Gutless. The stench of appeasement

[Wanderer]

But yes to chemical weapons being used on civilians?

Uh huh. And can you tell us who set the chemical weapons off so we know which side to take in this civil war?

When I was a kid I saw a husband and wife beating the crap out of each other. A bloke tried to intervene but then the husband and wife both turned on the bloke and beat the tulip out of him. The cops turned up and arrested both husband and wife in the end...

My feeling is that Britain should stay the hell out of other countries domestic problems and wait to see what the UN says.

[Moscow Mule]

Uh huh. And can you tell us who set the chemical weapons off so we know which side to take in this civil war?

Feel free to read the rest of the thread where I explain my thoughts on the matter.

[NotAllThere]

Uh huh. And can you tell us who set the chemical weapons off so we know which side to take in this civil war?

When I was a kid I saw a husband and wife beating the crap out of each other. A bloke tried to intervene but then the husband and wife both turned on the bloke and beat the tulip out of him. The cops turned up and arrested both husband and wife in the end...

My feeling is that Britain should stay the hell out of other countries domestic problems and wait to see what the UN says.

The analogy fails, since in this instance the intervening bloke in this case is a highly trained heavily armed brick-tulip house of a gentlemen. He is the "cop".

Are you ok with us supporting Al Qaeda and other assorted terrorists in removing a legally recognised government...

Yes, because the use of chemical weapons on its own people automatically legitimises any government.

To not intervene means, effectively, supporting a terrorist organisation (formerly known as the Syrian government) that is using chemical weapons.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the rebels had got hold of some nerve gas and used it on their own people in order to provoke an international response. However, there seems to be a bit of will for Assad to be deposed, so I guess this will be used to justify intervention.

[cojak]

And to intervene supports terrorists.

It's a bugger, ain't it?

[TheFaQQer]

This country is the beacon of Democracy, fair play and justice.

[DodgyAgent]

Good.

We can't fix everything in this world and it's about time we said no to the Americans.

Is that what it is about?

I thought it was about whether we wish to try and put a stop to the murder of innocent people with chemical weapons? No? I suppose it is just Syrian Oil they are after.

I hope all the self satisfied people who oppose intervention in Syria are comfortable with the thought that they do not wish to do anything about the killing.

[doodab]

We should be intervening, as part of a UN mandated, UN badged force, to stop this bloody war, and that should have happened some time ago, the moment thousands of people started dying.

Arguably that should have happened in Iraq as well, after 10 years of Saddam pissing the weapons inspectors about. Unfortunately the UN is something of a joke, Saddam knew it, played the system and made a complete arse of it.

The system desperately needs reform. It failed in the Balkans, failed in Iraq, will fail here. Perhaps we should just give up and let people bash the tulip out of each other while selling both sides guns. Which is kind of what happens anyway...

[Mich the Tester]

Vote labour.

No, many conservatives were against military action too and the public don't trust any politicians any more, even though Call-me-Dave and Barry O'Bama seem to be basically decent chaps. It's the legacy of Tony B Liar and his pet baboon, George W Bush.

[DodgyAgent]

What is interesting is the broad spectrum of reactions to an event like this. These reactions represent far more about the individuals making their opinions known than any objective contribution to the problem.

One fact emerges from this.

Children are being killed in droves indiscriminatly


Most of us dont really care because they are a world away, yet things would be very different if it was our own kids or kids in our country.
Most of us feel guilty and through a range of arguments we seek to justify this guilt by giving reasons not to intervene. These range from toadying to the Americans, its the Turks responsibility, look the other way incase we bite off more than we can chew,. So intent are you to make these excuses that you even resort to sneering and laughing in order to try and trivialise what is happening in Syria and pour ridicule on those who want to do something to stop the carnage.

Funnily enough amongst these emotional reactions all points have some level of legitimacy but what I find is disgusting is the way that you sneer at the people who have to make the hard decisions as to what to do. David Cameron and The American government are putting their heads above the parapet and trying to do something here and now.

[DodgyAgent]

No, many conservatives were against military action too and the public don't trust any politicians any more, even though Call-me-Dave and Barry O'Bama seem to be basically decent chaps. It's the legacy of Tony B Liar and his pet baboon, George W Bush.

Here is a prime example of how we emotionally distance ourselves from facing up to the problem. We sidetrack the debate.