There’s no need to be “enraged” piemonster. Recognise past mistakes, learn from them, and don’t repeat them. It can all be done in a calm and level-headed manner.

I find it all a bit ironic when the west (UK in particular) protests and becomes precious when the pupil heeds the lessons of its teacher, and then emulates its behaviour.

[/url]

@piemonster – it would be good if we could focus just on the issue at hand but when there are people who either remember first hand, or whose parents were subjected to this treatment, it has direct relevance to what is happening today across a large area.

There’s no need to be “enraged” piemonster. Recognise past mistakes, learn from them, and don’t repeat them. It can all be done in a calm and level-headed manner.

Very noble Ernie, but as you know those in power learn that there is too much money and influence to be acquired to be worrying about the messy consequences for others to clear up.

As they say, “protecting our interests”, what group of individuals interests in the west are they protecting? 😉

People seldom do what they claim to believe in, the do what is convenient for them and “may” repent later.

I thought this article was a pretty good summary of the current position:

39838/andrew-j-tabler/the-day-after-assad-wins

From Foreign Affairs.

Since the year dot….

It’s not like they haven’t got form….blaming western powers is simplistic and a western-centric view

The record of the West’s dealings with the Middle East…this must be approaching an all time low…

Well, there were the Crusades. And the Napoleonic wars. And the general nastiness during WWI and WWII. On the other hand, the Ottomans weren’t particularly nice to the Greeks, and the medieval islamic armies invading Europe probably weren’t all that pleasant, either.

So no, I don’t think this is an all time low. Pretty much normal behaviour, if history is anything to go by.

@Nickc

It’s just that during our interaction with them we showed them some nice shiny new and more effective toys with which to wage their wars on one another.

Harder to create carnage with swords than with Ricin and nuclear weapons.

nickc i think youll find that beating the crap out of each other has been going on everywhere since the first human picked up a stick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England

its only fair to mention that the middle east was also the birthplace of… farming, writing, metullurgy, mathematics, science, cities, animal breeding etc etc

Kimbers, good point, well made. 🙂

My point, badly made is that whilst a certain level of blame can be rightly placed at the feet of western govts ( especially post 1918 and the discovery of oil, there are also centuries old enmities that stoke the fires of conflict in this region. To label everything from Tunisia eastwards as “imperialist western influences” is simplistic

its only fair to mention that the middle east was also the birthplace of… farming, writing, metullurgy, mathematics, science, cities, animal breeding etc etc

Is that actually true, I doubt all of them?

Regardless of the past involvements.

Start new … Stop intervening in other countries’ affairs or you will get plenty of headache later on.

You simply cannot tell others how to leave their lives.

The West never gets the message … never.

Stop bothering on others’ affairs! Simple.

🙄

well farming has been shown to have started elsewhere about the same time although many of our present crops and famred animals can all be traced back genetically to the fertile cresent

the earliest writing discovered has come from meopotamia

as Uruk the first city again from Iraq (mesopotamia)

and again the earliest worked metal was copper from Iraq

its arguable that a lot of developments occured in prallel in different points around the world but as the middle east is the first step out of africa its logical that a lot of ‘1sts’ occured there as the new environment created new challenges and spurred on advances

kimbers – Member

… its arguable that a lot of developments occured in prallel in different points around the world …

I bet that is the case … 😀

The West and EU were still cavemen like in those days … 😆

Every other secret service thriller story seems to have assasins for hire at every turn. Can’t governments just use these to take out the problem leaders, that way the ordinary folk can get on with their lives.

nick1962 – Member

Every other secret service thriller story seems to have assasins for hire at every turn. Can’t governments just use these to take out the problem leaders, that way the ordinary folk can get on with their lives.

Yaaaa … but then they can’t claim the credit for being shaddy but I still like that idea because that will be fun to see them having no private life. Yes, it will be fun to see Western/EU/Other Leaders get assassinated on telly all the time. Make them work for their money/career as politician.

I think a bombing campaign is entirely out of question. The West now realises that the rebels are worse and less reliable than Assad.

I just had a lolz

I knew this was going to happen from the backroom conversations and gossip being had between political advisers I know.

Maybe I should have taken a bet out at Ladbrokes.

Great, just great – isn’t this all we need right now – getting ourselves involved in yet another pointless war we can ill afford with no likely good outcome either way.

Yes the scenes in Syria are terrible beyond belief, but what right have we to meddle when history has proved that the likelyhood is that we will just make things worse through our misguided actions. Wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan etc have all been pretty much a disaster thanks to our UK/US military intervention. In particular how hypocritical is it of the US to decry the use of chemical weapons in Syria when the US developed and relied heavily on chemical weapons during their own Vietnam campaign.

Diplomacy is the only way forward, not military action. Bombing Syria or sending in the troops makes us just as bad as those fighting in the first place.

