# Another flipping war



## drawboy (Aug 28, 2013)

Well according to the news the UK IS going to attack Syria. Great! That is all we need. Once again we are the pawn of the US charged with doing their dirty work.
There is no doubt in my mind that once more we are going to interfere in a conflict that does not concern us one bit.
This spells disaster as it would seem we are going to strike the assad regime regardless of it's legality.
When will our politicians ever break free of the U.S?
I know we owe a debt we can never pay following. WW2 but we cannot go on being the U.S's private stormtroopers surely?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 28, 2013)

Strong feeling of deja vu on this one.

You would think that we would have learned our lessons by now.

What on earth does clan warfare in the middle east have to do with us.
Even the UN are telling us to calm down.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 28, 2013)

People seem to forget that War is very profitable for the types of companies that can employ the best lobbyists and ex (and current) politicians.......


----------



## williamalex1 (Aug 28, 2013)

The only Arabs we should be attacking is the team from Dundee.


----------



## Mark_G (Aug 28, 2013)

I can't help thinking we should be a lot more cautious but if I was a potential victim of a chemical attack I would be praying for someone to help. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't..


----------



## Vice (Aug 28, 2013)

They don't even know who they should be going to war with, they are saying its the government, but they don't even know who did it.

Possible it was extremists, easy way to wipe out their opposition.

heck it could of been the Americans for all anybody knows.

everyone pointing fingers at each other


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 28, 2013)

If Assad had nothing to hide over the chemical attack, then why did he wait 5 days before letting the UN inspectors into the site.

Sounds like a clean up operation to me.

This is a real test of the UN's credibility, if they fail to sort this out they may as well not exist

I do agree that we cannot be seen as the worlds police force, we are reducing our armed forces and simply cannot do the job , on the one hand its nothing to do with us, on the other hand, the whole region could become more unstable (is that possible) and before you know it WW3 has begun if the Israelies feel threatened .

can O worms


----------



## drawboy (Aug 28, 2013)

My money would be on the CIA. The end game is the same, OIL.


----------



## 3offTheTee (Aug 28, 2013)

How can we afford to be involved every time some problem occurs. We should avoid a all costs


----------



## Rooter (Aug 28, 2013)

We need 'team America' they would sort it out. Them with Hans brix...


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 28, 2013)

I think we need to do more talking first and let the UN deal with this initially. Too many variables to understand how the government can say with 100% certainty they know who they are going after, where they are and that they can actually get them. How long were they looking for Saddam? Bigger worry still for me is the threat of chemical reprisal attacks here in the UK by militant terrorists


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 28, 2013)

Rooter said:



			We need 'team America' they would sort it out. Them with Hans brix...
		
Click to expand...

Now you're talking

but Assad singing " Im so ronery" doesn't have the same ring to it


----------



## Vice (Aug 28, 2013)

Or why did the UN take 5 days to get into the site? Because he said they couldn't?
Not saying he has nothing to hide, but people generally believe "the news", unfortunately the news is dictated by the government.



PhilTheFragger said:



			If Assad had nothing to hide over the chemical attack, then why did he wait 5 days before letting the UN inspectors into the site.

Sounds like a clean up operation to me.

This is a real test of the UN's credibility, if they fail to sort this out they may as well not exist

I do agree that we cannot be seen as the worlds police force, we are reducing our armed forces and simply cannot do the job , on the one hand its nothing to do with us, on the other hand, the whole region could become more unstable (is that possible) and before you know it WW3 has begun if the Israelies feel threatened .

can O worms
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 28, 2013)

The UN team that are checking for chemical weapons have not finished their tests yet!  How can we make decisions before that.

I am suspicious on the pictures and film on the chemical weapon use.    They could have possibly been fabricated to drag in international support.


----------



## drdel (Aug 28, 2013)

One day our UK leaders will understand we are a small country and cannot afford to be the world's conscience and its policeman.  It would be a very, very big mistake to think any conventional military action using our underfunded and over extended soldiers could make a difference. It is not conventional military activities as we would be in the middle; it would last years and cost (waste) the lives of our service personnel.


----------



## Vice (Aug 28, 2013)

Exactly... 

like I said, I'm not saying Assad has nothing to hide, but he is the one with the most to lose in this situation. What conceivable reason could he have for bringing this upon himself?

Guess I'm just paranoid and don't believe anything any government says or does.

Anyone could have fired those rockets, if they were even fired at all like SocketRocket says...


----------



## williamalex1 (Aug 28, 2013)

Who's rockets .  SocketRocket.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 28, 2013)

Haig has just done a triple U turn with pike. Muppet.


----------



## Wolfman (Aug 28, 2013)

its no wonder the UK has zero money for its own folk and why don't we do the same as Germany etc leave well alone and invest the money into the country instead

Let the Arabs fight it out, and let the US do there thing but without UK assistance 

When will this little country ever learn and keep itself to itself for a change


----------



## williamalex1 (Aug 29, 2013)

Wolfman said:



			its no wonder the UK has zero money for its own folk and why don't we do the same as Germany etc leave well alone and invest the money into the country instead

Let the Arabs fight it out, and let the US do there thing but without UK assistance 

When will this little country ever learn and keep itself to itself for a change
		
Click to expand...

  It took Germany two world wars, which they started and lost . to realise that . We are not learning a thing from past events , Crusades included, before my time BTH.


----------



## Andy808 (Aug 29, 2013)

PhilTheFragger said:



			If Assad had nothing to hide over the chemical attack, then why did he wait 5 days before letting the UN inspectors into the site.

Sounds like a clean up operation to me.
		
Click to expand...

And why were the UN inspectors being shot at by snipers which ever side they were from?



drawboy said:



			My money would be on the CIA. The end game is the same, OIL.
		
Click to expand...

There isn't enough oil in Syria to bother with as it produces less than a third of the oil we produce so they are net importers of oil.

The bigger worry is if Russia support Assad and his regime then it has wider implications than just helping the people of Syria who are under attack from, allegedly, their own leader. 
This one could get very very messy if the UN and the west are not very careful.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 29, 2013)

My biggest worry is that some nutter is going to fire a chemical weapon at Israel 
If that happens, Israel will retaliate big time, the whole region will get sucked in, as the old hatred returns, Iran joins in, 
USA will support Israel , which will fuel the fire.
Oil supplies will be disrupted, and if Russia turns off the oil and gas taps then this will effect us directly.

So it isn't "none of our business" do we do nothing or do we do something to try to contain the situation?

I'm glad I'm not a politician


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Aug 29, 2013)

It seams for now, at least, that reason has prevailed. Lets see what the results from the UN team have to tell us first.
If its proved that Assad has used WMD then some sort of military action is justified IMO.
We have done nowt for 2 years, so to rush in now would be a bit daft, as said we're not the world police, thats supposed to be the UN.
The whole eagerness that some politicians have shown for military action annoys me. Where were these same politicians when Russia gassed the Chechens?? 
Ofcourse Russia can fight back, not saying that had anything to do with our reluctance to get involved in that little conflict you understand.


----------



## Vice (Aug 29, 2013)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...ention-by-using-wmds-in-a-war-he-was-winning/


----------



## 6inchcup (Aug 29, 2013)

assad has used chemical weapons 14 times before this one (if it was him ) so why the big puffing out of the chest by the americans now,as for our government we are just towing the American line because we have to,have any other country said they will use force,what about the germans or for that matter spain,italy,poland or some eastern country,a dead child in the gutter is still a dead child wether killed by gas or by our bombs,that would teach them a lesson,you killed innocent children so we will do the same only by a legal method !!


----------



## Vice (Aug 29, 2013)

With our "pinpoint accurate" air strikes haha
How pinpoint can a missile be, unless its going through his chest and NOT exploding


----------



## tugglesf239 (Aug 29, 2013)

The whole thing stinks to be honest.

The US government made a real bonehead move by announcing to the entire world that they would respond to a Chem / Bio weapon attack last year.

Now that Assad is basically smashing the resistance into submission and (potentially) not long from winning, it seems logical that one of the many opposition groups would conduct this attack. After all what have they got to lose, apart from 2000 civilians? After all freedom does come at a cost.......

Even if it was Assad that ordered the attack. Why should this attack be any worse than other that have gone in the past?

He must have slaughtered tens of thousands during this conflict. Why should we suddenly be worried because the last 2000 were murdered by gas instead of ordinance?


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Aug 30, 2013)

Politicians have had a rougth ride on here recently, quite rightly so on most occasions, but last night showed to the world not only the strength of our democracy but the inherent strength in democracy as a whole.
So credit were credit is due, well done parliament.
I would also like to thank the government MPs, both tory and liberal, who put there concience above party politics and voted against military intervention last night. Perhaps there are a few MPs who are there for the right reasons after all.
I'am now going for a lie down, not quite believing i have just praised a tory on a public forum.
The worlds gone mad..


----------



## Fish (Aug 30, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			Politicians have had a rougth ride on here recently, quite rightly so on most occasions, but last night showed to the world not only the strength of our democracy but the inherent strength in democracy as a whole.
So credit were credit is due, well done parliament.
I would also like to thank the government MPs, both tory and liberal, who put there concience above party politics and voted against military intervention last night. Perhaps there are a few MPs who are there for the right reasons after all.
I'am now going for a lie down, not quite believing i have just praised a tory on a public forum.
The worlds gone mad.. 

Click to expand...

and yet Paddy Ashdown comes across as a Liberal war monger who wouldn't have battered a eye lid and would have gone straight in!

A close allie we may be to the USA but it should never be a given that we should always follow them gun-ho into any fight they choose to get into.


----------



## ger147 (Aug 30, 2013)

It was nice to see the majority recognising for once that the situation in Syria is unlikely to be improved by several Cruise missiles arriving in downtown Damascus and wreaking havoc, devastation and death.


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Aug 30, 2013)

Fish said:



			and yet Paddy Ashdown comes across as a Liberal war monger who wouldn't have battered a eye lid and would have gone straight in!

A close allie we may be to the USA but it should never be a given that we should always follow them gun-ho into any fight they choose to get into.
		
Click to expand...

I tend not to take much notice in what the liberals have to say. They've done more u-turns than a lost cab driver.
Then again, Dave & Ed aren't averse to the odd 360 when it suits them either.
There you go, after one post patting them on their backs, i'am now back to calling them.
Sanity has returned. 

BTW there is nothing in your post that i disagree with, although i believe Pantsdown didn't get to vote, didn't someone make him a lord ??


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

I'll just copy and paste here what I wrote on Syria thread as just noticed that this is the active one...

And so last night 'parliament decided'. But listening to many of the public speaking on radio this morning I do wonder if they realise what the votes last night really mean - most of their comments suggest they do not - but I fear that maybe they do.

Given that the Labour amendment urging caution, wait and see, confirmation, definate evidence that it was the Assad regime etc was also defeated - we find ourselves in the position that we - the UK government - will not under any circumstances sanction any support to or involvement in any form of military intervention in Syria. So even if it is uncontrovertibly proved beyond ANY doubt that the Assad regime perpetrated a heinous act of war - and a war crime in blatent contravention with the Geneva convention - the United kingdom will stand aside and not get involved.

Given that this seems to be happily acceptable to the majority of the population of this country (given what I have heard last night and this morning) I can draw one conclusion - and there are many. My one sad conclusion is that the British people do not care about death and maiming of Syrian civilians. I have heared many say that they DO care and that use of chemical weapons DOES concern them - but by their words and actions are they judged. It seems to me that many, and that may well be the majority, in the UK bluntly couldn't actually give a monkey's about Syria and the plight of the Syrian people.

And you know - this really doesn't surprise me as in my view we have become a very selfish people, and this is being reflected in us become a selfish and isolationist nation. For me Paddy Ashdown was correct. He is ashamed - I am ashamed. We are happy to walk by, to tell someone else what we have seen and expect them to sort it out. God forbid it is ever us lying by the wayside in need of help.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

Vice said:



			With our "pinpoint accurate" air strikes haha
How pinpoint can a missile be, unless its going through his chest and NOT exploding
		
Click to expand...

btw - you have no idea how accurate these weapons are and how they work - but I do.  How accurate is your golf GPS thingy?  well I can tell you that compared with cruise missile guidance technology that's pretty ciude stuff as it happens...


