They Cannot Be Syrias?
650 MPs, who have argued for 50 years as to whether they want to be in or out of the European Union, are badgering to be allowed to decide whether to be in out of Syria. They demand a debate, this is the ‘civilised’ method of deciding whether to join the US in bombing Syria back to ‘democracy’. It can’t just be left up to the Prime Minster to decide.
Some of them will come to the debating chamber armed with eloquent speeches that their wives have sat up through the night polishing, full of beautifully pronounced facts on the Ba’ath party; they will fling Salah Jadid’s name around with familiarity; they will be chock full of facts and figures provided by that bastion of truth, the BBC. Others will bob up and down at regular intervals like Meerkats on steroids, anxious to refute everything and anything they say. It will be a wasted effort; enough hot air to set climate change back by years – for the real debate will be over a cup of tea in true British fashion.
In the Westminster Tea Room, MP number 63 will sit at a table armed with a clipboard. MP number 142 will sidle up to him sideways. ‘You still planning to vote against the provision of 7,000 public sector jobs in Lower Piddlington?’ he’ll say. ‘I could be persuaded by the strength of your argument’, number 142 will reply. ’6,500 jobs with reduced pensions do you’? says number 63. ‘You’re on’ says MP 142 ‘up to 150,000 civilian deaths, 3 wedding parties bombed by mistake, and four of our finest soldiers on murder charges, and I’ll vote regime change with you all the way – the things I do for my constituency!’
This is moral superiority in action. Throw in an agreement that ATOS will only call for an inspection on those with less than one leg, and you have democracy in all its hypocritical glory.
It will make no difference to the hapless civilians in Syria whether they are dead as a result of chemical weapons hurled by the Brotherhood of Muslims, Al Qaeda, President Assad, or bombs dropped by the US or UK. They will still be dead. Apparently it makes a difference to our parliamentarians – or it does in the sound bites.
Our methods of killing them are infinitely and effortlessly philosophically superior to other methods. We proved that in Iraq, in Libya, in Serbia. Time and again, our bullets delivered peace, calm, tranquillity and an enhanced ‘shopping experience’ as the local market – and their five year old son – exploded in front of their very eyes.
The Chinese manage to have a vibrant arms industry without frying the nearest Arab, so do the Russians. Why is it that the US and the UK feel the need to stage live demonstrations of their bullets every few years?
Why doesn’t Hague take out a couple of dozen of our fine British soldiers, tie their hands behind their backs with a copy of the Human Rights legislation – and shoot them himself?
He could have a real bloody-hands-on experience of warfare, save the country a fortune not shipping what is left of our military out to Syria, not leave behind several thousand automatic rifles to arm the next ballot box dispute, and the rest of the military could stay home and watch x-factor.
The end result will be just the same. A couple of hundred thousand dead Syrians, and a good few dozen dead sons of England.
Think of the brownie points from the Treasury, BillieBoy!
August 29, 2013 at 09:56
-
“Some of them will come to the debating chamber armed with eloquent
speeches that their wives have sat up through the night polishing”
Thanks for a genuine LOL moment, Anna Raccoon
-
August 29, 2013 at 01:31
-
Without the assistance of the US in WW2 at the very least, we’d all be
speaking German. My only criticism would be the heel-dragging that went on
until Pearl Harbor. But once they were in, they were in for as long as it
took, and now remain mostly front and center in world power, for better or for
worse.
- August 28, 2013 at 13:49
-
A question that has not been asked so far is why didn’t the Assad
government use the much more powerful VX gas they are known to have? Bathtub
Sarin (which Assad does not need as he has the real stuff) worked ‘fairly
well’ when introduced to the Tokyo underground but that is little surprise in
a confined space. Those medical helpers in Syria were unaffected (or so it
seemed on the videos) where as true Sarin would have had some effect. VX is a
quantum leap in lethality. As far as I’m aware there is, fortunately, no
bathtub version of it.
-
August 28, 2013 at 10:01
-
Too true the ‘west’ needs a bogeyman Kaiser/ Hitler/ Communism=Stalin/ MAO/
Mugabe/Pol Pot/Russia/Iran/ Bin Laden=Extreme Islamism/So called Arab Spring
which has sprung us a nasty, nauseating issue to grapple with. Nauseating
actions go on all over this sick world we live in, but we choose this one to
fester over. Best to stand back and worry about ALL suffering humanity and do
our peaceful best to help where we can.
- August 27, 2013 at 22:45
-
.Somebody send . . . . Willy back to Yorkshire, please.
