if you bomb us shall we not bleed

[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.

[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]

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').

[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]

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..

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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!

[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.

[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

[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

[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.