But this is more like hearing that muggings are happening in a Birmingham inner city estate and deciding you're going to go and exercise your powers of citizens arrest to stop it. You're ill equipped, don't know the local gangs and who is good or bad, you don't know the area and have no real friends locally. And frankly it doesn't affect you.
Sorry for dampening down your parade LLST but all of CONSUR and that includes Uruguay supports Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands. Argentinians under Manuel Belgrano begain the process of seceding from Spanish influence in order to create their state from the Peruvian vice royalty helped by the ideas of Thomas Payne and the revolution in France that toppled the monarchy. There is still a degree of animosity between the two when this is brought up.
This is interesting, particularly the final point: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/30/syria-debate-five-things-vote?CMP=twt_gu
'leadership on both sides was brought up sharply'. That is hardly a surprise. And as to parcel off civilians from military conflicts ? Unfortunately civilians have been seen a legitimate target since the city state wars in Mesopotamia right through to the present including some horrific instances such as the Siege of Magdeburg and the rape of Nanking to the bombing of Dresden. Unless it was couched in terms of deliberate aggression against civilian populations. But how to deal with civilian shields by a desperate military ? It is not so easy to promulgate a code of ethical warfare when warfare itself is hardly ethical.
Hence the the second paragraph. Were you however equipped, knew the local gangs and had friendly locals you should do something to help. It also depends how much proximity effects your concern for others.
The western powers are very, very hypocritical when it comes to crying crocodile tears about the use of 'chemical weapons' and gas. Of course Germany were the first to use gas in WW1 with the British not far behind. The Americans have used all sorts of horrible weapons, their imagination knows no bounds. We're all aware of the depleted uranium, cluster bombs and napalm they (and we) have happily used in the past. I'm quite convinced they've used biological and germ warfare in the past too, through the deliberate introduction of diseases such as haemoragic dengue fever and Thrips Palmi into poor 'enemy' countries. Whilst of course the TV pictures of children apparently suffering from a chemical attack are very upsetting, I'm not really sure I'd be any more upset if my kids died that way than if they were blasted out of existence by some US Predator drone aircraft. We still live in barbaric times. Using more war and violence to supposedly put a stop to war and violence (fighting fire with fire) is never going to work. The vast majority of the world's population demand peace. It's only these despotic and tyrannical leaders, with their lust for power and control over others that breed all these wars and destruction. Ordinary people should refuse to take part. Point blank. Reject the armed services. Destroy the weapons.
Except we're not the ones going in, or even taking the decision to go in. Its the guys from a few doors down. But everyone will still say 'we' need to do something and then feel better when someone else does. (apologies if anyone here who keeps using 'we' is indeed in the army, the government, msf, a syrian e.t.c)
US and Israel tested missiles in Med. region today. Unbelievably stupid considering the powder keg situation at the moment.
Right I've changed my mind. how dare the cheeky f****ers write a letter threatening us. I hope we bomb the c****s back into the dark ages.
They wrote a letter to the leader of the House of Commons before our vote and a similar letter has been sent to Congress and the French Parliament, basically Syria denying the use of Chemical Weapons and saying there will be repercussions if attacked blah blah blah - nothing you didn't know previously.
Ahhh ok thanks. Well that's lovely. But I still don't wanna say that we should definitely go into Syria. Yes there's huge casualties in Syria caused by both al-Assad's regime and the Free Syrian Army. We also don't have conclusive proof that it is indeed the regime using chemical weapons (if you take a look on YouTube you can find videos proving that both sides are using chemical weapons). It's extremely frustrating because I don't want to see any person killed, let alone people being killed to such extent like in Syria. But at the same time I'm not sure we should intervene. It's a fashion nowadays to blame the UK/US/NATO for intervening into situations that "have nothing to do with them". If those aforementioned countries and group does not intervene, the people suffering and other countries would go mental saying that they were in a position to stop the killing and yet didn't. Yet if they do intervene and end up bringing peace to the region, you then get people saying that they've "occupied" their country and are oppressing the very people of the nation. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation and unfortunately it's a burden that the UK (from a solely British point of view) has to bear with for as long as we're a powerful nation (even though it should not be our responsibility). I'm subscribed to VICE on YouTube and they do some really good, cutting-edge (albeit ever so slightly biased) videos on conflict zones. The link below just shows the devastation that the war has had on the people (WARNING, NSFW): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gqC_Cmhuek. I strongly urge you to watch it and bear in mind that whilst it seems like it has sided with the FSA, this is only the first part so it could still show both sides of the war.
When I first started this thread I honestly thought that this issue could cross over "party politics" as it was an argument about humanity rather than left v right, and on this forum, I think that has generally held true. But the farce in Parliament last week and since has, in my view, been disgraceful. Can anyone explain to me why they bothered having a 10 hour debate in the Commons last week when the Labour MP's had just been ordered to vote against the government anyway? Why did Milliband insist on certain clauses being added to the Bill and then order everyone to vote against it regardless? Both sides are trying to make political capital from this horrendous situation and Milliband is looking like the biggest offender in proving that trying to make an idiot out of Cameron was more important than sorting out the Syrian problem , whilst Cameron just looks inept and a poor leader, whilst the likes of Gove are trying to score cheap political points. Democracy, my a**e! It's just pathetic.