Eyup! We don’t want the pompous whining bugger back.
- August 27, 2013 at 21:38
-
If David Cameron has decided to recall Parliament to take a vote as to
whether the UK should make involvement in Syria I would say he already knows
the outcome of the vote. I also believe it’s the answer he favours. Either way
when it all go’s tits up he can honestly say that the Government made a
democratic decision to enter/not enter hostilities.
Personally I don’t see
any of this as our business and we should keep out of it. The USA used to be
terrified of reds under the beds now it’s anything Arabic. Why can’t they just
leave things alone? This is the business if at all of the Arab league and they
should sort it out between themselves but as usual they are too cowardly and
never seem to have offer their help at mediation. The UK Government and US
Presidency should be careful what they wish for. No one knows who is
responsible for the chemical attacks or where it is. As far as I know someone
is still looking for mass weapons of destruction in Iraq. One thing’s for sure
both sides in this Syrian conflict will despise the west, if not now,
eventually. It does seem normal these days that every UK Prime minister and
USA President expects a war during their tenure. Meanwhile it wouldn’t
surprise me if Mrs Assad isn’t just too busy at Harrods sale.
-
August 27, 2013 at 21:58
-
Perhaps you forget that the West always needs a ‘bogey-man’.
After the fall of the USSR, they’ve had to hunt randomly around other
parts of the planet to make sure that there’s always a bogey-man in stock,
justifying all manner of profligate military expenditure (with associated
kick-backs and ‘lubrication’) and a wide range of contraints on personal
liberties. Even if Assad is ‘changed’, another one will soon be identified
to continue the ‘good works’, and so on, ad infinitum.
-
August 27, 2013 at 23:07
-
Yes, Muddplugger ‘Colonel Bogey(man)!’ I wonder if yes, war makes money
for Governments but not for the population perhaps. The Swiss seem to have
a very good quality of life and have stayed out of conflicts at home and
abroad for a very long time. The same seems to go for other countries that
are so called tax havens. Maybe tax havens have to remain neutral so that
all the war mongering countries can stash their ill earned booty in them.
The west could have resolved this conflict in Syria at the beginning but
chose to watch it escalate so that it would be more profitable. I feel
sorry for the people of Syria who are suffering so badly.
-
August 27, 2013 at 21:30
-
Well, since Mr. Al-Sabah sent this letter to the Financial Times, things
are made SO much clearer. Have a nice day.
- August 27, 2013 at 21:27
-
One question I have not seen answered anywhere, what is there in Syria that
the Saudis need? There has to be something if they are willing to try and buy
off the Russians with leadership in the oil industry.
- August 28, 2013 at 09:45
-
A Sunni majority?
- August 27, 2013 at 20:17
-
Back to basics. The (alleged) Sarin nerve gas caused about 10% fatalities.
The real stuff wipes out 85%+ . This was almost certainly ‘bathtub’ Sarin and
as Assad has the real stuff it should give those in Parliament something to
think about (hopefully). What the Coagulation er, Coalition knows about
military matters is on a par with New Labour. Nothing, zero, zilch…. What do
they think intervention can possibly achieve? I despair.
-
August 27, 2013 at 21:13
-
To quote WikiP RE: The Tokyo Subway Sarin Incident
“In five coordinated attacks, the perpetrators released sarin on several
lines of the Tokyo subway, killing thirteen people, severely injuring
fifty and causing temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand
others. ” ……………..
“On Monday March 20, 1995, five members of Aum Shinrikyo launched a
chemical attack on the Tokyo subway, one of the world’s busiest commuter
transport systems, at the peak of the morning rush hour. The chemical agent
used, liquid sarin, was contained in plastic bags which each team then
wrapped in newspaper. Each perpetrator carried two packets totaling
approximately 900 millilitres of sarin, except Yasuo Hayashi, who carried
three bags. Aum originally planned to spread the sarin as an aerosol but did
not follow through with it. A single drop of sarin the size of a pinhead can
kill an adult.
Carrying their packets of sarin and umbrellas with sharpened tips, the
perpetrators boarded their appointed trains. At prearranged stations, the
sarin packets were dropped and punctured several times with the sharpened
tip of the umbrella. Each perpetrator then got off the train and exited the
station to meet his accomplice with a car. By leaving the punctured packets
on the floor, the sarin was allowed to leak out into the train car and
stations. This sarin affected passengers, subway workers, and those who came
into contact with them. Sarin is the most volatile of the nerve
agents,[citation needed] which means that it can quickly and easily
evaporate from a liquid into a vapor and spread into the environment. People
can be exposed to the vapor even if they do not come in contact with the
liquid form of sarin. Because it evaporates so quickly, sarin presents an
immediate but short-lived threat.[12]”
My bold.
