On today's The Times front page -

We must help Syria rebels, MPs tell Cameron

Err, would these be the same MPs who defeated a motion when he tried to help them?

In The Know (as always) wrote:
On today's The Times front page -

We must help Syria rebels, MPs tell Cameron

Err, would these be the same MPs who defeated a motion when he tried to help them?

The same sheep who were led into Iraq

One Year and 10 months ago - In The Know wrote:
I posted "Let's Attack Syria"

www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=co...p;limitstart=0#80056


Syria : Half population urgently need aid - UN
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25741225

The UN secretary general says that half of Syria's population, some 9.3 million people, are in urgent need of aid.

Remember what else I said ?

If we don't help them - someone else will.

Look at the hole we have dug through total inaction.

Sorry to say, and I know I am likely to be out of step with most on here for saying this, but I think the world would be a far better place if people spent more time looking after their own affairs/people/problems than sorting out other peoples problems for them. In most cases we are NOT in the position where we know the whole story and I am far from convinced a lot of the time that we even know who the 'goodies' are. There is always two sides to any argument and as most on here would agree the media as is cannot be fully relied upon to tell an unbiased view.

With so many things draining the country financially, HUGE social problems at home and the subject on immigration a hotly debated issue I feel we should learn our lesson from the 'hornets nest' stirred up by the Iraq debacle and stay out of it bar the diplomatic route. Like it or not, the U.K. CAN NOT afford to police the entire world nor can we take in refugees from EVERYWHERE.

I'm sorry if my views seem callous and uncaring but as the old saying goes 'charity begins at home'...

Tony May wrote:
Sorry to say, and I know I am likely to be out of step with most on here for saying this, but I think the world would be a far better place if people spent more time looking after their own affairs/people/problems than sorting out other peoples problems for them. In most cases we are NOT in the position where we know the whole story and I am far from convinced a lot of the time that we even know who the 'goodies' are. There is always two sides to any argument and as most on here would agree the media as is cannot be fully relied upon to tell an unbiased view.

With so many things draining the country financially, HUGE social problems at home and the subject on immigration a hotly debated issue I feel we should learn our lesson from the 'hornets nest' stirred up by the Iraq debacle and stay out of it bar the diplomatic route. Like it or not, the U.K. CAN NOT afford to police the entire world nor can we take in refugees from EVERYWHERE.

I'm sorry if my views seem callous and uncaring but as the old saying goes 'charity begins at home'...

Well said Tony.

Tony May wrote:
but I think the world would be a far better place if people spent more time looking after their own affairs/people/problems than sorting out other peoples problems for them.

So ... we should have just let Hitler get on with it, should we?

I'm sorry if my views seem callous and uncaring but as the old saying goes 'charity begins at home'...

ME, ME, ME ... isn't that what the dolers always say ?

Sod the five million on housing waiting lists - I want my FREE extra bedroom !

Sod the millions being forced from their homes (through fear of murder) - where is my disability living allowance (so I can get my fags and booze) ?

"Charity begins at home" is one of those ghastly phrases I loathe like "you can't have your cake and eat it"... why not? What's the fucking point otherwise. Charity does and should begin at home. But it shouldn't STOP at home. That is the essential truth. Why must we always praise one extreme or the other? Yes, help those in need in Britain AND those in need elsewhere. And if there's not enough aid to go round, create more. Simples.

JK2006 wrote:
"Charity begins at home" is one of those ghastly phrases I loathe like "you can't have your cake and eat it"... why not? What's the fucking point otherwise. Charity does and should begin at home. But it shouldn't STOP at home. That is the essential truth. Why must we always praise one extreme or the other? Yes, help those in need in Britain AND those in need elsewhere. And if there's not enough aid to go round, create more. Simples.

Good point, JK

BUT those "in need" at home are NOT "in need" are they ?

They get FREE housing / FREE money / FREE doctors / FREE dentists / FREE NHS / (and FREE abortions if they are too idle to take the pills that are handed out FREE) .... some get FREE food (so they can spend their food money on drugs etc).

No one in the UK is in desperate need. It's absurd.

What is does show, though, is the greed in society.
No one knows their neighbours anymore (and don't care either). As long as they can grab whatever they can - sod everyone else !

Thought for the day -

If Jesus returned to earth today, would he be with the dossers in Benefit Street, or with the displaced Syrians in a Lebanese refugee camp ?

