Syria (merged)

[Ducado]

People keep using the "we did bad stuff once or failed to act when bad stuff happened so what right do we have to intervene now" argument.

This is utter nonsense. Two wrongs do not make a right. They make twice as much wrong and the prospect of more!

By failing to act we are turning a blind eye to the use of an horrific type of warfare. It takes billions to make a nuke, it takes only the will to make sarin. Allow this to go unpunished and you give a green light to all those who previously held back from using these indiscriminate weapons.

It is also rather narrow minded to use the perceived consequences of action in Syria as a reason to allow this to go unchecked. There is the rest of the world and it's future to think of too. So just as failure to react to African genocides is no reason to not act now. Failure to act now could well be the catalyst for future genocides and then are we to have the same debate?

"We didn't do anything when Assad gassed those kids so why should we intervene now x has wiped out a town with one juicy airburst"

I don't know what the appropriate response should be but I'm fucking glad some people care enough to try and do something.

Well said

Its complete hypocrisy. It makes me laugh when I see the likes of Obomber and Call me Dave bang on about it being a 'moral obscenity' and present themselves as the bastions of morality, and caring about the children of Syria. What about the people in Vietnam who died from Agent Orange, and Napalm, which still deforms kids right to this day, over 40 years later? Saddam using chemical weapons the US gave him, then turning a blind eye when he used them on Iranians and Kurds? The deformed babies and high cancer rates in Iraq, especially Fallujah, from all that White Phosphorus and Depleted Uranium? Type in DU babies on google with the safe search off to see what its done. They don't say a word when Israel uses White Phosphorus in Gaza, or the militarized use of tear gas in Bahrain on protesters, when they lock down areas then keep pumping it, leading to deaths, and illness. But hey, its all fun and games when you or your mates do it. Its bollocks. They don't give a crap about the people of Syria, never have done. Assad has been there some 13 years, where was the moral outrage about him during those years? Them giving "aid" to the FSA which supplies Al Nusra has led to so many deaths of innocent people, and created the crisis we're seeing. This is not about democracy, or improving Syria. This whole manufactured conflict is about imperialism and their own geopolitical interests, and to hell with the people living there.

I don't recall them being in power at the time of the Vietnam conflict, or the Iran- Iraq war

 

[Gelsons Dad]

People keep using the "we did bad stuff once or failed to act when bad stuff happened so what right do we have to intervene now" argument.

This is utter nonsense. Two wrongs do not make a right. They make twice as much wrong and the prospect of more!

By failing to act we are turning a blind eye to the use of an horrific type of warfare. It takes billions to make a nuke, it takes only the will to make sarin. Allow this to go unpunished and you give a green light to all those who previously held back from using these indiscriminate weapons.

It is also rather narrow minded to use the perceived consequences of action in Syria as a reason to allow this to go unchecked. There is the rest of the world and it's future to think of too. So just as failure to react to African genocides is no reason to not act now. Failure to act now could well be the catalyst for future genocides and then are we to have the same debate?

"We didn't do anything when Assad gassed those kids so why should we intervene now x has wiped out a town with one juicy airburst"

I don't know what the appropriate response should be but I'm fucking glad some people care enough to try and do something.

Well said

Its complete hypocrisy. It makes me laugh when I see the likes of Obomber and Call me Dave bang on about it being a 'moral obscenity' and present themselves as the bastions of morality, and caring about the children of Syria. What about the people in Vietnam who died from Agent Orange, and Napalm, which still deforms kids right to this day, over 40 years later? Saddam using chemical weapons the US gave him, then turning a blind eye when he used them on Iranians and Kurds? The deformed babies and high cancer rates in Iraq, especially Fallujah, from all that White Phosphorus and Depleted Uranium? Type in DU babies on google with the safe search off to see what its done. They don't say a word when Israel uses White Phosphorus in Gaza, or the militarized use of tear gas in Bahrain on protesters, when they lock down areas then keep pumping it, leading to deaths, and illness. But hey, its all fun and games when you or your mates do it. Its bollocks. They don't give a crap about the people of Syria, never have done. Assad has been there some 13 years, where was the moral outrage about him during those years? Them giving "aid" to the FSA which supplies Al Nusra has led to so many deaths of innocent people, and created the crisis we're seeing. This is not about democracy, or improving Syria. This whole manufactured conflict is about imperialism and their own geopolitical interests, and to hell with the people living there.

