So, this Syria thing...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glad we look to be keeping out of this Syria thing. Do not want to get mixed up in another muslim civil war. Assad is a bad bunny no doubt but it should left to the Arab League to sort out.

Cameron jumped in too soon, should have waited for UN reports, poor decision making.
 
davek said:
Yes, you missed the scores of UN Resolutions a legitimate state would have adhered to rather than completely ignore and/or flout. That makes it a failed state in the eyes of the international community...or a rogue state, whatever one you prefer.
Click to expand...

Well that is a whole different debate Dave. I dont consider Israel a "failed" state though. Flawed, maybe. Paranoid, certainly, (with reason I guess), but not failed.
 
Artetafan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Superb.
 
I think the point here is who used chemical weapons - or am I wrong? The un inspectors should be able to tell us what type of chemical was used, but more importantly they should be able to determine the delivery mechanism. If they find aerial bomb casing fragments then it will definitely have been Assad's forces. However if they find mortar or artillery shell fragments at the site then it's inconclusive as both sides have this capability.

I say wait for the un report, before kicking off. It's a shame old Tory boy didn't do that before plunging head first into the maelstrom.

Personally I'm sick of war in the Middle East, and I'm sick of British servicemen and women coming back in body bags.
 
Artetafan said:
Right, they legally have the same rights as jewish israelis but face country wide discrimination. I would never deny that.

You can say the same about racial minorities in a lot of countries which can't be described as aparthied.
Click to expand...

You don't class walled cities that the Israeli settlers put up to keep Arabs out (of their own land!) in the West Bank?

I'd say that was a perfect example of apartheid. What would your description of such phenomena be?
 
Mutzo Nutzo said:
I think the point here is who used chemical weapons - or am I wrong? The un inspectors should be able to tell us what type of chemical was used, but more importantly they should be able to determine the delivery mechanism. If they find aerial bomb casing fragments then it will definitely have been Assad's forces. However if they find mortar or artillery shell fragments at the site then it's inconclusive as both sides have this capability.

I say wait for the un report, before kicking off. It's a shame old Tory boy didn't do that before plunging head first into the maelstrom.

Personally I'm sick of war in the Middle East, and I'm sick of British servicemen and women coming back in body bags.
Click to expand...

They have about the same amount of evidence as they did for Iraqi WMDs before invading that country.
 
roydo said:
Trouble is, the deep seated issues in Syria/Egypt/Bahrain/Libya et all are so, well, deep seated, that very few westerners really understand the wider situation. A professor and expert on the region once tried to explain some of it to me, and it is like pulling on one end of a rope, without the other end moving at times.

So, on the one hand, it is relatively simplistic to to say send in some bombs because chemical weapons have been used, but on the other hand, that might perversely be what some in the region would actually want to happen.

I do not pretend to know what we should do, or not do for that matter, but it is not a black and white situation at all.
Click to expand...

Well said.
Conflicts are never black and white. Both sides see themselves as good and the other as evil. At the end of the day it's because different people have different views on concepts of morality and justice. Nobody dies in a war believing that they are in the wrong.
 
davek said:
You don't class walled cities that the Israeli settlers put up to keep Arabs out (of their own land!) in the West Bank?

I'd say that was a perfect example of apartheid. What would your description of such phenomena be?
Click to expand...

The arab permanent residents of the occupied territories aren't israeli citizens and have never wanted to become israeli citizens.

Your argument, as I understood it, is that Israel doesn't count as a democracy because the rights of that democracy are limited along racial lines.

It isn't. It's limited among territorial lines.

Arab citizens of Israel have full legal rights, citizens of territory occupied by israel which it does not claim as israel proper, do not.

You might well as argue that the UK isn't a democracy because we haven't given the right to vote to the occupants of the british indian ocean territory (who like arab residents of the occupied territories have been forcibly deported by their government to make room for military bases).
 
Tubey said:
Listening to John Kerry now on Sky News.

On the surface, I agree 100% with what he's saying and I'm pretty ashamed with how we've responded as a country to this. Chemical weapons should not be tolerated by our parliament, basically "see no evil, hear no evil". Short term cowardice from single-minded politicians, scared of Iraq 2.

Problem is, the cynic in me wonders if I'm hearing the real reasons for the US urgency for military action.



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

Cowardice is not a pretty sight. Chemical weapons today, what tomorrow. We will live to regret being led by the nose by limp wristed, politic playing leaders like Miliband. Over 1400 killed by the chemical attack, napalm attack on a school, and now we have given them an open season to continue. I feel ashamed of being British for the first time in my life.........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top