The second last paragraph is scary
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/looming-strike-against-syria
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/looming-strike-against-syria
Upvote
0
Fear not .
"Our finger must always be on the pulse. Ours is a responsible finger and if necessary, it will also be on the trigger. "
I suspect button would be more appropiate.
http://www.dw.de/israel-poised-to-react-to-syria-fallout/a-17046862
Upvote
0
Seeing the news of what's happening in Syria, inconet children gassed in their own beds is just so awful. Our government has the ability, the resources and justification to prevent this from happening again, to show the world that this is not acceptable. We are a privileged nation, and those that live this way are morally obliged to help those in need, and in times of crises.
Yet Miliband choose to play politics, when a child dies tonight in his own home in Syria on your conscience be it ed miliband!
Yet Miliband choose to play politics, when a child dies tonight in his own home in Syria on your conscience be it ed miliband!
Upvote
0
Not only Miliband. The majority of MPs and the vast majority of Brits don't want to get involved in another foreign war.
Praise the lord and don't pass the ammunition.
Praise the lord and don't pass the ammunition.
Upvote
0
The proof maybe of how out of touch a government can be with the people it is supposed to represent.
Upvote
0
Quite its just a shame the assistence involves dropping bombs on innocent people or any people at all.
Bombs are not selective,hence any assistence if at all should be done by troops on the ground who may be able to tell small children from adult soldiers.
Upvote
0
I think history will tell us the only thing that destabilizes the majority of dictators is a parting.
Usually involving the neck area.
Upvote
0
M
MASSEY
- Original Poster
- #54
History tells us that the government have not learned anything from the past.
Voting before the UN have finished their job gathering evidence?
My prediction is that the USA and some European countries will drop a few bombs over the course of the next few weeks and it will make no difference what so ever.
I fail to understand why Cameron is so hyped up about helping Syria when all it will most probably do for his party is lose them votes in the next election.
Voting before the UN have finished their job gathering evidence?
My prediction is that the USA and some European countries will drop a few bombs over the course of the next few weeks and it will make no difference what so ever.
I fail to understand why Cameron is so hyped up about helping Syria when all it will most probably do for his party is lose them votes in the next election.
Upvote
0
T
trebor8
- Original Poster
- #56
No kidding:
Britains Dirty Secret
"Thatcher's policy of propping up the dictator, said: "A ban would do our other trade prospects in Iraq no good"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/06/uk.iraq
Upvote
0
T
trebor8
- Original Poster
- #59
I'm merely making a point
Maybe Cameron had these things in mind, a realization, that we simply can't go on the way we have been anymore
The western world has directly and/or indirectly supplied chemicals and arms to these countries and their dictators for decades
We in the west seem to think we have intelligent clever men and women who run our so-called civilised countries and yet time and time again the only solution they can come up with is to drop more bombs. Why is that?
Upvote
0
Funny how the greatest user of chemical weapons in history is screaming about there use now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon#United_States
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sorry. I must have missed your point. I thought from your first post that you were in favor of a Cameron/Obama intervention, but missed the "not by the usual methods" paragraph.
I wish there were ways of displaying extremely strong disapproval that might be effective but can't think of any.
Similarly with arms sales: if we sell them there is an iota of control. If the Russians, French, Chinese or Koreans sell them there isn't. And the latter bunch won't stop because of our scruples.
But at least we aren't going to bomb them with the consequent civilian "collateral damage".
Upvote
0
And the award for the most naive comment of the century goes to...........
"When a country decides to invest in arms, rather than in education, housing, the environment, and health services for its people, it is depriving a whole generation of its right to prosperity and happiness.
We have produced one firearm for every ten inhabitants of this planet, and yet we have not bothered to end hunger when such a feat is well within our reach.
Our international regulations allow almost three-quarters of all global arms sales to pour into the developing world with no binding international guidelines whatsoever.
