Many views have been expressed, I do not think it helps to talk of historical events or other problematic issues around the world.
The thread was about Syria and the current events there. I abhor the use of chemical weapons like all other civilised beings, but I also abhor killing fellow beings. Assad is bad and he is trying to cling onto power what ever it takes. No one has asked why on earth does he have chemical weapons which were there before the fighting started and who suppled them. Contrary to some comment seen, Assad was armed by Russia and China, very little came from the west. Russia has continually blocked moves in the UN to try and stop the bloodshed.
Our difficulty to me seems if we take action against Assad and weaken him, the rebels win and then there is further mass slaughter committed by the rebels. Who are the rebels? we all know there are many Syrians but what other factions are involved here, who may have their own agendas.
It has been said in response evil will prosper if the good do nothing, but the problem is as I stated above, the good i,e. the rbels could turn out to be just as evil.
To me there is really no such thing as surgical strikes such as using cruise missiles, innocent folk civilians will still be killed or maimed. We can talk about Cameron having his moment on dodgy intelligence and not getting the endorsement he wished for, this is because the situation in Parliament regarding such issues was altered after Blair took us into war in Iraq based on outrageous untruths. His argument for intervention in Afghanistan was equally flawed.
BTW the USA did help the UK over Falklands contrary to someone's comment, with logistical support and armaments, in fact Cheney with the knowlegde of the then President bent over backwards behind the scenes to help the Uk and Thatcher.
Back to Syria though, this is poisoned chalice and for which there is no easy resolution, there never is in civil wars.
