Lynne
Lots of coverage about this on the tv today including input from high up military people/diplomats who have been pointing out that we need to think through any military involvement eg - what are we trying to achieve by it?, how will that objective be achieved? the problem of mission creep etc (Huw as a military man I'm sure you can expand on that). I don't think it is a question of people not ...
@kenny - just pointing out what appears to me to be inconsistencies in government policy.
Yeah the cost. I have to say that as well as the other issues I've already raised in my earlier postings, the cost of being involved in military action had also crossed my mind in that we have been told time and time again, have we not, that this country has no money and that we must, must, must, reduce our national debt and sort out the deficit. Cuts backs on public spending on this, that and ...
Suggest you contact Unison. They represent care workers in the public sector (what is left of it) and possib ly some in the private sector. Private sector not very unionised.
As I said - it depends on the definition of chemical. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401378/Agent-Orange-Vietnamese-children-suffering-effects-herbicide-sprayed-US-Army-40-years-ago.html I note the Americans were flinging around that Edmond Burke quote quite a bit yesterday and I wondered to myself if they were implying that by not being involved in military action that this ...
@Paul So......... if we were to have a civil war in this country and an arab country plus, say, China or Russia didn't approve of the weapons being used and you were fighting on behalf of the side using the weapons not approved by China/Russia, I take it then that you would have no problem if that superpower plus one of its acolytes militarily intervened on behalf of the side you were ...
And on this matter of International Treaties/laws concerning the use of Chemical Weapons.... Chemical Weapons If, as I have read, there is a 1926(?) International Agreement that Chemical Weapons should not be used in warfare and that there is also a UN treaty to the same effect then whoever has used CWs in Syria has broken International law and UN Treaty. The US (and until last night) ...
There seems to be a resounding silence coming from The Arab League countries. If (if) outside miliatary action is thought to be necessary then why hasn't/doesn't the Arab League countries get involved? Feel sure we've sold enough arms to them for them to be able to do so.
List of Coalition MPs who voted against the government last night. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/syria-debate-tory-rebels
If "it is wrong for us to stand by and watch innocent people being killed" then why haven't we made noises about intervening before now (believe this conflict has been going on for the past 2 and a half years)? We haven't. And, by using the same sentiment, why haven't we intervened in all and every other civil conflict? We haven't done that either. Just heard Nick Clegg say something along ...
