Conscientious objection isn't a legitimate posture...

Jingle I'd be content to leave it like that as long as all Syrian residents who want no part of it were able to leave safely beforehand.

Particularly your last sentence.

Worth saying eight times, Granny23.

Lucky Girl I saw your comment and thought you were gently mocking me for being on my soap-box tonight. When I scrolled down to apologise, I realised there were multiple postings. I have no idea how that happened but will not apologise as some things are worth saying twice....or three times.... but four times???

I wonder what would happen if the West did absolutely nothing, and just left Syria to get on with it. If we let the various factions fight until they had killed each other. All of them.

And I agree with you, Granny23.

I think we have got it now Granny23

So it is more important that other people pay their fair share than that we do as much as we can? What would you say to the Greeks who have a bankrupt country and yet continue to rescue, feed and clothe everyone who lands on their shores? Should the Greeks be guarding their huge sea border and turning the leaking boats back on the basis that they have done more than their fair share.

If you (and this is addressed generally not aimed at you Roses) were captain of a big ship - a Naval vessel undertaking exercises in the Med or a luxury cruise liner - and were alerted that there were waterlogged, sinking boats in sight, crammed with hundreds of people, would you follow the rules of the seas and rescue them, change course to avoid them or consult and wait for instructions from your Head Office. Would you leave the people to the mercy of the sea until you got clearance and had found 'somewhere' where you could safely offload them.

I read a report where the Royal Navy had indeed rescued refugees (the report called them Migrants) in just such a situation. The report went into great detail of how the crew in charge of the boats had been arrested, kept in custody and would stand trial but made no mention of what happened thereafter to the men, women and children they had rescued. I investigated and discovered that they were taken back across the Med and disembarked at the port from which they had fled, not at the much nearer place where they were headed or another place of safety - trapped again and their life savings gone.

It is strange how we cannot afford to accommodate refugees temporarily but CAN afford to send, at great expense, our armed forces to bomb what is left of their shattered country.

So it is more important that other people pay their fair share than that we do as much as we can? What would you say to the Greeks who have a bankrupt country and yet continue to rescue, feed and clothe everyone who lands on their shores? Should the Greeks be guarding their huge sea border and turning the leaking boats back on the basis that they have done more than their fair share.

If you (and this is addressed generally not aimed at you Roses) were captain of a big ship - a Naval vessel undertaking exercises in the Med or a luxury cruise liner - and were alerted that there were waterlogged, sinking boats in sight, crammed with hundreds of people, would you follow the rules of the seas and rescue them, change course to avoid them or consult and wait for instructions from your Head Office. Would you leave the people to the mercy of the sea until you got clearance and had found 'somewhere' where you could safely offload them.

I read a report where the Royal Navy had indeed rescued refugees (the report called them Migrants) in just such a situation. The report went into great detail of how the crew in charge of the boats had been arrested, kept in custody and would stand trial but made no mention of what happened thereafter to the men, women and children they had rescued. I investigated and discovered that they were taken back across the Med and disembarked at the port from which they had fled, not at the much nearer place where they were headed or another place of safety - trapped again and their life savings gone.

It is strange how we cannot afford to accommodate refugees temporarily but CAN afford to send, at great expense, our armed forces to bomb what is left of their shattered country.

So it is more important that other people pay their fair share than that we do as much as we can? What would you say to the Greeks who have a bankrupt country and yet continue to rescue, feed and clothe everyone who lands on their shores? Should the Greeks be guarding their huge sea border and turning the leaking boats back on the basis that they have done more than their fair share.

If you (and this is addressed generally not aimed at you Roses) were captain of a big ship - a Naval vessel undertaking exercises in the Med or a luxury cruise liner - and were alerted that there were waterlogged, sinking boats in sight, crammed with hundreds of people, would you follow the rules of the seas and rescue them, change course to avoid them or consult and wait for instructions from your Head Office. Would you leave the people to the mercy of the sea until you got clearance and had found 'somewhere' where you could safely offload them.

I read a report where the Royal Navy had indeed rescued refugees (the report called them Migrants) in just such a situation. The report went into great detail of how the crew in charge of the boats had been arrested, kept in custody and would stand trial but made no mention of what happened thereafter to the men, women and children they had rescued. I investigated and discovered that they were taken back across the Med and disembarked at the port from which they had fled, not at the much nearer place where they were headed or another place of safety - trapped again and their life savings gone.

It is strange how we cannot afford to accommodate refugees temporarily but CAN afford to send, at great expense, our armed forces to bomb what is left of their shattered country.

So it is more important that other people pay their fair share than that we do as much as we can? What would you say to the Greeks who have a bankrupt country and yet continue to rescue, feed and clothe everyone who lands on their shores? Should the Greeks be guarding their huge sea border and turning the leaking boats back on the basis that they have done more than their fair share.

If you (and this is addressed generally not aimed at you Roses) were captain of a big ship - a Naval vessel undertaking exercises in the Med or a luxury cruise liner - and were alerted that there were waterlogged, sinking boats in sight, crammed with hundreds of people, would you follow the rules of the seas and rescue them, change course to avoid them or consult and wait for instructions from your Head Office. Would you leave the people to the mercy of the sea until you got clearance and had found 'somewhere' where you could safely offload them.