So the Arab Spring was a manufactured conflict about imperialism? OK! I guess we were on the wrong side in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen? Could have saved a fair few lives by crushing those uprisings before they took hold.

 

[Josh Blue]

Well said

Its complete hypocrisy. It makes me laugh when I see the likes of Obomber and Call me Dave bang on about it being a 'moral obscenity' and present themselves as the bastions of morality, and caring about the children of Syria. What about the people in Vietnam who died from Agent Orange, and Napalm, which still deforms kids right to this day, over 40 years later? Saddam using chemical weapons the US gave him, then turning a blind eye when he used them on Iranians and Kurds? The deformed babies and high cancer rates in Iraq, especially Fallujah, from all that White Phosphorus and Depleted Uranium? Type in DU babies on google with the safe search off to see what its done. They don't say a word when Israel uses White Phosphorus in Gaza, or the militarized use of tear gas in Bahrain on protesters, when they lock down areas then keep pumping it, leading to deaths, and illness. But hey, its all fun and games when you or your mates do it. Its bollocks. They don't give a crap about the people of Syria, never have done. Assad has been there some 13 years, where was the moral outrage about him during those years? Them giving "aid" to the FSA which supplies Al Nusra has led to so many deaths of innocent people, and created the crisis we're seeing. This is not about democracy, or improving Syria. This whole manufactured conflict is about imperialism and their own geopolitical interests, and to hell with the people living there.

So the Arab Spring was a manufactured conflict about imperialism? OK! I guess we were on the wrong side in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen? Could have saved a fair few lives by crushing those uprisings before they took hold.

Libya? Of course Libya was manufactured and now look at the state of it?

The countries on the target list were; Iraq, Afghan, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Iran. They will all fall to the imperial west.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

and if we had done "fuck all" pre 1945? You know, when a fucking mad man was gassing people and developing the first nerve agents!

I tried hard not to bring it up but we've ended up there anyway.

He still killed far more without chemical weapons, which you know only too well, so it's a bit of a non-starter from that perspective. I believe the Second World War was Britain's finest hour. You see, with me, it's not about no interventions, or intervene in every case, but intervene where intervention will lead to fewer lives being lost. This was most certainly the case in the Second World War.

The point was not about how many millions died from what kind of weapon but rather when it is right to intervene. We could have abandoned Poland and let him quickly take the rest of Europe. That would have saved loads of lives.

 

[Josh Blue]

and if we had done "fuck all" pre 1945? You know, when a fucking mad man was gassing people and developing the first nerve agents!

I tried hard not to bring it up but we've ended up there anyway.

He still killed far more without chemical weapons, which you know only too well, so it's a bit of a non-starter from that perspective. I believe the Second World War was Britain's finest hour. You see, with me, it's not about no interventions, or intervene in every case, but intervene where intervention will lead to fewer lives being lost. This was most certainly the case in the Second World War.

The point was not about how many millions died from what kind of weapon but rather when it is right to intervene. We could have abandoned Poland and let him quickly take the rest of Europe. That would have saved loads of lives.

We didn't go to war with Hitler to save anybody. He had been going on with his business for quite a while till we decided to get involved. This country has no morals.

 

[Skashion]

The point was not about how many millions died from what kind of weapon but rather when it is right to intervene. We could have abandoned Poland and let him quickly take the rest of Europe. That would have saved loads of lives.

