Sadly we can't impose civilisation, whoever said the Jews and Arabs have been killing each other for 3000 years is right. No longer, bloodier history than there. I'm actually feeling sorry for Cameron and believe his actions have actually been the right ones. Unlike Blair and millipede. He had to recall and have a vote really on the evidence and is now sticking to what democracy has answered. It's this kind of **** that leads you to a melancholic ennui that nothing matters and evil pervades
But we armed him to fight Iran and lots of those people died in a failed uprising after the first Gulf War after we decided not to remove him in the first place. Also Syrian Kurds have already warned of genocide against themselves if the Islamist Syrian rebels get their way.
**** Cheney in his own words 1994. [video=youtube;6BEsZMvrq-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
Would they have been alive without intervention? I'm not arguing for either way just asking the question.
You were both on the same side, he just missed the irony but seeing as we were on the same side I didn't think I could whoosh him. (awaits whooshing for missing Godfather's ironic tone.)
once again, i have to ask, what is it about chemical weapons that makes everyone so enthused about this particular conflict. had the syrian government used child soldiers to kill these people with conventional weapons, would that preclude the discussion of an intervention? as far as i can make out, the argument seems to be, chemical weapons+current focus of media=moral necessity for highly precise and targeted airstrikes at a few key places which will stop all the bloodshed (because thats what happens every time a country intervenes in a civil war, right?) infact, had they used conventional soldiers with conventional weapons, would that have made a difference?
If anyone mentions Schrodinger's Cat I'm going to punch them figuratively (as well as "literally" now). :naughty: PS I don't know how to do an umlaut.
I think its to do with the fact the international community feels the need to stop the use of chemical weapons for fear of its use spreading. If other dictators see Syria get away with using chemical weapons what's to stop them doing it knowing the world won't intervene. That's certainly been talked about, I think on the one show by the BBC correspondent who I forget the name of. the international community feels the need not to tolerate the use of chemical weapons and as such it's necessary for them to do something about it. I think the use of conventional weapons and soldiers would have made a difference. It's been going for 2.5 years nearly with conventional weapons and soldiers. The UN said in July over 100,000 people had died, and then we had no call to do anything so as far as I can tell it's certainly about the use of chemical weapons rather than just the bloodshed.
i'm asking why you as a person, not as the spokesperson for the international community (try defining that term!), would ask, "Do the majority of people really feel we have no moral duty to limit and cease the use of chemical weapons?". The implication, to me at least, is that you think there is something unique about the use of chemical weapons to kill civilians (as opposed to any other kind of weapon) and I am curious about it. Do phosphorous weapons count? Drones? Airstrikes called in by people in offices? Seriously Simms, you have posted quite a few times on this thread and, looking at the british press from brazil, it seems to have really caught the imagination of a large section of the public and i really want to know why?
Here's justification for war: http://news.sky.com/story/1116687/britains-chemical-sales-to-syria-revealed Clearing up our own mess!
Why would I ask that? I was interested in the answer. I would say we do have a duty to limit and cease the use of chemical weapons. I would say we also have a duty to do our best to prevent any conflict whether it uses chemical or regular weapons. Ultimately a death is a death and we ought to do all we can to stop any deaths in conflicts. I think chemical weapons just bring out an emotive response in the public, although perhaps thats wrong if MPs voted against it on behalf of the constituents. I think the definition of weapons of mass destruction includes that of chemical weapons and other biological weapons. I would suggest what's caught the imagination of the public is the emotive response to it. When did that happen? I couldn't see a date on that link. I think the companies supplying it need to be held accountable. It's indubitably wrong.
For those posting long posts over say 8 lines, especially without paragraphs, I'm not reading them, I doubt many are. Brevity is the soul of wit If you haven't learnt to be concise, laconic even, then clearly you haven't had the right tutors. This is especially true of point-by-point replies to posts.
Britain has sold industrial materials to Syria that could have been used to make chemical weapons, according to a new report by MPs on arms sales. The Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) said it was just one example of numerous questionable deals between UK contractors and countries the Foreign Office (FCO) deems to have poor human rights records. Read the The Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) report.
The reuters report from july says it's unsure whether any materials were ever actually shipped to Syria. Also still no confirmation on any actual dates of sales. Could be 50 years ago for all we know.
I don't understand all the posters blaming Labour for the defeat. All Labour MPs voting against the motion would not have defeated it because the government has a majority. Thirty Conservative MPs and nine LibDems voted against the motion. I dipped in and out of the debate all afternoon and evening and Conservative MPs were expressing concerns of their own and of their constituents but I really thought that when it came to the vote they would stick with the government and was shocked when they did not. There was a telling moment when Nick Clegg was speaking just before the vote and he was asked to give an absolute assurance that if the substantive motion were passed we would not be involved in any way until the House had had a chance to vote again in a few days after the UN Inspectors' report. He was unable to give that assurance and I think that made a difference. Very unusually, I agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the end there has to be a political solution.
Nsfw [video=youtube;CJpQk6YAw1s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CJpQk6YAw1s[/video]
We could form a clandestine alliance with Portugal and Uruguay and take out Spain and Argentina at the same time.
either copy and paste from a German text ... or if you have Windows then in menu/accessories/system there is a character map.
your start button - programs - accessories - system programs - character map it also has wingdings etc. but they don't work on here.
not that im saying its right to do so, but of course you can. human beings have been using violence to create peace ever since some caveman figured it would be a good to smack another over a head with a rock.
for what its worth ive got my eyes of those sneaky spanish and argentine canuts. they are just waiting for our backs to be turned.
thinking about it, it shoulda been caveman smacking cavewoman over the head with a rock to bring peace.
I've read most of the thread, and don't want to get dragged in. In priniciple I am for intervening if we can. Syria has nothing to do with us, but neither does the mugging or rape on the other side of the street, or the neighbours house being robbed. Innocent people are dying and the fact they are from a country that is likely to remain troubled doesn't make it less important. However I am not sure what good intervening would do in the country, and most importantly how it would affect russian and chinese relations. Russia and China's stanpoints are terrible, but what is the point in having a UN security council if each country does what it wants?
I am sort of on the same side of the argument as you, but for entirely different reasons. This link is to an article, with a misleading headline, that says that we sold industrial goods, not that we sold chemical weapons. Many explosives and dangerous chemicals are made up of everyday constituents. Here is an extract from the article ; "The CAEC said supplies of sodium fluoride, which could be used to make chemical weapons, were sent to Syria in the last couple of years. Sodium fluoride is a legitimate component of a number of civilian products including toothpaste, but there is no way of knowing what it was used for in the end" You have just assumed the purpose of the sodium fluoride merely to suit your view, again without evidence. You seem to know it all and therefore have a very strong view on the subject. I just don't know who to believe, and can't make up my mind.