----------



## ger147 (Aug 30, 2013)

All a bit melodramatic if I may say.

It was only a parliamentary motion brought as an attempt by DC to legitimise UK support for the USA's impending delivery of cruise missiles to downtown Damascus.

If/when things change or become clearer in the future, further debates can be had, other motions raised and they may well be approved.  Last night doesn't change that.


----------



## Fish (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'll just copy and paste here what I wrote on Syria thread as just noticed that this is the active one...

And so last night 'parliament decided'. But listening to many of the public speaking on radio this morning I do wonder if they realise what the votes last night really mean - most of their comments suggest they do not - but I fear that maybe they do.

Given that the Labour amendment urging caution, wait and see, confirmation, definiate evidence that it was the Assad regime etc was also defeated - we find ourselves in the position that we - the UK government - will not under any circumstances sanction any support to or involvement in any form of military intervention in Syria. So even if it is uncontrovertibly proved beyond ANY doubt that the Assad regime perpetrated a heinous act of war - and a war crime in blatent contravention with the Geneva convention - the United kingdom will stand aside and not get involved.

Given that this seems to be happily acceptable to the majority of the population of this country (given what I have heard last night and this morning) I can draw one conclusion - and there are many. My one sad conclusion is that the British people do not care about death and maiming of Syrian civilians. I have heared many say that they DO care and that use of chemical weapons DOES concern them - but by their words and actions are they judged. It seems to me that many, and that may well be the majority, in the UK bluntly couldn't actually give a monkey's about Syria and the plight of the Syrian people.

And you know - this really doesn't surprise me as in my view we have become a very selfish people, and this is being reflected in us become a selfish and isolationist nation. For me Paddy Ashdown was correct. He is ashamed - I am ashamed. We are happy to walk by, to tell someone else what we have seen and expect them to sort it out. God forbid it is ever us lying by the wayside in need of help.
		
Click to expand...

Far too dramatic for me.

The USA nor the UN have submitted or produced any proof yet on any level, as such we cannot go in on a whim, like we have done before and are still counting the costs!

I am sure that should any proof without defence is shown that Assad has used chemicals in the footage we have seen, then parliament can be asked once again but then with the knowledge that crimes have been committed can vote again, until then, its the right decision.  However, even when and if that evidence does come to light, I'd hope that Russia then gets off the fence and has an input which would stop us throwing any missiles at Syria.

If we want to be the worlds police, then lets do it everywhere where we know first hand that atrocities take place, but would we, NO!


----------



## Fish (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			btw - you have no idea how accurate these weapons are and how they work - but I do.  How accurate is your golf GPS thingy?  well I can tell you that compared with cruise missile guidance technology that's pretty ciude stuff as it happens...
		
Click to expand...

Still open to user error which I have seen first hand!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			If its proved that Assad has used WMD then some sort of military action is justified IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Well sir - last night's votes have completely scuppered that I'm afraid.  And so...


----------



## Fish (Aug 30, 2013)

ger147 said:



			All a bit melodramatic if I may say.

It was only a parliamentary motion brought as an attempt by DC to legitimise UK support for the USA's impending delivery of cruise missiles to downtown Damascus.

If/when things change or become clearer in the future, further debates can be had, other motions raised and they may well be approved.  Last night doesn't change that.
		
Click to expand...

Is the correct view point and answer


----------



## ger147 (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well sir - last night's votes have completely scuppered that I'm afraid.  And so...
		
Click to expand...

They didn't...


----------



## Fish (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well sir - last night's votes have completely scuppered that I'm afraid.  And so...
		
Click to expand...

No it hasn't, because their is still no proof submitted, as and when their is, votes may change but then the input of vetoed country's may change also


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

Fish said:



			Still open to user error which I have seen first hand!
		
Click to expand...

Indeed they are - but they need not be.  The 'user' identifies a target and the missile will hit it.  Actually that is true for some systems as some guidance systems use image recognition and correlation techniques for target acquisition - user input may or may not be necessary.


----------



## Fish (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Indeed they are - but they need not be.  The 'user' identifies a target and the missile will hit it.  Actually that is true for some systems as some guidance systems use image recognition and correlation techniques for target acquisition - user input may or may not be necessary.
		
Click to expand...

Still open to user error as many friendly KIA stats will tell you. I've been around Americans in conflict, their a friggin' nightmare.


----------



## sneill (Aug 30, 2013)

Fish said:



			Still open to user error as many friendly KIA stats will tell you. I've been around Americans in conflict, their a friggin' nightmare.
		
Click to expand...


Ill 2nd that seen then go about there business for last 6 months and they just a different breed to us.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

sneill said:



			Ill 2nd that seen then go about there business for last 6 months and they just a different breed to us.
		
Click to expand...

On the ground - up in the air maybe.  But with cruise missiles you aren't talking about having trigger happy gung ho random guys in charge.  No matter what you think of your average GI or whatever - we are not talking about the same thing - so it's really disingenous and easy to link the two things if you want lots of folk saying they are in agreement - when in truth the vast majority of folk have absolutely zero comprehension, never mind understanding, of what is involved in long range guidance missile technology and deployment.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

Fish said:



			and yet Paddy Ashdown comes across as a Liberal war monger who wouldn't have battered a eye lid and would have gone straight in!
		
Click to expand...

To you maybe - but not to me.  To me his are the words of knowledgable compassion.


----------



## ger147 (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			when in truth the vast majority of folk have absolutely zero comprehension, never mind understanding, of what is involved in long range guidance missile technology and deployment.
		
Click to expand...

You could say the same about parliamentary motions...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

ger147 said:



			If/when things change or become clearer in the future, further debates can be had, other motions raised and they may well be approved.  Last night doesn't change that.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it does!!  That's the point - and I fear that you, like many, may not fully appreciate it. Or if you do you are for some reason chosing to ignore the facts of last night.

The Labour party amendment was to allow all of the above as you state - and it was rejected.  There will now be *NO* UK military involvement in Syria any way - *regardless *of what might become clearer in the future.  The UK has militarily turned it's back on Syria and the Syrian people. To try and seek a successful outcome by other means is like piddling in the wind - but it sounds good.  

Actually though, I am of the view that when it comes down to it - the majority of us British people actually don't give a stuff about the Syrians and their plight.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

ger147 said:



			You could say the same about parliamentary motions...
		
Click to expand...

Don't really understand the comparison - though if it is as it appears to me that most people don't seem to have the slightest idea what was actually being debated and voted on yesterday - then I agree.


----------



## ger147 (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yes it does!!  That's the point - and I fear that you, like many, may not fully appreciate it. Or if you do you are for some reason chosing to ignore the facts of last night.

The Labour party amendment was to allow all of the above as you state - and it was rejected.  There will now be *NO* UK military involvement in Syria any way - *regardless *of what might become clearer in the future.  The UK has militarily turned it's back on Syria and the Syrian people. To try and seek a successful outcome by other means is like piddling in the wind - but it sounds good.  

Actually though, I am of the view that when it comes down to it - the majority of us British people actually don't give a stuff about the Syrians and their plight.
		
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

DC and/or EM could table another motion tomorrow, have another vote and parliament could change its mind.


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well sir - last night's votes have completely scuppered that I'm afraid.  And so...
		
Click to expand...

Well sir- may i say thats rubbish. 
If and when whatever evidence is found, is submitted to the UN, and voted on accordingly, then we will Know more clearly were we stand. 
If it is shown beyond all reasonable doubt that Assad is guilty then i will support 100% any military intervention deemed appropiate BY THE UN, and carried out BY THE UN.
We are not the worlds police, nor its moral guardians.
 Like most people what Assad has done to his people disgusts me, as does the stance of Russia and China. However, maybe, just maybe unaquivable proof of Assads guilt might just get their posteriers of the fence.
Not once in the post you have chosen to cherry pick did i advocate uni or bilateral military intervention, infact i mentioned the importence of the UN on two seperate occasions, quite a lot in a post of less than 10 lines.
If in future you wish to choose one of my posts in an attempt to make some personal point, could you please reproduce the whole post with the bit you wish to use highlighted.
Afterall "sir" context is everything. :thup:


----------



## drdel (Aug 30, 2013)

The problem is that this 'enemy' doesn't and wouldn't play by standard military rules. The potential replacement(s) for the current ruler(s) are as bad and possibly worse, with many connected to terrorist groups. Missiles may take out their selected target but the targets will no doubt be positioned in residential areas so civilians will be collateral damage so increasing the anti-west sentiments in the Middle East. Russia has provided hi-tech defence systems so it would be no walk-in-the-park. This is not the same as Lybia. A lot more water needs to flow under the bridge before there's firm evidence that the UK should consider getting into this potential conflict which, despite the current protestations, will eventually need men-on-the-ground because that's the only way any territory can be held and controlled.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 30, 2013)

Going into Syria without hard evidence is just as bad as the 'visit' to Iraq that was based on spin... If the UN decide intervention is needed, based on hard evidence, fine. But until then, mostly definitely, loudly, no absolutely not.

Ideally, I would prefer a UN peacekeeping force made up from other muslim countries. All we hear from the middle east is the war mongering west invading our countries...


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Aug 30, 2013)

Perhaps the Arab League??
Unfortunatly i wouldn't hold my breath Hobbit.


----------



## Fish (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Actually though, I am of the view that when it comes down to it - the majority of us British people actually don't give a stuff about the Syrians and their plight.
		
Click to expand...

OK, I'll break ranks and openly state that, if an envelope was placed on the table with 37 billion pounds in it, which is the cost to date of the Afghanistan war (Â£2k per household), and I could choose to use it to help Syria now or put it into the NHS and other essential area's of my own country, then Syria is not my problem or responsibility. 

In fact, you can reduce that figure to 7.5 billion which emptied our "special reserve" and is the cost of the Iraq invasion and war  and my decision would still be the same. 

I never questioned anywhere I was sent, and I've been to a few places, some of which were justified, some we were just political pawns on the chessboard with no means towards an end.

If Cameron is so hell bent on spending some serious money, spend it on home soil first!


----------



## In_The_Rough (Aug 30, 2013)

Sympathy for their plight and troubles but do not think we should be getting involved. Let somebody sort out other nations troubles for a change. They do not think any better of us anyway they still hate us so leave well alone.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 30, 2013)

Fish said:



			OK, I'll break ranks and openly state that, if an envelope was placed on the table with 37 billion pounds in it, which is the cost to date of the Afghanistan war (Â£2k per household), and I could choose to use it to help Syria now or put it into the NHS and other essential area's of my own country, then Syria is not my problem or responsibility. 

In fact, you can reduce that figure to 7.5 billion which emptied our "special reserve" and is the cost of the Iraq invasion and war  and my decision would still be the same. 

I never questioned anywhere I was sent, and I've been to a few places, some of which were justified, some we were just political pawns on the chessboard with no means towards an end.

If Cameron is so hell bent on spending some serious money, spend it on home soil first!
		
Click to expand...




In_The_Rough said:



			Sympathy for their plight and troubles but do not think we should be getting involved. Let somebody sort out other nations troubles for a change. They do not think any better of us anyway they still hate us so leave well alone.
		
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^^^^   This and This.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

ger147 said:



			No it doesn't.

DC and/or EM could table another motion tomorrow, have another vote and parliament could change its mind.
		
Click to expand...

That's not how I was hearing it...and commentators were reading it - and most public contributors seem to understand it.  The Labour Party amendment that put everything on hold, that required waiting for further and full confirmatrion; and that said that only then would a further debate and vote be held - was defeated...