I read a report where the Royal Navy had indeed rescued refugees (the report called them Migrants) in just such a situation. The report went into great detail of how the crew in charge of the boats had been arrested, kept in custody and would stand trial but made no mention of what happened thereafter to the men, women and children they had rescued. I investigated and discovered that they were taken back across the Med and disembarked at the port from which they had fled, not at the much nearer place where they were headed or another place of safety - trapped again and their life savings gone.

It is strange how we cannot afford to accommodate refugees temporarily but CAN afford to send, at great expense, our armed forces to bomb what is left of their shattered country.

So it is more important that other people pay their fair share than that we do as much as we can? What would you say to the Greeks who have a bankrupt country and yet continue to rescue, feed and clothe everyone who lands on their shores? Should the Greeks be guarding their huge sea border and turning the leaking boats back on the basis that they have done more than their fair share.

If you (and this is addressed generally not aimed at you Roses) were captain of a big ship - a Naval vessel undertaking exercises in the Med or a luxury cruise liner - and were alerted that there were waterlogged, sinking boats in sight, crammed with hundreds of people, would you follow the rules of the seas and rescue them, change course to avoid them or consult and wait for instructions from your Head Office. Would you leave the people to the mercy of the sea until you got clearance and had found 'somewhere' where you could safely offload them.

I read a report where the Royal Navy had indeed rescued refugees (the report called them Migrants) in just such a situation. The report went into great detail of how the crew in charge of the boats had been arrested, kept in custody and would stand trial but made no mention of what happened thereafter to the men, women and children they had rescued. I investigated and discovered that they were taken back across the Med and disembarked at the port from which they had fled, not at the much nearer place where they were headed or another place of safety - trapped again and their life savings gone.

It is strange how we cannot afford to accommodate refugees temporarily but CAN afford to send, at great expense, our armed forces to bomb what is left of their shattered country.

So it is more important that other people pay their fair share than that we do as much as we can? What would you say to the Greeks who have a bankrupt country and yet continue to rescue, feed and clothe everyone who lands on their shores? Should the Greeks be guarding their huge sea border and turning the leaking boats back on the basis that they have done more than their fair share.

If you (and this is addressed generally not aimed at you Roses) were captain of a big ship - a Naval vessel undertaking exercises in the Med or a luxury cruise liner - and were alerted that there were waterlogged, sinking boats in sight, crammed with hundreds of people, would you follow the rules of the seas and rescue them, change course to avoid them or consult and wait for instructions from your Head Office. Would you leave the people to the mercy of the sea until you got clearance and had found 'somewhere' where you could safely offload them.

I read a report where the Royal Navy had indeed rescued refugees (the report called them Migrants) in just such a situation. The report went into great detail of how the crew in charge of the boats had been arrested, kept in custody and would stand trial but made no mention of what happened thereafter to the men, women and children they had rescued. I investigated and discovered that they were taken back across the Med and disembarked at the port from which they had fled, not at the much nearer place where they were headed or another place of safety - trapped again and their life savings gone.

It is strange how we cannot afford to accommodate refugees temporarily but CAN afford to send, at great expense, our armed forces to bomb what is left of their shattered country.

So it is more important that other people pay their fair share than that we do as much as we can? What would you say to the Greeks who have a bankrupt country and yet continue to rescue, feed and clothe everyone who lands on their shores? Should the Greeks be guarding their huge sea border and turning the leaking boats back on the basis that they have done more than their fair share.

If you (and this is addressed generally not aimed at you Roses) were captain of a big ship - a Naval vessel undertaking exercises in the Med or a luxury cruise liner - and were alerted that there were waterlogged, sinking boats in sight, crammed with hundreds of people, would you follow the rules of the seas and rescue them, change course to avoid them or consult and wait for instructions from your Head Office. Would you leave the people to the mercy of the sea until you got clearance and had found 'somewhere' where you could safely offload them.

I read a report where the Royal Navy had indeed rescued refugees (the report called them Migrants) in just such a situation. The report went into great detail of how the crew in charge of the boats had been arrested, kept in custody and would stand trial but made no mention of what happened thereafter to the men, women and children they had rescued. I investigated and discovered that they were taken back across the Med and disembarked at the port from which they had fled, not at the much nearer place where they were headed or another place of safety - trapped again and their life savings gone.

It is strange how we cannot afford to accommodate refugees temporarily but CAN afford to send, at great expense, our armed forces to bomb what is left of their shattered country.

So it is more important that other people pay their fair share than that we do as much as we can? What would you say to the Greeks who have a bankrupt country and yet continue to rescue, feed and clothe everyone who lands on their shores? Should the Greeks be guarding their huge sea border and turning the leaking boats back on the basis that they have done more than their fair share.

