if you bomb us shall we not bleed

[Chris]

Well, you seemed to be suggesting before that this military action would save 100,000 lives.

Oh, come off it Chris. You knew very well that was a figure of speech.

I despair sometimes.

No, Phil, you come off it.

You know full well you were arguing that military action would save far more lives than it would cost - regardless of the precise numbers. (Either that or you were talking complete nonsense.)

But apparently you can't produce any evidence whatsoever to support that claim. In fact it seems to me that you haven't a clue whether attacking the Syrian army will make things better or worse for the civilian population.

You're forever reminding us about your experience as a civil servant. If this is how civil servants behave, no wonder this country's recent military interventions have turned out so badly.

[Limehouse]

Assad is undoubtedly a tyrant and dictator responsible for some dreadful acts.Likewise the rebels have been responsible for a variety of attrocities of their own.The rebels are a disperate number of groups, a large number of which are from outside Syria and are openly supportive of and funded by Al Quaeda and have been found in posession of Sarin gas. All I'm saying is there are no clear 'goodies' and 'baddies' in this conflict and before we go rushing in to possibly set up another extremist state we should be sure who is responsible for what.
On another point Labour did not vote to rule out military action, indeed the ammendment they put forward would hsve specifically allowed for it,but only when conditions had been met to assess all the evidence about who was responsible. Something most people would consider perfectly reasonable thing to do before launching the bombers to kill more civilians. Cameron lost his vote because a number of his own government MP's didn't trust him with an open hand on military action, and having been defeated threw his toys out the pram and ruled out any further attempts.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/syria-crisis-questions-answered

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...apons-use.html

An excellent post Brummie.

[Errata]

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..

Well, Israel would say that it's been at some sort of state of war with Syria for 50 years, and that with Hezbollah supporting the rebels, it would be suicide to take in people who are actively their enemies. Which is true enough, as far as such things go. In reality Israel is not wealthy. Most of it's relief efforts are going towards relocating or defending Jews in Palestinian territories, and in supporting Palestinian territories although neither side would readily admit to that. With Egypt in flux, there is a lot of concern towards that border, Israel has also been sending supplies to Kurdish refugee camps in Jordan, and the supplies available are fewer because Israeli farms have been taking a hit for the past couple of years. And then of course there is the fact that there would be no shortage of Syrians who would not go to Israel for any price, or under any threat.

Many countries did not offer shelter to holocaust survivors. Even fewer offered shelter to those fleeing so that they would not be put in camps in the first place. England was a blessing with Kindertransport, but after the war most Jews were denied entrance. The same was true in the US until the mid fifties. Which isn't to say holocaust survivors didn't make it here. Those with immediately family here were granted entrance, and in the end, getting here illegally wasn't that hard. My grandfather dove off the back of the boat with a few other men about half a mile from shore. Entered the US soaking wet on a New Jersey Beach. Most Jews after the Holocaust stayed put. They had nowhere to go, and no money with which to go. It was ten years before there was a lot of movement. The Israeli settlers mostly came from Russia in the late 1800s. Holocaust survivors spent as long as 2 years in internment camps on Israeli docks before the British allowed them to enter. And no one did anything to save the Russian Jews. The truth is that while no country approved of the death camps, no country wanted a bunch of refugee Jews either. And it's not a race thing. We didn't want refugee Irish or Russians either. Europe was no different. Some people helped. Some towns helped. The only country that made a concerted effort to help was England. Nobody wants refugees of any sort. Certainly not if they are not going to stay. It's always a problem. Always. Nowadays try and lodge Syrian Muslim children in English homes. That won't go over well.

[Limehouse]

Well, Israel would say that it's been at some sort of state of war with Syria for 50 years, and that with Hezbollah supporting the rebels, it would be suicide to take in people who are actively their enemies. Which is true enough, as far as such things go. In reality Israel is not wealthy. Most of it's relief efforts are going towards relocating or defending Jews in Palestinian territories, and in supporting Palestinian territories although neither side would readily admit to that. With Egypt in flux, there is a lot of concern towards that border, Israel has also been sending supplies to Kurdish refugee camps in Jordan, and the supplies available are fewer because Israeli farms have been taking a hit for the past couple of years. And then of course there is the fact that there would be no shortage of Syrians who would not go to Israel for any price, or under any threat.

Many countries did not offer shelter to holocaust survivors. Even fewer offered shelter to those fleeing so that they would not be put in camps in the first place. England was a blessing with Kindertransport, but after the war most Jews were denied entrance. The same was true in the US until the mid fifties. Which isn't to say holocaust survivors didn't make it here. Those with immediately family here were granted entrance, and in the end, getting here illegally wasn't that hard. My grandfather dove off the back of the boat with a few other men about half a mile from shore. Entered the US soaking wet on a New Jersey Beach. Most Jews after the Holocaust stayed put. They had nowhere to go, and no money with which to go. It was ten years before there was a lot of movement. The Israeli settlers mostly came from Russia in the late 1800s. Holocaust survivors spent as long as 2 years in internment camps on Israeli docks before the British allowed them to enter. And no one did anything to save the Russian Jews. The truth is that while no country approved of the death camps, no country wanted a bunch of refugee Jews either. And it's not a race thing. We didn't want refugee Irish or Russians either. Europe was no different. Some people helped. Some towns helped. The only country that made a concerted effort to help was England. Nobody wants refugees of any sort. Certainly not if they are not going to stay. It's always a problem. Always. Nowadays try and lodge Syrian Muslim children in English homes. That won't go over well.

