Syria (merged)

[Jumanji]

Its quite easy really. Loads of ways of getting those 2 words in to the same sentencer

Sure, something like blah blah blah huminatirian effort to help victims of the conflict, for example.

But that's not really what I meant though.

Humanitarian norms of conflict do not exist, in my humble opinion. Human on human conflict is atrocious.

Of course they exist even if those norms were to rape every woman and shoot every boy over the age of 10.

For me, no form of violence falls under the scope of humanitarian.

Bleeding out from a bullet to me is no different than dying from nuclear radiation, chemical warfare, etc.

 

[Skashion]

That is a very black and white view of the world. So what are you advocating? we either get involved at the first death in every external conflict or never get involved no matter what happens?

What I've said is that I advocate supporting the cause of action that will lead to the fewest deaths. That's clearly humanitarian because it aims to minimise overall suffering. A far more logical approach than allowing unlimited deaths if by conventional means but none at all by chemical weapons. The idea of a red line over chemical weapons is what's black and white.

 

[Blue Til Death]

It's not about valuing one method of death over another but rather the rationale of reciprocity and its place in enforcing humanitarian norms as the reasoning behind why we should get involved now.

These articles examine the concepts and explain it so much better than I if anyone is interested

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_864_geiss.pdf

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-873-paulus-vashakmadze.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1427437

Those articles, cannot, and never will, explain why it is humanitarian to ignore Darfur, Rwanda and 100,000 deaths in Syria, but give a shit about 335 deaths caused by gas. No article or words ever will. A death is a death. It means something or it doesn't.

No argument with that statement, I think the reason there is a debate about these particular deaths is the fact that a nerve agent attack is particularly nasty and a slow lingering death as the bodies nervous system slowly shuts down, Sarin, if that is the agent used, is one of the original chemical weapons from the cold war days, its no coincidence that its still being used, there is lots of it about and its deadly in very small amounts. Add this to the pictures of those poor kids writhing in agony and and gasping for breath and you have the hysteria around 350 deaths. This is a conflict we need to stay out of in my opinion, rest assured though that the US will shoot from the hip!!

 

[metalblue]

Sure, something like blah blah blah huminatirian effort to help victims of the conflict, for example.

But that's not really what I meant though.

Humanitarian norms of conflict do not exist, in my humble opinion. Human on human conflict is atrocious.

Of course they exist even if those norms were to rape every woman and shoot every boy over the age of 10.

For me, no form of violence falls under the scope of humanitarian.

Bleeding out from a bullet to me is no different than dying from nuclear radiation, chemical warfare, etc.

But I'm not talking about what constitutes humanitarian I'm talking about the principles of normative, this is important because it allows context and points of reference to be formed in a given situation.

-- Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:33 am --

That is a very black and white view of the world. So what are you advocating? we either get involved at the first death in every external conflict or never get involved no matter what happens?

What I've said is that I advocate supporting the cause of action that will lead to the fewest deaths. That's clearly humanitarian because it aims to minimise overall suffering. A far more logical approach than allowing unlimited deaths if by conventional means but none at all by chemical weapons. The idea of a red line over chemical weapons is what's black and white.

That makes perfect sense. Western policy is being driven by the recipority principle, you would be driven by the principle of causing least harm.

I don't disagree with you. Although it does make for uncertain policy open to varying degrees of interpretation.

Edit: obviously western policy is only being driven by principle of recipority because we can, I'm sure if it was Russia using chemical weapons against rebels they'd use the principle of least harm.

 

[SWP's back]

FFS media turning it into a "MP's deserting the people of syria" Didn't take long for Cameron to call his mate rupert...

It's the truth

No it's not.

 

[Josh Blue]

Ducado what you smoking?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

I think Paddy Ashdown pretty much said everything I feel about this.

 

[Unknown_Genius]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLTkMYg4zbI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQBHdp0h1c[/youtube]

 

[Ducado]

I think Paddy Ashdown pretty much said everything I feel about this.

Same here

 

[Balti]

parliament in reflecting public opinion shocker!!!

 

[Scottyboi]

Paddy Ashdown is a bellend, the world moves on Syria is far to sensitive to just start attacking after the chemgate. For all they know the rebels could of held them and a SA bomb detonated the canisters. Our army is a shadow of its former self, I wonder which country did well having no proper military for decades? Seem to also have one best economies in Europe, funny that.

 

[Len Rum]

I think Paddy Ashdown pretty much said everything I feel about this.

Same here

So Paddy's upset that we can't act in defence of innocent women and children being slaughtered?Interesting. What was the West's response when Saddam gassed Kurdish civilians in 1988? Virtually no condemnation and certainly no military action. Oh wait, Iraq were our allies then. Wake up Paddy.

 

[2sheikhs]

The yanks are being a bit fickle here. We've been America's bitch for too long now and just because we've decided not to "put out", they've decided to go off with some French slapper instead. We should start flirting with Canada to make them jealous.

 

[BigJoe#1]

So what are the yanks going to do when Syria says... you send missiles over here and we'll retaliate.

They are making the biggest mistake ever.

I know young people are being killed but sadly that is happening all over the world - why are they deciding to pick a fight here?

Surely we must all be committed to a peaceful resolution as opposed to throwing petrol on an already out of control fire?

 

[Anonymous]

Surely we must all be committed to a peaceful resolution as opposed to throwing petrol on an already out of control fire?

I agree , trouble is the Syrians don't appear to be all that prepared to listen ...

 

[BigJoe#1]

Surely we must all be committed to a peaceful resolution as opposed to throwing petrol on an already out of control fire?

I agree , trouble is the Syrians don't appear to be all that prepared to listen ...

But if the US attacks them I think the consequences on the Syrian people would be significantly worse, especially as the US have pledged not to put boots on the ground.... The nations closest to Syria should be leading any reaction. Short of that it has to be a UN led operation, not any single nation or nations in isolation without a UN resolution. ...

Will make an already disastrous situation many many times worse IMO.

 

[rick773]

The yanks are being a bit fickle here. We've been America's bitch for too long now and just because we've decided not to "put out", they've decided to go off with some French slapper instead. We should start flirting with Canada to make them jealous.

Teaming up with France is basically the same as when you're about to get in a fight and you realise you're with your most pussiest friends and know you're gonna end up regretting the next few minutes.

 

[Ducado]

Surely we must all be committed to a peaceful resolution as opposed to throwing petrol on an already out of control fire?

I agree , trouble is the Syrians don't appear to be all that prepared to listen ...

But if the US attacks them I think the consequences on the Syrian people would be significantly worse, especially as the US have pledged not to put boots on the ground.... The nations closest to Syria should be leading any reaction. Short of that it has to be a UN led operation, not any single nation or nations in isolation without a UN resolution. ...

Will make an already disastrous situation many many times worse IMO.

I am sure an Israeli intervention would be most welcome

 

[blueinsa]

We cant as a nation lie about a country and its weapons of mass destruction and get involved but then turn a blind eye so to speak when it has been proven.

The vote and subsequent decision not to get involved has finally seen the end of us as a nation ever having any real say around the world or being taken seriously again.

As for parliament expressing the wishes of the people....that will be a fucking first and what a load of bollox. The vote was nothing more than self serving political games and showed the world what a set of twats we have in parliament.

Ashdown was 100% correct.

 

[DTKOAG]

Because of Russia's stance on this no one will do anything.
The yanks are isolated