ChatterBank3 mins ago
Parliament Recalled Over Syria
http://
Seems a sensible way to proceed. The UN Team will have got their evidence by this Thursday. It right and proper that our elected representatives have an opportunity to debate this subject, especially if our armed forces may be called upon to act. Its just a pity that its taken this long before the West has finally decided to wake up and smell the roses.
Seems a sensible way to proceed. The UN Team will have got their evidence by this Thursday. It right and proper that our elected representatives have an opportunity to debate this subject, especially if our armed forces may be called upon to act. Its just a pity that its taken this long before the West has finally decided to wake up and smell the roses.
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I concur with doctordb, the UN is about as much use as a catflap on a submarine.
When the world needs policing, when there are difficult choices to be made everyone looks to the US to step in. They don't like to admit it but everyone knows the UN is utterly useless in such situations.
As ever, the US are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The Obama administration has learned not to be immediatley drawn into such crises at the drop of a hat, as so often in the past.
Now they sit back and wait to see how conflicts develop. Providing there is no breaking of globally accepted conventions they are happy to wait and see if a political solution can be sought and ultimately found.
The use of chemical weapons now means they're morally obliged to do what the UN is dismally incapable of and always has been.
When the world needs policing, when there are difficult choices to be made everyone looks to the US to step in. They don't like to admit it but everyone knows the UN is utterly useless in such situations.
As ever, the US are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The Obama administration has learned not to be immediatley drawn into such crises at the drop of a hat, as so often in the past.
Now they sit back and wait to see how conflicts develop. Providing there is no breaking of globally accepted conventions they are happy to wait and see if a political solution can be sought and ultimately found.
The use of chemical weapons now means they're morally obliged to do what the UN is dismally incapable of and always has been.
I think the west should keep out. They have the Arab league and I feel the Middle East should take responsibility for their own region for a change. USA and Britain are given the responsibility for being the worlds police force and are always drawn into these conflicts with no thanks and far reaching consequences.
What I would like to ask about this situation is why our media along with our politicians and the USA, seem to have taken sides and placed the blame on the Syrian government?
Why instead of thinking about supping arms to the rebels, why they haven't already shipped out a quantity of Gas Masks?
And if we do decide to go in all barrels blazing, what are we going to do when Assad is toppled, and while several sides bicker over power?
Why instead of thinking about supping arms to the rebels, why they haven't already shipped out a quantity of Gas Masks?
And if we do decide to go in all barrels blazing, what are we going to do when Assad is toppled, and while several sides bicker over power?
For a start sending gas masks, assuming they'd be effective, would legitimise the further use of such weapons. The point is supposedly to deter their use. Looks like N Korea in fact has been trying to do just that, a quantity of masks allegedly having been seized en route from there to Syria.
Additionally it looks as though 'all guns blazing' is not going to be an option. If reports are to be believed it would just be a few missile strikes. Don't really see the point of that. Assad has been the target missile strikes albeit not cruise missiles, for quite a while now. If the action isn't likely to bring him to negotiate then there will be no point to it
Additionally it looks as though 'all guns blazing' is not going to be an option. If reports are to be believed it would just be a few missile strikes. Don't really see the point of that. Assad has been the target missile strikes albeit not cruise missiles, for quite a while now. If the action isn't likely to bring him to negotiate then there will be no point to it
The discussion on News Night last night (Ming Campbell et al) asked the relevant questions about intervention: What are our objectives? What are the risks? What certainty do we have that the situation will be made better?
The only question I imagine Cameron has asked is the first one, and come up with the same wrong answer as other post-war PMs (starting with Eden and ending with Blair. Please note, I don't include Thatcher in this list): Britain still has influence and I want to be seen walking the world stage (and, of course, keep in with the Americans).
There seems to be other joint delusion that we understand and can influence events for the better in the Middle East, that somehow they think and will react like us. Look at the Arab Spring welcomed by the great and the good everywhere. Take Egypt. Get rid of nasty dictator, have free elections, result harmony and progress. Changed our mind pretty fast on that one, didn’t we? New doctrine: free elections good; military coups better.
I think we should stay out.
The only question I imagine Cameron has asked is the first one, and come up with the same wrong answer as other post-war PMs (starting with Eden and ending with Blair. Please note, I don't include Thatcher in this list): Britain still has influence and I want to be seen walking the world stage (and, of course, keep in with the Americans).
There seems to be other joint delusion that we understand and can influence events for the better in the Middle East, that somehow they think and will react like us. Look at the Arab Spring welcomed by the great and the good everywhere. Take Egypt. Get rid of nasty dictator, have free elections, result harmony and progress. Changed our mind pretty fast on that one, didn’t we? New doctrine: free elections good; military coups better.
I think we should stay out.
//The discussion on News Night last night (Ming Campbell et al) asked the relevant questions about intervention: What are our objectives? What are the risks? What certainty do we have that the situation will be made better?//
The only question I'm asking is the last one - and I suspect the answer is 'none'. The purpose of intervention is to improve the situation and I'm not at all sure that our intervention will do that.
The only question I'm asking is the last one - and I suspect the answer is 'none'. The purpose of intervention is to improve the situation and I'm not at all sure that our intervention will do that.
Naomi...Isn't there even the smallest chance that it will stop Assad using chemical weapons again the near future ? If we don't do something, how else is Assad going to be stopped committing these atrocities, whether with chemical weapons or good old-fashioned bombs and missiles ?
What do you recommend, if are not happy to get your hands dirty ? Did you or would you have said the same things about Milocovic and Srebrenica?
What do you recommend, if are not happy to get your hands dirty ? Did you or would you have said the same things about Milocovic and Srebrenica?
This situation is very different. My hands won’t be dirtied but someone else’s will – if it’s the right thing to do - but I’m not sure it is – and neither, it seems, is the government.
http://
http://
1 to 18 of 18
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.