Syria

[Dark Knight]

done for economic gain, not in response to a humanitarian problem
not much more than hostile take over

[Not so ancient mariner]

done for economic gain, not in response to a humanitarian problem
not much more than hostile take over

Both examples have provided long term benefit to the population of the 'invaded areas' though, which was the criterion in the original question.

[Dark Knight]

to a point yes agreed
I am more sceptical of our effectiveness in the middle east, where the rules are different

[Not so ancient mariner]

to a point yes agreed
I am more sceptical of our effectiveness in the middle east, where the rules are different

That indeed is most definitely the case.

[Dark Knight]

My own view, is that we are trying to apply western ethics, morals and standards to places we do not understand and who do not want us there
similar to Vietnam and the Russian debacle in Afghanistan
so why do we think we have the right to impose our values on the whole world? Coz I am sure if the Muslims, Arabs or Russians were "helping us out" there would be uproar from middle England

[oldbluefox]

My own view, is that we are trying to apply western ethics, morals and standards to places we do not understand and who do not want us there
similar to Vietnam and the Russian debacle in Afghanistan
so why do we think we have the right to impose our values on the whole world?

DK I agree with you wholeheartedly. Look at those areas where we have interfered.

[david63]

One point that generally goes unmentioned particularly about the countries of the Middle East is that they are not much more, and in some cases less, than 100 years old and prior to that they were warring nomadic tribes.

When we compare them to the "civilised" world (whatever that is defined as) we are comparing chalk and cheese. Taking, for example, this country we have had over 1,000 years more experience than these Middle Eastern countries and I don't think that even up until the Victorian times we treated may of our population that well - OK we did not have WMD but life did not have that high a value placed upon it and we have had our fair share of civil wars.

[Silver_Shiney]

One point that generally goes unmentioned particularly about the countries of the Middle East is that they are not much more, and in some cases less, than 100 years old and prior to that they were warring nomadic tribes.

When we compare them to the "civilised" world (whatever that is defined as) we are comparing chalk and cheese. Taking, for example, this country we have had over 1,000 years more experience than these Middle Eastern countries and I don't think that even up until the Victorian times we treated may of our population that well - OK we did not have WMD but life did not have that high a value placed upon it and we have had our fair share of civil wars.

Quite so

[wolfie]

Anyone listen to the news tonight?? Seems Cameron was not privy to what the US knew. So much for us being best friends with them.

[The Monocled Mutineer]

It is my view that the liberal democracies have a duty, by all pragmatic and possible means, with careful consideration as to how it is achieved, to ensure that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its impact is available to every human being to allow them to flourish to as fulfilling a life as it is possible and practical to achieve.

Any nation that flouts and abuses these Human Rights of their citizens or a sub-set of the population deserves to have its sovereignty set aside and it's government taken over by a coalition of international specialists from both the liberal democracies, local regional powers with improving human rights records and local progressive politicians, civil servants, business, cutural and other public life figures who have proven, progressive records of public service and other works, wih the aim of building or rebuilding a civic society along the lines of liberal democracy.

Where necessary, armed force comprising a number of lead nations with preferably regional powers who have improving human rights records should be employed and an increase in foreign aid from all nations to reconstruct both infrastructure and civic society, to ensure humanitarian relief and the security needed to protect both the population, aid workers and those caretaking the fallen nation, so it can arise once again and join the free and progressive world.

The most progressive and happiest societys are those based on liberal democracy which cherishes and nourishes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Secularism, whilst respecting personal belief, is the cornerstone of liberal democracy, as it acts to guarantee freedom of belief, politics, commerce and culture so long as it does not erode the Human Rights of fellow citizens of a differing belief, no belief, race, ethnicity, politics, sex, sexuality or disability or those who set out to replace that democracy with a criminal conspiracy (such as the Nazi takeover of Germany)

[The Monocled Mutineer]

One now hopes that instead of pandering to fickle public opinion that the 272 MPs who voted for no UK military action, will now press the Coalition Government, together with the 285 who did, to agree to another vote, given the dignified presentation that US SoS Kerry gave.

My shame at our Parliament's vote has been amplified by the "9/11" visited by the Syrian regime on its own people, not to mention the slaughter that has gone on for 18 months before.

