Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
They just can't resist interfering can they?
Yes, I know it's not for weapons, but I can't help feeling the money could have been better employed by the Red Cross/Crescent and other aid agencies.
Question: When does a rebel become a freedom fighter?
We're giving money to these people because they are quite literally fighting for their lives. The Syrian regime will not stop killing the citizens they call 'rebels' - people who simply want what most others want, the right to self determination via a democratic society. Our actions are being taken on humanitarian grounds, but if you choose to call that "interfering" it's your affair.
I call it helping to stop a murderous regime from systematically slaughtering citizens who want a say in the running of their own country in their homes and on the streets.
Is not "regime change illegal by force"?
We do seem to have lots of spare cash to help foreigners.
Have you seen how France & Greece are helping non locals in todays press?
I have a friend who on a visit to Boston asked that very question and got very short change. He suggested the Patriots might very well have been traitors and it didn't go down well.
I had a bit of a shock when I saw a Noriad collecting tin on a bar in Boston the day after the bombing @ Enniskillen. The IRA had long been seen as freedom fighters to Irish Americans...
The Syrian 'conflict' is as distasteful as any. The problem I have is that I don't know which side of the Security Council fence to fall. Do I
- Support Russia & China by preferring Syria to manage its own affairs. Or
- Follow the ever increasing rhetoric of most of the rest of the world and encourage a more decisive conflict
The crux of the issue is this: for every bit of resource which is allocated away from the UK, someone here gets hurt. Be it dying of cancer because of lack of drugs funding, starvation through lack of welfare benefits, or a child beaten and social services didn't have the funding to properly investigate a report of abuse.
On the other hand of course, for every bit of resource that brings the Syrian conflict to a quicker end, it might turn out that less people will be affected by the bitter fist of a tyrant. It's just that those people will not be in Britain.
So, do you support more resource in your home country, or just accept that we're all humans and therefore it doesn't matter where the resource goes, as long as it helps keep people alive (with the possibility of living with the illusion of freedom....to paraphrase the Pope)
But we are actually helping the rebels to wage war. A civil war in another country should be of no interest to us whatever.
It is just throwing good money after bad.
As the UN seems to be toothless, we should get out of that organisation too. (Then the Americans and the Russians/Chinese can sort it out).
How often has it been said on these forums that we are no longer a leading power in the World? If that is the case then let the powers that are leading sort out Syria. I notice Iran is joining in with Syria too. That's all we need. (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan....Where the hell is it all going to end? Nuclear war perhaps?
Russia has a vested interest in keeping the current Syrian regime. It has access to a naval base at Tartus and has recently reinforced the number oof their marines protecting it. They also have large arms sales to Syria which in turn keeps a large number in work.
Huffington Post article appears to be a fair summary.
5 million wasted. had the rebels had no outside support there would have been no civil war
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.