Syria

grizzly1911

michaels wrote: »

Ok, another question - do you think the vote in parliament last night (if it has any effect at all) will make it more or less likely that Assad will commit further atrocities aginst his people to 'win' the civil war?

Depends who you believe, not sure I believe any party.

What is the alternative and will it be any better?

Will the violence stop? Has it stopped elsewhere in the middle east?

It has been suggested AQ may fill the void? It seems we had a convenient "threat" from communists for years and now we have another continuous"threat" from terrorists. In fact anyone who doesn't follow the "democratic" neo liberal agenda.

mystic_trev

michaels wrote: »

Ok, another question - do you think the vote in parliament last night (if it has any effect at all) will make it more or less likely that Assad will commit further atrocities aginst his people to 'win' the civil war?

Probably more. The Assad's have been murdering their people for nearly 50 years. Like father, like son. It makes me want to weep, as it's such a lovely Country with delightful people.It's certainly no '!!!!!!-hole' as a previous (ignorant) poster, described it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Syria#Baath_Party_rule_under_Hafez_al-Assad.2C_1970.E2.80.932000

ILW

Why is it worse to get killed by a chemical weapon as opposed to an incendiary or high explsove bomb or missile?

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

Why is it worse to get killed by a chemical weapon as opposed to an incendiary or high explsove bomb or missile?

it's because we (the goodies) don't use / need these weapons

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

it's because we (the goodies) don't use / need these weapons

Ahhhh
Would that be the same as it being wrong to leave a bomb in a market place, but rather noble to drop one from 20,000ft into a market place?

Baffles me to be honest.

Fella

michaels wrote: »

Ok, another question - do you think the vote in parliament last night (if it has any effect at all) will make it more or less likely that Assad will commit further atrocities aginst his people to 'win' the civil war?

IMO no effect since the UK's involvement was probably never a big deal to him. If he's worried about anything it's the US airstrike that is almost certainly going to occur just the same as it would have with UK backing.

stinktankcynic

It's not a very nice situation in Syria, but it's not our fight. We have austerity, but enough money for foreign wars?
All this supposed America snooping of other countries emails, telephone calls etc is a bit too big brother for me.
This system they are supposed to have means they are never wrong. Whenever something they don't like happens, all of the sudden they have intelligence to prove wrong doing.
Perhaps we should have left the middle east alone.

Jennifer_Jane

Have the Arab League come out in condemnation at all? If not, does anyone know why not?

Graham_Devon

In my view, it's such a difficult one to call that the only appropriate measure is to make use of our democratic system.

It started out as just that, a good use of the democratic system. However, unfortunately it ended up politicised, especially with the heckling for the prime minister to reisgn.

While David Cameron doesn't look good for going too fast, while Milliband had got off lightly, he couldn't resist going on the TV and radio this morning talking about how this has damaged the PM.

There was no need to state that. It's pure political scoring on the worst possible grounds.

So while I have no real firm solution (as to whether we should go to war or not), and really wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those making those extremely tough decisions, which will bite them whatever they do or don't do, I just wish this hadn't been used as a poltical scording card.

The way Ed Milliband approached this has disgruntled even his own back benchers. Firstly going in with all intentions to back the military action, even agreeing with Cameron on the phone and then changing his stance at the last minute. His reaction to this accusation is that he "didn't think that the decision should be made on an artificial timescale"...yet he knew the timescale all along as the recall had already been put into motion when he was agreeing with Cameron.

Some of the language used to describe Ed Milliband from the Foreign Office and No.10 can't even be published on here!

michaels

ILW wrote: »

Why is it worse to get killed by a chemical weapon as opposed to an incendiary or high explsove bomb or missile?

I suspect being killed instantly by high explosives/shrapnel is less painful than dying over several minutes as your lungs are eaten away by gas and your nerves all fire at once but I have personal experience of neither.