So, this Syria thing...

[roydo]

Just shows the mess Blair/Bush created 10 years ago doesnt it? If they were straight back then, we would not be so cynical about what we are told now. I never trusted Blair, even before he was PM, but I remember when he delivered the now infamous "45 minutes" speech saying to Mrs R that no British PM would take us to war unless he was 100% sure. In other words, the office of PM should be believed on such a grave issue.

Now look at it.

 

[Tubey]

Untrue, we're endorsing the need to be rigorous because those politicians lied through their blood stained teeth over dodgy dossiers and WMD.

Yeah but come on, this is a bit different. I was against Iraq from the get go for those very reasons, but this is... well, obvious. Evidence coming from non-executive sources.

The truth is that politicians and the public have no appetite for any warlike action, regardless of whether it's blatantly justified.

The west has been stung too often by too many mistakes, and now - the one occasion where it's clear what we should do - we're turning a blind eye to it.

Shame.

 

[davek]

Have I missed the part where Kerry denounces the military coup leaders in Egypt shooting dead thousands of Egyptian civilians when he was talking about needing to stand tall and act when butchery is committed?

Or maybe the deaths from that massacre were less important?

 

[Tubey]

Have I missed the part where Kerry denounces the military coup leaders in Egypt shooting dead thousands of Egyptian civilians when he was talking about needing to stand tall and act when butchery is committed?

Or maybe the deaths from that massacre were less important?

Domestic matter requiring no western involvement whatsoever - chemical weapons are a completely different taboo.

We can act here without involving ourselves in the civil war in Syria.

 

[davek]

Yeah but come on, this is a bit different. I was against Iraq from the get go for those very reasons, but this is... well, obvious. Evidence coming from non-executive sources.

The truth is that politicians and the public have no appetite for any warlike action, regardless of whether it's blatantly justified.

The west has been stung too often by too many mistakes, and now - the one occasion where it's clear what we should do - we're turning a blind eye to it.

Shame.

No one knows who did what - that's why there's an investigation. You really think elements of Al Qaeda wouldn't use chemical weapons indiscriminately?

 

[davek]

Domestic matter requiring no western involvement whatsoever - chemical weapons are a completely different taboo.

We can act here without involving ourselves in the civil war in Syria.

Domestic matter? They overthrew a democratically elected government...that makes it international requiring international sanctions.

 

[Allezfan]

Sort of... But he's right too. We're endorsing chemical weapons via silence, there's no denying that.

I don't see what the problem with that is, though.

There's this utter myth about warfare that runs through all our fiction and all our politics that there is good guys and bad guys in warfare. And you can march in, kill the bad guys and improve the situation.

And you just can't. A humanistic war is an oxymoron. This superhero myth of flying in, hitting assadd and then flying back out to the sound of cheers is pure fiction. Wars are expensive, messy, bloody, create problems and aren't over til generations after the fighting stops.

I'm not a pacifist by any means (I'm probably the only person left in this country to still think we were right to get involved in afghanistan and iraq) but sensible countries don't fight a war over idealistic purposes. You only fight a war if it improves your countries security and this doesn't.

You went us to police the world then after syria we'll have to hit burma and north korea and somalia and uganda and the congo and everywhere else where people are being killed in their thousands.

Western meddling is not the answer to every problem. Soemtimes we should just let the bastards kill each other because frnakly it ain't our buisness to get involved and we have better things to spend the money on.

 

[Tubey]

Domestic matter? They overthrew a democratically elected government...that makes it international requiring international sanctions.

Perhaps, but no reason for military action. We've been sanctioning Zimbabwe for years but there's no reason to get involved in their domestic matters.

There's levels of involvement. You'd get absolutely zero support for military intervention in Egypt as it's quite clearly a conflict between two very defined sides. The problem with Syria is solely the presence of chemical weaponry.

 

[Tubey]

I don't see what the problem with that is, though.

There's this utter myth about warfare that runs through all our fiction and all our politics that there is good guys and bad guys in warfare. And you can march in, kill the bad guys and improve the situation.

And you just can't. A humanistic war is an oxymoron. This superhero myth of flying in, hitting assadd and then flying back out to the sound of cheers is pure fiction. Wars are expensive, messy, bloody, create problems and aren't over til generations after the fighting stops.

I'm not a pacifist by any means (I'm probably the only person left in this country to still think we were right to get involved in afghanistan and iraq) but sensible countries don't fight a war over idealistic purposes. You only fight a war if it improves your countries security and this doesn't.

You went us to police the world then after syria we'll have to hit burma and north korea and somalia and uganda and the congo and everywhere else where people are being killed in their thousands.

Western meddling is not the answer to every problem. Soemtimes we should just let the bastards kill each other because frnakly it ain't our buisness to get involved and we have better things to spend the money on.

Here's the thing though, I don't support a war against Syria. Nobody would. But there has to be a smacked arse for Assad as a consequence for using chemical weaponry. Cruise missiles, drone strikes etc. It actually doesn't matter if they're successful or not, it's solely the message it sends.

The term "red line" is a perfect metaphor. I couldn't care less if Assad went around gunning the rebels down, nothing to do with us, but in the longer term it's critical for the bigger nations to smack down any prospect of smaller nations going on a rampage with chemical weaponry and dirty nuclear bombs.

 

[Muggins]

Anyone got any interesting ideas how to solve the issues in Syria??

 

[Tubey]

Anyone got any interesting ideas how to solve the issues in Syria??

Free lollipops mate.

 

[roydo]

Anyone got any interesting ideas how to solve the issues in Syria??

Let them host the World Cup?

 

[Allezfan]

Here's the thing though, I don't support a war against Syria. Nobody would. But there has to be a smacked arse for Assad as a consequence for using chemical weaponry. Cruise missiles, drone strikes etc. It actually doesn't matter if they're successful or not, it's solely the message it sends.

The term "red line" is a perfect metaphor. I couldn't care less if Assad went around gunning the rebels down, nothing to do with us, but in the longer term it's critical for the bigger nations to smack down any prospect of smaller nations going on a rampage with chemical weaponry and dirty nuclear bombs.

I don't see the big deal, if I'm honest.

Nerve agents are no more effective at killing people then plenty of other weapons. Why does it matter what way they kill these guys?

 

[Tubey]

I don't see the big deal, if I'm honest.

Nerve agents are no more effective at killing people then plenty of other weapons. Why does it matter what way they kill these guys?

It's a taboo and an indiscriminate way of murdering people, but in essence you're right - it's not much worse than napalm, for example. For me, it's part of a bigger reason though.

There are potential rogue nations who can threaten world security if they thought there was no chance of being stamped on by the USA - Iran, North Korea etc.

If we let Syria off with using chemical weaponry, it's one short bounce away from turning a blind eye to enriched uranium weaponry. That isn't really hyperbole either, the rhetoric from these nations cannot be laughed off.

 

[Allezfan]

It's a taboo and an indiscriminate way of murdering people, but in essence you're right - it's not much worse than napalm, for example. For me, it's part of a bigger reason though.

There are potential rogue nations who can threaten world security if they thought there was no chance of being stamped on by the USA - Iran, North Korea etc.

If we let Syria off with using chemical weaponry, it's one short bounce away from turning a blind eye to enriched uranium weaponry. That isn't really hyperbole either, the rhetoric from these nations cannot be laughed off.

I think iran and north kroea will get a nuclear arsenal no matter what happens in syria. It won't effect their policy on it, at all.

Their governments need nucleur weapons.