While we see our politicians busying themselves with same sex marriages and promisers of a referendum on Europe etc, this Syrian affair has been bubbling away without any particular concern shown.
Is it not time that Parliament should be spending their time debating on this crisis, (after all they will soon be breaking up for their summer recess) and shouldn't the British people be given a say in whether or not we should get involved?
from little acords Fred, if i recall this is precisely the sort of conflict that happened in Europe, small nation gets stomped on, then all hell broke loose, WW1, then we had the next carnage, 60/90 million dead in that mess, and we haven't learned yet to stay out of the hotchpotch that is the Middle East, they will keep on fighting till it's last man standing....
Before World War I there was a tension between the various big powers of the time and when the assassination took place it was a "You just spilled my pint" moment and everything kicked off. No such tensions exist now. Nobody is spoiling for a fight and nobody is frightened that a small move by one side requires an all out preemptive attack.
Syria is , at best, a game on which two big players have placed bets. If one loses,well, that's the way it goes.
don't agree at all, for one thing the rebels in Syria are not one tight knit band of merry men, they are all different factions, fighting for control, and if Assad is toppled, then civil war will ensue, followed by the various supporting sides taking up arms, it could happen.
It could happen and often it does happen after civil wars but you had a very similar situation in Libya and it didn't happen there so it's not certain it would
Exactly my point , aog. Nuclear weapons were not a factor until the war was over, except with Japan. Now they are a factor from the first thought of war.
I sincerely hope we don't get involved, and I hope we do not arm the rebels, because there's every chance that eventually those weapons will be used against us.
WE SHOULD BE HELPING ASSAD NOT TRYING TO GET RID OF HIM ?
Are you completely bonkers ? Help Assad, like we helped , Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and General Galtierie I presume. The man is a blood-thirsty, ruthless butcher.
I agree that its going to be difficult identifying the opposition, but helping Assad ? We have done enough helping him for the last few years buy ignoring what is going on in Syria and pretending it will just go away of its own accord.
we shouldn't be involved in sending arms, this will like it always has, come back to bite us on the derrière. No one thanks us when we get involved, if anything we could see more deranged people on our streets, death to soldiers marches and the idiot fanatics here having their say or taking it out on innocent people. America has this insane habit of getting involved where it shouldn't, and dragging us long, why can't Cameron see this and stay out.
no one will thank Cameron if he were to decide to send British troops into that madness, the thought of seeing more coffins come home doesn't fill me with anything but sadness. US and UK should refrain from interfering, humanitarian aid i agree with, help the people caught in the middle, that is all.
It looks as though the Americans are launching a mission to try and ensure chemical weapons don't get into the hands of Al Qaeda.
Those of you who think that these conflicts are "nothing to do with us" should remember what you said when Al Qaeda launches its firsrt chemical weapons attack on the west
As for comparing the Syrianconflict to the start of WWI I'm astounded. There isn't the slightest parallel there
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.