All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

[difficultpickle]

AIBU to think that is what has happened in the House of Commons this evening?

Having listened to the debate today I am truly shocked and saddened by the outcome.

I think this is in large part Cameron's failure to state a convincing case to Parliament that intervention would be effective to stop the regime using chemical weapons against civilians and that overall, intervention was better for the situation in Syria (and the wider Middle East) than doing nothing.

Military action in these circumstances is only the moral thing to do if it works to protect civilians. Cameron did not manage to persuade people that it would.

SallyingForth, exactly.

Blair is now holidaying on a luxury yacht in the Med, after flying there on a private jet. It's a hard life being a war criminal UN Peace Envoy.

A multi millionaire war criminal sallying.

Military action in these circumstances is only the moral thing to do if it works to protect civilians. Cameron did not manage to persuade people that it would.
Yes Eldritch. If Assad is responsible for war crimes then the only way to stop him is to kill/remove him. But Cameron specifically said it was not about regime change. So what's the point of us sending in yet more death and destruction?

There are many evil dictators in this world. Both now and historically. The uk and America can not solve the world's problems so instead concentrate on those that have oil or can somehow affect supply and distribution.

How do you differentiate between the children of Syria and the children of African nations who have endured many generations of murder, cruelty and torture.?

The problems in the far east will never be solved. Only damped down every few years by a few nations ensuring that their economy's are not affected and their power remains.

The bloodshed will continue as it has done for many thousands of years. You can not change how mankind treats its children and innocents. It is either power or religion that causes the most harm and both are a part of human nature. Sending more guns and bombs will only speed up the loss of life and misery. At best disperse it elsewhere.

miemohrs sadly I think death is death. I would love to see him face his horrific crimes in this world. Maybe it would also make others think.

miemohrs
I have this dream of Blair arriving in hell to find Saddam waiting for him with an evil grin. Spending eternity together would suit them nicely.

The Syrian rebels are not just made up of one group all fighting for the same vision of Syria. They are made up of several different groups from those who want a democratic state to those who want sharia and to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate.

So even if Assad went tomorrow fighting would not stop as the likes of al-Nusra are not going to give up the areas they have won in the North and east of Syria and who ever wins control of the rest of the country is not going to give over the North as that is the area rich in oil and gas.

So if the west takes out Assad then what happens?

I've noticed a lack of interest now, regarding the number of car bombs injuring civilians in various ME countries, and confusion as to which faction is killing the supporters of which other faction.
I don't think intervention will do anything but draw out the chaos, confusion and deaths over a much longer period.
What would have happened in Ireland if the British troops had not intervened?
What would Ireland be like now?

Whether you agree with the politicians or not, we all have the chance to be good men and women.

Hand in Hand for Syria is a UK based charity that are able to get relief and supplies directly to the Syrian people. Tomorrow they are doing a country wide fundraiser and donation collection.

handinhandforsyria.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=209:big-aid-drop-for-syria&catid=922

We've dealt with this charity for the last year, fundraising for them and even visiting refugee camps in Turkey and Syria with them. They are honourable, compassionate and intelligent. They are apolitical and do their best to help anyone that they can.

Feel free to pm me or ask here if you have any questions.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

So if the west takes out Assad then what happens?

The same as what happened in Iraq when Saddam was taken out...

1. US manufacturers make a fortune from replacing their forces' used weapon stocks.

1. US manufacturers make another fortune replacing destroyed infrastructure.

1. Law and order continues to be broken down, with bombings and killings of racial/religious minorities.

Good men ought to stand up for what they believe, but does that have to be violence? Aren't we evolved enough to start to try alternative approaches to conflict? X

That would be nice HRH.

Sally you left off the list the increased risk of islamist terror attacks on our own soil.

Your country cannot afford to get embroiled in another costly, ghastly mess. For financial reasons, it's a no.

You do not need to part of yet another installation of yet another al-Qaeda-backed Islamic fundamentalist regime... you know, the sort who like to train up people to bomb your family and friends as they are going about their business on English soil. For security reasons, it's a no.

You want more of the blood on your hands you have after taking part in the NATO airstrikes in Serbia? After helping bomb Red Crescent hospitals in Iraq? After the huge fucking cock-up that is Afghanistan? For moral reasons, it's a no.

People like you are so cavalier about these things, you take my fucking breath away. Where are these amazing bombs they have that only magically kill the wrong 'uns, and don't end up wiping out the ordinary people whom you so patronisingly claim to be just like?

A few crossposts. I had to go back and take out a lot of expletives. "People like you" was obviously aimed not at any recent posters.

Sorry cantspel, feel free to add to the list.

I should also have included the inevitable rise in the cost of oil.

I'm always very wary of any argument prefaced by the words 'People like you...'

Very interesting article in the guardian which I wish I knew how to link by Simon Jenkins 'it takes courage to say there is nothing outsiders can do'. If I am understanding correctly what was proposed was limited air action directed at where they believe the chemical weapons to be and seems to be about posturing and 'appearing' not to be 'the good men standing idly by'. I don't think linking action with a pat on the back for 'doing something' is very helpful as that is more about ones own ego and feelings of helplessness. I am certainly not in favour of the 'appeasement' of violent dictators but have we really exhausted every diplomatic and humanitarian avenue and I just haven't heard about it? Or is it too expensive and more complicated than a quick bit of posturing?

I am heartened by the vote in Parliament. As an American, I have the same sick feeling of inevitability that I did prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as though the gears are already in motion and we can do nothing but sit back and watch helplessly. Unfortunately, I think that the U.S. will take military action, but perhaps this vote will help slow that action, perhaps even modify it. Without the full backing of the U.K., the U.S. may be less likely to become embroiled in yet another costly, brutal, useless war. Or perhaps that is merely wishful thinking.

Northern I would hope that you are right but it seems that some of the Conservative MPs were voting for regime change in their own party.

Those people wanting us to go in with airstrikes what do you actually envisage happening or want to achieve? You can't hit stockpiles of chemical weapons with bombs without releasing the nerve agent inside killing and injuring anybody within the vicinity (and obviously the size of the stockpile will influence just how much human and environmental damage is caused).