Syria

[oldbluefox]

Ken, I don't think we have become less caring or less compassionate towards what is going on in Syria. The issue is in finding a suitable response towards the problem and the most appropriate means of delivering that response. I agree with Frank that any response should come from fellow Arab nations which would cut across the fanatics' excuse that the West are attacking their Muslim brothers. It also has to be a multilateral response so that no one nation bears all the responsibility but at the moment the UN seems to be dragging its feet.
For our part we should be looking to support those who have been displaced and the lands which have given them shelter.

[Frank Manning]

Well we were certainly ill informed (lied to) over Iraq. We have Iraqi and British blood on our hands over that, and they are still fighting and bombing each other there. Perhaps you can persuade the mighty Chinese or Russia that it is their honorable duty to go into Syria and separate the warring factions. The Russians have already had their noses bloodied in Afghanistan, as the British did before them, they haven't exactly distinguished themselves in Chechnya either.

I definitely dont have any Syrian blood on my hands as a result of a factional and quasi religious civil war there Ken. If you can see some on your hands then good for you, but I cant. There will be though, once our first missile lands, because it will be landing in yours and my name, and paid for partly by our taxes.

No deaths in my name I say.

[Kendhni]

Ken, I don't think we have become less caring or less compassionate towards what is going on in Syria.

On that I disagree .. we come up with loads of excuses but the bottom line is that we just don't care ... read the boards, people are more worried about their own lives and entitlements .. that is not to say that such an attitude is right or wrong, but please don;t mask or pretend that it is an act of caring.

The issue is in finding a suitable response towards the problem and the most appropriate means of delivering that response.

Which is exactly what I have been saying ... however I think Milliband doing circles and trying to appease everybody's point of view isn't helping .. he is sending out mixed messages and will, no doubt try to blame everybody else when/if things escalate. I do not believe our political leaders are doing things for the right reasons.

I agree with Frank that any response should come from fellow Arab nations which would cut across the fanatics' excuse that the West are attacking their Muslim brothers. It also has to be a multilateral response so that no one nation bears all the responsibility but at the moment the UN seems to be dragging its feet.

I also believe and have said that but, as I said earlier the Arab League and the UN continually prove themselves nothing more than talking shops with no guts to do anything. They may pass another more strongly worded resolution and call everybody very naughty people ... but that is about it.

For our part we should be looking to support those who have been displaced and the lands which have given them shelter.

If we don't have the balls to do anything else then throwing a few crumbs is the very least we can do ... if nothing else it will assist those with low standards of caring believe we did something useful and can claim our hands are clean

[Kendhni]

No deaths in my name I say.

A death due to turning your back is still a death .. it may not be 'in your name' but neither did you do anything to prevent it .. both put blood on your hands.

I will repeat ... I am not arguing for war ... but I am arguing that firstly we could do a lot more to prevent/reduce the number of attacks on civilians and secondly that we have sent a message to Assad he can do what he likes because the British don't care.

[Not so ancient mariner]

No deaths in my name I say.

A death due to turning your back is still a death .. it may not be 'in your name' but neither did you do anything to prevent it .. both put blood on your hands.

I (and I suspect many others) would be in favour of 'action' if I thought it would actually have a beneficial outcome. But as I have posted before, whatever action the west may take, I have my doubts as to whether a post-Assad Syria with be any better - either for its citizens, or from the security point of view for us in the west.
Evil as Assad, Ghaddafi, Saddam, etc may be/have been - sometimes the old saying 'better the devil you know' does turn out to be valid.

[Frank Manning]

Well I hang my head in shame, and wring my hands. I did nothing to prevent the civil war in Syria, shame on me.

Come on Ken, its far too complicated for that kind of hand wringing. As OBF suggests, there will be no medals or plaudits from any Muslim country if you so much as fire a bow and arrow into another. The moment you open fire there is no guarantee where any of it will end, or that it will achieve anything in the resolution of what is a viscious multi factional civil war.

Sorry chums that is my position and I am certainly not an uncaring individual, or weak. Far from it.

[Kendhni]

No deaths in my name I say.

A death due to turning your back is still a death .. it may not be 'in your name' but neither did you do anything to prevent it .. both put blood on your hands.

I (and I suspect many others) would be in favour of 'action' if I thought it would actually have a beneficial outcome. But as I have posted before, whatever action the west may take, I have my doubts as to whether a post-Assad Syria with be any better - either for its citizens, or from the security point of view for us in the west.
Evil as Assad, Ghaddafi, Saddam, etc may be/have been - sometimes the old saying 'better the devil you know' does turn out to be valid.

That has been one of my concerns as well ... we now see what is happening in Egypt, Iraq and we can pretty much predict how Afghanistan is likely to go when those demanding to pull out the troops get what they ask for. We continually leave political vacuums because we have no proper exit strategy.

The other concern I have is that Israel may get involved .. and if that happens then it could possibly really escalate as other Arab states get involved.

