woops, actually meant to post this:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18227556

 

Do we know who murdered those children?

Thats my point too.

I well remember the hysteria whipped up by warmongers Blair and George W. Bush, I don't want to see that again.

About the non existent WMD yes,I doubt very very much the UN Head of mission would have any reason to lie about what UN and civilian observers saw in Houla.

Then it is up to the UN to decide on action not for us to pre-empt official action as this country was tricked into doing before.  We have huge economic problems to deal with before we start to contemplate taking on anything else.

GB are a member state of the UN,if the UN do decide to act then GB will be involved I would assume.

GB decided to act against Iraq despite the UN voting against it, remember?

Yes, they did, as did many other countries. The problem with the UN is that not all the members give a shit about people having to live under brutal dictatorships.

 

So how do you feel about other UN members negotiating with Russia to get rid of Assad, but keep the undemocratic regime in power, because it suits them financially and militarily? 

Dunno

It all sounds soooo messed up, can you blame people if they get disillusioned?

We can't get involved down to emotion, we need REAL evidence that the Syrian government are as bad as the unconfirmed reports are telling us....Fox News and some bozos with an axe to grind is hardly giving me confidence.

Well the UN have been there - they are sure that the mass killings of innocent civilians was done by Government forces - it wasn't just shell fire - children and babies had their throats cut. If the UN's word isn't good enough for you who will you believe?

 

I'm horrified by this and even more horrified that they're getting away with it. This isn't soldiers - this is innocent civilians.

Are the rebels deliberately placing themselves in civilian areas

And then saying - "Look wot they are doing to our children" ?

I think the normal reaction to news like this is to want to do some thing about it, diplomacy has failed, sanctions have failed, so that  only really leaves the invasion route.

 

How can it be right to embark on a conflict that will see many more people murdered, including children, than that have already been slaughtered in Syria, because I do tend to believe it was the work of Assad, have we not learnt from Iraq,Libya,Afghanistan, that  we  killed   civilians,including children.

How can that be right?

 

During my lifetime "we" have encouraged various  peoples to seek "freedom" from oppressive regimes.

As if it were that easy.

As if we had any idea of the game plan.

As if we were certain that they were going to end up with some sort of secular democracy.

Rather like an atom these states are bound up with a lot of energy, split them and there is a huge release of violence.

It has happened in the USSR, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and now North Africa. Whether any of these countries are better off now is a moot point. 

 

EDIT:

 

At least 132,000 civilians have died from 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new study by Brown university. And that’s a conservative estimate.

No one can say with certainty how many civilians have died in these wars. But researchers at Brown’s Watson Institute for International Studies found that between 12,000 and 14,000 of them perished in Afghanistan — the most recent of which came from Tuesday’s audacious insurgent attack on Kabul’s most famous hotel. Another 120,000 died in Iraq. An estimated 35,000 more lost their lives in Pakistan, where the United States is fighting a shadow war against terror groups and militants. (Although the report says it can’t “disaggregate civilian from combatant death” there, which is kind of a big deal.)

But even by the Institute’s own admission, the death toll is far higher. The Institute only counts direct violence that killed civilians — bombings, gunshot wounds, missile strikes, whatever. It doesn’t include indirect deaths, as occur when war creates refugees that can’t find food, clean water or adequate medical care. Nor does it include the lost limbs and emotional suffering that are a part of every war. Nor does it attempt to count civilian deaths in clandestine conflicts like Yemen or Somalia.

 

So maybe rushing in with troops, tanks, aircraft and all guns blazing is maybe not the answer.

But could you ever say to those people who want, or have achieved, more freedom, that they are wrong to try, or that they should keep things as they are? We have gone through the same battles in our history. Our system is still not perfect, but we do have the chance to chuck out those in power, every five years, and we have some access to justice and the freedom to publicise our concerns, if things are going wrong.

No! I'm just saying that we shouldn't be surprised at the outcomes! To those who are suggesting a men on the ground scenario, may I remind you that NATO troops stood idly by whilst the Serbs murdered 7000.

Even worse, they were UN peacekeepers, and we all said, "Never again!"

 

As I said before, I'm not advocating an invasion and I don't think the Syrian people want that, yet. I do think that we need to think about supporting the rebels though and maybe airstrikes against tanks heading for civilian areas. Not sure if that is logistically possible, as it was in Lybia.  Most of the armed rebels are army personnel who have deserted in order to protect the civilians, instead of killing them, as their government wanted. The Russians are happily supplying the murderous regime with military supplies.