if you bomb us shall we not bleed

[pinkmoon]

"if You Bomb Us Shall We Not Bleed?"

[Phil H]

So we should have done nothing about Adolf and let the Jews die - is that what you are saying?

(I recognise that we ddi not go to war with Germany because of their racial policies - but are you arguing that because there was collateral damage in WWII, nothing should have been done?)

Is there no such thing as the just war?

Phil

[pinkmoon]

Bastards been killing his people for past two years all bombing will do is hasten his end then the rebels will start fighting amongst themselves then the fun will start.

[pinkmoon]

If America bombs it will be perfect recruiting material for extremists.....form a disorderly queue please

[Phil H]

Could you not hypothesise that chaos in Syria will anyway be a recruiting and training ground for terrorists? I base my poposal on Afghanistan before the early 2000s when the Taliban were in control of a "failed state".

Do we now base our morality on fear?

If the civil war continues, nasty weapons are used with impunity again and again - and the "civilised" west does nothing - what message does that send to the likes of Iran, North Korea and indeed to Russia?

Phil

[Limehouse]

If this thread is about whether military strikes should me made on Syria I would ask readers to consider the following points:

1. The chemical weapons used caused high numbers of deaths, horrific injuries and much misery and suffering. Bombings will just add to the misery and suffering, involve more deaths and injuries, destroy homes, schools and hospitals - and achieve what??

2. Since WW2, Britain and America have built huge arms industries (along with France, Germany and Russia). Arms have been sold to countries carrying out atrocities on their own citizens and neighbours without very much thought for humanitarian issues. Frequent conflicts require arms and it is, sadly, in the interests of countries like ours that these are supplied and that sides are taken in these disputes to stimulate the requirement for arms and to justify the retention of armed forces.

3. Very careful and thorough investigations have to be carried out to determine where these chemical weapons came from and who used them before any interventions take place.

4. A properly organised evacuation of children, the elderly and the vulnerable needs to be carried out to minimise their suffering and to keep them safe. Humanitarian aid in the form of safe shelters, medicine, food, clothing, bedding and so on is needed. All our efforts should be directed towards this end.

[Phil H]

So in the interests of humanity we do nothing?

[Limehouse]

So in the interests of humanity we do nothing?

No, of course not. Look at my point number 4!!

[Phil H]

But meanwhile they continue to die!!!

Poisoned (almost certainly by their own dictatorial government).

Is it not better that 1,000 die that 100,000 are saved?

[Chris]

Is it not better that 1,000 die that 100,000 are saved?

No doubt it would be better. But what action are you suggesting, and what is the evidence it would save any lives at all?

[Limehouse]

But meanwhile they continue to die!!!

Poisoned (almost certainly by their own dictatorial government).

Is it not better that 1,000 die that 100,000 are saved?

Once again, I refer you to my point number 4. There is no 'meanwhile' about it. Immediate evacuation and aid as described in my point number 4.

Please explain how a military strike will achieve anything, especially if it is not fully known who is responsible for the chemical weapon attacks. And isn't it possible that military strikes may result in more chemical weapon attacks??

[sdreid]

The chemical weapons thing is a bit of a red herring. Syria did not sign the chemical weapons treaty, nor has Israel, so they are legal weapons as far they're concerned, whether it was them who used them or not. There are weapons like land mines and cluster bombs that are just as horrific as chemical weapons not to mention nuclear weapons that are far worse.

[Phil H]

And isn't it possible that military strikes may result in more chemical weapon attacks??

Isn't it possible that even if we don't do anything militarily, Assad will use poison gas or worse again?

Consequences either way.

But you rereta into a libertarian, humanitarian love-in, while people die.

Poison gas apart, Assad is bombing and shelling suburbs of his own capital - or is that the rebels too? Maybe Assad has done nothing, and wants the rebels to come in for tea?

I weep for Syria - I have been there and fell in love with it. I weep for its historic sites (Aleppo, Damascus, Krak des Chevaliers and others). I love its people and weep for them and their tragedy - many of the children I saw - happy and innocent - must now be fighting, they'd be of the right age group.

Maybe the seven million displaced people are not really Assad's responsibility in your view?

They are dying at the hands of a brutal regime - and you want to send elastoplast!!??

Phil

[Phil H]

Chris - sorry I missed your point re action, it was on the previous page.

I leave the choice of targets to the military experts - Command and control centres, military bases, airfields?

As I think Cameron and Obama have both made clear, the important thing is to make a clear response that certain "lines" cannot be crossed with impunity - as much to give notice to N Korea, Iran etc as Syria.

In 1938/39 the West tried appeasing Hitler. They didn't want a repeat of 1914/18. In fact what they got was longer and worse.
In the end the causus belli was Poland - which we could do nothing to help. But wwere we (in retrospect) wrong to go to war? Or should we have left Hitler in power for a few more years.

Idealism is fine, but it would not have helped german Jews before 1945 would it? Pragmatism must come in somewhere, surely?

Phil

[Chris]

Pragmatism must come in somewhere, surely?

That's why I asked what evidence there was that military action would save any lives. From your description it sounds more like a political gesture than a humanitarian act.