- August 29, 2013 at
14:20
-
The important thing to remember about the surprisingly low-casualty
Tokyo attack is that the subway’s ventilation system would have begun
dispersing the sarin almost immediately. If the targets are hiding in
unventilated cellars and dugouts (as is likely if they expect conventional
shelling) then much higher casualty levels will result.
-
August 27, 2013 at 18:49
-
I find it worrying that a Tory PM is sooo ‘frit’ that he feels he has to
allow Parliament its say (which history shows us is usually a bad move) on
whether or not we should go to war/make limited air strikes/leave a sharply
worded message on Twitter @ Assad. The PM has the Royal Prerogative for a
reason and if he feels that we should declare war on Syria,Outer Backwardstan
or Sunderland then it has to be upon his say so and upon his head (oh for the
days when Prime Ministers truly did put their head on the block and not just
in the political sense).
“Representative Democracy” be damned. What will happen the next time the
Argentinians decide to invade the Falklands? I can remember how the Left
wanted to appease the invaders even back then. Whatever you may think of Mrs T
, she stepped up, made the call -knowing full well the fate of the Island, the
Islanders and thousands of troops on both sides were her burden. No ‘peace in
our time’ appeasement, no listening to the turncoats of both parties in the
house.
Can you really see Dave having the balls to ignore a ‘no’ vote? Well, not
unless Obama tells him to of course.
- August 27, 2013 at 19:22
- August 27, 2013 at 20:03
-
“….declare war on….Sunderland.”
Well, it would keep the transport costs down a bit. Mind you, declaring
Sunderland to be a chemical dump is maybe a tad harsh.
- August 27, 2013 at 20:12
-
Probably muddled it up with Redcar
- August 27, 2013 at 21:18
-
There was a fundamental difference in the Falklands in that the Islands
were British territory. Whether you agree on ownership of the Falklands is
another debate but at that time Margaret Thatcher was defending what
belonged to the British and the people who live(d) on the Islands wanted to
remain British.
-
August 27, 2013 at 18:21
-
This seems to be a long standing issue that will not be easily resolved by
an appeal to authority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQ_Ja02gTY
- August 27, 2013 at 17:24
-
Anna. If this post is something you’d really rather not have here, please
feel free to remove it
If anyone here is sure that the Assadists should removed, and that what was
a relatively stable country not too long ago will be ever so much better with
him gone, go and take a look at some of the joys that await the average Syrian
if the other lot win. You can find some of them on Liveleak. If you haven’t
got a strong stomach, or have mental health issues, for goodness sake, DON’T
LOOK! We can all mentally ascribe to the fact that some of what these people
are reported as being capable of doing is probably gut wrenching, but seeing
them in action is a different ball game entirely
The thought that we might even take sides at all is bad enough, but
supporting that lot really takes the biscuit
- August 27, 2013 at 17:45
-
Feel free to speak your mind Ho Hum.
I find the whole lot of them, including the UK and US hawks, utterly
abhorrent.
Can they really be Syrias? They will stop the killing by killing?
- August 27, 2013 at 17:49
-
Thanks Anna. I’m happy to speak my mind.
But if you had felt that you didn’t want to point people in the
direction, however indirectly, of some of the appalling stuff that can be
found out there, I’d have had no problem with you removing the cross
reference. Not everyone is up to it.
- August 27, 2013 at 17:11
-
Assad’s dictatorship was pretty foul and it would be good to see the back
of him. But this is a job for the Arab League and possibly Turkey, not for
us.
We should leave the Arabs to sort out their own problems.
- August 27, 2013 at 17:09
-
When you see the political incongruities thrown up in this mess, one could
almost think David Icke was on to something
- August 27, 2013 at 15:43
-
I’m with Jo Public on the idea of a fact finding tour for every last one,
no hangers back, provided we could find one or both sides in Syria to target
them. Remember how wellnBelgium did without a government.
- August 27, 2013 at 15:26
-
forgive my youth
but even in the event of arming the rebels ( doing so with the implicit
understanding that we are sending weapons to al-qaeda)
or not , is there
not a possibility of a repeat of afghanistan , with a al-qaeda controlled
country , a terror attack and another 10 year war .
personally it seems that if we arm anyone , we arm the syriac christians .,
my assumption is that assuming that the rebels want to expul them from syria
and could easily do so , they prefer assad ,if you assure the syriac
christians of security without assad needing to rule , you could erode his
support base and weaken what he can get away with.
