Gutless. The stench of appeasement

[DodgyAgent]

What is wrong with cojak's argument? Syrian chemical weapons could be hidden all over the country, possibly in civilian areas. What would we fire missiles at? And what else could the armed forces do?

You cannot just vote to 'go over there and sort it out'. That's the sort of open-ended commitment everyone wants to avoid.

I have no problem with that argument as long as it is argued. And I would agree that if indeed it is the Syrian govt attacking its people in this way they would be foolish not to. What I have a problem with is the dismissive assumption that we would bomb empty buildings in order to give creedence to an excuse to do nothing.

I was making a wider point here about how we as human beings behave when faced with these sorts of atrocities. The points hiding behind the cliches and soundbites and sneers and "blaming others" are all probably credible but they should be argued. Instead they are thrown about vaguely and loosely to justify the "its not my problem let us blame someone else (cameron Americans)" mentality that neatly lets them allay their own guilt.

[Mich the Tester]

To be fair he does have a point - DC played his cards at the wrong time and his tactics were doomed to failure. I can't remember such a big political blunder in recent history.....

True, DC should have waited a few days, but I would sooner blame Tony B Liar, Ed Militwat and the entire faux-socialist sham that is the British Labour party.

[Mich the Tester]

I have no problem with that argument as long as it is argued. And I would agree that if indeed it is the Syrian govt attacking its people in this way they would be foolish not to. What I have a problem with is the dismissive assumption that we would bomb empty buildings in order to give creedence to an excuse to do nothing.

I was making a wider point here about how we as human beings behave when faced with these sorts of atrocities. The points hiding behind the cliches and soundbites and sneers and "blaming others" are all probably credible but they should be argued. Instead they are thrown about vaguely and loosely to justify the "its not my problem let us blame someone else (cameron Americans)" mentality that neatly lets them allay their own guilt.

It's everybody's problem, but surely you understand why people are hesitant this time around? Personally I would support hitting Assad if the evidence is produced and actually amounts to something. He has chemical weapons, we just don't know if it was him that used them, seeing as much of the country is in the hands of Al Qaeda.

[DodgyAgent]

To be fair he does have a point - DC played his cards at the wrong time and his tactics were doomed to failure. I can't remember such a big political blunder in recent history.....

It throws up a whole load of political questions:

1. By saying that the vote represents the people of Britain's wishes he is telling us all that we have to take responsibility for doing nothing
2. By delaying Ed Milliband is probably doing the right thing in asking Cameron to be absolutely sure before we attack Syria
3. If Ed Milliband was in power what would he be doing?
4. Is Cameron's leadership up to the job?. To be fair he went out of his way to allay the Iraq factor
5. When will Blair be hung.

Whatever is decided the killing will continue.

[doodab]

BULLS**T

The only credible evidence of anybody using chemical weapons to date is by the rebels, the UN have even come out and said it:

BBC News - UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'

You are either believing the BS the media is feeding you with or just denying the facts on the ground:

- In a court of law you would have to establish motive. What would be the motive for Assad to use chemical weapons now when he is winning the battle against the "rebels" AKA terrorists
- The "Rebels" are funded and supported by Saudi/Qatar who are a lot more advanced than Assad himself
- The "Rebels" gain the most from a supposed chemical attack
- If there is anybody with less morals than Assad then it is Al Qaeda
- The UN have not at any point established the use of chemical weapons by Assad

You are talking BS

You didn't even read the article you linked to did you? That isn't the UN "coming out and saying it" it's one member of a UN commission and the UN rather rapidly distanced themselves from what she said.

Later, the commission stressed that it had "not reached conclusive findings" as to their use by any parties.

"As a result, the commission is not in a position to further comment on the allegations at this time," a statement added.

The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says the statement was terse and shows that the UN was taken by surprise at Ms Del Ponte's remarks.

The rumour (quite possibly true) of the rebels using Sarin originates with the Saudi intelligence agency.

Syria, the Saudi connection: The Prince with close ties to Washington at the heart of the push for war - Middle East - World - The Independent

Interestingly these people are also accused of supplying the rebels with chemical weapons, as they are very keen to topple Assad, although if the rebels do have them in any quantity it seems more likely that they obtained them via defectors from the Syrian army or from raiding Syrian army stockpiles.

One of the more interesting conspiracy theories is that prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, is also the current head of Al Queda.

Either way, I think we should be putting a stop to the war, not taking sides.

[Mich the Tester]

5. When will Blair be hung.

Yesterday, if there was any justice.

[DodgyAgent]

It's everybody's problem, .

Good at least we are getting somewhere.

[doodab]

I'd still like the full story of the government's dealings with David Kelly as well.

Yes, that is one where I think there is more than meets the eye.

[doodab]

Syria: 'national soul-searching' needed after Commons defeat - Telegraph

No, Mr Miliband, he lost the vote because after the record of your party in government, nobody will trust any PM for a very long time, you snivelling little tulip.

Milliband has been nothing but an anonymous two faced **** throughout this. He actually pledged to back the PM as long as various conditions were met (they were) and then voted against anyway, and now he's trying to take credit for it. At least DC & Cleggy have a moral compass, this **** would let Assad & Bin Laden double team his mum if he thought they'd vote for him.

[sasguru]

One question that has not been asked is why is Assad attacking his fellow countryman ("the rebels")?
The answer, presumably, is that they the rebels are attacking him.

Isn't one solution therefore for "the rebels" to stop rebelling? Indeed the fact that they have now been attacked with chemical weapons should perhaps give them cause to consider doing this?

Feck me. Have you ever thought the reason you're a virgin is that women find you too thick?