Syria

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

I guess it was too good an opportunity to miss - a chance to distance himself from everything a lot of core supporters hated about new labour hilst also being on the right side of general public opinion - with the numbers his spin doctors were giving him and Labour's current relative weakness in the polls, how could he have done anything else

CLAPTON

really, the details of the political tactics are not that important

the real issue is it 'right' to support one side or the other?
and if you decide which one to support then how best to do that?

history will forget the exchanges in the commons but won't forget the outcome of the conflict

ash28

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Didn't US use white phosphorus and napalm plus DU shells during the first Gulf War and in the Iraq War?

We used DU bombs too..just not on the same scale as the US....http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100722/text/100722w0001.htm

Dr Fox: The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has previously published information about the extremely limited use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions by UK forces during the 1991 Gulf War: less than one metric tonne of DU was expended in these munitions. Approximately 1.9 metric tonnes of DU ammunition was expended in the 2003 Iraq War by UK forces. The MOD provided the coordinates of targets attacked using DU ammunition in 2003 to the United Nations (UN) Environmental Programme. The MOD also shared with the UN and the Government of Iraq the results of a scientific assessment carried out in June 2003 that indicated very low levels of DU even in the vicinity of vehicles struck by DU munitions.

And here is a report commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

http://www.ikvpaxchristi.nl/media/files/in-a-state-of-uncertainty.pdf

you just need to google "Fallujah birth defects"

We and our allies aren't exactly squeaky clean......

CLAPTON

ash28 wrote: »

Didn't US use white phosphorus and napalm plus DU shells during the first Gulf War and in the Iraq War?

We used DU bombs too..just not on the same scale as the US....http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100722/text/100722w0001.htm



And here is a report commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

http://www.ikvpaxchristi.nl/media/files/in-a-state-of-uncertainty.pdf

you just need to google "Fallujah birth defects"

We and our allies aren't exactly squeaky clean......

yes of course we did

did you miss read my post?

ash28

CLAPTON wrote: »

really, the details of the political tactics are not that important

the real issue is it 'right' to support one side or the other?
and if you decide which one to support then how best to do that?

history will forget the exchanges in the commons but won't forget the outcome of the conflict

You're right history will forget what happened in the commons yesterday...

The worry is that you leave worse than you found.....as we have done....Iraq, Libya, probably Afghanistan.....and potentially Syria.

Iraq is as violent as when we withdrew, Libya is virtually ungovernable as the rebels fought amongst each after saying they only wanted Gadaffi removed, they do have a government - elected but virtually powerless.

The Syrian rebels...Al Quaeda, the Jihadists and secularists are already fighting amongst themselves. Would you choose one or all of them?

I think what people tend to forget is that it took us hundreds of years to have the type of democracy we have now....we've been through the religious persecution, overthrown the monarchy, beheaded a King, had a civil war.......the Arab states have largely been tribal, with either authoritarian rulers or absolute monarchs.....the only "free" muslim state I can think of off the top of my head is Northern Cyprus. We seem to think that the Arab states can become the type democracy we would like them to be by removing authoritarian rulers......it isn't going to happen - at least not overnight.

ash28

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes of course we did

did you miss read my post?

I must have done....it's way past my bedtime.

vivatifosi

Just saw the weapons inspectors driving from Damascus to Beirut. Struck me how quickly they got there so went and looked it up. 52 miles as the crow flies, 68 miles by road. Goes to show how packed together the countries in this region are and how important it is to avoid spill over into adjacent states.

chewmylegoff

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?

It will make no difference.

Do you think that, on the basis of recent history, military intervention will result in fewer people dying?

mystic_trev

vivatifosi wrote: »

Just saw the weapons inspectors driving from Damascus to Beirut. Struck me how quickly they got there so went and looked it up. 52 miles as the crow flies, 68 miles by road. Goes to show how packed together the countries in this region are and how important it is to avoid spill over into adjacent states.

Yes, I've done the journey myself. The longest part are the Border procedures,which take an age and turned into some disorganised bun fight with Passports:rotfl:Perhaps if I'd stuck UN on the side of my car I'd have sailed through

ILW

michaels wrote: »

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.

I suppose being buried alive in a bombed building with broken limbs and starving to death over period of days must be quite pleasant then?