if you bomb us shall we not bleed

[Limehouse]

[B]

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

Phil

Oh don't be so pathetic and go back and READ what I wrote PROPERLY!

[Phil H]

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.

Surely there are strands? The humanitarian is one. the political, military and pragmatic are surely there also. History is there to teach us lessons.

I think we are in danger of ignoring them, partly because of mistakes made 10 years ago.

Phil

[Phil H]

Oh don't be so pathetic and go back and READ what I wrote PROPERLY!

And there I was thinking it would be the "elastoplast" you bit on!!

I'm just trying to get a discussion going here, on a topic that is very important to me - but on which I guess i am as confused as anyone else.

But I don't think the humanitarian aid response ALONE will be or is sufficient.

Phil

[Chris]

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.

Surely there are strands? The humanitarian is one. the political, military and pragmatic are surely there also. History is there to teach us lessons.

So what is the evidence that this military action of yours would save lives?

[Errata]

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??

The problem with an evacuation is that there is nowhere for them to go. The entire region is still playing host to displaced Iraqis and Kurds, never mind both the Assad regime and the rebels burning a lot of bridges. Israel won't take them. Couldn't take them and feed them truth be told. Jordan is full. Egypt won't take them, Lebanon can't take them, Turkey won't take them. So now we are flying them out, and to where? We are talking about a third of Syria as potential targets for chemical weapons. Thats a lot of people.

[Ginger]

Whatever merits there are in the idea of intervening in Syria, I just don't trust Obama not to make a complete mess of it.

[Limehouse]

The problem with an evacuation is that there is nowhere for them to go. The entire region is still playing host to displaced Iraqis and Kurds, never mind both the Assad regime and the rebels burning a lot of bridges. Israel won't take them. Couldn't take them and feed them truth be told. Jordan is full. Egypt won't take them, Lebanon can't take them, Turkey won't take them. So now we are flying them out, and to where? We are talking about a third of Syria as potential targets for chemical weapons. Thats a lot of people.

I agree, there is a problem about where to send them. However, that is something people trained in such matters will have to work out. I know that sounds flippant, but if the alternative is just to send in planes and bombs or drones then maybe we will have to think a bit harder about where they can go.

Incidentally, why shouldn't Israel take some of them?? After all, many countries offered shelter to fleeing Jews just before, during and after WW2 and a great many of those people and their descendants ended up in the new State of Israel..

[Limehouse]

Oh don't be so pathetic and go back and READ what I wrote PROPERLY!

And there I was thinking it would be the "elastoplast" you bit on!!

I'm just trying to get a discussion going here, on a topic that is very important to me - but on which I guess i am as confused as anyone else.

But I don't think the humanitarian aid response ALONE will be or is sufficient.

Phil

I agree, humanitarian aid alone is not sufficient which is why I called for a full investigation into the incidents so that an appropriate and effective response can be made.

[Limehouse]

So what is the evidence that this military action of yours would save lives?

That's what I would like to know! It didn't save many lives in Iraq and lives are still being lost by drones in Pakistan (despite claims that they can 'smart target').

[Beowulf]

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.

Just want to put this up here for those to see how the
game of politics is played:

2012 FLASHBACK: JOE BIDEN CLAIMED MITT ROMNEY WOULD TAKE AMERICA TO WAR WITH SYRIA

September 5, 2013


When it comes to Joe Biden, Barack Obama and the rest of their leftist ilk, you can now pretty much assume the opposite of whatever they say is true. Which, as we now learn, was exactly the case when Joe Biden warned voters that Mitt Romney would take America to war with Syria.


Sept. 2, 2012, YORK, Pa. (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that Republican rival Mitt Romney is “ready to go to war in Syria and Iran” while hurting the middle class.

The warning came during a campaign stop in York, Pa., designed to promote President Barack Obama’s economic policies among white, working-class voters. The thrust of Biden’s pitch has been that America is digging out from the 2008 economic collapse and that Romney would take the country backward. But Biden, a foreign policy heavyweight, also cautioned voters that Romney would adopt policies that favor confrontation over cooperation.

Extremely ironic considering that Obama’s policy is nothing but confrontational. And now Obama is indeed forcing us into a war with Syria.


- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2013/09/2....Ohn6FFm7.dpuf

[Limehouse]

Beowulf, it is a great shame that you use the term 'leftist ilk' because. personally, I think the issue is beyond party politics.

Military strikes on Syria, before all the facts are known and alternatives explored, are wrong whomsoever carries them out.

[crberger]

1. Do we have all the facts?

2. How do we protect the noncombatants?

3. What makes it right for one country to take military action against another?

4. When you have seen the aftermath of combat on women and children after so-called "surgical strikes" come talk to me.

5. Who decides "just war" and on what grounds is a war "just"?

[Cogidubnus]

Clutching a viper to the bosom...or coming up with fleas?

Since pragmatism has been raised...

I did read that a good many of the Syrian rebels are in fact allied to Islamic terrorist groups...an irony the US government might wish to seriously consider before commiting to military action...are there not parallels here to Persia as was, the Shah and the current regime?

John Kerry rationalises in the New York Times that only 15 to 20% of the rebels are "baddies"...From where, I wonder, does he pluck his statistics? And of what relevance are they anyhow...

If he needs to pluck a real parallel from history he could try the rebels the Nazis faced in occupied Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece and Italy during WWll...the allies gratefully funded them all, and a perhaps 15% to 20% minority of the truly active groups were communist...yet it was largely these groups who tucked away their arms and garnered their resources so effectively for the post war period...and then quietly attempted to slaughter their rivals, the majority, who'd actually been doing the fighting...

If the US (or any other) government wishes to be truly pragmatic, I'd respectfully suggest they butt out...

There may or may not be very good reasons for intervention in Syria...I couldn't, (or wouldn't) say, but please...don't let's start quoting a form of pragmatism that has no historic basis...

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

PATHETIC!!!

Do we have all the facts? pretty much. probably as much as we'll ever get.

How do we protect the noncombatants? Why care! Kill 'em all! (Sarcasm) More properly - you cannot wholly but you can try. Is Assad protecting them against his admitted conventional strikes?

What makes it right for one country to take military action against another?

Well have a look at WWII - Pearl Harbor? Consistent belligerence by Germany 1936ish to 1939? Not a causus belli - but would the Holocaust have been a just reason?

Just suggestions.

When you have seen the aftermath of combat on women and children after so-called "surgical strikes" come talk to me.

You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs! Cliche's apart, aren't people already dying because of the poison gas? the shelling? The air strikes? As i observed earlier, in my book if a thousand have to die that 100,000 live that is not an unreasonable calculation in my book.

Who decides "just war" and on what grounds is a war "just"?

these days usually the UN (Security Council). the question is, what happens when you get a blockage at the UN?

And if you think China and Russia forces for good - pull the other one. They are acting out of self interest.

Sorry I am not weeping - I feel angry. there are no easy solutions so you have to consider the difficult complex ones. That's life.

Phil

[Phil H]

Barack Obama and the rest of their leftist ilk

Funny, from a British perspective they seem quite to the right.

I suppose the Tea Party is quite a socialist gathering to some US citizens though. (Sarcasm)

Phil