By defeating the Labour Amandment parliament said they are not interested in what turns up - they are not going to have another vote on military intervention or support to any such inervention by others.  That's not what the government motion said - that's whayt the Labour amendment said - and it was defeated.

That aside - the very fact of the vote and the way so many have interpreted it does not change the feeling I have that most folk don't actually care about the Syrians.  And if that means many more innocent civilians die until bnefore tyhe fighting is stopped by an outside agency or peace breaks out - then so be it.  Nothing to do with us.  Tell me I am wrong and I'll be very pleased - but that is not what I'm hearing.


----------



## ger147 (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			That's not how I was hearing it...and commentators were reading it - and most public contributors seem to understand it.  The Labour Party amendment that put everything on hold, that required waiting for further and full confirmatrion; and that said that only then would a further debate and vote be held - was defeated...

By defeating the Labour Amandment parliament said they are not interested in what turns up - they are not going to have another vote on military intervention or support to any such inervention by others.  That's not what the government motion said - that's whayt the Labour amendment said - and it was defeated.

That aside - the very fact of the vote and the way so many have interpreted it does not change the feeling I have that most folk don't actually care about the Syrians.  And if that means many more innocent civilians die until bnefore tyhe fighting is stopped by an outside agency or peace breaks out - then so be it.  Nothing to do with us.  Tell me I am wrong and I'll be very pleased - but that is not what I'm hearing.
		
Click to expand...

As I said above, DM could recall Parliament tomorrow, table another motion and have another vote.  That is not a matter of debate or opinion, it is a FACT!!

Last night's goings on don't change that FACT one iota.


----------



## Vice (Aug 30, 2013)

I'm not saying they are not accurate, but missiles still explode right? Or maybe I'm mistaken...
There will almost always be collateral... Targets make sure of this




SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			btw - you have no idea how accurate these weapons are and how they work - but I do.  How accurate is your golf GPS thingy?  well I can tell you that compared with cruise missile guidance technology that's pretty ciude stuff as it happens...
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

ger147 said:



			As I said above, DM could recall Parliament tomorrow, table another motion and have another vote.  That is not a matter of debate or opinion, it is a FACT!!

Last night's goings on don't change that FACT one iota.
		
Click to expand...

So what is everyone going on about saying that that's decided - no UK military involvement.  I listened carefully to Cameron's statement that he made today about it - and he implied absolutely thatthe military involvement option wass off the table and gave absolutely no indication that it could come back.  And I also then don't understand what the defeat of the amendment actually means.  Are you telling me that by defeating an amendment that said _wait and see and only have another debate and vote if there was incontrovertible proof _means that they can have another debate and vote tomorrow?

I'd like to think that you were right - but I haven't heard that interpretation of things from any political commentator - and certainly as far as I can hear - the general public thinks the military option is off the table for good.  As I said, I sadly believe that the majority of the public don't actually care about Syria - not one jot.  Bunch of Arabs - typical Middle East tribal chaos - let them kill each other - not my problem.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

Vice said:



			I'm not saying they are not accurate, but missiles still explode right? Or maybe I'm mistaken...
There will almost always be collateral... Targets make sure of this
		
Click to expand...

Of course they do - but many put forward the 'fact' that these missiles can hit the wrong target as they are in some way 'unreliable'.  They are not.  They will pretty much always hit their intended target. But there is going to be damage to surrounding area and anything in the vicinity - but at least the damage wrought is not 'random'.


----------



## ger147 (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So what is everyone going on about saying that that's decided - no UK military involvement.  I listened carefully to Cameron's statement that he made today about it - and he implied absolutely thatthe military involvement option wass off the table and gave absolutely no indication that it could come back.  And I also then don't understand what the defeat of the amendment actually means.  Are you telling me that by defeating an amendment that said _wait and see and only have another debate and vote if there was incontrovertible proof _means that they can have another debate and vote tomorrow?

I'd like to think that you were right - but I haven't heard that interpretation of things from any political commentator - and certainly as far as I can hear - the general public thinks the military option is off the table for good.  As I said, I sadly believe that the majority of the public don't actually care about Syria - not one jot.  Bunch of Arabs - typical Middle East tribal chaos - let them kill each other - not my problem.
		
Click to expand...

Please see my previous answer - I am right.

If the Prime Minister wants to recall parliament to table a motion, all he has to do is agree this with the speaker, table the motion and have a vote.  He could table the exact same motion as was tabled yesterday tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, and the next etc.    The outcome of a previous motion has absolutely no influence on any future motions in terms of parliamentary process.  That is a matter of fact.

What DC thinks he can get away with politically is a completely separate matter which is what everyone is talking about, but at any time the PM can, with the agreement of the Speaker, recall parliament and table a motion.  Obviously if parliament is in session, a recall is not required.

The House of Commons passed a government motion in October 1938 agreeing not to go to war with Hitler.  That didn't stop us changing our mind later on...


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So what is everyone going on about saying that that's decided - no UK military involvement.  I listened carefully to Cameron's statement that he made today about it - and he implied absolutely thatthe military involvement option wass off the table and gave absolutely no indication that it could come back.  And I also then don't understand what the defeat of the amendment actually means.  Are you telling me that by defeating an amendment that said _wait and see and only have another debate and vote if there was incontrovertible proof _means that they can have another debate and vote tomorrow?

I'd like to think that you were right - but I haven't heard that interpretation of things from any political commentator - and certainly as far as I can hear - the general public thinks the military option is off the table for good. * As I said, I sadly believe that the majority of the public don't actually care about Syria - not one jot.  Bunch of Arabs - typical Middle East tribal chaos - let them kill each other - not my problem*.
		
Click to expand...

I dont believe thats what the public thinks.   I think they are very concerned and sorry for the innocents that have been killed and maimed by this conflict.   I also think they have come to the realisation after Iraq and Afghanistan they have become tired of seeing our sons and daughters returning in coffins.   They also realise that as a small country on the edge of Europe that is just about financially bankrupt we cannot continue to delude ourselves that we can police World conflict.   Russia and China and the USA are world powers that can decide direction of any conflict for the region, we can only act as sidekicks to Obama, a role we are tiring of.   

I cant see any point if shooting OUR missiles into Syria in the for-lone hope that they will somehow remove chemical weapons that will have been moved and buried in some remote place.   My heart weeps but my head knows we have reached the correct decision.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Please see my previous answer - I am right.

If the Prime Minister wants to recall parliament to table a motion, all he has to do is agree this with the speaker, table the motion and have a vote.  He could table the exact same motion as was tabled yesterday tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, and the next etc.    The outcome of a previous motion has absolutely no influence on any future motions in terms of parliamentary process.  That is a matter of fact.

What DC thinks he can get away with politically is a completely separate matter which is what everyone is talking about, but at any time the PM can, with the agreement of the Speaker, recall parliament and table a motion.  Obviously if parliament is in session, a recall is not required.

The House of Commons passed a government motion in October 1938 agreeing not to go to war with Hitler.  That didn't stop us changing our mind later on...
		
Click to expand...

Well why have I just heard on the news of 'Britain's diminished role in the world'  That doesn't sound like everthing could be 'back OK' tomorrow as there could be anotehr vote - just like that.  And I'm hearing of all the evidence that the US has only just made available or received.  Doubt the evidence if you want - but I'm hearing nothing that tells me that if this evidence IS accepted as incontrovertible then parliament will be reconvened in the nexcty few days fopre further debate.

You may well be correct - but I am hearing absolutely nothing from the media that suggests you are.  Believe me - I actually hope that you are correct.  I do agree that were there to be another recall, debate and vote that would be politically very damaging for DC - for many reasons, but the main one being that I think the public is being led to believe - or is choosing to believe - that, in the case of Syria, the military option debate is settled - for good.  Shameful.


----------



## ger147 (Aug 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well why have I just heard on the news of 'Britain's diminished role in the world'  That doesn't sound like everthing could be 'back OK' tomorrow as there could be anotehr vote - just like that.  And I'm hearing of all the evidence that the US has only just made available or received.  Doubt the evidence if you want - but I'm hearing nothing that tells me that if this evidence IS accepted as incontrovertible then parliament will be reconvened in the nexcty few days fopre further debate.

You may well be correct - but I am hearing absolutely nothing from the media that suggests you are.  Believe me - I actually hope that you are correct.  I do agree that were there to be another recall, debate and vote that would be politically very damaging for DC - for many reasons, but the main one being that I think the public is being led to believe - or is choosing to believe - that, in the case of Syria, the military option debate is settled - for good.  Shameful.
		
Click to expand...

I am correct but if you choose not to believe me that is your choice.

You are getting parliamentary process mixed up with politics.  From a parliamentary process point of view, any Prime Minister can table a parliamentary motion at any time they like, even if the exact same motion was defeated the day before.

Everything that is on TV is about the politics of the situation but that doesn't alter the fact that in terms of parliamentary process, if DC wanted to, last night's motion being voted down does NOT stop him tabling the exact same motion again.

That is a fact as I've said over and over again.

Everything on TV is politics, no facts...


----------



## ger147 (Aug 30, 2013)

Here is someone else explaining the insignificance of the motion in terms of parliamentary process despite its devastating political impact...

http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## Sweep (Aug 30, 2013)

All this talk of losing our place in the world is just nonsense from those who lost the debate. The fact is we and the world got it wrong. As usual, just like always, we reacted too late. We could have taken out Syrian government tanks and missile launchers etc right at the start and prevented a lot of innocent deaths. We could have done it ourselves from Akrotiri. Instead, we put too much faith in the UN, which is a stymied talking shop and 2 years later we realise we should have done something. Now it's too late. 100,000 have been slaughtered and chemical weapons have been used. The proposed action is some kind of punishment for using WMD's. We can't hit chemical weapon stockpiles as this will in itself release the gas etc so we have to hit government facilities. Big deal. Assad is losing slowly. He isn't going to worry about a few government buildings. Anyway, the rebels aren't neccesarily the good guys in this case. It's too late now. It's difficult to see what we can do.
Paddy Pantsdown is an idiot. To say because we won't act in this case renders having fighting forces useless is pure nonsense. It's called the Ministry of Defence Paddy. The clue is in the name. It's not called the Ministry of Attack. As a former soldier you would think he would have known that.


----------



## elliottlale (Aug 31, 2013)

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure we will be involved somehow! Il be out that way soon and just glad we went for GSR testing (gas mask) last week!!


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 31, 2013)

ger147 said:



			I am correct but if you choose not to believe me that is your choice.

You are getting parliamentary process mixed up with politics.  From a parliamentary process point of view, any Prime Minister can table a parliamentary motion at any time they like, even if the exact same motion was defeated the day before.

Everything that is on TV is about the politics of the situation but that doesn't alter the fact that in terms of parliamentary process, if DC wanted to, last night's motion being voted down does NOT stop him tabling the exact same motion again.

That is a fact as I've said over and over again.

Everything on TV is politics, no facts...
		
Click to expand...

I agree.

But unless something quite significant happens, it's highly unlikely that DC would do that - as he'd get the same result.

I suspect that either something significant will happen or there'll be a way to provide 'assistance' within the current constraints.

The most likely significant event, to me, will be the assessment of the UN Inspectors and any subsequent Security Council motion. Hopefully it won't be another humanitarian WMD disaster like appears to have happened.

I do find it slightly ironic that the roles of 'auditors' have been reversed from that during the Iraq prelims which always looked 'dodgy' to me. This one may (or may not) have more legitimacy, but I'm certain it 'suffered' from hesitancy after the Intelligence was found to be wrong'

Secretary of State Kerry seems too much of a war-monger to me! 

I'm all for letting the UN Inspectors do their job before any further any further escalation. Nothing wrong with US providing the unclassified raw intelligence - such as the social media stuff - it has to them to 'assist' rather than simply summarising it - which is subjective opinion.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 31, 2013)

I am confused on what type of military action will improve the situation in Syria.  Exactly what targets would you fire your cruise missiles at?   What targets would fighter jets attack?