When oh when will we finally learn our lesson not to stick ourselves into other peoples business where we’re not needed or wanted.

chemical weapons

Technically agent orange wasn’t really a primary chemical weapon. It was a herbicide designed to break down foliage and make things such as the killing of vietcong with gunships somewhat easier.

It did however have the unintended and covered up side effect of being toxic to…well just about anything that lives being a teratogen/carcinogen….. causing all sorts of long term effects. That’s quite different from say the US deciding to drop Sarin gas all over Hanoi.

The rest I agree with, part of the reason why Ernie disagreed with me on the possibility of a bombing campaign is that I never underestimate the extraordinary depths of human idiocy.

I’d like to add that it will probably turn out to be the rebels who used the stuff. I bet we won’t bomb them though? In case we anger the extremist types. I have a gut feeling this is about appeasing islamists, to show them that the west isn’t always out to **** them by doing things like taking East Timor off them. Geopolitically that’s all we have to gain from a limited intervention, that and Mrs Cameron being able to sleep soundly because “some Syrian children have been saved by my husband”.

If I was feeling really, really cynical I’d say Obama and Cameron have dragged us into this because some Syrian lady on Newsnight called them weak. Can’t have people questioning their masculinity now can we?

Quosh to bits that hitler **** killing his own people to death with chemical weapons… yeah, I’ll go with that, if you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, y’know, before sending in what will be Massive bombardment that will possibly kill even more innocent kids. Prove to me beyond a shadow of adoubt that it will be a legitimate and internatinally snctioned and legal intervention and I’ll be ok with it.

Sigh….

I prefer to take a more simplistic view of the situation.

If the Syrian forces are using chemical weapons on its civilian population isnt it right that the international community act?

If the British government used the army and turned on the electorate i would want/expect other countries to come to my aid.

Obviously try diplomacy first….but if that fails then depose the current leader, castrate their military and see what happens….the repurcussions arent always pretty but if humanity spent the entire time worrying about the consequences of actions then nothing would ever get beyond the talking stage.

If the British government used the army and turned on the electorate i would want/expect other countries to come to my aid.

Depends who the good guys are. Your relying on those trying to other throw the government being the good guys.

They may well be, they also may well prove just as bad. Do you trust the UK government to pick the good guys and not just the guys likely to make money and/or provide a strategic ally?

I doubt very much that the UK will go into this without the view of getting long term economic or strategic gains from this.

Am I alone in not “getting” the chemical weapons bit? Of course, that is a terrible thing to do and cannot be condoned. But the terrible bit is killing your own people (or killing anyone for that matter). Is there really a red line between bombing or blowing up someone’s appartment, shooting them in cold blood in their street, air strikes, summary executions and the use of a gas or some other toxin. In the end, the result is the same….murder. And that is abhorrent. The method is secondary….are we to accept cold blooded murder in the form of a sniper bullet?

A drone or a missile from a far off sub is a remarkably cowardly (if sensible) method of killing others. Should we condemn that method of murder in the same way.

To be clear, I am not condoning the use of chemicals in any way. Nor am I in favour of our military intervention. But I just fail to see why such a distinct line is made between different forms of appaling acts. Why is one method of inlicting horror more or less acceptable morally?

Am I alone in not “getting” the chemical weapons bit?

No. It doesn’t take much imagination and an unfiltered image search to know there are many horrible ways to kill

A drone or a missile from a far off sub is a remarkably cowardly (if sensible) method of killing others. Should we condemn that method of murder in the same way.

Yes

But I just fail to see why such a distinct line is made between different forms of appaling acts. Why is one method of inlicting horror more or less acceptable morally?

I don’t know this for certain. But I feel it’s being used to provide the political excuse for intervention rather than genuine government level concern.

Indeed piemonster and that is a terrible mistake IMO

I think a bombing campaign is entirely out of question. The West now realises that the rebels are worse and less reliable than Assad.

I just had a lolz

Well I was of course referring to a “bombing campaign” simular to the one carried out in Libya which was maintained until the rebels had achieved victory. The US has made it clear that such a bombing campaign would be out of the question as they now consider that the rebels are worse, or at least no better, than Assad.

To be fair I did not consider the possibility of “punitive” strikes which will have no strategic value. The suggestion is that the strikes will probably not even last days but merely last hours, not so much of a campaign then.

Other than killing some people and shifting the momentum slightly away from the Syrian government, but not enough to give the rebels a significant boost to achieve victory, I can’t see how it will make any difference other than maintaining a stalemate.

And so a conflict which has tragically already cost 100,000 lives will trundle on and more people will die.

Meanwhile the US, the UK, France, and Israel, will have the satisfying spectacle of watching Hezbollah killing Al-Qaeda, vice versa, and Al-Qaeda attacking a regime which stubbornly refuses to serve US/zionist interests. Although this will almost certainly have long term negative consequences for the West, as past history has a tendency to prove.