Our regulations do not hold countries accountable for what is done with the weapons they sell, even when the probable use of such weapons is obvious."
OS
Upvote
0
Whether we agree or disagree about military intervention, as Albert Einstein said,
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it"
______________________________________________________
Please join me in my quest to rid this world of unicorns
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it"
______________________________________________________
Please join me in my quest to rid this world of unicorns
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Now who exactly do you think you are addressing.
My experience is that no one is likely to listen to the ravings of a super psuedo.
Go stalk someone your own age.
Upvote
0
It caused the Japanese to surrender almost immediately.
They key argument put forward by Hiroshima is that yes, lots of people died due to the bomb, but by making Japan surrender so quickly, how many lives did it save due to the fact that a potentially long and drawn out battle between Japan and the USA was averted?
It's a factor which should be considered when discussing the situation in Syria. If the US intervene, how much quicker will this civil war be over and how many lives could it save? Alternatively, could US intervention potentially increase the duration of the war and end up causing more civilian deaths?
Upvote
0
There is an interesting article and discussion at Charlie Stross.
It raises all sorts of points with some interesting contributions.
It raises all sorts of points with some interesting contributions.
Upvote
0
Afraid the US use of chemical weapons was more effective that the A bombs.
The Tokyo raid was seen as a great success in Washington. For the next ten days, until stocks of napalm ran out, an incendiary bombing campaign ravaged all the major Japanese cities (other than Kyoto).
It was nothing short of wonderful, a general in charge of the campaign crowed, that the American air force had meted out the greatest damage ever inflicted on any people in a single eight-day period. Napalm killed many more Japanese than the atom bombs, and probably did as much, if not more, to destroy their will to keep fighting.
Napalm was also decisive in Korea, proclaimed the number one weapon by the New York Herald Tribune.
Do I detect a hint of hypocrisy from one of the worlds greatest mass murderers second only to the UK.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blog/napalm-america-korea-japan-vietnam/#.UiFTv3-WRs8
Upvote
0
In that case your statement sounded more like playing to the crowd.
Try standing on your own 2 feet and not being so worried about what other people think.
Or better still try looking at your indoctrination.
NOW BUZZ OFF and stalk someone your own age .
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN'S
Upvote
0
In that case your statement sounded more like playing to the crowd.
Try standing on your own 2 feet and not being so worried about what other people think.
Or better still try looking at your indoctrination.
NOW BUZZ OFF and stalk someone your own age .
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN'S
"Toys", "out" and "pram" spring to mind.
(Or probably "Toys", "out" and "mobility scooter"....)
Upvote
0
You are in danger of disappearing up your own ask me another question.
I would be happy to disentangle what remains of your thought process.:|
Mind you miracles may take a bit longer.
Upvote
0
So, DC-PM gets slapped down by the country's MPs and now can't legally drop ordnance on Syria.Although he is probably furiously trying to find way to enable him to join in and to tick the box in the 'Things to do as a PM' handbook, the one that states, 'I bombed something. somewhere, without evidence and against the will of the voters but America, our friend, did it as well'!
President O is now trying to find a way to use his executive powers to 'go-a-bombing'. Interesting to see how he can use his executive powers when they clearly outline how and when they can be used;
'a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or its armed forces, or the imminence of such an attack.'
I think Syria are a bit too busy to start a fight with the US.
Italy is furiously fitting more reverse gears to their tanks etc but has said that without UN backing, they won't be playing out to bomb some stuff, just yet!
If the US and France start to drop ordnance on targets in Syria then the whole situation could escalate very quickly. Iran has already stated that it would retaliate, here's a quote from Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the Iranian parliaments Committee on National Security, Security. He said, "a strike against Syria will]not be confined to its borders but will have repercussions in the entire region.
Syria will probably fire on israel, israel will fire back and more.
Jordan will then join its Syrian Arab brothers in defending and attack from Israel.