Thanks for those points Errata. I think my perceptions are distorted by the fact that, when I was growing up, we lived in an area with a relatively high Jewish population (there was a synagogue a few streets away) and a good few of my neighbours had been in camps. They were lovely people, very humble and very helpful in lots of small ways to my family. Some of their relatives had gone to Israel to settle (that would have been in the 1950s).

[Beowulf]

The point is, something's up. Mia Farrow, a very liberal democrat has on Twitter for over a year been begging Obama to go into Syria, long before this 'chemical weapons' crisis.

North Korea has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons, no one is interested. They have starved their people. No one is interested in THEIR atrocities.

There is something to gain, and I think it is riches, if the U.S. goes into war in Syria.

They want Assad out and control of the oil.

"...the Damascus regime still controls one of the largest conventional hydrocarbon resources in the eastern Mediterranean....

Syria possessed 2.5 billion barrels of crude oil as of January 2013, which makes it the largest proved reserve of crude oil in the eastern Mediterranean according to the Oil & Gas Journal estimate, besides Iraq....

Russia, the chief backer of the Assad regime, is the only remaining international partner still helping develop Syria’s oil and gas resources in the past year."

http://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-oil-gas-little-known-facts-syrias-energy-resources-russias-help-1402405

[Beowulf]

I do not 'think I am so knowledgeable' - I have simply been expressing my opinions. I am sorry if I misquoted you and I beg you to excuse my stupidity.

Btw, Limehouse, when I showed my post to my husband, intending to show him your response, before I got to show him your response, he asked me the why did I use the term 'leftist ilk' (it's not something I have ever or would ever say), so I guess it's easy to make the mistake as I had no quotes on it. Sorry.

I'm not generally into conspiracy theories but I am interested to see this:


"Syrian nun says chemical gas attack footage is a fraud"

"Mother superior says there was an attack but news film is fabricated"

http://www.ucanews.com/news/syrian-nun-says-chemical-gas-attack-footage-is-a-farud/69202

I really there is something rotten in Denmark here, (no offense to Denmark).

However, for the record, my husband is skeptical of this 'nun' he says she looks like a man. Hmmm.

[Robert]

Blimey, look at the size of those hands and fingers. Either she's a man or she spent the early part of her life pulling pints in the pub.

[Limehouse]

The point is, something's up. Mia Farrow, a very liberal democrat has on Twitter for over a year been begging Obama to go into Syria, long before this 'chemical weapons' crisis.

North Korea has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons, no one is interested. They have starved their people. No one is interested in THEIR atrocities.

There is something to gain, and I think it is riches, if the U.S. goes into war in Syria.

They want Assad out and control of the oil.

"...the Damascus regime still controls one of the largest conventional hydrocarbon resources in the eastern Mediterranean....

Syria possessed 2.5 billion barrels of crude oil as of January 2013, which makes it the largest proved reserve of crude oil in the eastern Mediterranean according to the Oil & Gas Journal estimate, besides Iraq....

Russia, the chief backer of the Assad regime, is the only remaining international partner still helping develop Syria’s oil and gas resources in the past year."

http://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-oil-ga...s-help-1402405

I think you have hit the nail on the head. It's about oil and the arms industry. If it wasn't, as you say, the west would be speaking out against atrocities happening across the globe (such as ten year old child soldiers in Africa).

[Limehouse]

Btw, Limehouse, when I showed my post to my husband, intending to show him your response, before I got to show him your response, he asked me the why did I use the term 'leftist ilk' (it's not something I have ever or would ever say), so I guess it's easy to make the mistake as I had no quotes on it. Sorry.

I'm not generally into conspiracy theories but I am interested to see this:


"Syrian nun says chemical gas attack footage is a fraud"

"Mother superior says there was an attack but news film is fabricated"

http://www.ucanews.com/news/syrian-nun-says-chemical-gas-attack-footage-is-a-farud/69202

I really there is something rotten in Denmark here, (no offense to Denmark).

However, for the record, my husband is skeptical of this 'nun' he says she looks like a man. Hmmm.

There are many sceptics about who actually originated the chemical attack which is why I supported the idea of a thorough investigation into the event.

No problem about the quote. I can see we are singing from the same hymn sheet.

[Ginger]

Ginger,

What happened to the United States?

When did Americans arrive at the conclusion that a personal crusade must triumph over sovereignty?

How on earth did you get that from what I posted? I thought I was expressing myself clearly, but apparently not. The point I was trying to make was that, regardless of any merit (or lack thereof) in the idea of attacking Syria, Obama will make a complete botch of the job if allowed to lead the project. The man is a thoroughgoing incompetent.