JK2006 wrote:
[quote]"Charity begins at home" is one of those ghastly phrases I loathe like "you can't have your cake and eat it"... why not? What's the fucking point otherwise. Charity does and should begin at home. But it shouldn't STOP at home. That is the essential truth. Why must we always praise one extreme or the other? Yes, help those in need in Britain AND those in need elsewhere. And if there's not enough aid to go round, create more. Simples.[/quote

I agree and my great heroine Mizz Antionette did as well.

Of course we should help Syrians. Why not?..we should help Syrians, Nigerians, Noo Zeelunders and dolers...but how.

How ITK ?

because invading and blowing up the joint, on past experience, hasn't been very successful.

I knew my point of view on this would be controversial when I posted it but forums like this are intended for voicing opinions and so I said what I feel to be the truth anyway. Good to see one person is in agreement with me anyway.

The point I am making by stating that 'Charity begins at home' is rather like the situation I saw time and time again when as a gambler I would see a rich person dip into their pocket to put money in for some aid appeal or other but would completely ignore or glare at a homeless person sat huddled under a blanket opposite the bookies or the casino. Perhaps when we as a country get everything right here we will be in a position to tell others that their actions are wrong...

We do NOT know the WHOLE story about what is going on in Syria and unless you who are in favour of us intervening AGAIN (you notice its always us!) based on what we are being told by the media (Saddam Hussain had LOADS of weapons of mass destruction, remember?) and want this country to become EVEN MORE of a target for terrorists who see us as autocratic, self righteous and intolerant of difference I suggest diplomacy is the best course of action.

As far as ITK's attack on the unemployed (again - getting boring now ITK) I am not going to get drawn into any further discussions on the subject on here (which is why you will not I have not posted on the Benefits Street thread). No matter what anyone else says, ITK is entrenched in his belief that everything in this country is rosy, prosperity is in abundance and that benefit claimants are simply workshy scroungers. NOTHING I could say is ever going to change that and so, having made my points clearly to him/others, I see little to be gained by repetition.

Lets get this straight, WAR is always the EASY option and is never worthwhile in the long run - PEACE without resorting to violence however is far far more difficult to achieve but ultimately achieves its aim.

Finally JK, it is a physical impossibility to have your cake and eat it. Sadly, there ALWAYS has to be a choice. Personally I would choose to save my own friends/family/countrymen every time before I sought to save others. If more 'cake' can be made that is different but if there is only one cake then there is only one option.

Respectfully,

Tony.

hedda wrote:
Of course we should help Syrians. Why not?..we should help Syrians, Nigerians, Noo Zeelunders and dolers...but how.

How ITK ?

because invading and blowing up the joint, on past experience, hasn't been very successful.

All too little, too late, hedda (as I stated in previous posts).

We ignored the Iranians when they wanted help - and instead propped up the Shah - then, when the freedom fighters won (which they always do) we became pariahs. Even after 30 years the Yanks are still trying to "open the door" with Tehran. It need not have been like this.

With the Syrians - who had months of peaceful protest till their government started killing them - we could have helped sooner. Its TWO YEARS since Obama told Assad to go, and TWO YEARS since he set his "red line" of "no use of chemical weapons".

The Syrian authorities are laughing at him - and the rest of the world.

If we had helped arm the freedom fighters in the first place (as I said at the time) it would have "evened-up" the playing field.

They were fighting a heavily armed force (and air force) with little more than sticks (in the early days). Even then - Assad could NOT crush them. After almost three years Assad (with army, weaponry and air force + chemical weapons !) has STILL not been able to crush the resistance.

I said at the time - if we don't help them - someone else will !

Al Quaeda were listening - and sensing an opportunity to join Afghanistan through Iran and Syria to their allies in Lebanon - and buld a swathe of Islamist states that formed a wall between the east and the west. Now every loony in the world is in Syria.

BUT ... that does NOT make the Syrian people's original demands less valid.

Ironically we may now be forced to accept Assad - as the possible alternative is even worse. What a pathetic situation - being forced to accept someone who we have said (for the last 2 years) must go !

The Syrian people may well be sacrificed on the altar of our apathy.
Lack of action - on our part - has simply caused greater action in others -
WE WILL LIVE TO REGRET THIS (unlike many Syrians).

