Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am aware that Syria is not a signatory to this, I don't need you to tell me! The key part of my post was "I would say", meaning in my view. It is of my view that when a state is committing genocide (and the like), someone should step in - I don't think atrocities such as Rwanda should be able to happen and I cannot see how any decent human being can possibly just stand there and watch as it does happen. I know your view is very much "as long as the UK is happy, nobody else matters", but my view of the role of the state on the international stage is evidently very different to yours.

So does this form of moral grandstanding or concern involve you fighting with a gun in a third world desert or you sitting in an IKEA armchair a thousand miles away? You don't have to answer as I know which one as it's so predictable with people who take that bleeding heart and utopian view.

But what I would like to know is this - the million or so estimated political prisoners in China that are currently being held, do they warrant the same compassion from you or is China different because it generates a lot of money and won't take lectures on morality? what about Israel back in 2009 when it used white phosperhus? or should the likes of China & Israel be subjected to your ideals too? or are only defenceless tinpot countries like Rwanda and Syria worthy of your concern and why?

[AgnesIO]

So does this form of moral grandstanding or concern involve you fighting with a gun in a third world desert or you sitting in an IKEA armchair a thousand miles away? You don't have to answer as I know which one as it's so predictable with people who take that bleeding heart and utopian view.

I shall quote myself;

but only if ground troops were not used ( an act that I refuse to accept would be of any benefit whatsoever.

Clearly I am against sending ground troops in.

Also, PLEASE, don't bring up that argument. I have and do go to other countries and assist where I can, providing it is sustainable. I said during the whole "Joseph Kony" rubbish that if people really care about the poor children, they should go to Uganda and help protect them.

I don't intend to go anywhere with a gun in a third world desert, although I somewhat doubt Winston Churchill grabbed a gun and went and fought the Germans in WW2. We have a perfectly good armed forces who have CHOSEN to get a job where they may fight, I however, have not. I think more people should train in computer science, but I am not doing so myself - it doesn't mean that it is unfair for me to have that opinion.

(If I don't reply again, I am not ignoring - just may have gone to bed )

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't intend to go anywhere with a gun in a third world desert, although I somewhat doubt Winston Churchill grabbed a gun and went and fought the Germans in WW2.

Well that's because Churchill was 60-something in WWII. Churchill however did serve in the military in the Boer War and WWI if i'm not mistaken - so even if he had conducted a war which I disagreed with, you know, at least I could say that he'd served when it was his time to serve: unlike the chickenhawks of Obama, Bush, Cameron and Blair. That's exactly why although I think John McCain is absolutely bonkers in his foreign policy views, at least he served his country in a pointless war which gives me a lot more respect for him for at least sticking to his guns.

We have a perfectly good armed forces who have CHOSEN to get a job where they may fight, I however, have not.

But why not? ... you clearly think in some cases that British lives are worth sacrificing so that tinpot countries don't tear themselves apart, so I really don't see why you don't put your money where your mouth is and go and serve (even just for a year or two).

As for the armed forces choosing to go and fight, er what? from my recollection the campaign in 2012 in the US that recieved by a mile the most funding from serving military men was the anti-war Ron Paul campaign. When people sign up to join the military they do it in the expectation that their lives will only be put in harms way if it is deemed absolutely nessecery - they do not expect to be sent into battle against a country that has never harmed or threatened to harm this country.

I think more people should train in computer science, but I am not doing so myself - it doesn't mean that it is unfair for me to have that opinion.

I hardly think training for computer science is the same as serving and potentially dying for your country.

[oli]

"Peace-making" is a phrase that comes to mind instead of the word peace.
We shouldn't have any involvement in the matter.

[AgnesIO]

Well that's because Churchill was 60-something in WWII. Churchill however did serve in the military in the Boer War and WWI if i'm not mistaken - so even if he had conducted a war which I disagreed with, you know, at least I could say that he'd served when it was his time to serve: unlike the chickenhawks of Obama, Bush, Cameron and Blair. That's exactly why although I think John McCain is absolutely bonkers in his foreign policy views, at least he served his country in a pointless war which gives me a lot more respect for him for at least sticking to his guns.



But why not? ... you clearly think in some cases that British lives are worth sacrificing so that tinpot countries don't tear themselves apart, so I really don't see why you don't put your money where your mouth is and go and serve (even just for a year or two).

As for the armed forces choosing to go and fight, er what? from my recollection the campaign in 2012 in the US that recieved by a mile the most funding from serving military men was the anti-war Ron Paul campaign. When people sign up to join the military they do it in the expectation that their lives will only be put in harms way if it is deemed absolutely nessecery - they do not expect to be sent into battle against a country that has never harmed or threatened to harm this country.



I hardly think training for computer science is the same as serving and potentially dying for your country.

The fact is that politicians are there to do the Politics, the army are there to fight. I wouldn't want some front line private as the Prime Minister, likewise I wouldn't want David Cameron running around with a gun. It is ridiculous to argue that if you think it is fair "go and join", as this surely applies to the officers in the army who simply sit in their offices and tell soldiers where to go - the fact is their job is not to go and sit in a camp in the desert.

If I was someone who wanted to run around with a gun, I would want to help in other countries if I believed I was genuinely helping. Unfortunately, I have always felt I am much better in a suit in the corporate world - somewhere I would not want many "squaddies" anywhere near. Having said that, I don't think national service is a half-bad idea.

[Ardemax]

Ed Miliband against military action:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_3831468.html

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ed Miliband against military action:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_3831468.html

For political point scoring reasons, of course.

That said, at least somebody is halting this - so good on them.

[Ardemax]

For political point scoring reasons, of course.

That said, at least somebody is halting this - so good on them.

The Tories are hating on Labour for doing this, but maybe they should have done the same regarding Iraq.

[-:Undertaker:-]

May be interested in this audio debate on Syria where Peter Hitchens demolishes the neocon he's against - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...tion-in-syria/

[Ardemax]

May be interested in this audio debate on Syria where Peter Hitchens demolishes the neocon he's against - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...tion-in-syria/

I'll have a look at that in a minute, but firstly: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

"285-272, House of Commons vote against "Military Intervention in Syria in principle""

Good news, that. Well done democracy.