Labour wanted to wait till the UN had looked at the evidence and wanted to go through the UN which is fair enough. Still havnt seen any concrete evidence from anywhere just rumours and a few vids. Breaking news on BBC website saying UK has fresh evidence apparently.
Even the Lib dems, as well as the tories were split, voting with their conscience. You can't tell me that at , if allowed to vote in line with their own conscience a few would have gone for a "yes" vote. My point is that Labour did not allow that, whilst the other two parties didn't enforce their whip. Remember, neither ballot result was going to mean military action, but it would have shown the world (and us) that we are prepared to make honest decisions, rather than political ones.
You can spin it any way you like zz. Some could say that it was admirable and brave of Labour to enforce its whip because 'voting with one's conscience' should not be allowed on this type of vote, as first the facts should be properly established. Only after an investigation is properly carried out can we have a debate and people can say what they think is the most desirable action, etc. One person will say Labour did a terrible thing here, another might say they were the bravest and most principled. I should say here that I don't support either side, voting with or without a party line defined and enforced. I'm just pointing out that this way of thinking is not exactly far from your sentiments, but the opposite condone/condemning-wise.
When Iran or North Korea do it it's a crime against America or Israel. . . . The Hypocrisy. . . After what T. Blair told us with his 'Sexed Up Dossier' about Iraq. I wouldn't believe any Government especially America. They will tell you what THEY want to tell you. Don't believe the Hype! Blair should be up for War Crimes. Unfortunately Blair and G W. Bush are 'Untouchable'. It wasn't that long ago Kerry was having dinner with Assad. Syria needs sorting but let the Arabs do it. Why has no one intervened with Mugabe? He has slaughtered thousands and yet America and Britain turn a blind eye. How come? Probably because Mugabe is 'Untouchable'. The sooner this World destroys itself the better. Let Mother nature start again with a less selfish life form.
They are all good points Worcester. All good points. I guess there are some differences though here- but again not clearly. I'm switching to thinking we need to do the humanitarian thing here, food, antidotes. I can't see that more explosives is going to help more than damage. I hate the Russian government and the arrogant threatening stance they take with the bad guys. I can't help thinking if we aren't strong Russia and china see this as a green light to do what the hell they like though, and no matter what you think they are worse than bush and blair
But surely the essence of the first vote was about the principle of taking action, with the next vote not being taken after the evidence is clear. Because of the Labour orders, we havn't even established the principle, so there is no point taking the next vote. If ever there was a vote that should not be dictated to the MP's by their leader, this was it.
If Cameron had waited to this week for the Parliamentary vote it could of been a completely different story, instead, he rushed into it - probably because of pressure from America. Parliament would've been sitting 4 days later.
If it was such a matter of principle why didn't the PM accept the Labour amended motion? Of course Millibean's motion removed references explicitly saying the Assad regime were responsible but surely can't have been the reason...
WTF, if this is true then.. I dont know what happens. http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/0...y-involved-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack/
I find it hilarious that some people won't believe the German, French, UK, Canadian and American governments, but fall over themselves to believe a "hacked email" written in broken English provided by an unknown anonymous source who could have literally written anything he wanted. It's farcical.
I'm not agreeing with this report but I will say that the video's shown on the news looked pretty unrealistic with very insufficient numbers considering the purported 1300 victims ... Still what do I know? I said terrorists when everyone else was saying accident before the second plane hit in 2011.
Anyone that trusts anything the powers in control say without questioning it is just as farcical imho. Having read the emails I am sure they are fake but we all know that it is quite plausible that US or Saudi backed Islamist fanatics killed there own to further there own cause. Still havnt seen any compelling evidence yet, have you?
I can't understand why Ed Milliband is getting such stick from his political peers. Ed has delivered what the public wanted. Even some of Cameron's own didn't take this vote seriously. We are not privy to what is said behind closed doors and can only make judgement from what we are allowed to read. Tony Blair wants War, John Kerry wants War and Obama doesn't want 'An Iraq War' on his conscience. All this still indicates to me that Politicians are STILL living in their own little World trying to make personal gains for themselves. It's not about being weak, it's about standing up when the majority are against you and not be 'Bullied' into making a decision you may regret.
http://www.vice.com/ground-zero/syria-full-length Some really disturbing footage in there. Be warned.
The thing that doesn't sound right to me though is: I could believe conspiracies about American republican presidents wanting war for oil, making up **** to get Halliburton and other military/commercial groups into foreign countries. But not Obama, a democrat, into Syria. Not on the basis of limited strike and not yehaa! Shock and awe. I get the rationale that we can't let chem weapons happen as it can lead to bio and nukes against civilians. And those scumbag, ex/current commies, lurking , threatening, seeing what they can get away with in their own self interest ( well the self interest of Russia's elite) if Russia retaliate I want that **** er OUT of Chelsea Maybe the USA have cried wolf over the Middle East and this is the actual wolf; where is the seer when you need him?
