I don't know the history, but I suspect Churchill may have been in a better position to be able to take action than the players involved today.
:-D
I think he would have .
I'm not English, but I feel that my English friends choose to let the Syrian Dictator kill more civilians. I think Churchill would made a different choice...
Thanks for that. Gorgeous George is a bit of a nutter, but here he's right on the mark. So much hypocrisy, and all in the end about power and money. Disgraceful.
Then you accept the 'crimes' they too commit without protest?
The chemicals that make the weapons were sold by the UK, some even in 2013.
The USA used so much 'Agent Orange' in Viet Nam that a corridor still exists east to west across the country. When I worked in VN I saw many adults burned by chemical weapons, innocence is not all it seems. The USA used some chemicals in Iraq too. It is the hypocrisy that shocks me.
I like America too, and it makes me extremely sad to see what is happening there.
Read this report produced by Stanford and New York University and then see what you think.
Have a look at this John. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I6qMCb14K3s#t=336
My only comment is god bless America
So why did the US not react like this when chemical weapons were used in against the Kurds in Iraq? And why should you want the US, the pre-eminent masters of extra-judicial killing right now with their drones, to make things worse by intervening in Syria? And who should be punished exactly?
Syria is a mess, but don't make it worse by getting involved. And anyway, who would you support, once you knew definitely who was behind it? They have been killing each other there for two years now. What does the use of these chemicals change, and why?
Everyone should be unhappy at countries who misbehave, ignore international law and human rights law, who commit war crimes, and who kill innocent people. Syria falls into this category, but so unfortunately does America.
They have crossed 100 years on standard international behaviour. Thank god the US and France remember those who were murdered in the trenches in the first world war through chemical warfare. Failure to act equals accepting terrorists to use chem weapons in UKL USA France etc. No one would be happy then.
That would be an excellent idea if there were a UN resolution to make it legal, and if it were actually possible to punish the appropriate people. Otherwise, no matter how heinous the crime, nobody has the right to be the global policeman. I'm still wondering however why this particular method of killing several people is so much worse than all the others who have already been killed, and why exactly it's a terrible crime from the US point of view now while it wasn't before when Iraq did it. Complicated, no easy answers.
I will only sign a petition that SUPPORTS the US and France dealing with this heinous crime.
I've signed it too, but sadly, I think that the US will do what it's masters in that region tell it to do, and that's very disturbing.....
Hope it makes the million, would be another three days at a guess.
Now up to almost half a million signatures! Amazing in such a short time!!
Over 190,000 now.
Thanks for mentioning the AVAAZ petition!
I agree with John Hope-Falkner above: democracy has done what it's supposed to do.
In the end, Cameron scored a moral victory when he went to the Parliament with a resolution to support military action in Syria and didn't get it. It was a triumph of democracy, due process and common sense.
And look, Obama followed Britain's example, and so did Hollande. Voices in France ask if it's not time to think of a 6th republic and change 'the monarchical republic' to something more like 'parliamentary monarchy'.