Syria

TruckerT

Cameron quotes the 1925 ruling which outlawed chemical weapons. Since then, nuclear weapons have become a much bigger threat.

How can it be 'humanitarian' to launch a cruise missile attack?

A true humanitarian response would be to provide an alternative place to live for the victims of !!!!!! like President Assad

TruckerT

thescouselander

I hardly think it humanitarian to force people to be displaced from their homeland on account of a nut job leader.

TruckerT

thescouselander wrote: »

I hardly think it humanitarian to force people to be displaced from their homeland on account of a nut job leader.

Assad is clearly inhumane! The question is about how to respond in a humane way.

TruckerT

thescouselander

TruckerT wrote: »

Assad is clearly inhumane! The question is about how to respond in a humane way.

TruckerT

I don't know but I do know the answer is not to displace half the population away from their homes.

chewmylegoff

There is no real answer - but we know from experience that military intervention either through ground forces or air strikes does nothing to help the general population. There are enough examples of total failure now - Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.... It doesn't work and cannot work, all it does is result in more people dying.

Still politicians are determined to "do the right thing" regardless of all the evidence telling them that it won't work.

I really hope they finally pay attention to public opinion on this one.

Still there is an upside. Silver is running out and there is 25kg of silver in every cruise missile. Buy silver! (Physical silver only of course).

Loughton_Monkey

Cruise missiles can carry nuclear warheads, but most don't.

So on the assumption that Cameron doesn't send in the nuclear variety [and I don't think he's that stupid] then the comparison between chemical and nuclear weapons is irrelevant.

Whether or not UK should get involved with cruise, or even bows & arrows is a different debate...

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Cruise missiles can carry nuclear warheads, but most don't.

So on the assumption that Cameron doesn't send in the nuclear variety [and I don't think he's that stupid] then the comparison between chemical and nuclear weapons is irrelevant.

Whether or not UK should get involved with cruise, or even bows & arrows is a different debate...

The West feels free to get all uppity about poorer nations using chemicals, but they can only do so because they have much 'better' weaponry, including nuclear.

I repeat my earlier point. If we are to demonstrate our superior humanity, then we need to find a better way than to bomb the people who fail to meet our requirements.

Jordan and Lebanon are accepting hundreds of thousands of very frightened people. These are the people we need to defend. We could do so by converting the refugee camps into viable long-term communities. In the UK, it would be called a Welfare State.

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey

TruckerT wrote: »

..... These are the people we need to defend. We could do so by converting the refugee camps into viable long-term communities. In the UK, it would be called a Welfare State.

Not keen on military action myself.

But I do wonder what would have happened in 1939 if "The West" had reacted simply by rescuing all the Poles and Jews... bringing them to UK to live.... and then leave Mr H to get on with it....

What messages would this send to the next rabid, crazed, leader like Assad [and there are quite a few of them]? It pretty much says "Do you have opposition? Then simply dust them with Chemical Weapons. Some of them will die. The rest, and their sympathisers will flee to other countries and be fed and clothed by other nations. Problem solved. Large glasses of Arak all round....."

thescouselander

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Cruise missiles can carry nuclear warheads, but most don't.

So on the assumption that Cameron doesn't send in the nuclear variety [and I don't think he's that stupid] then the comparison between chemical and nuclear weapons is irrelevant.

Whether or not UK should get involved with cruise, or even bows & arrows is a different debate...

The UK doesn't have nuclear armed cruise missiles - we only have the conventional variety.

headcone

thescouselander wrote: »

The UK doesn't have nuclear armed cruise missiles - we only have the conventional variety.

There is nothing conventional about a multi warhead intercontinental nuclear ballistic missile.:shocked:

vivatifosi

Well, government has lost the motion and PM has assured that he would not use royal prerogative.

A couple of very interesting articles on the TV news I saw today. The first was a history of the Middle East, and how when the straight lines were being drawn in the area, the plan was to give the Christians, Shia and Sunni Moslems their own countries in what is modern day Syria. However this was overtaken by a feeling of being Syrian and the only way of keeping this together was with a very powerful leader.

Second piece, interview with former Ambassador to Syria. He was suggesting inaction, because if you intervene there are only two options: 1) the balance tips towards Assad/Iran/Russia and the view of the west is irrelevant.
2) Assad loses power due to a change in the balance and Al Qaeda gains power.
Neither desirable - no end game.

The same diplomat said that to bring this to an end you need one of two things to happen: 1) for one side to take over the other - they are too balanced for this to occur. 2) the sides need to become battle weary - the people may be but the forces aren't, this is some way off.

None of this is very encouraging.