breadandcheese Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Well the UN did, sort of, and made matters worse, the refugee camps became disease ridden death camps, and despite international intervention people still died, and arguably more did than if we hadn't. My point is intervention, whether it is UN peace keepers, or direct military action is no guarantee of civilian safety and has in many circumstances made things worse. Liberal intervention is dead? I can't agree with you. An intervention will always result in casualties and errors, that is a given, but you cannot stand by and allow butchers and dictators to act with impunity. I might be reading your statements wrong, but it implies to me that you wouldn't intervene were the Rwandan genocide happening today. I think what Paddy Ashdown said applies here. So a question for you. When is intervention acceptable or is it never acceptable? Should we have told the Poles to deal with Hitler by themselves in 1939, for example? Actually this sums up what I feel rather well! Good read.
Captain... Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Actually this sums up what I feel rather well! Fair points, whilst I agree with not going with direct military action, it doesn't mean I think we should do nothing, and we should wash our hands of it, and take this vote to mean we are just going to ignore it and let others deal with it.
Zingari Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Liberal intervention is dead? I can't agree with you. An intervention will always result in casualties and errors, that is a given, but you cannot stand by and allow butchers and dictators to act with impunity. I might be reading your statements wrong, but it implies to me that you wouldn't intervene were the Rwandan genocide happening today. I think what Paddy Ashdown said applies here. So a question for you. When is intervention acceptable or is it never acceptable? Should we have told the Poles to deal with Hitler by themselves in 1939, for example? Good read. Why didn't we feel the need to chase the Russians out afterwards?
Collymore Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Any body else getting a bad feeling about this if the Americans attack? Just got a feeling this is going to get messy.
Zingari Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Any body else getting a bad feeling about this if the Americans attack? Just got a feeling this is going to get messy. The Americans and the French involved together in a war? What could possibly go wrong ?
Guest MattP Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 What on earth are the left going to do with their poster boy when he steams into Syria?
Jon the Hat Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 The Americans and the French involved together in a war? What could possibly go wrong ? The US and France have fought on the same side in many wars, not least the War of Indepence from Britain.
Zingari Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Between them, they sorted Vietnam out pretty well .
Captain... Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Liberal intervention is dead? I can't agree with you. An intervention will always result in casualties and errors, that is a given, but you cannot stand by and allow butchers and dictators to act with impunity. I might be reading your statements wrong, but it implies to me that you wouldn't intervene were the Rwandan genocide happening today. I think what Paddy Ashdown said applies here. So a question for you. When is intervention acceptable or is it never acceptable? Should we have told the Poles to deal with Hitler by themselves in 1939, for example? Good read. I am not saying we do nothing, I'm saying that direct military action against Assad is not something I can support, and it is no guarantee of saving civilian lives and could easily make the situation worse. I would support any non aggressive action aimed at protecting civilians, even having peace keeping forces to ensure fighting doesn't spill over into currently unaffected areas of Syria and neighbouring countries and setting up safe and sanitary refugee camps. As for when do we get involved, first of all when there is a clear aggressor, when one country invades another, there is a direct action that shouldn't be ignored. When attacks are clearly being targeted at civilians by the regime. Syria is in civil war at the moment, 2 forces battling for control, and it is not clear who are the good guys, it is not clear who has the support of the people. I don't know what the rebels real aim is but if they wanted power they should have gone the democratic route not the terrorism route, there are elections in Syria, Assad was elected unopposed, but there are elections and there is a sort of democracy, and change should have been attempted through non violent means and with the support of the people. Compared to Gaddafi, who was a brutal dictator that we tolerated for years despite knowing what he was like. I do worry that the Arab spring and our eagerness to get involved in rebellions in support of the rebels may have influenced this civil war in Syria. The rebels think that they just need to oppose the ruling regime and the west will come running. It is a real mess no mistaking, but I can't see the West getting involved with direct military action making it any better.
Zingari Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 The US and France have fought on the same side in many wars, not least the War of Indepence from Britain. we were otherwise occupied in more important parts of the Empire
leicsmac Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 What on earth are the left going to do with their poster boy when he steams into Syria? Be annoyed but also exasperated at the lack of political choice because they know any Republican president would have done the same, and probably sooner.
