Tom Austin wrote:I think everybody would like to see some 'action'. The whole issue is about the form that any 'action' should take.
It is more than a little baffling to see such phrases as, "...will be far more widespread than some may realise." applied only to one nature of 'action' contemplated.
That's a fair point, I could have worded that better. Of course whatever choices are made regarding Syria will have serious consequences. The point I was making is that failing to take action is not the safe, easy option some people may make it out to be.
I took issue with Howards use of the term "warmongers" simply because it is a lazy description, and shows no effort to look at different sides of what is a very complicated argument. It is not about "warmongers" any more than it is about "appeasement". I can fully understand and respect that many people have grave concerns about any potential military action, and indeed those concerns have a great deal of justification. However, to describe as "warmongers" those who have genuine concerns about the dangers of the loss of credible deterrence, is simply wrong.
In an ideal world, Assad would not have used chemical weapons, and as such would not have issued a challenge to the international community. But he has, and that genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Whatever choices are now made will have profound consequences for decades to come, but those choices have to be made, and the consequences have to be lived with.