However, no matter how many times people say it, or manage to convince themselves that they care, turning ones back and washing ones hands of it is wrong and cowardly .. especially when there is so much more that could be done (without all out war) ... but as most people (on this thread at least) agree that will require the UN and Arab League to actually do something worthwhile (for once in their lives).

I notice the headlines this morning that Obama has stepped back a bit as well .. and it appears that even before he had finished his speech a new volley of rockets was launched upon 'rebel' forces. There has to be a better way!

[Silver_Shiney]

IF we knew exactly where the weapons are stored and IF we could be certain that no civilians were in the area THEN a precise strike to destroy those weapons could be justified. Similarly, a strike to destroy runways to prevent the aircraft from taking off to deliver such weapons, or even go on strafing runs, could be justified - but the air force could then pre-position aircraft at civil airports, which would have to be left intact in order that the vast amounts of humanitarian aid required could be flown in. A no-fly zone, policed by neighbouring Arab nations would be the preferred option, I think. That would deal, partially, with the government forces. But what about the insurgents amonst the rebel side, who are also causing problems. How are they dealt with? As Assad's allies, are China and Russia doing anything in this respect?

As I have said before, something needs to be done but it is an Arab problem and at least two Arab nations have the technology and equipment to deal with it.

Any military response from the West will be seen across the Arab/Muslim world as an attack on Islam

Any response from this country should, IMHO, be restricted to humanitarian aid - food, medical supplies, shelter.

[Romig1]

Firstly, I have not read in detail the arguments posed in the press and elsewhere for and against the UK taking military action against the Assad regime, so I class myself as being ill-informed.

However, I have been struck by the general public's inability to differentiate between what action has been proposed militarily in this instance from the action we took in Iraq. I would suggest that the scandal the country felt (in the main) regarding the whole fiasco about Iraq's WMD capability, and the feeling that we were duped by an over-eager Blair has led to the general populace fearing a repeat of those actions and forming their own ill-informed opinions accordingly.

[Kendhni]

SS, that is exactly what I was thinking (I think I also mentioned no fly zones earlier in the thread) ... plus deployment of anti-attack devices (capable of taking missiles out of the air).

However even that is not a solution ... you can't take the armaments away from just one side, somehow it has to be balanced ... or we end up with another power vacuum. I agree totally about Russia and China ... have they been brain washed or acting in self interest or what ... how come their story is so different .. someone is wrong?

The humanitarian aid goes without say ... however when you have those on the ground saying more needs to be done to prevent the attacks ... then aid is not enough (but I am still against all out attacks and war). The big thing that needs to be done is drag everybody around the table with a general cease fire until this can be sorted out .. but there has to be an incentive (carrot or stick) for that to happen.

[Frank Manning]

Wrong and cowardly eh Ken? Wow!

I'll stand by the testimony of people who know me.

[oldbluefox]

The fact that anybody disagrees with bombing Syria does not signify a lack of caring or compassion at all. It is neither wrong nor cowardly. Neither has anybody suggested doing nothing, turning their backs on the atrocities being carried out there. Whatever action is taken has to be measured to have the right effect and has to be carried out by the right agencies; flinging over a few American cruise missiles will not necessarily achieve that and may make matters worse, with repercussions for years to come. Obviously Russia are reluctant to do anything because of their own military ties there.

Oddly enough nobody has mentioned the persecution of the Tibetans by the Chinese. It's a similar scenario but on that issue everybody seems to have buried their heads in the sand. I wonder why?

[The Monocled Mutineer]

As concern has been expressed about cruises in the region, and we are informed by You Gov, and other polling organisations that Most UK people are opposed to any response using force, would this be the same view if a Cruise Ship was attacked by the likes of Hizbullah who are in the pay of the criminal Assad regime or the Assad regime itself using conventional ordnance, or napalm, or Sarin or biological agents.

A fellow EU ship such as an MSC

A P&O ship

A P&O ship with a family member on board

A HAL ship with largely US citizens on board

or

An ongoing incident involving one of the above with hi-jack and crew and passengers being killed on an hourly basis?

I would presume that UK citizens would be very grateful for assistance from US and French forces were Cameron's hands tied by a cowardly Commons vote not to intervene or take out the military assets of international war criminals

[oldbluefox]

As concern has been expressed about cruises in the region, and we are informed by You Gov, and other polling organisations that Most UK people are opposed to any response using force, would this be the same view if a Cruise Ship was attacked by the likes of Hizbullah who are in the pay of the criminal Assad regime or the Assad regime itself using conventional ordnance, or napalm, or Sarin or biological agents.

A fellow EU ship such as an MSC

A P&O ship

A P&O ship with a family member on board

A HAL ship with largely US citizens on board

or

An ongoing incident involving one of the above with hi-jack and crew and passengers being killed on an hourly basis?

I would presume that UK citizens would be very grateful for assistance from US and French forces were Cameron's hands tied by a cowardly Commons vote not to intervene or take out the military assets of international war criminals

That's a different scenario altogether. In Syria's case we are talking about civil war, not an attack on a cruise ship.

