Franglais:
muckles:
njl:
Looks like they have gone ahead regardless of the TNUK poll resultHow many people protested for weeks against going to war in Iraq and they were ignored so Blair could play the big man on the World stage, so what make anybody think they’ll listen to public opinion now?
To play Devil
s Advocate: In this case it seems that chemical weapons were used, and that is the motivation for this attack at this time. (Whether chemical warfare is actually worse than HE or shrapnel type bombs is debatable of course.) Its not against an imaginary threat to us, but against an ongoing attack on civilians.
In this case again it`s not just a US/UK alliance. It has NATO and other supporters.
Invading Iraq was justified because the imaginary WMD’s were supposed to be an immediate threat to the UK people; nobody has said these chemical weapons are an immediate threat to us.
Are chemical weapons worse than other weapons used large scale killing, I’m not sure they all horrify me, I believe cluster bombs are now illegal, but no doubt they’re being used against soft, (civilian) targets somewhere.
What about the Saudi bombing of the Yemen?
What about the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people in Burma?
If we’ve decided to be the moral guardians of the World we’re being a bit selective.
There are many regimes that get thrown out by their own people when they’re left alone to get on with it, but obviously if the new alternative doesn’t fit the geo-political plan of the US then it is opposed, either overtly or covertly.