Stop being purile. Also, stop the straw man. I SUPPORT INTERVENTIONS WHEN THEY WILL SAVE LIVES. The Second World War was not only justified but as I said, our finest hour. I am not debating whether it is right to intervene. I am debating whether Syria is a good intervention. No in my opinion. I've said why and thoroughly explained my position. It will not lead to fewer lives lost, therefore is a bad idea. I feel this debate has regressed owing to your childish attitude which ignores my actual position on intervention.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Not really, I stated that it derives from a need for reciprocity, you stated your view that it was a path of doing least harm. I don't imagine anybody would disagree with your logic, its eminently sensible, what we can't know is doing nothing going to kill more people/promote more suffering than punitive action. We can guess it might save more Syrians given their situation but the concern has to be that having told Syria and others that actually we won't enforce international law it may end up leading to more willingness to use mass killing weapons in future.

The sad reality is we missed our chance 12 months ago when it was first muted they used chemical weapons and since then the rebels have become increasingly influenced by outside forces.

An argument I didn't find the least convincing from a humanitarian perspective. We have definite reason to suppose if Assad's victory is stalled it will lead to more lives lost. Longer war equals more lives lost, that's self evident. If Al Nusra win, we have definite reason to suppose deaths will continue. Lives are already being taken by Al Nusra, just this month over 1,000 Kurds have been massacred at the hands of Al Nusra in Khan al-Assal, Lattakia and Tal Abyad. Al Nusra has threatened to revenge massacres on Alawites as well: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-nusra-idUSBRE97O06120130825" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... 6120130825</a> This is not a hypothesis, the massacres I'm talking about are already happening. My fear is they'll turn into genocide and the blood will be on our hands. Why do I care less about 1,000 Kurds killed by swords, bullets and explosives than 335 Sunnis gassed? Conversely, if Assad is victorious we have less reason to suppose there will be more deaths. Massacres were not evident in pre-war Syria under Assad so why should they afterwards? Again, my reasoning appears backed up by the Syrian people who now prefer Assad to the alternative: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/ ... and-minds/</a>

Skash,

How can it get any worse over 100,000 dead thus far , 600 people a week and rising ,that will continue on your head be it....how DO YOU KNOW that by eliminating the regime and then dealing with the Al Nasra fanatics after wont reduce or even stop the killing ?....you don't, it's a prediction ...YOU CANNOT BE SURE

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Its complete hypocrisy. It makes me laugh when I see the likes of Obomber and Call me Dave bang on about it being a 'moral obscenity' and present themselves as the bastions of morality, and caring about the children of Syria. What about the people in Vietnam who died from Agent Orange, and Napalm, which still deforms kids right to this day, over 40 years later? Saddam using chemical weapons the US gave him, then turning a blind eye when he used them on Iranians and Kurds? The deformed babies and high cancer rates in Iraq, especially Fallujah, from all that White Phosphorus and Depleted Uranium? Type in DU babies on google with the safe search off to see what its done. They don't say a word when Israel uses White Phosphorus in Gaza, or the militarized use of tear gas in Bahrain on protesters, when they lock down areas then keep pumping it, leading to deaths, and illness. But hey, its all fun and games when you or your mates do it. Its bollocks. They don't give a crap about the people of Syria, never have done. Assad has been there some 13 years, where was the moral outrage about him during those years? Them giving "aid" to the FSA which supplies Al Nusra has led to so many deaths of innocent people, and created the crisis we're seeing. This is not about democracy, or improving Syria. This whole manufactured conflict is about imperialism and their own geopolitical interests, and to hell with the people living there.

So the Arab Spring was a manufactured conflict about imperialism? OK! I guess we were on the wrong side in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen? Could have saved a fair few lives by crushing those uprisings before they took hold.

Libya? Of course Libya was manufactured and now look at the state of it?

The countries on the target list were; Iraq, Afghan, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Iran. They will all fall to the imperial west.

Fall to the imperial west! Libya? What the fuck are you on about?

 

[Skashion]

Skash,

How can it get any worse over 100,000 dead thus far , 600 people a week and rising ,that will continue on your head be it....how DO YOU KNOW that by eliminating the regime and then dealing with the Al Nasra fanatics after wont reduce or even stop the killing ?....you don't, it's a prediction ...YOU CANNOT BE SURE

If this is the vicar, I've already told you, I won't talk to you.