If the current regime was even to be removed (highly unlikely) then what would it be replaced with?    Who exactly are these rebels, are they terrorists, do their actions kill civilians? 

I feel the outcome from Parliament does in fact represent the majority view of the population.  Is this not what our politicians should be representing?

The potential threat to World stability is IMO very dangerous by countries like the USA, France or the UK escalating this conflict.   Once countries like Russia, China, Iran, Israel and the USA get themselves beyond posturing the threat to World peace becomes an Armageddon scenario.


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 31, 2013)

elliottlale said:



			I don't know, but I'm pretty sure we will be involved somehow! Il be out that way soon and just glad we went for GSR testing (gas mask) last week!!
		
Click to expand...

Cameron cocked it up by trying to be leader of the pack. Milliband used it to score a quick political win and he thinks the country has forgotten the dirty tricks that he and his crew were involved in over Iraq.

Pants down and his lot are running around not knowing what they want.

Perhaps we won't get involved but as we are still part of NATO if the crap really hits the fan we may not have an option. "An attack on one is an attack on all" that's providing the septics approve that is.


----------



## NWJocko (Aug 31, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well why have I just heard on the news of 'Britain's diminished role in the world'  That doesn't sound like everthing could be 'back OK' tomorrow as there could be anotehr vote - just like that.  And I'm hearing of all the evidence that the US has only just made available or received.  Doubt the evidence if you want - but I'm hearing nothing that tells me that if this evidence IS accepted as incontrovertible then parliament will be reconvened in the nexcty few days fopre further debate.

You may well be correct - but I am hearing absolutely nothing from the media that suggests you are.  Believe me - I actually hope that you are correct.  I do agree that were there to be another recall, debate and vote that would be politically very damaging for DC - for many reasons, but the main one being that I think the public is being led to believe - or is choosing to believe - that, in the case of Syria, the military option debate is settled - for good.  Shameful.
		
Click to expand...

You're mistake is believing the media!

As ger147 correctly states, the prime minister can table a motion (agreed by the speaker) and convene parliament whenever he wishes on whatever topic he wishes as often as he wishes!

The media are full of horse doo doo and where is the story/headline in "when a more informed decision can be made there will be a further debate!? Far more salacious to talk about our reduced role in the world (as if that's of any importance anyway) etc etc


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 31, 2013)

The Pm said:

"It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

I think that statement makes absolutely clear the Governments position.


----------



## NWJocko (Aug 31, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			The Pm said:

"It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

I think that statement makes absolutely clear the Governments position.
		
Click to expand...

Makes it clear, yes.

Means that they couldn't have another debate/decision on military intervention, no.

Fwiw I'm glad we're not going gung ho into Syria (not least because my brother in law would be there immediately).


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 1, 2013)

The media need to start interviewing Arab leaders to ask what they intend to do about Syria but I think you'll find that like African dictators they don't want to get involved in unseating a dictator incase those in their own country decide to take action.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 1, 2013)

NWJocko said:



			Makes it clear, yes.

 (not least because my brother in law would be there immediately).
		
Click to expand...

Afrter the latest round of redundancies he could be there on his own.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 1, 2013)

It must be horrible having to fight a tyrant alone while your Friends stand back and watch


----------



## NWJocko (Sep 1, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Afrter the latest round of redundancies he could be there on his own.
		
Click to expand...

Very true. Not only redundancies but from what I hear a lot of people handing in their chit at a scary rate aswell......


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 1, 2013)

NWJocko said:



			from what I hear a lot of people handing in their chit at a scary rate aswell......
		
Click to expand...

that has always been the case however now the guppyment has privatised the recruit selection process for the army it's gone to rats and the revolving door is not working.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 1, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Cameron cocked it up by trying to be leader of the pack. Milliband used it to score a quick political win and he thinks the country has forgotten the dirty tricks that he and his crew were involved in over Iraq.

Pants down and his lot are running around not knowing what they want.

Perhaps we won't get involved but as we are still part of NATO if the crap really hits the fan we may not have an option. "An attack on one is an attack on all" that's providing the septics approve that is.
		
Click to expand...

Parliament is a bit theatrical and a lot political. I don't believe it showed its best face (if it ever does) in that vote. That's possibly DC's fault for tabling such a black/white motion. Had the motion been a little softer and not been an approval for military action, he could have ridiculed any Opposition objection. A subsequent motion could then have been used to get approval for, perhaps limited, assistance.

I don't think DC played it very well and now has to accept the outcome - until some sort of major event occurs.

Conservatives and LDs actually voted more with their conscience. The fact that No Opposition member voted for the motion shows, to me, that it wasn't a conscience vote by them.

Don't confuse the LDs 'differing opinions' with 'not knowing what they want'. That seems more honest - and a more accurate reflection of public opinion - than Labour's 100% against. Though I happen to be against it too, at this stage. I don't trust the US 'Intelligence' sufficiently!


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 1, 2013)

I'm only against it because I feel it's time for the Arabs in the Middle East to take control of their own affairs although I appreciate that the dreaded black gold comes into play. I don't think we can take the moral high ground just because some decided to go dirty in their grubby civil war. We appear to be happy that the Eygption army and Libian extremists only slaughter people by the thousands using conventional weapons.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 2, 2013)

so with a bit of reading and listening over the weekend and yes it is clear that there could be another vote (maybe given that Congress is going to debate and vote on it).  But DC has certainly made his position clear - parliament has spoken and their voice reflects the views of the majority of the British public.  Though I thought the vote was for intervention *in principle* to be followed by a vote sometime in the near future or whenever according to evidence presented etc to approve actual military involvement.

So yes parliament could have another vote on the principle of involvement with actual involvment or not to be determined by a subsequent vote - but what's the point.  If the possibility of military involment in Syria has been rejected outright in principle (as is the case) that implies it is rejected *regardless *of future circumstances and events.  

Feels like a bit of posturing going on by at least some MPs.  Come another outrage perpetrated by Assad and will we hear some public and MPs saying 'oh we never thought he'd do THAT'.  There is a lot of disinformation going on that suggests the Commons vote was for or against going to war with Syria - it wasn't - it as for or against the principle of military intervention in Syria.

Ah well.  Let's see what transpires.  And nothing changes the fact that I think the majority of the British public actually don't give a jot about Syria and are quite happy to stand aside and wring their hands in somewhat confected anguish as thousands of innocent Syrians die.  Confected?  Yes - because I think the truth is that many folk actually *don't* care but won't admit it as it wouldn't be good to be seen or heard to be uncaring.

As my Dad used to say 'if you cared you'd do something about it'


----------



## ger147 (Sep 2, 2013)

Two other things to bear in mind:

- The PM doesn't need Parliament's permission to either go to war with Syria or launch some missiles.  It was simply a case of attempting to "dip everyone's hand in the dish" as Tony Blair did before the 2nd Iraq war.
- the outcome of the motion isn't binding i.e. DC can still go ahead if he likes despite the outcome of the motion and referring to my 1st point, he didn't have to raise any such motion before taking action in the first place.

But unfortunately, this is the sort of mess you end up with when party politics gets mixed up with the business of government on a serious issue.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 2, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Two other things to bear in mind:

- The PM doesn't need Parliament's permission to either go to war with Syria or launch some missiles.  It was simply a case of attempting to "dip everyone's hand in the dish" as Tony Blair did before the 2nd Iraq war.
- the outcome of the motion isn't binding i.e. DC can still go ahead if he likes despite the outcome of the motion and referring to my 1st point, he didn't have to raise any such motion before taking action in the first place.

But unfortunately, this is the sort of mess you end up with when party politics gets mixed up with the business of government on a serious issue.
		
Click to expand...

He was asked directly by EM at the end of the session if he would use the Royal Prerogative to use force and replied that he understood the British people didn't want it and would act accordingly.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			He was asked directly by EM at the end of the session if he would use the Royal Prerogative to use force and replied that he understood the British people didn't want it and would act accordingly.
		
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that he could, my point being that some people seem to be under the impression that because of the motion last week and its outcome, we as a nation no longer have the option of becoming militarily involved in Syria because "parliament has spoken".

That is not the case at all.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 2, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			so with a bit of reading and listening over the weekend and yes it is clear that there could be another vote (maybe given that Congress is going to debate and vote on it).  But DC has certainly made his position clear - parliament has spoken and their voice reflects the views of the majority of the British public.  Though I thought the vote was for intervention *in principle* to be followed by a vote sometime in the near future or whenever according to evidence presented etc to approve actual military involvement.

So yes parliament could have another vote on the principle of involvement with actual involvment or not to be determined by a subsequent vote - but what's the point.  If the possibility of military involment in Syria has been rejected outright in principle (as is the case) that implies it is rejected *regardless *of future circumstances and events.  

Feels like a bit of posturing going on by at least some MPs.  Come another outrage perpetrated by Assad and will we hear some public and MPs saying 'oh we never thought he'd do THAT'.  There is a lot of disinformation going on that suggests the Commons vote was for or against going to war with Syria - it wasn't - it as for or against the principle of military intervention in Syria.

Ah well.  Let's see what transpires.  And nothing changes the fact that I think the majority of the British public actually don't give a jot about Syria and are quite happy to stand aside and wring their hands in somewhat confected anguish as thousands of innocent Syrians die.  Confected?  Yes - because I think the truth is that many folk actually *don't* care but won't admit it as it wouldn't be good to be seen or heard to be uncaring.

As my Dad used to say 'if you cared you'd do something about it'
		
Click to expand...

SLH.  I do find it surprising that you take a view that promotes the UK applying violence in Syria, with all the unpredictable results this normally brings.   It seems out of character.

I still think your accusations of the UK public being uncaring very harsh. For a country of our size we have shown great resolve in acting to repress tyrants on the world stage.   My belief is this one is now a 'bridge to far' for us, we are wearied with war and it's consequences, especially when the antagonists on both sides seem to be fantasists with anti democratic agendas.

Lets face it, our military has been reduced to such an extent we can barely support a home guard strategy.   Other countries with larger armed forces are sitting back doing nothing, we have done so much in the Balkans, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan that it is IMO unfair to suggest we are uncaring.    I can only guess who would will come to the support of the Falklands if they were attacked again.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 2, 2013)

ger147 said:



			That doesn't change the fact that he could, my point being that some people seem to be under the impression that because of the motion last week and its outcome, we as a nation no longer have the option of becoming militarily involved in Syria because "parliament has spoken".

That is not the case at all.
		
Click to expand...

You are correct on the procedural case.   I think it would be committing Political Hari Kari if he used it though.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			You are correct on the procedural case.   I think it would be committing Political Hari Kari if he used it though.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely, which is why the motion last week was such a bad idea.  Painting yourself in to a corner inevitably means the floor will get ruined when you are forced to leave the corner.

Maggie had no trouble with her vote for the Falklands, although she had actually used Royal Prerogative by that point as the fleet was on its way before the vote.

And the less said about Tony, his dossier and the infamous 45min claim the better.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			SLH.  I do find it surprising that you take a view that promotes the UK applying violence in Syria, with all the unpredictable results this normally brings.   It seems out of character.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily promoting use of military force - I am not 100% convinced.  BUT - Westminster has effectively 'ruled-out' the option of military intervention by voting against it in prioncipal regardless of future events.  Yes - a further vote could be called if things change but I have just heard on BBC News a senior Tory MP and Nick Clegg both rule out a further vote as being pointless.  And if the only effective intervention to avoid further slaughter of such as what we have seen is military then I wold support it.  We cannot just ignore this - hand-wringing should not be an option and seeking political solutions - well how long have we got.  Forever it might seem.  Pity those poor Syrians who do not have that long.  Sometimes doing the right thing can require you to do things you really don't want to do. 




			I still think your accusations of the UK public being uncaring very harsh. For a country of our size we have shown great resolve in acting to repress tyrants on the world stage.   My belief is this one is now a 'bridge to far' for us, we are wearied with war and it's consequences, especially when the antagonists on both sides seem to be fantasists with anti democratic agendas.
		