If you (and this is addressed generally not aimed at you Roses) were captain of a big ship - a Naval vessel undertaking exercises in the Med or a luxury cruise liner - and were alerted that there were waterlogged, sinking boats in sight, crammed with hundreds of people, would you follow the rules of the seas and rescue them, change course to avoid them or consult and wait for instructions from your Head Office. Would you leave the people to the mercy of the sea until you got clearance and had found 'somewhere' where you could safely offload them.

I read a report where the Royal Navy had indeed rescued refugees (the report called them Migrants) in just such a situation. The report went into great detail of how the crew in charge of the boats had been arrested, kept in custody and would stand trial but made no mention of what happened thereafter to the men, women and children they had rescued. I investigated and discovered that they were taken back across the Med and disembarked at the port from which they had fled, not at the much nearer place where they were headed or another place of safety - trapped again and their life savings gone.

It is strange how we cannot afford to accommodate refugees temporarily but CAN afford to send, at great expense, our armed forces to bomb what is left of their shattered country.

granny23 as a country we give more money than anyone else bar the US,
To the camps around Syria, that surely is doing something.
We cannot send our Navy ( what's left of it) to pick up millions of people from Syria........ What would we do with them all?It's a hell of a situation but it is for all countries to do something to help, not just a few.If all the countries who had pledged money for the camps had paid up, things for the refugees would be a bit better.

Indeed we should not pass by on the other side.

I am no longer religious in any way but some of my childhood Christian upbringing still resonates and shapes my thoughts. In particular the story of the Good Samaritan which I think has relevance in this situation. If we encounter someone in distress and crying out for help do we firstly question them as to who has left them in this state, who is to blame for their situation, whether they were the original aggressor, whether it is their own fault? Do we gather this information and then discuss it all at length with our friends, relatives and leaders before deciding what action to take and who deserves punishment or help?

No! If we are Good Samaritans and we know someone is in a terrible state we help them immediately and ask questions after their life threatening needs have been met.

The present crisis presents us with this scenario, albeit on a vast scale. To me it is obvious what action we should be taking - offering immediate aid to all who are homeless, hungry, fleeing for their lives. We have not personally encountered them by the roadside but we see them daily on our TV screens. Surely we cannot ignore their plight just because they are not on our doorstep? How can we sit in our own warm homes, preparing for the usual lavish Christmas Celebrations and endlessly discussing the political situation in countries that we neither know nor understand without feeling compelled to take immediate humanitarian action. First things first - we could send the Royal Navy to collect the refugees/evacuees BEFORE they set sail in flimsy boats. We could be sending the army with their tents and other equipment to set up transit camps, we could send the Air Force to fly out the sick and wounded.

Instead we have good people collecting food and clothing and setting off in vans, at their own expense to see what help they can give. With no central co-ordination this ad-hoc response is scarcely scratching the surface. If I had the power, I would declare a ceasefire to allow the evacuation of all non combatants out of the area and then leave Assad, IS, whoever else, to fight it out among themselves. Instead, all I can do is petition, donate and post on-line while those with the power and the money posture and work themselves up to make a show of force on the world stage.

The shortest verse in the Bible springs to mind - 'JESUS WEPT'

They did not have the weapons we have now.
America can quite easily bomb the whole of Syria to get rid of Isis. Why doesn't it? It could do it just by using drones.
Why do we not use Trident to bomb Syria? That would get rid of the problem.

Germany (along with her colonies ) didn't stand alone in Europe. Italy,(along with her colonies) Austria, Roumania and Bulgaria were part of the Axis, while Japan was a major player in the Far East. Iraq,and Turkey among others were Axis sympathisers, with a view to eliminating the Jews in the middle east. So all in all quite a tough nut to crack!

Bombing is akin to trying to put out a fire with petrol . No comparison to the war with Germany , they stood alone in Europe. Syria does not stand alone , we bombed Iraq and caused more hatred . No idea if diplomatic efforts would work but surely worth trying

Which begs the question - is it ever going to be possible to wipe out these fundamentalist terrorists by military means? Bump them off in one place (with the inevitable loss of life to innocent people) and they pop up in another with martyrs to avenge.

I know that diplomatic efforts feel futile in the face of such mindless cruelty, but it may be the only rational way forward.

I think there are big problems with drawing parallels with Nazi Germany, firstly there is the negative correlation which any such comparison raises and which might just tip over the edge someone who is beginning to find IS ideas attractive and secondly there is the actuality of what happened. All of the countries in Europe were opposed to the Nazi regime and the country itself was bombed practically into extinction. Even if the bombing were possible there are a number of nearby countries who sympathise with IS and who would continue with the same ideology.

I think it's virtually impossible to resolve anything concerning IS except by facing them head on, like Nazi Germany. But that's would be so hideous as inevitably Pandora's box would be well and truly opened, leading God knows where, but it wouldn't be good! forgive the understatement!! I don't know, I really don't.

It is so dreadfully complicated and whatever we do, there are likely to be unfortunate consequences.

The slap them back idea is tempting, but we have to sit back and think it all through, and have a measured approach that maintains civilised behaviour at its heart - losing sight of that means the terrorists have won. They will have dragged us into their mire.