[The Monocled Mutineer]

I listened to a Conservative "rebel" who voted against the Coalition Goverment's proposals this week on the BBC South News.

He explained that he was voting according to what his constituents were telling him.

This is a lame excuse.

MPs are elected representatives not delegates to some one party state congress.

MPs represent ALL their constituents whether they voted for him, voted for another party or didn't vote at all and whether he agrees with their viewpoints on specific issues or not.

it therefore follows that an MP should vote according to his own viewpoint which may not always be in accord with "majority public opinion" unless that is his own view too.

The only time he is accountable to the voter (and local party) is when it comes to re-selection and re-election, when people can judge if he is the "man" for them.

A good example is my Tory MP, who I didn't vote for. He listens to constituents, will argue his position if he differs and votes as he sees fit.

I warrant that the massive vote he gets (they don't count his vote - they just weigh it) comprises many who would support a return to hanging. Together with pro-hanging voters from other parties and those who don't vote at all, a very large majority of my fellow citizens in this area support a return of hanging. However, our MP rightly follows his own viewpoint and his record shows that he votes for no return of hanging.

I am glad that our MP votes as he sees fit rather than following opinion polls, even when I disagree with him, eg on such matters as the iniquitous council tax and constitutional reform.

Constituents across the country are best served by those MPs who do not follow majority public opinion but follow their own conscience.

[Not so ancient mariner]

I listened to a Conservative "rebel" who voted against the Coalition Goverment's proposals this week on the BBC South News.

He explained that he was voting according to what his constituents were telling him.

This is a lame excuse.

MPs are elected representatives not delegates to some one party state congress.

MPs represent ALL their constituents whether they voted for him, voted for another party or didn't vote at all and whether he agrees with their viewpoints on specific issues or not.

it therefore follows that an MP should vote according to his own viewpoint which may not always be in accord with "majority public opinion" unless that is his own view too.

The only time he is accountable to the voter (and local party) is when it comes to re-selection and re-election, when people can judge if he is the "man" for them.

A good example is my Tory MP, who I didn't vote for. He listens to constituents, will argue his position if he differs and votes as he sees fit.

I warrant that the massive vote he gets (they don't count his vote - they just weigh it) comprises many who would support a return to hanging. Together with pro-hanging voters from other parties and those who don't vote at all, a very large majority of my fellow citizens in this area support a return of hanging. However, our MP rightly follows his own viewpoint and his record shows that he votes for no return of hanging.

I am glad that our MP votes as he sees fit rather than following opinion polls, even when I disagree with him, eg on such matters as the iniquitous council tax and constitutional reform.

Constituents across the country are best served by those MPs who do not follow majority public opinion but follow their own conscience.

......But voting according to the canvassed opinions of the persons you are elected to represent, has got to be better than the actions of MPs who follow Sir Joseph Porter's maxim!

For those not familiar with G&S: "I always voted at my party's call, and never thought of thinking for myself at all!"

[The Monocled Mutineer]

NSAM

Yes, but one cannot square the circle to reflect all opinion that your constituents hold. Yes, listen and explain, but in the end vote based on your own viewpoint / conscience.

[oldbluefox]

I think that's exactly what our MPs did and rejected the use of military force.

[Silver_Shiney]

I see Putin has (rightly) asked the US to present the evidence that proves Assad used CW against his own people.

I hope it is not of the same calibre as that used to justify the second Gulf War

Even if it is 100% absolute positive proof, does it give the West the right take action?

[The Monocled Mutineer]

I just love the way some would prefer to believe a pseudo-democrat like Putin ex.KGB and President of a Mafia/quasi-capitalist former socio-imperialist regime - just judge the company that macho-creep likes to support.

[oldbluefox]

So we send over a few cruise missiles....................................

What happens then? What will it achieve? And what will be the consequences?

[Silver_Shiney]

So we send over a few cruise missiles....................................

What happens then? What will it achieve? And what will be the consequences?

Chaos

Nothing

Anarchy? An even worse regime? Increase in international terrorism?

[Dark Knight]

the british electoral has spoken, via the MP's and no amount of pompous googled rhetoric will make that change
common sense prevailed and thank goodness for that, knee jerk stupidity and pseudo intellectual babble will not change that

[The Monocled Mutineer]

Whilst I understand and indeed share the same concerns about Western intervention in Syria, in my view once again the majority of the British electorate are wrong as regards to ruling out such an intervention, and the MPs who voted against, whether that was by their own conviction or by the ridiculous notion of going against their own conviction and "doing what the electorate want"

My views are not extracted from Googled sources but are simply mine.