Click to expand...

I wish I was being harsh - however I wonder how honest people are being when they say 'of course I care' when they follow up by saying 'but I don't want to do anything to help' - you touch on the rationale they give with your comment on the antagonists.

And yes - get two squabbling and fighting gangs in a community and the community life can be hell.  You can just let them fight it out an 'hell mend 'em' but their as they do many innocents will suffer.  

And as far as the 'We are wearied with war' point.  Who actually is wearied of war?  Our forces - or you or I?  I think only our focrces could have grounds for such a complaint - and they won't complain in that respect.  Of course we don't want our armed forces to be forever involved, but caring and compassion - and peacemaking and keeping are not events - they are what we must do until no longer required - not I hope until we can't be bothered any more.  You might as well say we are weary with looking after our elderly - so sorry old folks - you are a bit of a bunch of hard work moaning minnies that are too much like hard work and jolly expensive to look after - and so you are on your own now.




			Lets face it, our military has been reduced to such an extent we can barely support a home guard strategy.
		
Click to expand...

Comparative to the past but not absoutely.  




			Other countries with larger armed forces are sitting back doing nothing, we have done so much in the Balkans, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan that it is IMO unfair to suggest we are uncaring.    I can only guess who would will come to the support of the Falklands if they were attacked again.
		
Click to expand...

But not very many....

Trident, UN Security Council etc - we still think we are a player - and agent of peace - is that not what being a permanent member United Nations Security Council is all about.  We are supposed to be one of the five countries who will stand up, make their voice heard - and be counted upon doing something top maintain security (through peace) globally.   Westminster has just said 'we don't want to be involved in that whole military side of things'.  We give up our place on the Security Council - and if we are not standing should-to-shoulder with NATO allies what point Trident?

Compassion is not just a word - it is a deed.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 2, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Absolutely, which is why the motion last week was such a bad idea.  Painting yourself in to a corner inevitably means the floor will get ruined when you are forced to leave the corner.

Maggie had no trouble with her vote for the Falklands, although she had actually used Royal Prerogative by that point as the fleet was on its way before the vote.

And the less said about Tony, his dossier and the infamous 45min claim the better.
		
Click to expand...

DC painted himself into a corner but Labour gave him the way out.

I agree - the 45 minute claim is quite valid in some battlefield scenarios - but many seem to think it isn't and will argue fervently with us - so less said the better


----------



## ger147 (Sep 2, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			DC painted himself into a corner but Labour gave him the way out.

I agree - the 45 minute claim is quite valid in some battlefield scenarios - but many seem to think it isn't and will argue fervently with us - so less said the better.
		
Click to expand...

Labour played party politics instead of supporting the government motion like the then opposition did with the Falklands and Iraq.

And you can believe what you like about what Saddam had at that time, the complete lack of evidence after the event would suggest the 45min claim was nonsense.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 2, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			We give up our place on the Security Council - and if we are not standing should-to-shoulder with NATO allies what point Trident?

Compassion is not just a word - it is a deed.
		
Click to expand...

I started to put together a reply but decided not to bother.   I think it's best to leave our opinions as stated, we are just not going to agree.


----------



## Shaunmg (Sep 2, 2013)

I have been against all recent interventions and taking the role of Americaâ€™s poodle. When they say jump we say how high. I was particularly livid over Iraq

However I have a dilemma over Syria. If we have international law, then how is it enforced? If Itâ€™s against international law to use chemical weapons. Then what do we do when a country contravenes that law in such a serious manner? Nothing it seems


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 2, 2013)

Shaunmg said:



			I have been against all recent interventions and taking the role of Americaâ€™s poodle. When they say jump we say how high. I was particularly livid over Iraq

However I have a dilemma over Syria. If we have international law, then how is it enforced? If Itâ€™s against international law to use chemical weapons. Then what do we do when a country contravenes that law in such a serious manner? Nothing it seems
		
Click to expand...

Indeed - and if the public is war weary, and we shouldn't get involved in situations where the conflict is between parties in any one country (such as Syria) - and that is the settled view, then is that it as far as any UK military involvement in such conflicts.  Are we to apply the same conditions to our involvement as we are to Syria for all conflicts - will the burden of proof be the same.  Impose these pre-conditions and it will probably be possible to make a case against our involvement in many, if not most, scenarios.  But if that is what the people and Westminster want then so be it.  Though not in my name (to coin a phrase).

BTW my concern (rather than disagreement) is that parliament seems to have ruled out any *potential *involvement in Syria regardless of what might occur over the coming weeks and months.  If it had voted against *actual *and *immediate *involvement given what we knew last week - then that is different.

Yes - parliament could be recalled again this week to re-debate the issue.  But that just isn;t going to happen.  More evidence might turn up this week and anotehrj vote maybe next week.  But *that* isn't going to happen.  The vote would be on the same thing - potential involvement given cirtcumstances.  And if there *was * to be another vote, then there is nothing I can think of for which a motion of no-confidence in the government could be more merited.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 2, 2013)

..and so on BBC News at 6pm I am told that in a poll 72% of the public think parliament was right to vote against going to war.  OK then, if we accept the war 'epithet' for what is proposed, and that the vote wasn't actually 'for or against going to war' but rather was 'for or against the princpal of going to war' - we still have the fact that the public don't want UK to go to intervene.  If the public are happy for UK to intevene based up a set of pre-defined conditions then parliament should have voted FOR the motion and Labour amendment.  And the public should be upset with parliament and demanding a further debate and vote - but it isn't - and all signs from parliament are that further debate won't happen - unless there are significant changes - though what such changes could be that could not have been covered by the amendment I don't know - UK location gets gassed by Assad regime?

The government should never have said "never - as that is the will of the people".  The people ourselves should never be saying "never".

Anyway.  When Assad does this again I will not be saying 'told you so', but I will reflect with some sadness on the growing insularity and lack of compassion of the British people.  Compassionate we may have been in the past - but not so much these days I fear.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 2, 2013)

Perhaps and just perhaps the terrorist events of the past and the continual threat has had the effect that terrorist where aiming for and the folks think by not getting involved in another nasty little Arab uprising we might get left alone. Some hope.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 2, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Perhaps and just perhaps the terrorist events of the past and the continual threat has had the effect that terrorist where aiming for and the folks think by not getting involved in another nasty little Arab uprising we might get left alone. Some hope.
		
Click to expand...

Some hope indeed.  We are indelibly stamped with the same Western trademark as the USA.  The fact that the UK may not outwardly be supporting any subsequent US strike on Assads facilities at the moment will not fool the Assad regime.  As far as they are concerned we are one and the same and will be supporting the US behind the scene.  Whether we actually are or not neither you nor I will know - but that is what the Assad regime will assume.

Best we just sit back and hope that if the US and France do do something that Assad doesn't decide that a British base in, say, Cyprus - not many hundreds of miles away - deserves a dose of smelling salts.  We are playing with fire doing nothing - just as we are playing with fire if we do something.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 2, 2013)

If Assad even burped in the direction of Cyprus I think his support from our Cold War friends and even the Chinese might soon be thrown out the window. The odd brick chucked at the wailing wall might happen but I think Happy Valley GC could be safe.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 2, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...lack of compassion of the British people.  Compassionate we may have been in the past - but not so much these days I fear.
		
Click to expand...

We're compassionate enough to cough up close on Â£11billion in foreign aid, and a further Â£4billion paid by individuals to charities working overseas. We also contribute more per head than any other country in the world bar the USA, and a greater percentage of GDP than any other country in the world.

In addition to the foreign aid paid out, there's millions spent policing various countries and issues via our armed forces, whether it be Afghanistan or Somli pirates.

What I don't want to spend is more of our military personnel sorting out someone else's problems., and that's why I very reluctantly agree with us not getting involved.

Further to that, perversely under the circumstances, it was good to see proper democracy at work in parliament. For once the govt followed the will of the people. I would hope you would at least recognise that for what it is worth.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 2, 2013)

Hobbit said:



			We're compassionate enough to cough up close on Â£11billion in foreign aid, and a further Â£4billion paid by individuals to charities working overseas.
		
Click to expand...

Granted on both the above - however I wonder what the current view of the public on overseas aid is?  I bet the majority would say 'cut' - should the government slavishly follow public opinion in the same way it is accused of slavishly follwing US opinion?  And I wonder what % of the public make regular committed donations as opposed to ad-hoc copntributions to this bucket or that bucket.   I agree tghis sounds cynical but I fear the reality of current public opinion is not that pretty.




			What I don't want to spend is more of our military personnel sorting out someone else's problems., and that's why I very reluctantly agree with us not getting involved.
		
Click to expand...

And so what do you think the point of our armed forces is in the future.  The militaries view is joint nations peace-keeping or peace-making forces - looks like public opinion is moving away from support to such collaborations unless the problem directly affects the UK - and I'm struggling to think of what that might be - Spain invading Gibralter?  Seriously...




			Further to that, perversely under the circumstances, it was good to see proper democracy at work in parliament. For once the govt followed the will of the people. I would hope you would at least recognise that for what it is worth.
		
Click to expand...

Proper democracy as opposed to improper democracy?  We are a representative democracy - which means that our MPs are elcted to represent their constituents but not necessarily the day-to-day views of their constituents on every matter.  In my view public opinion should help shape policy not determine it - especially as in this case government didn't follow the will of the people - Westminster did - overruling government policy.  Westminster has reacted to understood public opinion - and unfortunately the public view is more often more opinionated rather than informed.   So I'm not really for government following public opinion - can make for bad or short-sighted decision making.

I appreciate that my views may be different to those of the majority - but I just don't buy the majority line on this whole farago and will not go with it just because it seems to be the line of least resistance and hence least argument.  'Let's do nothing' is an easy stance to take, and it is easy to convince yourself that it is the right stance.  I am trying to think beyond the easy stance because anything that is that easy is usually wrong - there is no such thing as a free lunch - but the Great british public seem to think that 'do nothing about Syria' is a free lunch.


----------



## Five&One (Sep 3, 2013)

Syria is a tricky one. (No **** Sherlock) it isn't a player as far as oil is concerned and its production or non production onto the world market shouldn't make a difference to the price, although you can be damn sure the oil companies would use it as an excuse. Syria is most definitely not about oil as far as foreign (for foreign read US) interests is concerned. Here's the deal with Syria. It's a huge landmass in a tactically sensitive area with a despotic leader. The Zionist controlled US government wants stability in the region and regime changes within any country that has even a sniff of a threat against Israel. Assad hasn't threatened Israel recently but he has just used chemical weapons on his own people so he has to go. One way or the other his days are numbered. If a cruise missile doesn't get him next week, Mossad wil get him the week after that, or the rebels will get him.

But here's the tricky bit. US facilitated Regime change is only a worthwhile effort if the incoming regime is US neutral/friendly and Israell neutral. You can't be Israeli friendly if you are an Arab state, even if you are in bed with the Zionist US government such as Saudi Arabia and some of her satellites. the incoming regime in this case is made up of tribes with Taliban/Al Qaeda connections. As with US intervention in lots of states in that region, today's solution gives birth to tomorrow's problem.

So what will happen now ? IMO there will be a token show of force by the US. They will stop well short of trying to achieve regime change because the prospective new regime isn't any better for Israeli/US interests than the current one is. a few aspirin factories and a school blown into obvlivion ought to keep most happy for now.They will be hoping the conflict goes on for quite a bit longer with no further chemical strikes as the objective has to be to buy a bit of time for the CIA to get their mucky paws on a new and more acceptable regime.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 3, 2013)

SLH.   I do understand you are stating your beliefs and are passionate about them.  I respect you for that.   However, your generalisation on the British Public being uncaring for the people caught up in this nasty war is IMO wrong.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			SLH.   I do understand you are stating your beliefs and are passionate about them.  I respect you for that.   However, your generalisation on the British Public being uncaring for the people caught up in this nasty war is IMO wrong.
		