 

[Josh Blue]

So the Arab Spring was a manufactured conflict about imperialism? OK! I guess we were on the wrong side in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen? Could have saved a fair few lives by crushing those uprisings before they took hold.

Libya? Of course Libya was manufactured and now look at the state of it?

The countries on the target list were; Iraq, Afghan, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Iran. They will all fall to the imperial west.

Fall to the imperial west! Libya? What the fuck are you on about?

Yes i am talking about the manufactured uprising in Libya which is the same as the uprising in Syria. Armed terrorist groups killing others in the street in the name of freedom and our country armed and supported these men. That's what the fuck I'm on about it or did it pass you by?

 

[BlueHammer85]

Skash,

How can it get any worse over 100,000 dead thus far , 600 people a week and rising ,that will continue on your head be it....how DO YOU KNOW that by eliminating the regime and then dealing with the Al Nasra fanatics after wont reduce or even stop the killing ?....you don't, it's a prediction ...YOU CANNOT BE SURE

If this is the vicar, I've already told you, I won't talk to you.

He has a good point , you THINK military intervention will result in more lives and you THINK it will prolong the war. But you don't know that is true. Assads regime may topple, Al Nasra may get defeated and the syrian people along with Americas help may get democracy and peace. You make valid points and know the situation very well but no one truely knows what the right answer

 

[Gelsons Dad]

The point was not about how many millions died from what kind of weapon but rather when it is right to intervene. We could have abandoned Poland and let him quickly take the rest of Europe. That would have saved loads of lives.

Stop being purile. Also, stop the straw man. I SUPPORT INTERVENTIONS WHEN THEY WILL SAVE LIVES. The Second World War was not only justified but as I said, our finest hour. I am not debating whether it is right to intervene. I am debating whether Syria is a good intervention. No in my opinion. I've said why and thoroughly explained my position. It will not lead to fewer lives lost, therefore is a bad idea. I feel this debate has regressed owing to your childish attitude which ignores my actual position on intervention.

My childish attitude in explaining why in my view, upholding international law in the face of the abhorrent use of banned weapons is in the interest of everyone? Well I'm sorry that you find it childish and that by my reckoning your line of least death (with the exception of WW2 when it was ok) is the more naive and one might say childish attitude.

You make a case well but I fundamentally disagree that it's better to turn a blind eye if there is a chance of causing more fatalities. No one can know the consequences of inaction with any more certainty than the consequences of action. But everyone knows right from wrong.

 

[Skashion]

He has a good point , you THINK military intervention will result in more lives and you THINK it will prolong the war. But you don't know that is true. Assads regime may topple and the syrian people along with Americas help may get democracy and peace. You make valid points and know the situation very well but no one truely knows what the right answer

His point is that I can't predict the future. That's not a point. However, I can make a highly educated guess based on things that are already happening, things that have happened and good old-fashioned facts. As for his assertion that this a possibly of Assad falling but Al Nusra not committing massacres? How's that going to come about that? We couldn't even stop the sectarian violence in Iraq between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds with hundreds of thousands of troops and we think we're going to avoid that in Syria without a single soldier on the ground. That's the definition of batshit crazy.

 

[Skashion]

My childish attitude in explaining why in my view, upholding international law in the face of the abhorrent use of banned weapons is in the interest of everyone? Well I'm sorry that you find it childish and that by my reckoning your line of least death (with the exception of WW2 when it was ok) is the more naive and one might say childish attitude.

You make a case well but I fundamentally disagree that it's better to turn a blind eye if there is a chance of causing more fatalities. No one can know the consequences of inaction with any more certainty than the consequences of action. But everyone knows right from wrong.