Egypt will forget the current troubles and unite against a common enemy, and under the leadership of General al-Sisi, they will open a second front along the Gaza Strip.
Saudi Arabia will just sit on the sidelines for while and then jump in when needed. They would still supply arms to their Arab brothers though.
Yemen, well half of Yemen would back Syria and the the other half, the AQ branch, would back the rebels in Syria.
Interestingly the UN think that rebels have used chemical weapons in the past;
This, from a Washington Times article by Shaun Waterman dated May 6, 2013:
Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof, that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed. {emphasis ours}
Read more here:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/6...sed-chemical-weapon-but-look-what-the-un-says
All-in-all I think the whole situation will just escalate into one big mess with a lot of innocent lives lost.
President O is now trying to find a way to use his executive powers to 'go-a-bombing'. Interesting to see how he can use his executive powers when they clearly outline how and when they can be used;
'a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or its armed forces, or the imminence of such an attack.'
I think Syria are a bit too busy to start a fight with the US.
Italy is furiously fitting more reverse gears to their tanks etc but has said that without UN backing, they won't be playing out to bomb some stuff, just yet!
If the US and France start to drop ordnance on targets in Syria then the whole situation could escalate very quickly. Iran has already stated that it would retaliate, here's a quote from Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the Iranian parliaments Committee on National Security, Security. He said, "a strike against Syria will]not be confined to its borders but will have repercussions in the entire region.
Syria will probably fire on israel, israel will fire back and more.
Jordan will then join its Syrian Arab brothers in defending and attack from Israel.
Egypt will forget the current troubles and unite against a common enemy, and under the leadership of General al-Sisi, they will open a second front along the Gaza Strip.
Saudi Arabia will just sit on the sidelines for while and then jump in when needed. They would still supply arms to their Arab brothers though.
Yemen, well half of Yemen would back Syria and the the other half, the AQ branch, would back the rebels in Syria.
Interestingly the UN think that rebels have used chemical weapons in the past;
This, from a Washington Times article by Shaun Waterman dated May 6, 2013:
Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof, that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed. {emphasis ours}
Read more here:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/6...sed-chemical-weapon-but-look-what-the-un-says
All-in-all I think the whole situation will just escalate into one big mess with a lot of innocent lives lost.
Upvote
0
I'm not so sure - President O is not a natural war-monger (unlike his idiot predecessor) and I have a suspiscion that he may be hoping for a way out, with a little help from his British cousins:
Had he wanted to become involved (embroiled) in the Syrian conflict, it would have been sensible to have done so sooner. I think he's had his bluff called - he drew his 'red line' over chemical weapons hoping it would not be crossed. His bluff has been called, he has to act.
He'd hoped for a swift, short show of arms this weekend, but the British parliament stymied that. But it gives him an idea - he, too, must ask Congress and (unlike DC) Barrack O might, just might, be crossing his fingers and hoping Congress, like Parliament, votes against punitive action against Assad.
Anyway, Congress doesn't return until 9th Sep, so nothing will happen until then, whilst in the meantime he's been to Russia ...
A week is a long time in politics.
I think talk of the demise of the special relationship was a little bit premature, in fact, our MPs rejection of the use of force may prove to be one of the definitive moments in our modern history.
Just one (of many) possible scenarios.
(Sadly) we live in interesting times.
J
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
What Carphone Warehouse, Microsoft and Uber Have in Common: They Started in a DownturnThere's a comforting myth that you need a booming economy to start...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Makes a Small Business Actually Sellable?There's a question that a lot of small business owners never think to...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Why Your Team Keeps Asking the Same Questions (And What to Actually Do About It)Every small business owner knows the moment. You're halfway through...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
At What Point Do Courier Losses Just Become a Cost of Doing Business?If you sell physical products online, you already know the feeling. You...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What I Wish I'd Known Before Using AI in My BusinessSomewhere between the headlines promising AI will transform everything...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