Click to expand...

I hope that you are right - but I'm not sure given the nature of quite a lot of the opinions I've heard expressed - especially those that are along the lines of no UK involvement in any circumstances - and I've heard that quite a bit.  

My view is that anyone who really cares for the innocent and suffering wouldn't say that.  And even many of those who say they DO care, then approve of UK involvement in intervention only with the UN approval caveat.   However if we are to wait for the UN security council to sanction the military option then I fear we may be waiting a long time as Russia and China just won't go for it.  Do those who so caveat their approval for UK involvement only do so knowing this?  Meanwhile we stand aside and watch atrocities being perpetrated.

As far as the 'why us - not others?' argument goes. Sorry - we as a country should decide for ourselves what sort of country we are and how we react to such as Syria and not look to others to do salve our conscience, nor should we as a nation cut our conscience to suit today's fashion.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And even many of those who say they DO care, then approve of UK involvement in intervention only with the UN approval caveat.   However if we are to wait for the UN security council to sanction the military option then I fear we may be waiting a long time as Russia and China just won't go for it.  Do those who so caveat their approval for UK involvement only do so knowing this?  Meanwhile we stand aside and watch atrocities being perpetrated.

As far as the 'why us - not others?' argument goes. Sorry - we as a country should decide for ourselves what sort of country we are and how we react to such as Syria and not look to others to do salve our conscience, nor should we as a nation cut our conscience to suit today's fashion.
		
Click to expand...

If we get involved without UN approval are we not guilty of war crimes too? Would it not be viewed as an illegal act? Iraq & Afghanistan were.

And the country has decided, both in parliament and via any number of polls ran by various media organisations.

I had a chat with our local MP both before the vote and afterwards. His view was that even with the UN's approval and the will of the British people we now struggle to have the capability, the standing in the middle east and are nigh on broke financially. To make a meaningful contribution in yet another conflict would damage a fragile economy further.

Personally I think the British people do care, but just not enough to get directly involved.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 3, 2013)

Your MP is right, our main problem is that the armed forces would struggle to have tha capability. We can thank yours and those other wasters in Parliament for that. Come 2017 the regular army will not be able to fill Wembley football stadium.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 3, 2013)

Now is not the time for arm chair isolationism - from a sceptic that's pretty big. Not one for history the yanks.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 3, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Now is not the time for arm chair isolationism - from a sceptic that's pretty big. Not one for history the yanks.
		
Click to expand...

Didn't understand your point.  Please can you elaborate?


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 4, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Didn't understand your point.  Please can you elaborate?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry I did'nt think I would need to but I was thinking about conflicts in the past when our allies from across the pond either failed to join in or took some time before getting involved.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 4, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Sorry I did'nt think I would need to but I was thinking about conflicts in the past when our allies from across the pond either failed to join in or took some time before getting involved.
		
Click to expand...

_Now is not the time for arm chair isolationism _ also happens to be something that John Kerry said yesterday - without naming names.  And I don't think it is a very fair accusation to throw at the US - as they are always being accused of the opposite.

I appreciate why history is brought into discussions and arguments about such as Syria - but I am also wary of it.  The Syrian situation is current and now.  It is Syria in 2013 - not Iraq in 2001 or whenever.  The circumstances and geo-political environment are those of today and not those of 5, 10 or 15 yrs ago and it is in the context of today that we can assess what best to do *for the Syrian people* and *then * reflect on the past for lessons that we can learn and apply to that assessment.

I am also quite keen that as a compassionate nation we should try and put 'ourselves' to one side for a moment when assessing what to do for others suffering horrors.  These are horrors that though we can see and hear of through the media - we can really only imagine the reality of in our nightmares.  We must not forget that death, pain and despair are real - that these are real people just like us - and that we are not watching figures and events of the past or of some horrific virtual reality.

And so we are to sit in our armchairs gathering dust waiting for Russia and China to change their immovable position and allow the UN to sanction military involvement - and as we do benighted Syrians suffer and die.  And I am told that that's the will of the people.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 6, 2013)

Well given the utterances of Putin last night claiming the chemical weapons attack was carried out by anti-Assad forces - I think we can kiss goodnight to any UN Security Council resolution.  In any case - the Russians are never going to be party to an military intervention against Assad whatever the evidence presented - unless that is Assad himself admits culpability.  

So we may as well sit back wringing our hands, anguishing over the suffering.  I wonder how long it's going to go on for?  6months?, 1yr? 5 yrs?  I guess it will stop being news so we won't hear or see so much about it - and pretty soon out of sight out of mind. And that's best for all in UK I think - we can focus on sorting out ourselves rather than having to bother with, or worry about, fueding Arabs in far away places.  

Geneva convention?  Old stuff - old issues and old regimes - so lip service to it is probably best  - after all it's too difficult to enforce in today's complicated world and global economies.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 6, 2013)

The UN would'nt have got involved anyway in a blue beret forces kind of way. The Sec Gen has already stated that an armed response was not the way to go.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 6, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			The UN would'nt have got involved anyway in a blue beret forces kind of way. The Sec Gen has already stated that an armed response was not the way to go.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed - not in a blue beret way - but neither hopefully would USA and France end up with boots on the ground - and it certainly is not what the Senate or Congress would ever Ok at the momenty.  But of course the UN could sanction military intervention by USA and France on behalf of the UN.  But that just isn't going to happen.  And without miltary pressure on Assad he is not going to move 1" in any peace or cease-fire negotions - why should he - he's got massive military power and is backed by Russia.

And of course the UN Sec Gen is absolutely right that armed response is not the way to go - but in practice with Syria it may be the *only *way to go.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 6, 2013)

You can only achieve so much with ac and missiles. Boots on the ground is the only way to achieve the end game. Libya is proving that. We have a bad record since 2001 of jumping in with both size 9's with no real exit strategy other than "we have been here long enough, we are off now, bye".

Not sure what you really think could be achieved SLH.


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Sep 6, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Agreed - not in a blue beret way - but neither hopefully would USA and France end up with boots on the ground - and it certainly is not what the Senate or Congress would ever Ok at the momenty.  But of course the UN could sanction military intervention by USA and France on behalf of the UN.  But that just isn't going to happen.  And without miltary pressure on Assad he is not going to move 1" in any peace or cease-fire negotions - why should he - he's got massive military power and is backed by Russia.

And of course the UN Sec Gen is absolutely right that armed response is not the way to go - but in practice with Syria it may be the *only *way to go.
		
Click to expand...

As usual SLH i have a lot of sympathy with your views, but why should we interfear in this particular conflict now after sitting on the sidelines for 2 yrs??
To the families directly concerned whats the difference between the death of a loved one due to conventional ordenance (the last 2 yrs) or due to chemical attack? For them involved i fear very little.
I understand the need/frustration you feel towards the plight of the Syrian people, but where do we draw the line?
Is the Syrian conflict any more worthy than the conflict say in Sudan?
At the moment there are conflicts going on in Sudan, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Burma, Chad and Sri Lanka. Do we get involved in all these as well?
I,am sorry SLH but there is a difference between your admiral principals and sheer practicalities. As i've said before, we are not the world police.
I believe every nation as the right to self defence, but Syria is no threat to the west, despite the bleatings of the Yanks to the contrary, that is why i believe it is a matter for the UN or preferably the Arab League. This is an internal conflict/civil war, and as such i'am struggling to see any justification for unilateral intervention especially by the west.
Assad has already said he will retaliate if he comes under attack by the west. Seeing that he lacks the capabilities to attack the west directly who do you think his retaliation will be aimed at? 
Get Israel involved and things could become very complicated, very quickly. At the moment his only real ally in the region are Iran, but no Arab nation are going to side with Israel if the conflict widens. Then what happens ??


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 6, 2013)




----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 6, 2013)

I have thought long and hard on how a military strike by the US, UK and France would be carried out such that it would not harm more civilians and  damage Syria's ability to use chemical/ biological weapons.   How on earth can anyone know where they have been stored or moved to.

I also have grave concerns if the so called 'Rebels' are genuinely fighting for the betterment of the people, I have a suspicion they are radical extremists that are only looking to replace the current regime with their own non-democratic form of dictatorial rule.  Maybe Russia have a point here!


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 6, 2013)

Russia top knobs have a paranoia of another revolution. They are in constant fear of the Arab spring catching on and spreading to their area. They and the Chinese will always be against any type of regime change assisted by outside agencies.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 7, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			...but where do we draw the line?
		
Click to expand...

Use of chemical weapons is in breach of the Geneva convention.  Is that breach not the line being crossed?  

Or are we now saying that we (the international community) will now let use of chemical weapons go if the situation is too difficult or risky or is of no real concern to us.  Were such conditions written into the Geneva Converntion to absolve the international community of it's responsibilities if it franky didn't fancy the job? I don't think they were. The Geneva convention set out principles or limits on what was 'acceptable' in conflict - and it set them out for very good reasons - such weapons are because of their very nature completely indiscriminate in who they kill and impose suffering upon. - and the suffering and death is drawn out and agonisiing - no painless quick kill with these abhorences.  Seems that the principles of the GC take second place to political posturing and in an institution - the UN Security council - that would have had as one of it's terms of reference ensuring adherance to the Geneva Convention.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 7, 2013)

If the good old west is going to take on everyone who is breaking the Geneva Convention we will be all over Africa, most of the Arab states, China, Russia and N Korea to name but a few.


----------



## Iaing (Sep 8, 2013)

The only reason that the USA, France and the UK ( if Cameron had his way), want to get involved in Syria is because it is the only real ally of Russia in the middle east.
Compassion for the Syrian people...crocodile tears by the Western governments while using the predicament to pursue their own agendas.


----------



## Fish (Sep 8, 2013)

Iaing said:



			The only reason that the USA, France and the UK ( if Cameron had his way), want to get involved in Syria is because it is the only real ally of Russia in the middle east.
Compassion for the Syrian people...crocodile tears by the Western governments while using the predicament to pursue their own agendas.
		
Click to expand...

Is the right answer.

Took a while but now it allows me to unsubscribe from this as its just like watching Magic Roundabout, talk about a dog with a bone


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Sep 8, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Use of chemical weapons is in breach of the Geneva convention.  Is that breach not the line being crossed?  

Or are we now saying that we (the international community) will now let use of chemical weapons go if the situation is too difficult or risky or is of no real concern to us.  Were such conditions written into the Geneva Converntion to absolve the international community of it's responsibilities if it franky didn't fancy the job? I don't think they were. The Geneva convention set out principles or limits on what was 'acceptable' in conflict - and it set them out for very good reasons - such weapons are because of their very nature completely indiscriminate in who they kill and impose suffering upon. - and the suffering and death is drawn out and agonisiing - no painless quick kill with these abhorences.  Seems that the principles of the GC take second place to political posturing and in an institution - the UN Security council - that would have had as one of it's terms of reference ensuring adherance to the Geneva Convention.
		
Click to expand...

But WHO used them ??
Logically who has the most to be gained ? 
Do we believe US claims of "Intelligence" intercepts, without them sharing said proof with the world? Or do we believe Putins claims?
If we don't have a culprit we don't have a target. I don't no about you SLH, but i have yet to see any proof of guilt, only conjectuer, from both camps.
As i've previously said, show me proof that Assad used WMD and i would fully support a targeted response by the UN, but the same should also be true if it is prooved the perpetraiters were the "rebels".
 Now that would be an interesting vote by the SC. Although considering our outrage at the use of chemicals, it should be a formality surely ??


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 8, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			But WHO used them ??
Logically who has the most to be gained ? 
Do we believe US claims of "Intelligence" intercepts, without them sharing said proof with the world? Or do we believe Putins claims?
If we don't have a culprit we don't have a target. I don't no about you SLH, but i have yet to see any proof of guilt, only conjectuer, from both camps.
As i've previously said, show me proof that Assad used WMD and i would fully support a targeted response by the UN, but the same should also be true if it is prooved the perpetraiters were the "rebels".
 Now that would be an interesting vote by the SC. Although considering our outrage at the use of chemicals, it should be a formality surely ?? 

