Syria

vivatifosi

mystic_trev wrote: »

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

I didn't actually realise that Beirut is not only near, it is quite a distance from the border. How far is it from Damascus to the actual border? 10-20 miles? Further, now I look at the map, I can see that Homs is also a similar distance to Lebanon and that Aleppo is very close to Turkey.

It is so important that we get this right, but does anyone know what 'right' is?

michaels

ILW wrote: »

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?

So given chemical weapons are intrinsically no worse that high explosives the world might as well tear up all those treaties banning such weapons and treat them no differently to any other weapon?

lvader

michaels wrote: »

So given chemical weapons are intrinsically no worse that high explosives the world might as well tear up all those treaties banning such weapons and treat them no differently to any other weapon?

They certainly aren't worse than nuclear weapons, yet we are happy to keep those. There are also some very nasty conventional weapons that are well up there. The treaty is so old it should be scrapped or updated, but that will never happen becuse it would point to outlawing several weapons of choice for western powers.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

vivatifosi wrote: »

It is so important that we get this right, but does anyone know what 'right' is?

There is no 'right' in this situation, as there isn't a good outcome, it's a question of picking the least bad option.

Unfortunately the bad options are numerous and unpredictably dangerous.

I think we're right to stay out of this one in terms of promoting regime change, as at this point the alternatives are probably worse for both ordinary Syrians and neighbouring countries.

However, I also think the use of chemical (or indeed conventional) weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations has to be a red line for the global community.

It makes little difference to me if it's chemical artillery into a residential neighbourhood or napalm air strikes into a school.

It's unacceptable.

Armed conflict is sometimes necessary, but it has to have rules, and deliberate targeting of civilians with WMD, whether conventional or unconventional, has to be a line that cannot be crossed with impunity.

I would have preferred to see Assad taught a short, sharp military lesson by a wide ranging coalition from the international community, something painful enough to ensure he doesn't repeat the mistake, but not quite painful enough to change the balance of power in what is and should remain an internal conflict.

I suspect that is also what Obama and Cameron had in mind.... As the appetite for anything more than limited retaliation isn't there.

The vote in Parliament has weakened Britain's credibility with our allies, and position as a regional power.

It would have been far preferable to approve very limited action on a one time basis, than provide comfort to regimes like this that they can get away with using WMD on civilians.

sabretoothtigger

What I dont get is how they think bombing a chemical silo is anything positive.

They cant mean to do this, perhaps they will destroy AA SAM sites to weaken the military so helping the balance of power.

I think there is only one option, The UN must occupy the country, however this route is blocked and I doubt USA or the seemingly toothless Arab League will do so either

So we have either remotely directed interfering messy probably pointless action or the option of nothing at all and civil strife continues

TruckerT

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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.

ash28 wrote: »

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.

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.

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

What I dont get is how they think bombing a chemical silo is anything positive.

I think there is only one option, The UN must occupy the country, however this route is blocked and I doubt USA or the seemingly toothless Arab League will do so either

Most animal behaviour is in search of survival which quickly translates into a search for dominance. The idea of 'fair shares for all' was invented by a few 19th century capitalists with money to spare and a guilty conscience. Mr Marx took the idea to an extreme, but his ideas led to situations worse than feudalism. In Syria, a dominant force will no doubt eventually emerge, but how this will benefit the population as a whole remains to be seen.

Going to war is a primitive animal instinct, but it's intended to be a mechanism of self-defence. If we believe that the Syrian situation is a serious threat to our well-being, then we should invade. David Cameron's defeat by a genuine democratic process is a landmark, and should give us hope.

TruckerT

sabretoothtigger

Im not in favour of war but I think their threat is apparent enough for UK to make sure that government or any other no longer has chemical weapons.
If that was viable I would not take a vote personally, move in and keep bulldozing anything in the way till that threat is gone

Agree or disagree what I dont get is any idea of half measures. If they dont intend to stop that war absolutely, the only other thing really is to supply thousands of gas masks and/or evacuate long term.
If so concerned why havent they already ?
I think its about costs, they hope to influence but doing anything is much harder this time, Libya had few allies

TruckerT

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Im not in favour of war but I think their threat is apparent enough for UK to make sure that government or any other no longer has chemical weapons.
If that was viable I would not take a vote personally, move in and keep bulldozing anything in the way till that threat is gone

Agree or disagree what I dont get is any idea of half measures. If they dont intend to stop that war absolutely, the only other thing really is to supply thousands of gas masks and/or evacuate long term.
If so concerned why havent they already ?
I think its about costs, they hope to influence but doing anything is much harder this time, Libya had few allies

I agree about the pointlessness of half-measures, but the threat of chemical weapons is a red herring - those weapons pose no threat to the western world. We either have to go for regime change, or we keep out of it altogether. The gas mask idea is the best idea so far, but I'm not sure that the chemicals only affect the lungs.

TruckerT

sabretoothtigger

Yes I think its absorbed through the skin unfortunately. Sarin I think is a threat to Western countries, it was used in Japan by domestic terrorists.

Its not certain about Assad but somebody in that country is freely using those weapons and that must be ended, its a situation out of control.

Im not interested in either side as righteous, it'll probably be a mess like Egypt is for quite a while but the chemicals must be wiped out is my basic point.
That is a UN /global issue, the security council concept seems broke

dryhat

More war and more suffering will lead to higher GDP and is what is NEEDED to keep interest rates low and hence justify more money printing.

Hopefully, people will see this rise in GDP as a good thing will be encouraged to borrow and spend more and therefore be able to justify the bombing and suffering.

Job Done.