[Frank Manning]

I am happy to be wrong, if it prevents the UK from having innocent blood on its hands yet again. Two wrongs dont make a right, and wrong though the use of chemical weapons is, the use of indiscriminate 'guided' missiles to attack another state other than in self defence is equally wrong.

I remember watching TV and seeing our wonderful missiles destroying the infrastructure of Iraq, and thinking of al the innocent Iraquis dying. Please dont tell me they weren't innocent. Many Iraquis were completely innocent, and if they weren't where were the weapons of mass destruction which could be delivered at the UK in less than two hours? Why was Dr David Kelly pilloried and driven to death because he had the courage to speak out. IMHO Blair, Campbell and their cronies are war criminals and should be tried at The Hague.

Yes this vote was a legacy of the Iraq debacle, and well it might be. It is a fine line between world policeman and world bully. Better to be neither than to get it so spectacularly wrong. Read Matthew Parish' article in yesterdays The Times.

[Kendhni]

I am happy to be wrong, if it prevents the UK from having innocent blood on its hands yet again.

But we have the blood of many innocents on our hands that are being slaughtered daily in various parts of the world ... but because they don't have our oil under their land we can ignore their plight. It concerns me that it is too easy to simply wash our hands of such plights and turn our backs on the suffering of others. it also concerns me that the leader of the opposition has done more uturns and is trying to hedge as many bets as possible rather than showing any kind of leadership. It concerns me that many of those on the ground with first hand experience of what is happening are asking for more to be done (not necessarily war, but aid, medical supplies etc.).

The more I hear from the media and the British public the more I believe this decision has been taken for the wrong reasons (that is not to say it is right or wrong). There are many steps that can still be taken without the need for all out war (which seems to be the only option some are talking about) .. but one of the alternatives, which the 'no' voters have suggested is to arm the rebels ... that should be a good way of putting modern military hardware into the hands of Al Qaeda.

There is no doubt that the British have had the fight knocked out of them, probably because they have gone in with all guns blazing and promised so much but delivered so little. I am not sure that we properly understand the reasons for this .. I have often said that it is impossible to win a war these days .. all you can try to do is bring a bit of stability and then simply let time do the job, but you can not force your ideals on others if they believe their ideals are better ... the problem is how many innocent civilians are going to allow to be killed before you do anything?

[Frank Manning]

It is a civil war Ken, and both sides are committing atrocities no blood is on our hands at present. Dont get caught in the cross fire. If the U. N. sanctions some action then let one of the rich powerful arab nations sort it out.

I find the words of Kipling sum up our situation in the UK.

Far called, our navies melt away,
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday,
Is one, with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

and

For heathern heart that puts her trust,
in reeking tube and iron shard,
all valliant dust which builds on dust,
and guarding, calls not thee to guard,
For frantic boast, and foolish word,
Thy mercy on thy people Lord!

Recessional - Rudyard Kipling.

[Kendhni]

I just find it hard to believe that in nice cosy Britain we have become so uncaring for our fellow man that we can honestly believe that we hold no responsibility or, at this point of time, have no blood on our hands.. we do, if we do something and we most definitely do, if we do nothing.

This attitude of It doesn't matter about innocent men, women and children being slaughtered just as long as it does not affect us, does not give us excuses for doing nothing ... diplomatic, sabre rattling, enforcing no fly zones, humanitarian aid .. yes it should be the UN and Arab League doing something but we all know they are nothing more than worthless talking shops.

How have we become so selfish and uncaring?
Maybe we should just do away with our army, air force and navy entirely, since it appears they no longer serve any useful purpose ... bring the troops home, to hell with the mess we leave behind, and make the lot of them redundant ... that is the message that we seem to be sending out .. the British have gone soft and no longer have the balls to do anything.

BTW, before some idiot goes off on another mis-interpretation, I am not condoning war or sending in the nukes ... but I don't believe we have considered all the options and I definitely believe that some of our political leaders are acting out of cowardice and playing to an ill-informed public that don't want their comfortable lifestyles disrupted.