Click to expand...

I dunno who used them.  Mind you getting my hair cut this afternoon by a Jordania bloke (been in UK a few years).  He's convinced that it was done by or on behalf of the 'rebels'.  He reckons there are 20,000 Al-Quaeda in Syria and they would have few if any reservations about using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians if it meant Assad being blamed and kicked-out/defeated and increased the chance of Al-Queda getting a firm foothold next door to Israel.  And I can rather believe him.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 8, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I dunno who used them.  Mind you getting my hair cut this afternoon by a Jordania bloke (been in UK a few years).  He's convinced that it was done by or on behalf of the 'rebels'.  He reckons there are 20,000 Al-Quaeda in Syria and they would have few if any reservations about using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians if it meant Assad being blamed and kicked-out/defeated and increased the chance of Al-Queda getting a firm foothold next door to Israel.  And I can rather believe him.
		
Click to expand...

So if we had jumped in Gung Ho and bombed the Syrian Army then we may well have been wrong.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 8, 2013)

Funny as it seems Syria and Iran hate the same nasties that are causing us a lot of bother.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Sep 8, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So if we had jumped in Gung Ho and bombed the Syrian Army then we may well have been wrong.
		
Click to expand...

 Walked into that one didn't he


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 9, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



 Walked into that one didn't he
		
Click to expand...

No I didn't - do you not think I had pondered that.  My point or complaint has NEVER been about actually us not going to war - or let's be more precise - about military intervention.  My point has ALWAYS been about the* UK government *deciding to interpret the vote as ruling the UK out of ANY military intervention in Syria - regardless of evidence presented about who done it.  

My concern is that the majority in the UK seem happy to stand aside after chemical weapons have been used - and that the majority of these would maintain that 'no intervention' stance regardless of any evidence and 'proof' presented - taking a holier than thou 'we must let the UN Security council sanction military invention' and 'we must seek peaceful resolution through the UN' stance.  Which sounds OK until for the former you consider the probability of the UN EVER sanctioning military intervention given that Russia will never support it; and for the latter you ask why would Assad EVER negotiate a political solution with the rebels.  Why would he - Assad cannot lose a civil war - he is supported by the Russians after all and Putin has stated in the last few days that as far as Russia is concerned the rebel are the perpetrators of the chemical weapon attacks and the party to be opposed and defeated.  Assad has Putin's moral and military support.

And so - there we are.

What the USA and France do next week or the week after based upon whatever evidence they have been able compile we can each take a view on.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Sep 9, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No I didn't - do you not think I had pondered that.  My point or complaint has NEVER been about actually us not going to war - or let's be more precise - about military intervention.  My point has ALWAYS been about the* UK government *deciding to interpret the vote as ruling the UK out of ANY military intervention in Syria - regardless of evidence presented about who done it.  

My concern is that the majority in the UK seem happy to stand aside after chemical weapons have been used - and that the majority of these would maintain that 'no intervention' stance regardless of any evidence and 'proof' presented - taking a holier than thou 'we must let the UN Security council sanction military invention' and 'we must seek peaceful resolution through the UN' stance.  Which sounds OK until for the former you consider the probability of the UN EVER sanctioning military intervention given that Russia will never support it; and for the latter you ask why would Assad EVER negotiate a political solution with the rebels.  Why would he - Assad cannot lose a civil war - he is supported by the Russians after all and Putin has stated in the last few days that as far as Russia is concerned the rebel are the perpetrators of the chemical weapon attacks and the party to be opposed and defeated.  Assad has Putin's moral and military support.

And so - there we are.

What the USA and France do next week or the week after based upon whatever evidence they have been able compile we can each take a view on.
		
Click to expand...

Not the impression I have got. Sorry if I was mistaken 1-0 to Socket so far


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 9, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Not the impression I have got. Sorry if I was mistaken 1-0 to Socket so far

Click to expand...

In which case you are mistaken.  I have never advocated that we go to war with the Assad regime.  I have said that on humanitarian grounds we should not have ruled out being part of military interventions against whoever perpetrated the act (Assad in my view being the most likely but not proven). 

And quite simply what do we have an armed forces for these days?  

If we pick and choose the conflicts we actively get involved in (even when a conflict has clear and proven breaches of the Geneva Convention), in accordance with a public opinion based upon a perception of how it might affect the UK; or how tricky or messy the situation is; or how costly it might be; or how long we might be involved - then we certainly aren't making decisions based upon any humanitarian grounds.  And how many situations would only threaten UK security and not say those of the US, France, Spain or Italy - very few if any (someone tell me of one plse).  And so in effect we become no different to the US that we criticise as the global policeman who only chooses to police where it feels it needs a power base and energy security - whilst ignoring teh otehr stuff. 

So we come down to the point of UK having armed forces?  In truth I'd much rather we accepted that we no longer have or need to have 'global' influence or a 'global' military role.  I would rather we cut our armed services cloth to fit a completely different role - and that role would be specifically and solely in the context of UN forces operations.  

Of cource this would mean *very *significant job losses in the services and services support and supply chains all across the UK; and would impact on our exports (defence exports being a major contribution to our balance of payments).  But we can't have it both ways.  An expensive, modern and relatively well provisioned and supported services - with little to do - or we accept the cost and pain of massively cutting it back.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 13, 2016)

Well we didn't do anything and today we hear of Syrian Army soldiers in Aleppo - that totally destroyed city - these soldiers are shooting people - civilians as well as rebels - 82 civilians including women and children shot dead on sight.  Should we be ashamed of our inaction?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 13, 2016)

And as I watch on the news the suffering in that hell on earth that is Aleppo I reflect that these poor Syrians are those very same people that so many in this green and pleasant land of ours reject - they are those people we do not want as they might impact our comfortable way of life.  Remind me again - how many Syrians have we accepted of our so generous offer of accepting 20,000 - well as of 4th Sept it would seem about 3,000.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37268971

Such a compassionate country we are.  And what of Theresa May?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...y-resists-calls-uk-accept-syrian-refugees-aid

As we hurriedly walk by on the other side of the road


----------



## sawtooth (Dec 13, 2016)

Just to add some balance to the argument here. Some migrants have caused massive problems in countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany etc

Whilst we all sympathise with the many innocent people displaced by war we also have to think about some of the problems that are caused by the inevitable bad migrant population.

Many people are travelling from countries that treat women differently, have little respect for neighbours, etc. These cultural diffences are causing havoc.

Sweden is now the rape capital of the world , is that right? They deported 80,000 migrants and counting.

PM May is between a rock and a hard place no doubt. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 13, 2016)

How many have died in Iraq because of our interference? Far more I suspect. You can't interfere everywhere, countries have to sort their own problems out.

Question for you. Why are there no outcries for parts of Africa where wars are going on, atrocities happening? If you want to play world's policeman then you are going to be very busy and a lot of British soldiers will die. No thanks.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 13, 2016)

Since James Blunt resigned his commission nobody, especially our political masters want to take on Russia, run away everytime Mr Putin raises his head.


----------



## Jensen (Dec 14, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			How many have died in Iraq because of our interference? Far more I suspect. You can't interfere everywhere, countries have to sort their own problems out.

Question for you. Why are there no outcries for parts of Africa where wars are going on, atrocities happening? If you want to play world's policeman then you are going to be very busy and a lot of British soldiers will die. No thanks.
		
Click to expand...


Totally agree :thup:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 14, 2016)

I simply asked the question - 'when we see what has happened to the people of Syria - and Aleppo in particular - should we be ashamed that we decided to keep out and do nothing other than telling Assad that his actions are unacceptable.  As a wealthy country do we not have a moral obligation to *prevent *suffering where we can even, if we cannot do that everywhere'


----------



## User62651 (Dec 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I simply asked the question - 'when we see what has happened to the people of Syria - and Aleppo in particular - should we be ashamed that we decided to keep out and do nothing other than telling Assad that his actions are unacceptable.  As a wealthy country do we not have a moral obligation to *prevent *suffering where we can even, if we cannot do that everywhere'
		
Click to expand...

Think the rebels holed up in Aleppo have been given a ceasefire period  to pull out and retreat which they've agreed to do (otherwise they'll be  dead soon), seems to be the only way to avoid more civilian population  deaths in the city and is a tactic used before. Too little too late as  the rebels could've perhaps left ages ago to prevent the city's  obliteration but better than nothing. Assad is brutal though and in  order to regain control will go to any ends to punish those who opposed  him it seems, that's the nature of dictatorships.

With Iran and  Russia backing Assad's Govt army and all kinds of splinter groups and  factions operating in Syria armed to the teeth we the UK cannot get  involved in this one on the ground imo. We can't do anything without the  Yanks anyway. BJ was right to say airdrops of food and medicines wont  work either, any lumbering transport planes are sitting ducks for SAMs.

UKs  policy wrt Syrian refugees has with hindsight arguably been better in  identifying the most needy i.e. families with old and children from  refugee camps, better than Germany's open door policy encouraging mainly young  males more than any other demographic. Single young males coming from a  strict middle eastern culture into a liberal European one will and has  ended up with nothing but trouble.

If and when Syria gets back on  its feet, presumably under Assad agian, what proportion of Syrians now  in European countries or refugee camps in Turkey/Jordan etc will want to  go back? Very few I suspect. Assume Russia is going to pour money into rebuilding the  destroyed parts of the country for whatever they want in return.

Terrible tragedy exacerbated by power, politics and religion......................as per norm.

Very little 'little Britain' can do any more. World needs to sort itself out or 'we're a' doomed' as Fraser would say.


----------



## Beezerk (Dec 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I simply asked the question - 'when we see what has happened to the people of Syria - and Aleppo in particular - should we be ashamed that we decided to keep out and do nothing other than telling Assad that his actions are unacceptable.  As a wealthy country do we not have a moral obligation to *prevent *suffering where we can even, if we cannot do that everywhere'
		
Click to expand...

When you say "we" who do you actually mean? The politicians, the general public, my pet cat?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 14, 2016)

Beezerk said:



			When you say "we" who do you actually mean? The politicians, the general public, my pet cat?
		
Click to expand...

Your pet cat - if that is a euphemism for the UK government with the support of the UK public.

And I am thinking of 2013 - when this discussion opened as intervention was being debated in parliament  - and before all hell broke loose in Syria.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I simply asked the question - 'when we see what has happened to the people of Syria - and Aleppo in particular - should we be ashamed that we decided to keep out and do nothing other than telling Assad that his actions are unacceptable.  As a wealthy country do we not have a moral obligation to *prevent *suffering where we can even, if we cannot do that everywhere'
		
Click to expand...

No, we shouldn't feel ashamed.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Your pet cat - if that is a euphemism for the UK government *with the support of the UK public.*

Click to expand...

So we should only get involved in wars that have the support of the public then? How does the government gauge that? Do we have a referendum on going to war and what percentage in favour is needed to show support for it?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 14, 2016)

That is how parliament is supposed to work. We speak to our MP's, they report back to parliament and vote accordingly. Clearly it does not usually work that way, MP's tend to make their own mind up, but that is the theory. There was huge and very clear opposition to the war in Iraq but MP's on the whole chose to ignore that.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Your pet cat - if that is a euphemism for the UK government with the support of the UK public.

And I am thinking of 2013 - when this discussion opened as intervention was being debated in parliament  - and before all hell broke loose in Syria.
		
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for labour swaying the vote and not supporting military action perhaps, rightly or wrongly, we could have made a difference.  Should we feel ashamed , not in the slightest.  We keep being told we are not the world's policeman. When we don't act as the world's policeman the bleeding hearts come out in droves.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 14, 2016)

ColchesterFC said:



			So we should only get involved in wars that have the support of the public then? How does the government gauge that? Do we have a referendum on going to war and what percentage in favour is needed to show support for it?
		
Click to expand...