- August 27, 2013 at 13:59
-
It’s all O’Barmy’s fault. If he hadn’t opened his big mouth and said,
“Don’t use nasty whizz-bangs, or I’ll….I’ll….I’ll DO something!” we could just
let them sort it out themselves, which in the end, they’ll have to do
anyway.
Now we’ll end up lobbing Cruise missiles at them, which seems to me like
trying to deal with a wasp’s nest by poking it with a small stick. All it’ll
do is irritate the parties behind all the violence; the ones trying to control
things from outside Syria.
The UK’s biggest mistake was appointing Blair as Middle East Peace Envoy.
Fat lot of good that did, didn’t it?
- August 27, 2013 at 14:14
-
“Now we’ll end up lobbing Cruise missiles at them”
How will they know which side to lob the Cruise at?
- August 27, 2013 at 14:57
-
I think that’s already decided, it’s the Syrian side.
- August 27, 2013 at 20:19
-
Both, or all of them.
-
August 27, 2013 at 15:36
-
According to somebody pontificating on Radio 4 yesterday (not sure who,
or on what programme – I was only listening with half an ear) we are going
to target the chemical weapon stores, which we’ve been busy locating for
the last few months. Now, I know I’m only a piffling engineer, and
something of a know-nothing when it comes to the nitty-gritty of
international warfare, but this did raise a number of questions in my
mind. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if we had special forces
reconnoitering in Syria, but even for these chaps finding out secrets of
this nature must be a bit hit and miss. I suppose we could just look up
some suitable buildings with barbed wire round them on Google Earth and
hope for the best.
If by some chance we actually hit one of these dumps, what happens when
our whizz-bang goes off and spreads the chemicals all over the
neighbourhood? Even more colateral damage we dismiss with a shrug in Prime
Ministerial press briefings? O’Barmy saying, “See. I told you I’d DO
something….”
Should have stayed well out of it. Somebody send Dave back to Cornwall,
and Willy back to Yorkshire, please.
- August 29, 2013 at
09:50
-
Many chemical weapons are binary compounds requiring ‘mixing’ before
deployment/launch. In storage, they are usually relatively inert and
safe. Having said that, depending on their type, location, most will be
destroyed if hit with an appropriate and correctly sized weapon. However
you’re correct, collateral damage is still a very REAL risk.
I think the pontificating radio head is wrong. Its unlikely we (or
our colonial cousins) would strike known chemical weapon sites – and
lets not forget, some of these stocks could be held in unknown locations
like a small garage in downtown Damascus – it’s really the sort of thing
you need to be on the ground to do successfully.
Targets are likely to be Government buildings, party headquarters and
a couple of Assad’s palaces etc… and the Chinese TV studios (oops).
- August 27, 2013 at 22:26
-
“…The UK’s biggest mistake was appointing Blair as Middle East Peace
Envoy…”
Agreed: that was on a par with appointing Harold Shipman as Minister for
the Elderly.
- August 27, 2013 at 12:48
-
Another war is necessary to reinvigorate the ailing American economy.
Despite brave words about recovery, it’s toast without increased
military-industrial activity. So there must be bullets and bombs to replace
and it really doesn’t matter to the black dude where they were spent.
- August
27, 2013 at 12:50
-
Quite right, Ed. Totally agree.
- August 27, 2013 at 12:46
-
And the next wave of immigrants to UK will be…. Syrian! To enrich our
diverse multi-culti. I noticed the French were making a big noise about
getting involved. I wonder if that will get past the making a noise stage? I
bet all the authors of the guff about the “Arab spring” are feeling a right
bunch of charlies now.
- August 27, 2013 at 12:25
-
I’ve found myself changing a bit over this one. Assuming it’s a proxy war –
that between Saudi Arabia & Iran – Sunni vs Shia – isn’t it inevitable
that it’s gonna go tits up eventually. Apparently Iran have got 15,000
centrifuges but have yet to obtain the uranium to make weapons but that can
only be a matter of time, you’d have thought. Assuming that then the ‘window’
for assymetric war is dwindling relatively fast. If it can somehow be
manipulated so that Iran does get involved, through Hezbollah or whoever, then
it would seem an opportune moment to go. It does though make you wonder why
they don’t have their own wars. We & the Yanks have sold so much shit to
Saudi Arabia and Israel and both of them are effectively using us as their
armed military (back room deals a plenty – or just bribed corruption – either
way) and both of them are on the same side on this one – although the bastards
haven’t got the balls to even say it – then why don’t they just box it off.
