Another regime to bomb the f**k out of

[alpine_saint]

If you use violence you'll make the problem significantly worse, not better. You don't put a fire out with petrol.

 

No, sorry, I dont buy that.

 

Its a simple matter; in the various campaigns of the last 20 years, not enough planning as to what will be done when the fighting is over has been made. The "bombing" has itself not bee the problem.

 

Winning the peace is in some ways the more tough battle than winning the war.

 

Take Iraq. After the invasion in 2003, the US should have been re-instating electricity, water and santiation, not putting up mobile phone towers.

[Hamilton Saint]

You are full of sh*t. The UK, Italy, France and the US (to a lesser degree) have determined exactly that in the case of Libya. They have decided that they can help bring about regime change by bombing. they are attempting to hit targets that would weaken Gadaffis grip on power, and are not deliberately targetting innocents, something you Gardianistas consistently and spectacularly fail to grasp.

 

The only reasons that they arent trying the same thing in Syria are that they dont have the business interests to protect, there is sod-all chance of lucrative oil contracts, and they are sh*t scared of Iran taking over the country by the back door. All cyncial "realpolitik" reasons that people like you find so easy to discuss in an abstract manner, but all of which make this little boys plight all the more disgraceful.

 

If you dont like me expressing my revulsion over his case, sod off elsewhere and post. I find comments that try to minimise the tragedy of his case by saying almost "well it happens elsewhere too" absolutely disgusting.

 

Stick to the arguments. Insults are not required to make your point.

 

1) I did not say that innocent civilians were being targetted. Innocents do get killed accidentally. But they're still dead - accident or not.

 

2) I don't know why you call my argument a "cynical 'realpolitik' " one. My argument is a moral argument. I oppose real politik rationalisations.

 

3) I did not say I didn't like you expressing your revulsion. I agree with your sentiment. I disagreed with your conclusion.

 

You have clearly misunderstood what I've written, because you mis-characterise my point. Go back and read my posts carefully again. Read what I've said, not what you think I've said. I don't appreciate being told to "sod off" by someone who invited comments and opinions in the original post of this thread. If you cannot think clearly, or read effectively, or argue dispassionately, don't bother initiating debate.