[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by internetguru)
It is the job of a country's government to keep their people safe. Sacrificing British lives to save lives other countries is reckless and traitorous.

First and foremost, yes, but as countries that are much better off in terms of development and ability to help, it could be argued we have a moral responsibility to help those being treated so poorly by their own government.
Traitorous? How so?

[internetguru]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
First and foremost, yes, but as countries that are much better off in terms of development and ability to help, it could be argued we have a moral responsibility to help those being treated so poorly by their own government.
Traitorous? How so?

Let the US deal with it why should a smaller country with a weaker military such as the UK get involved? The US didn't want us in Iraq yet we begged them to bring us along it really makes us look pathetic. We would kill more civilians than we save so the whole moral argument is ridiculous. Look at Iraq and other countries we have invaded they are still in a mess years later. As long as we remain part of the UN we must respect international law and invading Syria would be breaking it. So either we don't invade or we leave the UN.

It is traitorous as we are giving up the lives of our people who place their faith in us to keep them safe.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by internetguru)
We would be breaking UN law and be deemed the bad guys. Also saving a few Syrian lives (although inevitable more people will die if there is a war) is not worth giving up British lives.

Currently yes however should the Russian position soften then i would strongly support NATO intervening (Turkey seems very willing).

(Original post by Moleman1996)
I'd also support war against Syria.

Brilliant, the one universal human right that i believe in is the right for each and every person to be able to fairly elect their leader, be it a lefty loon or the modern day democratic Hitler.

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Against Syria, or against the present Syrian régime?

Essentially to remove the current Syrian regime.

(Original post by internetguru)
It is the job of a country's government to keep their people safe. Sacrificing British lives to save lives other countries is reckless and traitorous.

The UK has the 4th largest military budget and is fully capable of leading a NATO taskforce in Syria. As long as the UK is capable i will not support us just sitting by and watching a government commit genocide on its own people. Rather than being traitorous to intervene i believe that to not intervene is nothing short of a betrayal of other members of our own species, democracy is a fundamental universal right.

[Birchington]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Cleggselvania? Is that where they put promises on spikes to warn people from making them in public?

I would assume so. I support what the party stands for, but not Clegg's decision which I still vehemently disagree with.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Cleggselvania? Is that where they put promises on spikes to warn people from making them in public?

PRSOM

(Original post by Moleman1996)
I'd also support war against Syria.

Because what we need is another war.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
PRSOM



Because what we need is another war.

Well, although i try to avoid major wars, they sort out economic problems, and with global econmic crisis's it took World War 2 last time...

We don't exactly need the Syrians to hate us for letting Assad carry on when they've deposed him though, do we?

[internetguru]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
Well, although i try to avoid major wars, they sort out economic problems, and with global econmic crisis's it took World War 2 last time...

We don't exactly need the Syrians to hate us for letting Assad carry on when they've deposed him though, do we?

WW2 didn't help simply because it was a war. Everything was destroyed, taxes were crazily high, the state was enlarged etc. If you really think a war can solve economic problems you are admitting that socialism works as that is the result of a world war.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by internetguru)
WW2 didn't help simply because it was a war. Everything was destroyed, taxes were crazily high, the state was enlarged etc. If you really think a war can solve economic problems you are admitting that socialism works as that is the result of a world war.

nope, not that socialism works, but that the increase in the arms industry needed to produce weapons and ammunition solves mass unemployment, and that increased army personnel also helps to solve unemployment. In fact its the opposite of promoting socialism, it promotes capitalism as millions can be made from the war effort.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
Well, although i try to avoid major wars, they sort out economic problems, and with global econmic crisis's it took World War 2 last time...

We don't exactly need the Syrians to hate us for letting Assad carry on when they've deposed him though, do we?

I really don't think that we should get involved in Syria. Really the best we should do is to stop the Russian and Chinese supporting and potentially arming the regime. Isolating the regime is our best method. War should not be an option.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
nope, not that socialism works, but that the increase in the arms industry needed to produce weapons and ammunition solves mass unemployment, and that increased army personnel also helps to solve unemployment. In fact its the opposite of promoting socialism, it promotes capitalism as millions can be made from the war effort.

Why the military though? Why not say the computer industry?