[Fleetwood Mac]

How on earth did you get that from what I posted? I thought I was expressing myself clearly, but apparently not. The point I was trying to make was that, regardless of any merit (or lack thereof) in the idea of attacking Syria, Obama will make a complete botch of the job if allowed to lead the project. The man is a thoroughgoing incompetent.

Ah, I see.

So, the idea is to show absolutely no respect for Syria's sovereignty, exercise no conscience whatsover for the people who will be displaced and killed in the event of military action - all because it's the wrong man making the decisions, which equates to political point scoring.

[Limehouse]

Ah, I see.

So, the idea is to show absolutely no respect for Syria's sovereignty, exercise no conscience whatsover for the people who will be displaced and killed in the event of military action - all because it's the wrong man making the decisions, which equates to political point scoring.

An interesting point. It is no secret that I am a fairly active left-winger, but I honestly set aside my political leanings when it comes to an issue like Syria - as I did when it came to the invasion of Iraq. For me, whoever is advocating such military strikes, even if it was Tony Ben (as if!) would be strongly condemned by me.

[Errata]

The point is, something's up. Mia Farrow, a very liberal democrat has on Twitter for over a year been begging Obama to go into Syria, long before this 'chemical weapons' crisis.

North Korea has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons, no one is interested. They have starved their people. No one is interested in THEIR atrocities.

There is something to gain, and I think it is riches, if the U.S. goes into war in Syria.

They want Assad out and control of the oil.

"...the Damascus regime still controls one of the largest conventional hydrocarbon resources in the eastern Mediterranean....

Syria possessed 2.5 billion barrels of crude oil as of January 2013, which makes it the largest proved reserve of crude oil in the eastern Mediterranean according to the Oil & Gas Journal estimate, besides Iraq....

Russia, the chief backer of the Assad regime, is the only remaining international partner still helping develop Syria’s oil and gas resources in the past year."

http://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-oil-ga...s-help-1402405

Mia Farrow doesn't care about oil. She cares about human rights violations, which let's face it, are aplenty in Syria. They are also aplenty in North Korea, but we can totally win against Syria, and we're not sure about North Korea. So it's not a mystery. We pick battles we know we can win.

To be honest, I'm the person who says we should go in every single time. I wanted to go into Rwanda. I wanted to go into the Sudan. I wanted to go into China, North Korea, I thought we should have been in Bosnia a few years earlier. Not because I am a fan of war. I'm not. But if we can go into Vietnam over phantom fears of Communism and to hep out France who screwed up yet again... SURELY we can go in to prevent genocide. Right? There are international rules we all agreed to abide by when we joined the UN. Syria included. No chemical weapons. No genocide. No war on the innocent populace. These are good rules. We want people to obey these rules. We love these rules. So when people break these rules, the consequences should be swift, sure, and absolutely effective.

We are communities, we are cities, states, countries, sure. As as those things we can ask ourselves "why do I care what happens in Syria?". But we're also human, and theoretically have the abilities of both empathy and projection. We should be looking at this and saying that this is never okay, that we cannot stand by and let this happen. We can't. We do it so effing often it's unreal, and look where it's gotten us. We should also be looking at this and asking ourselves what happens ten years down the line if we let Syria get away with this? In 1992 there was a terrible bombing attack in Yemen. Despite the fact that it targeted US servicemen (poorly), we decided it wasn't our business. Almost ten years later the same bombers flew planes into the Twin Towers. Almost 20 years ago we decided that Saddam Hussein gassing Kurdish refugees in the North wasn't our business, despite the fact that we promised the Kurds we would keep them safe. Where are those weapons now? Oh look! Syria!

I have looked Kurdish refugees in the face when they asked me why on earth we would let something like that happen to them. And all I can tell them is that the US let the same thing happen to us 60 years ago. And I don't know why.

[Fleetwood Mac]

And all I can tell them is that the US let the same thing happen to us 60 years ago. And I don't know why.

You may want to remember that countries such as the US and Britain liberated some of the death/concentration camps. And these countries, moreover the people/soldiers of these countries, didn't owe 'you' anything.

It is scandalous to say 'the US let it happen to us' as if somehow the people of the United States are culpable. Clearly, you have the logistics of a United States army getting half way across the world.

You should think about what you're saying, Errata, because a lot of blood was spilt on the way to liberating those death camps and there weren't many around who had the capability and the willingness to help 'you'. Seems only the United States, Britain and the Commonwealth.

[brummie]

Somewhat incongruous to see US so keen to uphold the UN rules on no chemical weapons,no genocide and no war on innocent populace. The same US that caused thousands of horrible deaths over decades by indiscrimately spraying populated areas of Vietnam & Cambodia with Agent Orange? The same US that has since 1972 has used its UN veto more than any other country usually to protect Israel from UN censure over its occupation of arab lands and its use of white phosphorous in Gaza? and the same US that is the only nation to use atomic weapons to kill 10's of thousands of civilians? I don't feel inclined to take any lectures on morality from there thanks.