The Case For Bombing Syria

[Mosaic]

I found this a helpful explanation of why we need to intervene in this war, at this time ie prabably as from 10.00 am today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/30/the-case-for-bombing-isis-explained_n_8681022.html?1448889978

[chelle7272]

Brilliant!

[Mosaic]

It's especially worth looking at the breakdown of the 70,000 'friendlies'

[sandyRoe]

They're convincing, nay compelling, arguments. Why have we delayed so long?

[Mosaic]

Especially given the points about Chilcot.

[Old_Geezer]

I don't mind sarcasm, I use it myself on occasion to emphasise a point, but it all seems so weak and misplaced there.

The aim was never to have a perfect answer to all an areas problems, it is ridiculous to imply it was. One deals with the situation as it is and expects to deal with any further problems that remain after. So point one fails.

The claim was never that no innocent people were ever going to be hurt, it is that the result of the action is less death and injury will occur if the issue is tackled. So point two fails.

It is well known that the situation is complex, and over-simplifying things in order to mock isn't useful. One should be able to count on temporary allies as, as been always the case, groups align with the enemy of their enemy when it suits them. So point three fails.

In the short term the refugee crisis isn't going to be helped by increasing hostilities, but in the long term the hope is to remove the present cause of the conflict which will have a major benefit to the refugee situation. So point four fails.

No one suggests bombing alone is going to solve the situation, and our involvement is more to do with taking up our responsibility to the world instead of shirking it. So point five fails.

Again groups align by looking at who is the enemy of their enemy, and again the situation if complicated and I am sure once this has progress the issue of Assad will become priority once more. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. So point six fails.

And as enquiries, examining from the past to do better in future is totally unrelated to what one has to do to improve present situations. So point seven fails.

I'm unsure that webpage could be called brilliant, unless it was an intend spoof/troll. I guess it was under "comedy", but the concern is that some will actually take it seriously.

[Khandro]

Really infantile!

[dannyk13]

Trivialises a serious situation.

[ichkeria]

I'd already seen this, and it is idiotic

I watched some of the Newsnight debate last night. Two excellent speakers, David Aaronovich and Mary Creagh (both left leaning - the latter a Labour MP of course) were to the point and sensible in their support

[Ric.ror]

Its not even really funny

[Gromit]

I linked with a bit of apprehension but was pleasantly surprised.

It made me laugh, but then I realised I should have.