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by internetguru)
Why the military though? Why not say the computer industry?

because how can we force an increase in the computer industry? In a war we have to make weapons, and these days I suppose the computer industry would also increase because of advancing warfare technology.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
because how can we force an increase in the computer industry? In a war we have to make weapons, and these days I suppose the computer industry would also increase because of advancing warfare technology.

An increase in the military is investing money in research and production the same would be true of the computer industry.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by internetguru)
An increase in the military is investing money in research and production the same would be true of the computer industry.

but war provides a need. Penicillin was brought to the foreground of medicine as a result of WW2, we've made many of the breakthroughs we've made over the last century due to war, e.g. trying to heals soldiers or develop a better weapon.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
but war provides a need. Penicillin was brought to the foreground of medicine as a result of WW2, we've made many of the breakthroughs we've made over the last century due to war, e.g. trying to heals soldiers or develop a better weapon.

Why do we need a need though? The need is to help our economy right? Why not just keep investing in a certain industry and then dumping the goods in a landfill if it helps the economy?

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
nope, not that socialism works, but that the increase in the arms industry needed to produce weapons and ammunition solves mass unemployment, and that increased army personnel also helps to solve unemployment. In fact its the opposite of promoting socialism, it promotes capitalism as millions can be made from the war effort.

Capitalism? Where does, pray tell, all the money to pay for these guns and bombs come from?

There was only one country that benefitted economically from WW2, and that's the US because it was basically the only country that had a) spare industrial capacity b) enough ships to supply countries and c) a country spared from the warzone and, for much of the war, didn't have a massive chunk of it's working-age population ****ing about in Europe. Then, after WW2, it was the only indsutrial country not smashed to bits by war. It helped them, but transfering vast, vast sums of tax payers money from Europe to private hands in the US. Those are the circumstances in which you can benefit from war - the UK could not, in any way at all, sustain it's economy using war because it's just our own public money we're spending.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Capitalism? Where does, pray tell, all the money to pay for these guns and bombs come from?

There was only one country that benefitted economically from WW2, and that's the US because it was basically the only country that had a) spare industrial capacity b) enough ships to supply countries and c) a country spared from the warzone and, for much of the war, didn't have a massive chunk of it's working-age population ****ing about in Europe. Then, after WW2, it was the only indsutrial country not smashed to bits by war. It helped them, but transfering vast, vast sums of tax payers money from Europe to private hands in the US. Those are the circumstances in which you can benefit from war - the UK could not, in any way at all, sustain it's economy using war because it's just our own public money we're spending.

but our debts to the countries we are warring with are virtually void at the point

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
but our debts to the countries we are warring with are virtually void at the point

I see the Tories' flagellation of history continues. Our debts to Italy may have been expunged but our debts to the Americans were huge and caused several devaluation crises over the course of the postwar period. The first, in 1948, plunged Britain into a sharp recession and left the 1950s a rather grey time indeed. The second occured at the end of the 1960s and put the brakes on the development that had taken place under Wilson and Macmillan earlier in the decade.

If you think war is so wonderful, why aren't you serving in Afghanistan right now?

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
but our debts to the countries we are warring with are virtually void at the point

A mere 70 years later? No ****. We've paid most of them off, and in the event that we didn't, it's just have been their tax payers paying arms companies instead. That's not capitalism and it's certainly not sustainable.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
A mere 70 years later? No ****. We've paid most of them off, and in the event that we didn't, it's just have been their tax payers paying arms companies instead. That's not capitalism and it's certainly not sustainable.

I mean if we went to war now, we wouldn't be paying whatever we owed them, would we. The sentence was present tense.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
I see the Tories' flagellation of history continues. Our debts to Italy may have been expunged but our debts to the Americans were huge and caused several devaluation crises over the course of the postwar period. The first, in 1948, plunged Britain into a sharp recession and left the 1950s a rather grey time indeed. The second occured at the end of the 1960s and put the brakes on the development that had taken place under Wilson and Macmillan earlier in the decade.

If you think war is so wonderful, why aren't you serving in Afghanistan right now?

we weren't at war with them...

I'm 16, I couldn't be serving in Afghanistan at the moment. I don't think war is wonderful, I just think that its unavoidable and it undeniably avoids economic problems, albeit at the cost of human lives. In some points its acceptable, e.g. to save other people and defend your country, if there is no gain its not.