Your childish attitude was not that. That's the straw man again, please stop it. The childish attitude is pretending my opinion is different than it is to make it easier for you to argue with. The Second World War was not an exception, I desire intervention when it will lead to fewer deaths. In the case of the Second World War it probably saved millions of lives of Jews, Slavs and Russians. Hitler was a genocidal maniac. In case you haven't noticed, I've been talking a lot about the genocidal Al Nusra and how they will benefit from the weakening of Assad. Assad is not genocidal. He was not genocidal pre-war. It's also hard to be genocidal against the majority of the population. Al Nusra are genocidal though. They are not killing people only to enhance their war effort but because they are Kurds or Shiites.

 

[Unknown_Genius]

Well said

Its complete hypocrisy. It makes me laugh when I see the likes of Obomber and Call me Dave bang on about it being a 'moral obscenity' and present themselves as the bastions of morality, and caring about the children of Syria. What about the people in Vietnam who died from Agent Orange, and Napalm, which still deforms kids right to this day, over 40 years later? Saddam using chemical weapons the US gave him, then turning a blind eye when he used them on Iranians and Kurds? The deformed babies and high cancer rates in Iraq, especially Fallujah, from all that White Phosphorus and Depleted Uranium? Type in DU babies on google with the safe search off to see what its done. They don't say a word when Israel uses White Phosphorus in Gaza, or the militarized use of tear gas in Bahrain on protesters, when they lock down areas then keep pumping it, leading to deaths, and illness. But hey, its all fun and games when you or your mates do it. Its bollocks. They don't give a crap about the people of Syria, never have done. Assad has been there some 13 years, where was the moral outrage about him during those years? Them giving "aid" to the FSA which supplies Al Nusra has led to so many deaths of innocent people, and created the crisis we're seeing. This is not about democracy, or improving Syria. This whole manufactured conflict is about imperialism and their own geopolitical interests, and to hell with the people living there.

So the Arab Spring was a manufactured conflict about imperialism? OK! I guess we were on the wrong side in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen? Could have saved a fair few lives by crushing those uprisings before they took hold.

No, Egypt was legit, thats what a real revolution looks like when you have millions of people out on the streets protesting, like in Tahrir Square. It was something coming for years, Mubarak was an American puppet, serving their interests not the Egyptians. Same with Tunisia. Beheading people, singing about Bin Laden killing Americans, car bombings threatening genocide against Alawites and other groups, slitting the throats of babies, isn't what a revolution for democracy looks like. Libya and Yemen are a different kettle of fish. After Mubarak was over thrown the Suez was now open, and Gaddafi started to send his oil eastwards, and reneged his European contracts.

<a class="postlink" href="http://rt.com/news/libya-oil-gaddafi-arab/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://rt.com/news/libya-oil-gaddafi-arab/</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/04/201141195046788263.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 88263.html</a>

Moussa Koussa meets Hu Jintao. Western intervention in Libya came after Gaddafi pledged to give major contracts to Chinese countries, replacing deals with Western companies [GALLO/GETTY]

Yemen is just ironic. There the US is supporting the government. Yemen is a dictatorship. Hadi (the president) was the only election name on the ballot! The whole issue there is to do with South and North Yemen, conflicts that were not really resolved, a bit like Sudan. "Arab Spring" is a meaningless catch phrase. They're all different places and situations, and its much more complex than the media makes out.

 

[Josh Blue]

Its complete hypocrisy. It makes me laugh when I see the likes of Obomber and Call me Dave bang on about it being a 'moral obscenity' and present themselves as the bastions of morality, and caring about the children of Syria. What about the people in Vietnam who died from Agent Orange, and Napalm, which still deforms kids right to this day, over 40 years later? Saddam using chemical weapons the US gave him, then turning a blind eye when he used them on Iranians and Kurds? The deformed babies and high cancer rates in Iraq, especially Fallujah, from all that White Phosphorus and Depleted Uranium? Type in DU babies on google with the safe search off to see what its done. They don't say a word when Israel uses White Phosphorus in Gaza, or the militarized use of tear gas in Bahrain on protesters, when they lock down areas then keep pumping it, leading to deaths, and illness. But hey, its all fun and games when you or your mates do it. Its bollocks. They don't give a crap about the people of Syria, never have done. Assad has been there some 13 years, where was the moral outrage about him during those years? Them giving "aid" to the FSA which supplies Al Nusra has led to so many deaths of innocent people, and created the crisis we're seeing. This is not about democracy, or improving Syria. This whole manufactured conflict is about imperialism and their own geopolitical interests, and to hell with the people living there.

