BruceVC

But why would they need to bomb areas that had already been decimated by the Chemical attack? Its not like there are rebels there anymore fighting back. Trust me on this one the Assad regime is behind the usage of Chemical weapons . The question I want to know is " what is Canada planning to do or say about it" ?

This shouldn't be a surprise Malc, the Assad regime has been trying everything in its power to stop the UN inspectors getting the evidence that they used Chemical weapons. And you know it'd be them and not the various 'rebels' how ? Malc, ,Malc , Malc ....when are you just going to accept I am never wrong when it comes to political debates? The reason that its almost 100 % likely that its the Assad regime behind the Chemical attacks is how they have been behaving since the attack last week Wednesday. Firstly they have been bombing the sites of the attacks for the last few days. Why would you do this unless you wanted to hide evidence. Secondly they have been restricting the UN inspectors from going to the sites. Today they finally had to allow access. If you think of the consequences of either side using any kind of WMD surly if the Assad forces were innocent they would have escorted the UN inspectors there last week immediately after the attack to prove they had nothing to do with it. This would have gained them credibility in there campaign against the rebels who they claim are terrorists. There guilt is obvious by there delaying tactics

This shouldn't be a surprise Malc, the Assad regime has been trying everything in its power to stop the UN inspectors getting the evidence that they used Chemical weapons.

Ah Walsie he caught you out there France and many other countries did indeed sit out the Iraq war But that shouldn't be surprising, despite what people like Oby think most countries can't be forced to participate in wars or invasion just because country x says you must help us. They have to feel its in there national interest to do so. Most of the time this is what determines military involvement, strategic national interest and that's how intervention should occur. That's normal. So why shouldn't the West sit out the Syrian conflict? There are several reasons but for me the main ones are The loss of life in Syria as this interminable conflict drags on. 100,000 or more people have been killed. Millions of people displaced and huge parts of Syria have been destroyed. What about the moral obligation to stop this civil war? The West is aligned with the Sunni dominated countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They want the Assad governments brutal suppression of the rebels to be stopped. The West should help its allies Iran is strongly supporting Assad, they have committed resources and manpower to keep him in power. The West can reduce both the power and influence of Iran by defeating Assad. This can only be a good thing as I believe Iran is a threat to stability in the region Finally the use of Chemical weapons is an unquestionable line that Assad has crossed. Apart from all the other reasons just the fact that Assad has used these weapons should be a strong signal he needs to be removed from power. What next will he use if he is allowed to stay in power ? Biological....

That cracked me up. But the idea makes sense, Russia is such a friendly place where they treat foreigners and people that are different to them really well. It would make sense and Russia has loads of land that they doing nothing with?

Yum, BBQ pulled pork sandwiched sounds delicious I'm having Turkey steak with Rice for supper tonight

That's a good point. I never thought about that. There would have to be some sort of ground force to ensure the WMD don't fall into the wrong hands. This does make it more complicated NATO never played a part in the invasion of Iraq, it was a coalition of willing countries led by the USA.

The USA doesn't need to send ground troops. They could assist in air control and enforce a no-fly zone and provide invaluable logistical support. The French and the UK also seem very keen to intervene so this won't be a USA military operation only, just like in Libya.

Sounds sweet even if it was sugar free

I'm just not sure about it, Bruce. An intervention might end the civil war, but it won't fix the rest of the problems. At least under Assad the extremists were kept in check... democracy in Egypt put the extremists in power. The extremists are worse than any regime. Since the rebels are also these extremists, by supporting them, you're assuring that people like the Muslim Brotherhood will try to drag the country back into the dark ages. That's true to a certain degree, the Free Syrian Army (rebels) do have elements of Al-Qaeda in there units and this is very concerning. But that wasn't always the case in Syria. In the beginning of the conflict the rebels were almost entirely pure Syrian but as the conflict went on foreigners have joined them and so has the Al-Qaeda type influence. If Russia and China hadn't blocked Western involvement through the UN security council this conflict would have been over long ago and we would have seen a very different political landscape to what we would now see if the rebels suddenly win and get to govern Syria. So who knows what the future holds

Some good info in that interview

All countries are ready for Democracy but in the Middle East it won't be the implementation of it that we are use to as Westerners, but that's fine. They need there own version of Democracy Also the Arab League doesn't have a military intervention force so they would need the West or the UN to get involved in Syria.