I whole heartily agree with THM’s views of questioning the so called red line of chemical weapons …

How about Eygpt and the double standards for our supposed “moral obligation” ??

But hey… if you need to use the Suez canal you turn a blind eye to a military coup that wasn’t a military coup 🙄

Personally, I think this situation is a strong argument for a unified European Armed Force, both in terms of the collective decision making and in terms of spreading the liability and responsibility more broadly. Ideally I would prefer a UN military force with a clear mandate and no national strictures. Pigs might fly and all that, but when did we/the US get elected as the worlds Police Force? Frankly this sticking our noses into other peoples business is getting a bit tedious.
In addition to all of that we’ve just cut the bejesus out of the armed forces. How the hell can they be expected to take on yet another ridiculous and unenforcable policing action with both hands tied to one foot yet again??? I do wonder what our reaction would have been had Libiya or someone interfered in Northern Ireland…….. oh yeah 😳

when did we/the US get elected as the worlds Police Force?

1991 is my suggestion

hhhmmm … Russia and China should flex their muscles now or at least use some of their “hi-tech” weapons by shooting down few drones or perhaps few of the fighter jets. Better still start a drone war or sink a few aircraft carrier or nuke sub.

The news channels better be there to capture the live footage of down drones or jets as I am fed up with both sides pussy footing and pumping out hot air. I want to watch news channel repeated show down jet like those in the Falkland war. I remember watching Skyhawks on the telly being down by SAM or perhaps Harrier jump jet.

Obviously, news from the West are always supporting the one sided DEMONcratic views and we really do not know the story from the other side.

Therefore, the should be a gung-ho approach and get it over and done with … winner(s) take all.

As for the innocence may you rest in peace away from this maggot infested world.

Stop bothering on others’ affairs! Simple.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Can you really stand by and watch children being gassed without wanting to do anything?

Molly. Decisions like this can’t be taken on an emotional Knee-jerk ‘will somebody not think of the children!’ basis

As ultimately, the amount of children killed in the gas attacks will no doubt pale into insignificance next to the amount that’ll die initially through misdirected cruise missiles, then because of the resulting escalating and widening of the conflict as the fallout spills out across the region.

You need to ask ‘what can we do to prevent more children dying?’. I don’t know the answer. Maybe the answer is actually ‘not much’! I suspect it is. But, of course, that would mean admitting our impotence. So lets launch a shit load of cruise missiles, and a few waves of air strikes instead. Thats bound to help

Does anyone other that is actually going to reduce the numbers of children killed? Seriously?

molgrips – Member

Stop bothering on others’ affairs! Simple.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Can you really stand by and watch children being gassed without wanting to do anything?

May the innocence rest in peace.

Doing something means you now get their chance to do the same to the opposing side’s children. Now is your chance to kill their children.

I am sure innocence will die to on the opposing side if you go for the full scale retaliation. Can you do that? Or perhaps you think that your intelligent bullets / gas will avoid killing innocence children on the opposing side? HHhhmmmm …?

Stop being nosey as that is their internal problem, also bear in mind that Assad has not encroached on others’ territory.

🙄

I notice in todays papers that the weapons porn has been embraced in the usual earnest by the media, gearing up to get to show some big explosions. Phwooooar eh?

I don’t think it’s that simple. Can you really stand by and watch children being gassed without wanting to do anything?

nope its **** abhorrent

theres a simple fix a WEEKS warning to get out of dodge ,women peacelovers and innocents

warmongers remain if you wish ,warmongers verging on cowards hide where you need to to be hunted down later

Innitiate blanket bombing of country

Does anyone other that is actually going to reduce the numbers of children killed?

Well you have hit the nail on the head (for a change 🙂 ). The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. People in power do try to do the right thing, problem is that they usually fail.

Doing something means you now get their chance to do the same to the opposing side’s children.

I’m almost certain that any Western intervention will not involve gassing civilians indiscriminately.

Let’s put it another way. If you saw a woman or a child being beaten up in the street, would you do nothing? It’s not your problem, after all.

You’re right. We have much more civilized ways of inflicting civilian casualties.

I’m almost certain that any Western intervention will not involve gassing civilians indiscriminately be inline with the geneva convention or not outlawed by the UN

People in power do try to do the right thing

😯 what, always?

My opinion of most politicians is not high at the best of times, but this build up to intervention in Syria makes me especially sad and angry. Basic questions unanswered and the BS that is the idea of limited surgical strikes. Yea right?!? For the first time ever I felt compelled to write to my MP to highlight my concerns and the fact that my vote next time will depend on what she says and does tomorrow. Cameron has already gone so/too far that I expect that tomorrow is little more than a rubbing stamping exercise. They should be ashamed.