It merely means that UK is not taking part in an ad hoc missile attack that not even the Armed Forces advised....Govt could come back again with a plan, UN Resolution etc and present that to parliament....Why shame ???(I don't understand the use of the word shame in this context) did you feel shame when the first 10,000 peopled....when 50,000 died....when 100,000 died....1000 are likely to die next week through conventional weapons will you feel shame about them....
-
bong ching -
-
By the way I was not releasing venom at you Padraig (your view was perfectly reasonable)....UK will continue to GIVE rather than pledge a great deal of money towards refugee relief/medical services (go to Oxfam website and give some money perhaps) ....a few months down the line another action can be put to parliament (and only Party Politics might stop that....lets see Camerons metal closer to May 2015....)
....but I still do not get this word 'shame'....bong chingComment
-
Lord Ashdown was interviewed on Sky News this morning and I think he summed up what many of us think after last night's vote:- (Scroll down the videos on the right hand side of the page- it's the second video down).
I agree with him that it is shaming that we should stand idly by whilst Assad slaughters his own people. We might as well just dispense with our armed forces and have done with it.Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
Mark Twain.Comment
-
The pitcher doth not go so often to the well, but it comes home broken at last....bong chingComment
-
Curiously that nobody (I think) has commented on how we shamelessly stood idly by while Saddam Hussein was using gas on the Iranians, killing thousands of them, during the Iran-Iraq war.
I didn't notice governments bombing Iraq when Saddam Hussein killed many thousands of Kurd in Halabja, using poison gas.
But then, Saddam Hussein was our friend and the Iranians were our 'enemy' (and it was silly to upset our mate Saddam over a few Kurds).
Seriously though, the problem is that, over many decades, whenever we have intervened in the middle east we have caused massive problems for the region and for ourselves later on. And we never learn.
There are two long standing fundamental problems in the region which the west (including the USA and Britain) refuses to tackle. The Israel/Palestinian issue and Saudi Arabia's wide promotion and financing of fundamentalist forms of Islam.
I am not totally against military action in the right circumstances - when there is clear evidence, when there is a definite, thought through, game plan and when the action will have a beneficial effect. Sadly none of these criteria were met in this case.Comment
-
Originally posted by Mr Pee View PostLord Ashdown was interviewed on Sky News this morning and I think he summed up what many of us think after last night's vote:- (Scroll down the videos on the right hand side of the page- it's the second video down).
I agree with him that it is shaming that we should stand idly by whilst Assad slaughters his own people.
But Pee, did you say that after he killed the first 10,000? Or after the first 20,000? Or the first 50,000? When did you think to intervene?
It's too late to do anything now. The civilians must trek to Jordan or Lebanon, let the armed men fight it out to the end.....
John- - -
John WComment
-
Do you seriously imagine that launching a limited air strike on the Syrian government's forces or military infrastructure will stop the refugee crisis? Really?Originally posted by John Wright View PostComment
-
I don't think he was saying that John b.....bong chingComment
-
Shame? No, it seems to me that if this vote means that Miliband and his party have finally discovered they have spines after all, and that the UK is no longer always dragged into the USA's disastrous military adventures, one's response should be quite the opposite. Those of us who campaigned and demonstrated against the Iraq war couldn't prevent that from happening, but all the opposition to that war and disgust at the lies promulgated by Blair to "legitimise" it might finally have had some effect.Originally posted by JimD View Post
I'm not a pacifist but I would always oppose this kind of imperialistic intervention. Let's not be fooled into thinking that punishment for an atrocity is the real motivation here, or practically anywhere else. Firstly, plenty of atrocities are committed while the "international community" looks the other way. Secondly, surely (to give one example) the "sanctions of mass destruction" against Iraq in the 1990s, which are estimated to have killed at least 100 000 children, were far more destructive than anything that's happening in Syria, but (remember what Madeline Albright had to say about it?) since it was committed by the US and its allies somehow the word "atrocity" is deemed not to apply. Thirdly, it isn't at all clear to me what killing yet more people with missiles in Syria is supposed to achieve in terms of bringing peace to the region even as an incidental byproduct.Comment
-
I'm not a pacifist either, but, whatever the views of a septuagenarian ex-soldier, the result of the survey in which I participated showed that 7% seemed likely to have supported the Commons motions; 25% would not have countenanced any sort of military intervention and, of the rest, the largest number of the 'Perhaps' supporters wanted the 'perhaps' hedged round with conditions which included getting the support of the UN Security Council: in other words, the unanimous support of the international community. 1% were Don't Knows.
If we are therefore a nation which should be 'ashamed' of itself, so be it. I'm with 8thO on that. We don't just step out into the Great Unknown.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
Ashdowns second ref about UK credibility in the sight of the world from now on.... is also BUNKUM....
Ashdown is now an anachronism who is lost in his own forest of arrogance and earnest self confidence....bong chingComment
-
Well, there's two for starters!...Originally posted by Mr Pee View Post
Given not only the vote but the polls and the rest, what evidence do you have for this "many of us" claim? On what is it supposedly based?Originally posted by Mr Pee View Post
So it's in some sense our fault, is it? and we should therefore intervene militarily in order to make amends? What difference do you suppose it would make to the atrocities already occurring in Syria and the victims thereof if anyone goes blasting into that country indiscriminately without any certainty as to who should be targeted and with whatever ostensible motive? All that would happen is that the killing, maiming &c. would increase and I somehow do not believe that this is what even you would want to see.Originally posted by Mr Pee View Post
The notion that Assad is the only pariah in Syria is one born of an overly simplistic viewpoint; it's already been illustrated here far more eloquently than I could possibly even begin to do that the current situation in Syria is way more complex, fragmented and factionalised than a mere monochromatically simple one of Assad bad, rebels good. Britain, so far from being "shamed" as a consequence of Parliamentary reason yesterday, might even end up setting an example for other potential aggressor interventionists; I won't hold my breath, of course, but such optimism might not prove to be entirely without foundation...Comment
-
I agree, with the exception of your use of the word "now"; he's been that for quite some time.Originally posted by eighthobstruction View PostComment
-
Two what?Originally posted by ahinton View PostPatriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
Mark Twain.Comment
Comment