This Syria business

With over a 100,000 people killed before chemical weapons had been used, why is it now that morality comes into it?

I'm not sure that the American people have the stomach for another conflict in the middle east. The Yanks love their hunting. It's open season on owt that moves when they get out into the woods but when it comes to a desert environment our Monty was the master.

The Ruski's have given them a way out without losing face so if Obalmy has any sense he will take it.

Watched a programme on BBC world news this morning about Maloula, a town in Syria, where by the rebels now hold it. This is a Christian town with Muslim minority but the rebels have destroyed churches and mosques indiscriminately. They interviewed Christians and Muslims who are fighting and backing Assad and just want their town back.
A couple of programmes I have seen this week on the same are leading me to think that Assad is being painted the bad guy here by the West when the rebels(terrorists if they were attacking us) are the goodies. These "rebels", of which there are many factions, have a main agenda to rule the country as I see it, and have it's inhabitants living in the dark ages!!

I was an NBC (Nuclear, Biological, & Chemical warfare) instructor in the Army, and I can tell you that with the use of chemicals, innocent men, women, and children, (and livestock), are not only being subjected to an indiscriminate, frightening and agonising death, but the survivor's future is also blighted, with many chemicals remaining active for years. When they are used like this, its not an act of war, its murder. It may sound callous, but I'm not overly interested in what a nation's inhabitants do to each other, but this particular move really is a step too far.

gloswhite wrote:I was an NBC (Nuclear, Biological, & Chemical warfare) instructor in the Army, and I can tell you that with the use of chemicals, innocent men, women, and children, (and livestock), are not only being subjected to an indiscriminate, frightening and agonising death, but the survivor's future is also blighted, with many chemicals remaining active for years. When they are used like this, its not an act of war, its murder. It may sound callous, but I'm not overly interested in what a nation's inhabitants do to each other, but this particular move really is a step too far.

Tell that to the wanks! I agree entirely with your comments but where's the substantiation of who used them?
Vietnam, Hiroshima? Kettle and pan?!

Until we are told what the aims and objectives of the rebels are, how can we make an informed opinion ?

Assad is backed by Iran and the Russians, plus he has the support of Hezbollah. The Russians have been fighting their own little war with Chechnya for years.

I suspect the rebels are linked to Al Qaeda. Ousting Assad would simply leave a vacuum for other factions to fill and this in turn, will lead to further conflict.

Egypt had a democratically elected president during elections just over a year ago but  he has been ousted by the military because of his affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood. For a ' so-called ' peaceful religion there seems to be an awful lot of bloodshed caused by its followers.

Reebok Trotter wrote:For a ' so-called ' peaceful religion there seems to be an awful lot of bloodshed caused by its followers.

That'll be Christianity then?

gloswhite wrote: I can tell you that with the use of chemicals, innocent men, women, and children, (and livestock), are not only being subjected to an indiscriminate, frightening and agonising death, but the survivor's future is also blighted, with many chemicals remaining active for years. When they are used like this, its not an act of war, its murder.

You could say that for any of the choices (apart from the last one) that I put up.

So there is certain levels of morality which are dependent on how the innocent person has been killed.

Just change the word chemicals to bullets or shells or bombs.

Cu I voted for the last option, death is death, cancer can be prolonged and painful.
Religion is the mother of all evils, nobody will convince me of any difference. I remember being called an atheist bastard for saying it to a Catholic, ffs need I go on?

Still wondering when we will "punish" Israel for their use of White Phosphorus.

Oh yeah... never.

Copper Dragon wrote:

gloswhite wrote: I can tell you that with the use of chemicals, innocent men, women, and children, (and livestock), are not only being subjected to an indiscriminate, frightening and agonising death, but the survivor's future is also blighted, with many chemicals remaining active for years. When they are used like this, its not an act of war, its murder.

You could say that for any of the choices (apart from the last one) that I put up.

So there is certain levels of morality which are dependent on how the innocent person has been killed.

Just change the word chemicals to bullets or shells or bombs.

Thats not what I'm saying. There is no excuse whatsoever for killing innocent people. I agree that any senseless killing of innocents is vile, but so far its all been for a 'reason'. (no, I don't understand what it is either). Indiscriminate use of a blanket killer, such as chemicals, (could just as easily be biological), gives nobody a chance to flee, hide, or make preparations. The fighting isn't nice, but looking at the civilian population as mere collateral damage, and hitting them with chemicals, is unbelievable. What I can't understand is why the international community step in for this attack, but let them carry on killing with conventional arms, (other than all the combatants turning on those intervening, and treating them as the enemy).

As I see it, the whole business is a crock of shit and it stinketh. It always amazes me how the West ( USA and ourselves ) always seem to pick and choose our fights.

Bob Mugabe has been carrying out genocide against the Matabele tribe in Zimbabwe for over 20 years and he has rigged more elections than Eskimos have had hot dinners, and yet nobody seems to bat an eyelid. Are the Zimbabwean people being persecuted, any less worthy of assistance than the Syrians?

What about the civil war in Rwanda? Genocide carried out on a massive scale but instead of chemical weapons it was machetes. Over 800,000 innocent people were slaughtered in just over 3 months but the Americans were nowhere to be seen..

Do they have  oil in Rwanda ? I agree RT, there's no sense to it, other than whose votes the politicians are chasing at the time.

Sir Robert Mugabe.

It's all to do with mineral wealth. Zimbabwe has no oil and nor does Syria, that's why nobody has got involved. It's only the chemical weapons massacre in Syria which has forced the hand of the West.

Any country with decent oil reserves is a potential client to the West. Taking over a country by force, like Iraq, actually opens the door for the likes of BP and Shell to make millions from crude oil reserves. Repairing the infrastructure of Iraq has created thousands of jobs for the West. Saddam was actually sponsored and backed by America during his conflict with Iran. It was only after he invaded Kuwait that he blotted his copybook.

The rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure was limited to American companies only. Only US companies were allowed to tender for contracts, with, oddly enough, the biggest company to benefit being owned by an American Senator. Britain complained about this arrangement, and were given a few contracts, to keep them happy. Special relationship ? I don't think so.

A bloke that lives round the corner from me is an ex-squaddie. For the last 3 years he has been working as a ' security consultant ' in Afghanistan. He is basically a bodyguard looking after execs and staff from international companies who are making a fortune by rebuilding the infrastructure of the country. He pulls over £3,000 a month but spends 3/4 of the year abroad.

When he left the Army he got a job working on the door at Mr Smiths nightclub in Warrington but the money in Afghanistan was too much for him to turn down.

Whenever there is misery in the world somebody somewhere will be making a profit.