Syria

michaels

I just hope that Labour playing party politics (a great chance to distance themselves from old (new) labour on an issue where public opinion could very easily be gauged) isn't gong to leave history as showing that an autocrat practised genocide and the world chose not to intervene....

the_flying_pig

TruckerT wrote: »

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...

Yeah,my first instinct was to mock the stupidity of this - would I really have a strong preference for being killed by a bomb, or cannon-fire, or a missile, or whatever, as so many Iraqis were during the 'shock and awe' pre invasion phase a decade ago, rather than being gassed?

Dafter still, these rules came from the ashes of ww1, during which conditions in the trenches would often be such that a relatively minor wound from a bullet or knife or whatever would lead to infection and a slow horrible death.

But then I actually had quite an interesting chat with someone with a background in human rights and, well, it still sounds stupid, but much less so.

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

I just hope that Labour playing party politics (a great chance to distance themselves from old (new) labour on an issue where public opinion could very easily be gauged) isn't gong to leave history as showing that an autocrat practised genocide and the world chose not to intervene....

I agree that Labour might be politicking and miliband's strategy is likely guided by a spin doctor rather than his moral compass, but if public opinion is clearly that we shouldn't intervene then shouldn't our politicians take notice of that opinion, especially on an issue where the government has no standing democratic mandate?

[Deleted User]

I think we have opted out sadly and shamefully,i dont see the french or the americans doing the same and i hope to see cruise missiles raining down on assad by monday at the latest
shame on our politicians
labours shadow transport sec.has just resigned on the issue

Generali

TruckerT wrote: »

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

Doing nothing was tried in Serbia and Croatia which didn't work out so well.

thescouselander

headcone wrote: »

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

Yes but that is not the same thing as a cruise missile.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

Doing nothing was tried in Serbia and Croatia which didn't work out so well.

True, but where and when has "doing something" worked out any better?

Tancred

TruckerT wrote: »

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

Thankfully that poodle of the Yanks Cameron has been defeated. Great news! A victory for democracy. :beer:

All this talk about chemical weapons and war crimes is utter BS. In war you fight with everything you have - simple as that. War itself is a crime and if you want to help civilians you should send medical assistance and open up medical centres etc not escalate the war!

The Americans used napalm in WW2 and Vietnam extensively, and casually burned 100,000 people to death in Tokyo in March 1945 - let's not even talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They had also stockpiled chemical weapons to use in the European theatre in late 1943 but - totally by chance - a German air raid on the Italian port of Bari destroyed the ships carrying the toxins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari

They are hypocrites - everything about America is pure hypocrisy. The aim of America is to dominate the world economy and ensure the supremacy of American corporate organisations forever - nothing more. All American foreign policy is geared to this objective, so don't be fooled by the bleeding heart BS from the politicians. And Britain's record is hardly unblemished; Churchill considered using anthrax on German cities at one point when V2s were falling on London, and the huge civilian losses of the strategic combing offensive over Germany are well known and documented. Thousands of innocent people from allied countries were also needlessly killed in these bombings. No effort was made to bomb the death camps at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec etc despite these places being within range. Shameful.

grizzly1911

Is there anything humanitarian about these escapades?

Ensuring oil and gas supplies maybe.

Will Russia relinquish control of its Mediterranean naval and potential oil/gas shipment facilities?

TruckerT

Generali wrote: »

Doing nothing was tried in Serbia and Croatia which didn't work out so well.

I didn't say we should do nothing. I said we should help the innocent to escape.

TruckerT