Better still start a drone war or sink a few aircraft carrier or nuke sub.
The news channels better be there to capture the live footage of down drones or jets as I am fed up with both sides pussy footing and pumping out hot air. I want to watch news channel repeated show down jet like those in the Falkland war. I remember watching Skyhawks on the telly being down by SAM or perhaps Harrier jump jet.
Obviously, news from the West are always supporting the one sided DEMONcratic views and we really do not know the story from the other side.
Therefore, the should be a gung-ho approach and get it over and done with ... winner(s) take all.
As for the innocence may you rest in peace away from this maggot infested world.
Stop bothering on others' affairs! Simple.
I don't think it's that simple. Can you really stand by and watch children being gassed without wanting to do anything?
Molly. Decisions like this can't be taken on an emotional Knee-jerk 'will somebody not think of the children!' basis
As ultimately, the amount of children killed in the gas attacks will no doubt pale into insignificance next to the amount that'll die initially through misdirected cruise missiles, then because of the resulting escalating and widening of the conflict as the fallout spills out across the region.
You need to ask 'what can we do to prevent more children dying?'. I don't know the answer. Maybe the answer is actually 'not much'! I suspect it is. But, of course, that would mean admitting our impotence. So lets launch a shit load of cruise missiles, and a few waves of air strikes instead. Thats bound to help
Does anyone other that is actually going to reduce the numbers of children killed? Seriously?
molgrips - MemberStop bothering on others' affairs! Simple.
I don't think it's that simple. Can you really stand by and watch children being gassed without wanting to do anything?
May the innocence rest in peace.
Doing something means you now get their chance to do the same to the opposing side's children. Now is your chance to kill their children.
I am sure innocence will die to on the opposing side if you go for the full scale retaliation. Can you do that? Or perhaps you think that your intelligent bullets / gas will avoid killing innocence children on the opposing side? HHhhmmmm ...?
Stop being nosey as that is their internal problem, also bear in mind that Assad has not encroached on others' territory.
🙄
I notice in todays papers that the weapons porn has been embraced in the usual earnest by the media, gearing up to get to show some big explosions. Phwooooar eh?
I don't think it's that simple. Can you really stand by and watch children being gassed without wanting to do anything?
nope its ****ing abhorrent
theres a simple fix a WEEKS warning to get out of dodge ,women peacelovers and innocents
warmongers remain if you wish ,warmongers verging on cowards hide where you need to to be hunted down later
Innitiate blanket bombing of country
Does anyone other that is actually going to reduce the numbers of children killed?
Well you have hit the nail on the head (for a change 🙂 ). The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. People in power do try to do the right thing, problem is that they usually fail.
Doing something means you now get their chance to do the same to the opposing side's children.
I'm almost certain that any Western intervention will not involve gassing civilians indiscriminately.
Let's put it another way. If you saw a woman or a child being beaten up in the street, would you do nothing? It's not your problem, after all.
[quote=molgrips ]
I'm almost certain that any Western intervention will not involve gassing civilians indiscriminately.
You're right. We have [i]much[/i] more civilized ways of inflicting civilian casualties.
I'm almost certain that any Western intervention will [s]not involve gassing civilians indiscriminately[/s] be inline with the geneva convention or not outlawed by the UN
People in power do try to do the right thing
😯 what, always?
My opinion of most politicians is not high at the best of times, but this build up to intervention in Syria makes me especially sad and angry. Basic questions unanswered and the BS that is the idea of limited surgical strikes. Yea right?!? For the first time ever I felt compelled to write to my MP to highlight my concerns and the fact that my vote next time will depend on what she says and does tomorrow. Cameron has already gone so/too far that I expect that tomorrow is little more than a rubbing stamping exercise. They should be ashamed.