[QUOTE=catbarf;42019505]It's not 'a weapon we don't like', it's a weapon that deliberately kills thousands of people in agony and causes damage and destruction for years to come. It is indiscriminate and being used directly against innocent civilians. That is outright banned under international law. We've stepped in when this was done using conventional weapons, too, just look at the UN response to the Srebrenica Massacre during the Serbian Crisis.
I'm sure the Syrian people getting gassed by their own government would love to hear the West say 'sorry, fighting the regime that's trying to kill you can't possibly help you, so just try to avoid the gas'.
Well, congrats to the UK on reducing themselves to 'angry letter police' like the UN stereotype. What's it going to take for them to start caring about international law? I mean if a dictator gassing his own civilians isn't cause to get involved, what is?[/QUOTE]
Do we even know if it is the Syrian government gassing the people?
It's dumb to blindly run into things without knowing which way is up.
So did they actually present any concrete evidence during the voting or is it still based on "we assume and strongly belief Assad used chemical weapons?"
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;42018855]If you're so pissed about it now why didn't you kick up a fuss earlier? There's nothing to be gained by joining the fray now. Just another few hundred folded flags.[/QUOTE]
To be fair I have been supporting intervention since civilians started to get massacred on a regular basis. Back when people could have actually helped, now there isn't much people can do because neither side is at all appetising. I honestly believe if the "west" had gotten involved two years ago the radicalisation wouldn't have happened and the outcome could have been so much better for Syria as a whole.
[QUOTE=Matriax;42018420]I don't remember mentioning good will, I remember saying that this was about a million times more important than money. Imagine you got gassed, ad the government told you it wasn't going to do anything about it because of "money". Personally, I'd like to think that if my civil rights got shat through a binbag the government might have the bollocks to stand up for me. The same should apply to a 3rd world nation which is currently tearing itself to pieces in civil war, we have a responsibility to these people.
[/QUOTE]
What are we supposed to do with an army that is consistently being downsized by government cuts? Send them off to another war that we shouldn't be involved in?
Of course it's incredibly harsh and unfair on innocent Syrian civilians but the reality is that we can't afford to fight another war right now. For once our MPs understand that a vast amount of the British public don't want to get involved in this so-called "intervention", mainly because we're still economically fragile and we're already fighting in another unwanted war (thanks to some poor choices from our then leaders).
The government can't be responsible for looking after a country that's 2,000 miles away.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42020731]Actually, you can't hold them accountable if they don't approve the law. International law only applies if the country agrees that it applies to them, they are a sovereign nation after all, their allowed to make their own decisions about what's best for their people. Besides, why is THIS the straw that breaks the camels back, they killed more people with conventional arms than they did with gas, so why is this all of a sudden a big deal, oh wait, its not, and every country is just sabre rattling trying to put a dog in a race that doesn't belong.
This isn't more important than money, without money nothing can get done, money IS the important factor. Also, if your government didn't grant you the civil rights in the first place, they can't exactly shit all over them, now can they?
We have no responsibility to these people, they started their mess, it's up to them to finish it.[/QUOTE]
Kerry has been stating the case that Syria violated customary international law and Ban Ki Moon stated it is a crime against Humanity. The problem is that Syria is not accountable to any type of organisation such as the ICC which is why a military strike is the only option of accountability and all this bullshit people talked about in Parliament yesterday about bringing Assad to the ICC is pointless drivel to make it look like they are trying to do something about this situation.
This isn't a money situation, it is a legitimacy issue, the west drew a line which Syria crossed and we are letting them get away with it. Why should anyone fear retaliation from us when we don't carry out our policy's, you can't backtrack on it.
I'm just glad France has the balls to do the right thing.
Kerry is about to state his case here - [url]http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/52883678[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