Can't understand your cake point Tony. You can have your cake and eat it too; it belongs to you so you eat it and you still have it inside your stomach. Why else have it? Or are you saying when it's inside you, you no longer have it? A bloody silly saying. As for Syria, I've always been against invading and killing innocent people but we should be involved in feeding, caring for and housing refugees. At the same time as looking after our own needy.

What is often missed here is the makeup of the various countries concerned.
Syria is like Lebanon,which is like Iraq,which is like Afghanistan etc.Each a diverse mix of race and religion.You enter at your peril.You may help influence if you really know your stuff.Great warrior tribes like the Mongols couldn't even subdue these places,so what chance us?

Obama,at least did make a positive influence in Syria,he's helping rid the area of chemical weapons.God only knows what would happen if the millitant muslims got hold of them? I've toured these areas,spent many months de-mining in Lebanon.They will never work as single country democratic units,too many mixes to make a coherent whole.

The mess continues because the paymasters of the rebels are despot regimes themselves,simply using their oil wealth to destabilize a perceived threat.All it will achieve is a country split into factions,as Iraq has become.We helped the 'rebels' there...and look at the result.

Pattaya wrote:
Obama,at least did make a positive influence in Syria,he's helping rid the area of chemical weapons.

Do you think that, if they hadn't been days away from being bombed, the Syrians would have "willingly" handed over the chemicals?

They have out-maneovred him again !

In The Know wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
Obama,at least did make a positive influence in Syria,he's helping rid the area of chemical weapons.

Do you think that, if they hadn't been days away from being bombed, the Syrians would have "willingly" handed over the chemicals?

They have out-maneovred him again !

Better the devil you know ITK,and better the devil you can easily find....and hurt.

Pattaya wrote:
All it will achieve is a country split into factions,as Iraq has become.We helped the 'rebels' there...and look at the result.

I don't remember any 'rebels' in Iraq !
(It must be what they call the 'fog of war' - where people transpose memories of one situation onto an entirely different situation).

I remember a 'relatively' stable country - which was invaded from outside.
I remember the outsiders 'selecting' a few dissidents (some would call them terrorists) - who would 'kow-tow' and do as they were told - being selected as 'leaders' and these leaders being forced upon the population.
I remember the outsiders claiming that was a great step-forward - a triumph for democracy !!!

Different situations call for different results ... we have been 'frightened' off from foreign intervention because of past (bad) experiences. Even now, I'm not calling for 'boots on the ground' - just a level playing field (I thought we liked democracy? Why won't we allow the Syrians a fair choice?)

It is out moral duty to support people who are fighting for freedom (especially when we can see them being crushed by a much more powerful opposition - and where they have, by their actions, made it clear that they will not give up).

We've already made the decision - Assad must go ! - why do we lack the backbone to support the decision that we made ?

Weren't they called the Kurds?

JK2006 wrote:
Weren't they called the Kurds?

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about them !

BUT ... did they not receive autonomy almost immediately after the invasion (which is what they wanted)? - so are not part of the continuing unstability?

In The Know (as always) wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
All it will achieve is a country split into factions,as Iraq has become.We helped the 'rebels' there...and look at the result.

I don't remember any 'rebels' in Iraq !
(It must be what they call the 'fog of war' - where people transpose memories of one situation onto an entirely different situation).

I remember a 'relatively' stable country - which was invaded from outside.
I remember the outsiders 'selecting' a few dissidents (some would call them terrorists) - who would 'kow-tow' and do as they were told - being selected as 'leaders' and these leaders being forced upon the population.
I remember the outsiders claiming that was a great step-forward - a triumph for democracy !!!

Different situations call for different results ... we have been 'frightened' off from foreign intervention because of past (bad) experiences. Even now, I'm not calling for 'boots on the ground' - just a level playing field (I thought we liked democracy? Why won't we allow the Syrians a fair choice?)

It is out moral duty to support people who are fighting for freedom (especially when we can see them being crushed by a much more powerful opposition - and where they have, by their actions, made it clear that they will not give up).

We've already made the decision - Assad must go ! - why do we lack the backbone to support the decision that we made ?

Nice try ITK,but having been a visitor there a few times you'll just have to cure your amnesia lol.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

Kurds and Marsh Arabs,both encouraged by Daddy Bush,then left to be murdered!

Pattaya wrote:


Kurds and Marsh Arabs,both encouraged by Daddy Bush,then left to be murdered!

So we should just leave the Syrians to be murdered ?