So the Arab Spring was a manufactured conflict about imperialism? OK! I guess we were on the wrong side in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen? Could have saved a fair few lives by crushing those uprisings before they took hold.

No, Egypt was legit, thats what a real revolution looks like when you have millions of people out on the streets protesting, like in Tahrir Square. It was something coming for years, Mubarak was an American puppet, serving their interests not the Egyptians. Same with Tunisia. Beheading people, singing about Bin Laden killing Americans, car bombings threatening genocide against Alawites and other groups, slitting the throats of babies, isn't what a revolution for democracy looks like. Libya and Yemen are a different kettle of fish. After Mubarak was over thrown the Suez was now open, and Gaddafi started to send his oil eastwards, and reneged his European contracts.

<a class="postlink" href="http://rt.com/news/libya-oil-gaddafi-arab/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://rt.com/news/libya-oil-gaddafi-arab/</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/04/201141195046788263.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 88263.html</a>

Moussa Koussa meets Hu Jintao. Western intervention in Libya came after Gaddafi pledged to give major contracts to Chinese countries, replacing deals with Western companies [GALLO/GETTY]

Yemen is just ironic. There the US is supporting the government. Yemen is a dictatorship. Hadi (the president) was the only election name on the ballot! The whole issue there is to do with South and North Yemen, conflicts that were not really resolved, a bit like Sudan. "Arab Spring" is a meaningless catch phrase. They're all different places and situations, and its much more complex than the media makes out.

Exactly!

 

[Chancy Termites]

Its complete hypocrisy. It makes me laugh when I see the likes of Obomber and Call me Dave bang on about it being a 'moral obscenity' and present themselves as the bastions of morality, and caring about the children of Syria. What about the people in Vietnam who died from Agent Orange, and Napalm, which still deforms kids right to this day, over 40 years later? Saddam using chemical weapons the US gave him, then turning a blind eye when he used them on Iranians and Kurds? The deformed babies and high cancer rates in Iraq, especially Fallujah, from all that White Phosphorus and Depleted Uranium? Type in DU babies on google with the safe search off to see what its done. They don't say a word when Israel uses White Phosphorus in Gaza, or the militarized use of tear gas in Bahrain on protesters, when they lock down areas then keep pumping it, leading to deaths, and illness. But hey, its all fun and games when you or your mates do it. Its bollocks. They don't give a crap about the people of Syria, never have done. Assad has been there some 13 years, where was the moral outrage about him during those years? Them giving "aid" to the FSA which supplies Al Nusra has led to so many deaths of innocent people, and created the crisis we're seeing. This is not about democracy, or improving Syria. This whole manufactured conflict is about imperialism and their own geopolitical interests, and to hell with the people living there.

Totally agree with you on the morality, or lack of it, regarding the way we and the US behave towards the Middle East.

And still no proof that the Syrian government was behind any chemical attack that may or may not have happened.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

My childish attitude in explaining why in my view, upholding international law in the face of the abhorrent use of banned weapons is in the interest of everyone? Well I'm sorry that you find it childish and that by my reckoning your line of least death (with the exception of WW2 when it was ok) is the more naive and one might say childish attitude.

You make a case well but I fundamentally disagree that it's better to turn a blind eye if there is a chance of causing more fatalities. No one can know the consequences of inaction with any more certainty than the consequences of action. But everyone knows right from wrong.