There’d be no need for ‘troops on the ground’ as all they’d need to do would
be to defend their borders, which are going to be threatened anyway, and this
shit could be sorted out relatively quickly. I dunno – the cassus beli is
obviously bollx but I guess in the war industry you take what you’re offered.
Ho hum – and with muffled drum and all that jazz.
-
August 27, 2013 at 14:22
-
Mugabe said he was going to give Iran the uranium. When the black dude
huffed and puffed, he quickly denied it. Yesterday he said if the wicked,
evil west doesn’t let his wife Grace shop for shoes at Bloomingdales, he was
going to “hit back”. Quote: “They hit us, we’ll hit back”. Apparently the
Chinese are going to help them get the uranium out of the ground. Curious
and curiouser and rabbit holes everywhere.
-
August 27, 2013 at 16:24
-
If Billy and Barry are hell bent on bombing someone, they should cut out
the middleman and simply encourage Israel to nuke Iran. That would remove
the main instigator of most of the problems in the region, including the
current Syrian clusterfuck.
-
August 27, 2013 at 18:55
-
But some would say that the presence of Israel is really the root-cause
of all the problems emanating from that region, so what would encouraging
them to nuke Iran achieve, apart from making it even worse ?
- August 27, 2013 at
19:28
-
I have a question for you – if Israel was created as a response to
the horrors of the holocaust – why didn’t they create it in the middle
of Germany?
- August 27, 2013 at 19:46
-
In a book called In Siberia (Colin Thubron, 1999), one of the
places suggested as the new Jewish homeland after WWII was Siberia.
Yes Siberia. There is still a small settlement of people there who
though it a great idea. Just imagine what they could have done in
Siberia with all the money they’ve spent on that sorry piece of desert
they now inhabit.
- August 27, 2013 at 11:54
-
Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
I’d rather be damned for don’ting.
But that’s just me talking. And 85% of the British population.
Which means that we start bombing in three days. How else will we test the
efficiency of those Tomahawks? And increase sales?
If you are Syrian, or a badger, for that matter, run. Run like hell. The
bad men with guns are coming.
CR.
- August
27, 2013 at 12:50
-
Just a thought, Cap’n : Perhaps we could get the Americans to shoot the
badgers instead – or would there be too much of the usual ‘collateral
damage’? That’s doublespeak for couldn’t hit a barn door from inside the
barn, isn’t it?
And since when did the views of 85% of the population count for anything?
And they have the cheek to lecture us about democracy…
- August 27, 2013 at
12:52
-
Shoot the badgers? – we wouldn’t have a farmer left in the country! Or
a cow.
-
August 27, 2013 at 14:02
-
Make it interesting. Arm the badgers!
-
August 27, 2013 at 11:08
-
As usual for me when it comes to anything really serious, I am half which
way and half the other. But I had to laugh when I read Tony Blair’s advice
today when he said that his way of dealing with Iraq was the way to go. That
alone would be enough to tell anyone to stay out of it.
However, it might
be a good idea to find out who done it first.
- August
27, 2013 at 10:54
-
If Cameron takes us in to Syria, he should be lynched. It’s none of our
business. In any case, there’s four explanations for the chemical attack :
(1) The government did it
(2) The rebels did it to discredit the
government
(3) Al Qaeda did it to escalate the war so they can kill
Americans
(4) The Americans did it to piss off the russians and Chinese and
justify another war to keep their armies employed
Of course, if there’s any doubt we could always get Alistair Campbell to
sex it up…
- August 27, 2013 at 10:59
-
If indeed it was a chemical attack. I agree it would be enormously
difficult to fake such an attack, but at this juncture I couldn’t trust any
of the combatants to tell me the day accurately.
Does anybody doubt that if Assad was defeated, the government that
replaced him would be even worse?
- August
27, 2013 at 11:33
-
Oh, no doubt.
- August 27, 2013 at 17:01
-
You missed ‘Rebels/government sympathisers embedded in the other side’s
forces did it’.
Sometimes our politicians seem to be as naive as think that we are too
stupid to realise that Johnny Foreigner can be quite as clever as us and the
naughty tricks we managed to employ in past wars, and probably even more so
when not telling the truth to ensure the advancement of your creed etc is an
authorised, acceptable means of achieving your end
-
August 27, 2013 at 10:34
-
I cannot see any purpose in Britain getting involved in Syria. Leaving
aside the rights and wrongs of the Basra and Helmand interventions, the fact
is Britain made a complete arse of them and ended up getting bailed out by the
US on both occasions. David Cameron should pretending anybody is worried about
Britain’s might and strength, and stop wasting soldiers lives and cash on
matters that do not concern us.