And your vote will not count if you only have a certificate for swimming a width.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Your pet cat - if that is a euphemism for the UK government with the support of the UK public.

And I am thinking of 2013 - when this discussion opened as intervention was being debated in parliament  - and before all hell broke loose in Syria.
		
Click to expand...

But who are you blaming? It would be interesting to know who exactly you hold culpable.  From your earlier post it sounds like you are blaming all of us as uncaring and selfish.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 14, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			But who are you blaming? It would be interesting to know who exactly you hold culpable.  From your earlier post it sounds like you are blaming all of us as uncaring and selfish.
		
Click to expand...

I am unsure about whether us doing anything back in 2013 was the right thing or the wrong thing.  My basic beliefs would tell me that we should have intervened - and that historic outcomes of similar events do not set a precedent.  But even subsequently we have not done all we could to support displaced Syrians fleeing the hell - our record on taking Syrian refugees hardly being startling - with even the relatively small numbers accepted being actually opposed by many.  

I am afraid I am coming to believe that many folk in this country don't actually care a jot about Syrian refugees - and if they say that they do then they most certainly don't want refugees to impact upon their quality or way of life; or standard of living.  Someone closer to Syria can deal with them  Not our problem.

Sadly.


----------



## Jensen (Dec 14, 2016)

If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was us from the West fleeing to Middle Eastern countries, it would be interesting what help/welcome, support we would receive from the Muslim brotherhood!


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I am unsure about whether us doing anything back in 2013 was the right thing or the wrong thing.  My basic beliefs would tell me that we should have intervened - and that historic outcomes of similar events do not set a precedent.  But even subsequently we have not done all we could to support displaced Syrians fleeing the hell - our record on taking Syrian refugees hardly being startling - with even the relatively small numbers accepted being actually opposed by many.  

I am afraid I am coming to believe that many folk in this country don't actually care a jot about Syrian refugees - and if they say that they do then they most certainly don't want refugees to impact upon their quality or way of life; or standard of living.  Someone closer to Syria can deal with them  Not our problem.

Sadly.
		
Click to expand...

Bringing large numbers to the Uk is not a good plan in my opinion.  i dont like what has happened in places like Sweden and Germany.  We have been a major funder of resettlement camps and aid for refugees in the area.

What do you think about the reaction of the rich Muslim countries in the Middle East, most of them have taken not one.   What about Eastern Europe or Russia, their compassion for these people is miniscule compared to us.

You always seem to be quick to debase your own Nation but are very lacking in pointing your finger at others.


----------



## Beezerk (Dec 14, 2016)

I want to know how come all these people tweeting/posting videos about how bad it is in Aleppo, manage to get better Wi-Fi/4G connections better than Tashy in good old Northumberland &#128514;


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 14, 2016)

Jensen said:



			If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was us from the West fleeing to Middle Eastern countries, it would be interesting what help/welcome, support we would receive from the Muslim brotherhood!
		
Click to expand...

Zilch.  We would have to stay and fight with our backs to the wall.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 14, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Bringing large numbers to the Uk is not a good plan in my opinion.  i dont like what has happened in places like Sweden and Germany.  We have been a major funder of resettlement camps and aid for refugees in the area.

What do you think about the reaction of the rich Muslim countries in the Middle East, most of them have taken not one.   What about Eastern Europe or Russia, their compassion for these people is miniscule compared to us.

You always seem to be quick to debase your own Nation but are very lacking in pointing your finger at others.
		
Click to expand...

I would want all nations to react to the situation in the same way.  

I do not think I debase my own nation by suggesting that many UK citizens might not actually care that much about Syrian Refugees.  Please tell me I am wrong.  But the fact that many would seem resent the UK accepting Syrian refugees in any numbers - or indeed any at all; would happily see the back of the UK resident immigrant community, or would oppose a unilateral granting of permanent residency without a quid pro quo from the EU - these things would suggest to me that compassion to 'others than us' may be limited in many of the 'indigenous' UK population.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 15, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			As a wealthy country do we not have a moral obligation to *prevent *suffering where we can even, if we cannot do that everywhere'
		
Click to expand...

Are you the same SILH who opposed bombing ISIS in Syria?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 15, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I would want all nations to react to the situation in the same way.  

I do not think I debase my own nation by suggesting that many UK citizens might not actually care that much about Syrian Refugees.  Please tell me I am wrong.  But the fact that many would seem resent the UK accepting Syrian refugees in any numbers - or indeed any at all; would happily see the back of the UK resident immigrant community, or would oppose a unilateral granting of permanent residency without a quid pro quo from the EU - these things would suggest to me that compassion to 'others than us' may be limited in many of the 'indigenous' UK population.
		
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong. I believe British people do care about Syrian refugees and those still in Aleppo and other war torn cities. I just think that many British people accept that we cannot do everything and what we can do will never be enough.
Your choice of the word "debase" is excellent. The UK is debased continually over this and yet what we have done is almost entirely ignored. As you say, every nation should be taking action. If they did the problem would be significantly eased. We are very good at debasing ourselves. I wonder if the same questions on caring about Syria enough are being held in other counties like India, Pakistan, China, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Panama, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Switzerland, Mexico....


----------



## Sweep (Dec 15, 2016)

If we are going to be wringing our hands over this, isn't it time we looked at the UN? Here we are in the ridiculous situation where one of the nations that makes up the Security Council is prosecuting the war in Syria and assisting in committing war crimes. Helping a tyrant barrel bomb his own people and execute his citizens in their own homes. Surely it's time to kick this evil regime off the Security Council? I know there will be those who say we must keep them onside so we can discuss things and prevent war, but frankly it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. The Russians aren't interested and it isn't working. As the American Ambassador to the UN said, Russia, Iran and Syria have no shame. Russia can't even take part in sport without mass, state sponsored cheating for crying out loud!

Surely, if this dreadful war has taught us anything it is that, as a world, as mankind, as a species we are incapable of stopping these conflicts that blight our existence and disgrace humanity. Surely now we should turn our efforts and attention to the prevention of war in the first place. The first and most obvious action would be to stop and stop today selling arms to evil regimes like Saudi Arabia. Do we really need these people so badly that we must help them wage war and murder indiscriminately? Even the US has stopped selling them arms! Let's just stop. Think about what we are doing and start to prosecute peace. That means forging ties with nations who are interested in our goals and not continually battling bullies like Russia in the Security Council. Let's show Russia and the rest that we are not interested in dealing with warmongers. Enough of the softly, softly approach. You can't deal with evil that way.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 15, 2016)

Sweep said:



			Are you the same SILH who opposed bombing ISIS in Syria?
		
Click to expand...

You don't expect him to stick to his arguments without acknowledging he has changed his views.  He also seems to forget the millions in money and help we have spent in the area establishing refugee camps so that as soon as the situation changes people can move back to their own country - the UN preferred solution as opposed to the Labour solution (yes the party that opposed any worth while action be taken in Syria).


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 15, 2016)

Sweep said:



			Are you the same SILH who opposed bombing ISIS in Syria?
		
Click to expand...

Quite possibily


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 15, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Quite possibily
		
Click to expand...

I'm not a great fan of bombing when it puts civilian lives at risk.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 15, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'm not a great fan of bombing when it puts civilian lives at risk.
		
Click to expand...

In an earlier post you appear to suggest military action, what kind of military action would that be a exactly


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 15, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			In an earlier post you appear to suggest military action, what kind of military action would that be a exactly
		
Click to expand...

Any military action that might protect civilians.  That is not for me to determine.

And I will repeat what I said when I re-opened this discussion

_I am unsure about whether us doing anything back in 2013 was the right thing or the wrong thing. My basic beliefs would tell me that we should have intervened _

But for clarification (if that is really needed) I shall add one more word to thay last sentence

_My basic Christian beliefs would tell me that we should have intervened_


----------



## NWJocko (Dec 15, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Any military action that might protect civilians.  That is not for me to determine.

And I will repeat what I said when I re-opened this discussion

_I am unsure about whether us doing anything back in 2013 was the right thing or the wrong thing. My basic beliefs would tell me that we should have intervened _

But for clarification (if that is really needed) I shall add one more word to thay last sentence

_My basic Christian beliefs would tell me that we should have intervened_

Click to expand...

Out of interest what difference do you think adding that word into the sentence makes? 

Do your beliefs not tell you we should be intervening wherever there are humanitarian problems or do you pick and choose?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 15, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Any military action that might protect civilians.  That is not for me to determine.

And I will repeat what I said when I re-opened this discussion

_I am unsure about whether us doing anything back in 2013 was the right thing or the wrong thing. My basic beliefs would tell me that we should have intervened _

But for clarification (if that is really needed) I shall add one more word to thay last sentence

_My basic Christian beliefs would tell me that we should have intervened_

Click to expand...

I agree. I think we should have intervened right at the beginning when the Syrian government started bombing their own people. We waited for permission from the international community that never arrived and we were ideally placed to intervene from the air from our base in Akrotiri. Once the conflict was well underway it was too late.
However, your post highlights how difficult it is to intervene and how to do so. I am afraid not everyone can say "it's not for me to determine". It makes the desire to intervene idealistic and TBH shows that our view is lacking the substance it requires to back it up.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 15, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'm not a great fan of bombing when it puts civilian lives at risk.
		
Click to expand...

But by not bombing them it puts civilian lives at risk. Anyway, that's another thread.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 15, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



_My basic Christian beliefs would tell me that we should have intervened_

Click to expand...

Having been involved in conflicts where (supposedly) religion has been a major factor in the problem, I'm not sure how relevant or indeed wise this is.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 15, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I would want all nations to react to the situation in the same way.  

I do not think I debase my own nation by suggesting that many UK citizens might not actually care that much about Syrian Refugees.  Please tell me I am wrong.  But the fact that many would seem resent the UK accepting Syrian refugees in any numbers - or indeed any at all; would happily see the back of the UK resident immigrant community, or would oppose a unilateral granting of permanent residency without a quid pro quo from the EU - these things would suggest to me that compassion to 'others than us' may be limited in many of the 'indigenous' UK population.
		
Click to expand...

When you say 'Many UK Citizens may not even care'  what do you mean?  Do you mean the despicable Brexiteers, do you mean most people in the country or working class people.  Please explain.

I think your suggestion that most dont care is wrong, I would suggest most people look at these retched Syrians in Allepo and are sickened  by what they see.  Would these people like to see Millions of refugees brought to the UK, probably not as being a small country like ours which already allows large numbers of immigrants each year we couldn't cope with integrating the numbers.  I also understand what you are getting at regarding peoples views on large numbers of Muslims coming to the UK.  It's true that a lot of people would be uneasy about that due to their experiences of how existing Muslims have not integrated very well and tend to create separate societies with different cultural lifestyles that prevent cohesion.  This seems to be the case in Countries like Sweden and Germany at the moment.  The UK way of supporting Syrians and  not anyone from anywhere who jumps on the band wagon is by active financial and material support in areas near their country.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 15, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			When you say *'Many UK Citizens may not even care'  what do you mean?  Do you mean the despicable Brexiteers, do you mean most people in the country or working class people.  Please explain.*

I think your suggestion that most dont care is wrong, I would suggest most people look at these retched Syrians in Allepo and are sickened  by what they see.  Would these people like to see Millions of refugees brought to the UK, probably not as being a small country like ours which already allows large numbers of immigrants each year we couldn't cope with integrating the numbers.  I also understand what you are getting at regarding peoples views on large numbers of Muslims coming to the UK.  It's true that a lot of people would be uneasy about that due to their experiences of how existing Muslims have not integrated very well and tend to create separate societies with different cultural lifestyles that prevent cohesion.  This seems to be the case in Countries like Sweden and Germany at the moment.  The UK way of supporting Syrians and  not anyone from anywhere who jumps on the band wagon is by active financial and material support in areas near their country.
		
Click to expand...

I mean many UK citizens full stop.  I suspect that it spans all demographies and politics.


----------