Why do you use the word 'cowardly' when mentioning the Commons vote? You may not agree with it but I fail to see that is justification for the 'cowardly' tag.

[Admiral of the Humber]

Dear Derek,

What a provocative post?!

If the Syrian situation was to kick off nastily I hope that nobody I held dear would be stupid enough to put themselves in the path of any possible fall out.

However, if by chance they did, then yes I would be very grateful if help was forthcoming from whoever the "good guys" were. I would not be embarrassed if our fellow citizens had to accept assistance from the US or whoever because we have plenty of "International Policing Brownie points" in the bag. Time and time again this country has stepped up to fight the good fight but on this occasion our elected representatives in Parliament / cowards (delete as democratically appropriate) are reasoning that this might be one scrap too many for us. Morally I don't like this because I think we should always stand up to bullies but practically I understand why Parliament is reticent and because the British people have elected the people who will ultimately make the final decision, I will accept it.

Now shouldn't you be posting on cruising topics only??

Regards

Rob aka AOTH

[The Monocled Mutineer]

Obf:

LIstening to a Tory MP on BBC South who voted against the government because those constituents who had contacted him were all against it. I believe MPs should vote according to their own viewpoint, rather than worry about not being reselected or voted out at the next GE.

Had about eight of these Conservative and LD MPs who voted against, as well as Labour MPs whose own viewpoint is to support intervention but decided to curry popularity by voting against as opposed to personal principal, are cowards in my view.

[Quizzical Bob]

Absolutely nothing cowardly about their decision. However, sending others in to do your fighting I find cowardly in the extreme.

[Dark Knight]

I wonder if the mouthpieces who are so willing for people to die, would ever have the bravery to join up and fight
I guess these are the real cowards, happy to put people in harms way, when they are as yellow as custard in the real world
politicians should vote as the electorate wish, not just to satisfy a few bloodthirsty cowards who wouldn't dare to fight for anything or anyone

[The Monocled Mutineer]

QB:

Although I disagree with those who take and are consistent in taking a principled stand against UK intervention in a civil war, and respect their viewpoint, I have no time for those who vote against their principles by voting according to popular opinion. They are the cowards.

[Kendhni]

The fact that anybody disagrees with bombing Syria does not signify a lack of caring or compassion at all. It is neither wrong nor cowardly.

.. And at no point have i suggested, hinted or condoned any attempt at bombing Syria ... But the latedt news from Syria implies the use of chemical weapons may have been planned in the belief the west did not have the stomach to respond ... And it appears they judged that correctly ... But it makes me think there is much more politics going on than we are privy to.

Neither has anybody suggested doing nothing, turning their backs on the atrocities being carried out there. Whatever action is taken has to be measured to have the right effect and has to be carried out by the right agencies;

...which is pretty much what i have been saying but at the minute the decision has been to do nothng ... And Assad has opted to take advantage of that weakness.

flinging over a few American cruise missiles will not necessarily achieve that and may make matters worse, with repercussions for years to come.

at no point have i suggested that as a tactic but at the minute the only thing rest of the world has come up with since this started is to let them get on with it. The world needed to come up with a tough stance which does not mean flinging bombs, there are orher options that could help protect the civiluan population ... Far too much self interest going on

[emjay45]

Wrong and cowardly eh Ken? Wow!

I'll stand by the testimony of people who know me.

I'm quite sure no one who knows you regards you as a coward Frank. I have already said it's quite easy to be brave sitting behind a keyboard.
If we bomb Syria we risk killing more innocent people. If we fight against Assad we are aligning ourselves with supporters of terrorist groups. There are NO good guys here. As OBF keeps saying it's time the Arab nations sorted themselves out.

[oldbluefox]

Ken, I don't think our views are a million miles apart.

Interestingly, picking up on TMM's post, if we did agree to bomb Syria and reprisal action was subsequently taken by Syria, or one of its allies or sympathetic terrorist groups, by an attack on a cruise ship who would we blame?

The situation is so very complex that the wrong action would only exacerbate the problem, and I'm not clever enough or know enough of the facts to come up with a solution. I expect there is more going on politically and diplomatically than we will ever know.

However to believe that MPs were influenced in their decision by the wishes of their constituents is pie in the sky. If they listened to that extent there would have been a vote on our membership of the EU long ago.

[Not so ancient mariner]

It seems at last that cooler heads have prevailed and hopefully we may have a (relatively) peaceful resolution of the chemical weapons issue.

Am I alone in thinking that any attack on their storage sites risked causing a massive release of these deadly agents?

[jay-ell71]

It seems at last that cooler heads have prevailed and hopefully we may have a (relatively) peaceful resolution of the chemical weapons issue.

Am I alone in thinking that any attack on their storage sites risked causing a massive release of these deadly agents?

No, I think exactly that.

[The Monocled Mutineer]

Howabout Assad putting his conventional ordnance beyond use against his own people?

Afterall he has murdered 100,000 of own people with conventional ordnance and about 1500 with gas.