Guest MattP Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Between them, they sorted Vietnam out pretty well . France were involved in Veitnam? Be annoyed but also exasperated at the lack of political choice because they know any Republican president would have done the same, and probably sooner. Ironcially Donald Rumsfeld was on CNN last night saying going in is the wrong thing to do.
Captain... Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 France were involved in Veitnam? Ironcially Donald Rumsfeld was on CNN last night saying going in is the wrong thing to do. But does he believe that or just taking the contrary view as an attack on the Democrats, this is why I am so fed up with politics, people don't say what they think, just follow the party line, which is usually the opposite view of the other party.
Zingari Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 France were involved in Veitnam? Ironcially Donald Rumsfeld was on CNN last night saying going in is the wrong thing to do. France were there first ( indo china war) but America came in later ( 1965 officially) i really don't know too much about the history of how France gave up on it and why USA decided to barge in though.
Guest MattP Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 But does he believe that or just taking the contrary view as an attack on the Democrats, this is why I am so fed up with politics, people don't say what they think, just follow the party line, which is usually the opposite view of the other party. Possible. Agree with you on the point as well, party politics and posturing shouldn't be playing a part when lives are a stake. France were there first ( indo china war) but America came in later ( 1965 officially) i really don't know too much about the history of how France gave up on it and why USA decided to barge in though. Got you. Was going to say done a bit of reading on Nam and never remember the French there.
ADK Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 I have some respect for the Tory backbenchers who had the spine to vote for what they believed in rather than voting to save Cameron from embarrassment.
The God Emperor Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Any body else getting a bad feeling about this if the Americans attack? Just got a feeling this is going to get messy. of course it will get messy, its governments doing what they do best. sticking their snout where its not wanted and causing more problems. they tell people what they can and cant put into their bodies, they redistribute wealth however they see fit and they bail out failed banks and businesses. why would their foreign policy be any different?
Manwell Pablo Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Have the Americans actually said they're going in yet? Be hilarious if they ended up not bothering and the French went in alone I'd try and get odds on Assad marching through Paris by the end of October.
Guest MattP Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Have the Americans actually said they're going in yet? Be hilarious if they ended up not bothering and the French went in alone I'd try and get odds on Assad marching through Paris by the end of October. Nicking that
MrSpaM Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 The news is absolutely ridiculous. Milliband saying yesterday we definitely shouldnt intervene, now weve decided not to intervene he's saying we shouldnt be so lenient on them. Our government is a complete joke.
Jordan Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Have the Americans actually said they're going in yet? Be hilarious if they ended up not bothering and the French went in alone I'd try and get odds on Assad marching through Paris by the end of October. Ha! I would much rather not have the U.S. meddle in Syria--especially not with the military--but something ought to be done. Even if there is no "smoking gun" that directly links the chemical attack (which looks more and more likely to be carried out by pro-government forces) to Assad, Assad still has to keep his dogs on a leash. This really should be something the Arab League should sort out. I'd like the West to put pressure on Russia here, too, but let's face it: we're not exactly negotiating with them from a position of strength now.
sphericalfox Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Thank fook this war isn't about oil Iran, Syria Finalize Agreement on New Gas Pipeline Qatar seeks gas pipeline to Turkey Syria: A gas pipeline meant to free Europe from energy dependence on Russia Whilst these are old articles, Europe might well be held ransom by Russian interests in the gas market. There may well be some very cold winters ahead.
Tielemans63 Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 Thank fook this war isn't about oil Iran, Syria Finalize Agreement on New Gas Pipeline Qatar seeks gas pipeline to Turkey Syria: A gas pipeline meant to free Europe from energy dependence on Russia Whilst these are old articles, Europe might well be held ransom by Russian interests in the gas market. There may well be some very cold winters ahead. I think people are kidding themselves if they don't think this is a major factor in this situation. As I said before there's been no debate on how Russia will react. The US will not fancy a future that involves being at the mercy of Russia and its vast gas reserves - I see this very much as the US making the first move in the real war. As I said earlier - it'll be interesting to see how the Russians respond to an attack on an important ally.
The People's Hero Posted 30 August 2013 Posted 30 August 2013 The French have surrendered. They're inviting the Syrians in to Paris!!! Unbelievable. Laying on flights for them and everything.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.