- August
27, 2013 at 12:46
-
I always remember the well known war correspondent, John Simpson, and the
conversation he had with his father when he told him what he was going to
do. “Remember one thing, son” he was told. “Don’t stand in front of the
Americans!”
And then there was my late father’s comment about WW2. “Every time the
Yanks went it, we had to send the Guards in to dig them out!”
I agree with your sentiments, DD, but fear you might have it the wrong
way around. I think we’re there to bail out the laughably undisciplined and
incompetent rabble that is the US Armed Forces, not the other way
around.
- August 27, 2013 at 14:12
-
I recognise there is national pride at stake, but Basra and Helmand are
genuine failures, and there is no point kidding ourselves on. See this
book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Losing-Small-Wars-Military-Afghanistan/dp/0300182740/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377608876&sr=1-1
Which is just another reason for not going to Syria: we cannot bring
anything to the table militarily, especially not after the recent
cuts.
- August 27, 2013 at 16:16
-
‘And then there was my late father’s comment about WW2. “Every time the
Yanks went it, we had to send the Guards in to dig them out!” ‘
Tell that one to the 82nd Airborne dead around Nijmegen who cleared the
bridge at such great cost for the Guards Armoured, and the 101st Airborne
dead who held open the road from Eindhoven for XXX Corps to relieve our
boys at Arnhem. Tell it also to the American dead behind Omaha and Utah
beaches and through the rest of Normandy and Germany. Not forgetting the
approx 30,000 dead of The US 8th Air Force all over Europe. Sweeping
generalizations are dangerous. Without the Americans we might still be
fighting WWII.
-
August 28, 2013 at 22:31
-
Spot on. What a daft comment. Unworthy of a seat in this Pub.
-
August 27, 2013 at 18:47
-
You have just revealed your late father was a fool, or more likely a
jingoist.
A thorough reading of British war history usually reveals it was the
Australians, New Zealand, Canada, Poland or South Africans seconded to the
incompetent brit generals that secured victory. And lets not forget
without US and Russian assistance you would have assuredly lost both WW1
and WW2.
-
August 27, 2013 at 20:48
-
I must agree with the comments above. The American military did get
us right out of trouble in WW2 and probably WW1 although I admit I have
not read much military history for WW1. I would recommend you read Max
Hastings ‘All hell let lose.’ It will give you a full understanding of
each theatre of war during WW2. During the conflict the Russians had the
most God awful time during the 1st front it was appalling, and even
though Stalin was in it for himself, in it the Russians were. The UK,
however did fight valiantly on, and alone for some good time but
everyone in Government knew that without, firstly aid from USA and then
full involvement we could not have survived. There was in fact more men
in the UK than on active service overseas in readiness either for an
invasion or for the 2nd front. It was a concerted effort but a very
different war than any that would be fought today as all battles through
out the ages are. I’m afraid however, that men and of course these days
women too are killed from so called friendly fire from all nations
comprising the allies. It will always be inevitable.
-
August 28, 2013 at 09:01
-
As an oldie it does seem that the US has saved Europe, us too, from
serious continent wide nastiness twice in the 20th century at great
expense to itself in casualties and cash, and then spent decades
protecting us all in the Cold War. There does seem to be very little
respect for this. The ultimate insult perhaps is the claim that the eu
has ensured peace for decades.
Yeah, I know, it’s supposed to be
about Syria.
Just a view.
- August 29, 2013 at
14:13
-
Without Russian ‘assistance’ the 1914 Balkan conflict would never
have become a world war, as the Austrians would have administered a
well-deserved kicking to the terrorist-supporting Serbian military
without any other major power becoming involved (and setting off a whole
slew of mutual defence treaties).
- August 27, 2013 at 10:13
-
Meerkats on steroids !!!! —-fine form this morning Anna!!!!!
- August 27, 2013 at 10:02
-
We need to send all 650 on a 3-month fact-finding tour.
- August 27, 2013 at 15:40
-
This ‘suggests’ that we want them to come back and report, wouldn’t one
way tickets be more preferable?
-
August 27, 2013 at 17:52
-
Only 3 months???? What about a full year? We want them to be thorough
with their fact-finding after all…
- August 27, 2013 at
19:25
{ 66 comments }