I'm sure the sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters of the resulting dead and injured will be absolutely delighted that their relations were ripped to pieces by conventional weapons rather than chemical weapons. It'll give them all a warm glow inside. Chemical weapons are bad. We all know it. But could someone please explain to me how raining down a barrage of conventional weapons on top of those chemical weapons helps anyone living in Syria? We proved with the Iraq debacle that our 'intelligence' can't tell the difference between a chemical weapons plant and a factory making fluffy toys. If we bomb the place we'll be killing innocent Syrian civilians by the thousands. Not to mention radicalising thousands more Muslims who over the coming years will blow themselves and everyone around them to pieces in our towns and cities. For the sake of everyone living on this fantastic planet could the western governments please take a step back you ******* lunatics.
Radio 4 earlier (yes I am an old fart) played audio of Parliament debating taking action in Iraq from 2003 - in particular Blair spinning his crap about WMD etc - it seems we've learnt nowt in between, but the precedent has been set - so get ready. Instead of ensuring the rebels either pop Assad off or get him negotiated out of there. Still, it won't be the politicians getting blown up and maimed. As per.
Radio 4 - only radio station I listen to these days (apart from Barnsley commentaries on Radio Sheffield). Proper look forward to when Sandi Toksvig is on doing summat or other. I am the oldest and smelliest of farts. Although I still can't stand the plays or The Archers (quality theme tune though).
Eddie Mair kicks ass. I always ensure I catch Thought for The Day. I used to be **** faced most nights, shagging owt that moved. Caught me by surprise my move into disgruntled middle age
Unfortunately, war is brilliant for the economy of the UK and particularly the USA and due to the massive disparity in weapons technology there is only ever going to be one winner. The only time it could get difficult for the Western countries is if Russia and/or China decided to join in on the opposing side, but that is extremely unlikely. Going back to the WMD thing - I could never understand why the USA didn't just plant a load of these things in an old warehouse in a remote part of Iraq? We get lied to every day by the government so no-one would have been any the wiser and both countries could have avoided the massive uproar it caused when they admitted that the reason they had gone to war in the first place didn't actually exist.
I received an email from my MP Lynne Featherstone, asking my opinion before she goes into the House of Commons tomorrow to debate the crisis in Syria. Giving me a full 18 hours to formulate a reply, I simply said that while the current regime needs removing as quickly as possible it has to be under the guidance of the UN and any military action has to be in the interest of preserving innocent lives, not destroying them. We need to go with aid and establish viable refugee camps before even thinking about attacking the government.
They'll be hoping to get it done in the same way as Libya which was over so quickly that your average man on the street probably wasn't aware that we even attacked them. Depends on the reaction of the people though, in Libya the vast majority of people were against the regime, I get the impression that isn't the case in Syria. Once you send in ground forces history tells you it will be a war that will last several years at least, although I'd guess either UK or US special forces are on the ground as we speak to confirm targets and gather intelligence.
It's such a complex matter. If, as it appears, that Assad has been using chemical weapons against his own people then can we really stand back and just let it happen? What would have happened had we taken that view in 1939? But then I also see the arguments for not getting invovled and those parallels with Iraq, but this isn't Iraq, this isn't based on some dodgy intellegence, this is looking pretty certain and we don't seen to be talking about invasion or even regime change. However, the danger also appears to be that the rebels are Al Qaeda, so it's hardly a case of our enemies enemy is our friend. It's one hell of a fecked up situation and I honestly don't know what to think about it.
These debates are just a box ticking exercise in the illusion of democracy, our submarines will already be in position with weapons armed awaiting Dave's signal.
I'd like to think this is the reason we intervene - to stop them destroying each other. It isn't though, it's all financial. Funny how when a conflict starts to go quiet, there's always another one a few years later. It's been like that for the last 300 years at least.