Your childish attitude was not that. That's the straw man again, please stop it. The childish attitude is pretending my opinion is different than it is to make it easier for you to argue with. The Second World War was not an exception, I desire intervention when it will lead to fewer deaths. In the case of the Second World War it probably saved millions of lives of Jews, Slavs and Russians. Hitler was a genocidal maniac. In case you haven't noticed, I've been talking a lot about the genocidal Al Nusra and how they will benefit from the weakening of Assad. Assad is not genocidal. He was not genocidal pre-war. It's also hard to be genocidal against the majority of the population. Al Nusra are genocidal though. They are not killing people only to enhance their war effort but because they are Kurds or Shiites.

Let's remove the "childish" name calling. You say that our intervention "probably" saved millions of lives. There was a strong feeling at the time that appeasement would have achieved exactly that. We cannot know if an exodus would have cost more or less lives so it's a pointless argument.

Back to Syria, We cannot know what the actions of Assad will be if his use of nerve agent goes unpunished. We only know that all the evidence points to the fact that he used it. And he has lots more.

I stated earlier that I don't know what the correct response is only that to do nothing is the wrong response. That Al Nusra may be the greater of the two evils does not excuse the breach of international law. Where genocide has taken place we all and by that I mean humanity has a responsibility to act just as we have the responsibility to act when chemical weapons are used, but finding an appropriate method and time of response is the difficult bit.

 

[BlueHammer85]

He has a good point , you THINK military intervention will result in more lives and you THINK it will prolong the war. But you don't know that is true. Assads regime may topple and the syrian people along with Americas help may get democracy and peace. You make valid points and know the situation very well but no one truely knows what the right answer

His point is that I can't predict the future. That's not a point. However, I can make a highly educated guess based on things that are already happening, things that have happened and good old-fashioned facts. As for his assertion that this a possibly of Assad falling but Al Nusra not committing massacres? How's that going to come about that? We couldn't even stop the sectarian violence in Iraq between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds with hundreds of thousands of troops and we think we're going to avoid that in Syria without a single soldier on the ground. That's the definition of batshit crazy.

Nope I said why can't we not topple Assad, THEN deal with Al Nusra after, Iraq is on the mend, people are still dying but they have a free press, it is now democratic and an economy that is growing....it will be slow that's obvious...also lets say the British embassy blows up somewhere, are we going to do anything, to thousands of terrorists we will avoid any course of military action and they know it....We shall be told that intervention can never work. Not true – look at Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone. We will be told pessimistic crap which says Britain is unimportant in the wider world......I'm not saying I agree with intervention but I see just as much blood on the streets if we don't intervene

 

[Skashion]

Let's remove the "childish" name calling. You say that our intervention "probably" saved millions of lives. There was a strong feeling at the time that appeasement would have achieved exactly that. We cannot know if an exodus would have cost more or less lives so it's a pointless argument.

Back to Syria, We cannot know what the actions of Assad will be if his use of nerve agent goes unpunished. We only know that all the evidence points to the fact that he used it. And he has lots more.

I stated earlier that I don't know what the correct response is only that to do nothing is the wrong response. That Al Nusra may be the greater of the two evils does not excuse the breach of international law. Where genocide has taken place we all and by that I mean humanity has a responsibility to act just as we have the responsibility to act when chemical weapons are used, but finding an appropriate method and time of response is the difficult bit.

Jumping in the war in 1939 saved no lives at all. Only later when the evidence of genocide began to emerge in 1941 and Churchill delivered his "crime without a name" speech. So, when that evidence became evident later then intervention would still have been possible.

What evidence is there that he ordered it? Evidence is claimed but so was it in the 45-minute dossier. Indeed, I cannot predict the future, nor can anyone else, but that's no more an argument for intervention than non-intervention. The default position should be non-intervention. Indeed, is. What I have laid out, is my best guess based on the facts we know about the region's sectarian problems, about Syria's sectarian problems, about the casualties so far, about the parties involved in this war, and about our inability to prevent sectarian violence even with a huge ground presence. We know Assad can prevent Syria descending into sectarian violence chaos because that was Syria pre-war. I say again too, the Syrian people back me in my assessment. Assad is better than the alternatives. Conducting strikes must weaken him. It cannot possibly strengthen him, and somehow if they did, how could you justify that?