Its a pity that Assad refused to make any meaningful political changes, Syria is also a vivid reminder of what happens without Western intervention and a civil war is allowed to be dragged on. As I mentioned in the past Libya is a good example of how the West can assist with regime change

You have just made one of the most sagacious and insightful comments I've ever heard on this topic, well said

Yes, the mining industry has already been forced to sell. This new step will now apply to any company and yes its further economic suicide for a country that needs foreign investment

Think about it, soon you won't be saying " my GF" but my "fiancée"

There are other factors that are more important from an investment perspective. But don't underestimate the harm that a governments policies can make in Africa to economic growth. I accept that bribery is almost a way of life in certain industries but I don't have to accept the public and unnecessary statements by African leaders that undermine the overall view of the continent as a viable investment opportunity. Remember its not just Mugabe's bigotry, he also wants to implement what he calls "Indigenisation". Basically every foreign owned business will be forced to sell 51% of the company to the Zimbabwean government. These steps are only going to slow the economic growth down. http://zimbabweelection.com/2013/08/07/ffze-economists-warn-mugabe-indigenisation-will-scare-off-foreign-investors/

I worked last night and I went out on Friday so my meals have been inconsistent and take-away based. Pizza and alcohol But today I'm having Spare Ribs for lunch with potato salad There should be left over from that for supper

But Walsie I think you missing the point If 80 % of the people in the UK don't like the thought or believe in paying Tax that is irrelevant. Taxes need to be gathered from citizens as its part of the legal framework of the country and is required to ensure a country can be governed and successfully financially managed Certain African leaders claim that the world doesn't take them seriously or don't respect there autonomy. But the world doesn't take Africa as seriously as it could as there are far to many inconsistencies and contradictions to how Africa implements its own policies. Its got nothing to do with the fact that 60 % of Zimbabweans are hypothetically homophobic, this is about a charter that African countries agree to follow and then fail to enforce. Why would you invest in a country that considers your sexual orientation a "vile disease". What Mugabe is doing is just harming the economic recovery of Zimbabwe

Holy smoke Nep that doesn't sound good at all Please keep us updated

Probably You make some good points and I would agree with you only if the concept of a real AU doesn't make sense or is not applicable But since at the moment the world and the African continent does believe in this group of countries similar to the EU and it is "recognised" as the authoritative political body for Africa any systemic issues that undermine this union need to be highlighted. So now what does this blatant homophobia mean for the AU? Well the AU claims to believe in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Your sexual orientation is protected in the bill. So how can a member country be in such disregard for one of the basic tenants of what the AU is suppose to stand for? Just the fact that Mugabe can make these statements without condemnation from his neighbours highlights the inconsistency and ineffectiveness of the AU to enforce what it says it believes. This therefore goes towards the credibility of the AU Can you imagine what would happen within the EU if David Cameron went in front of Parliament and said " homosexuality is a filthy disease" . He would be reprimanded on an unprecedented level Africa will never achieve it full potential if it can't enforce what it says it believes in on a social and political level

So Robert Mugabe was sworn in for another 5 years as the president of Zimbabwe yesterday. Another fraudulent election, another failure of the AU to declare that they wouldn't accept the result. The good news is that the EU and the USA have refused to drop the targeted sanctions so the economic situation won't improve and this is important to show that African countries need to have free and fair elections to achieve credibility in order to ensure foreign investment. What was very controversial and annoying was during Mugabe's inauguration speech he attacked gay people and called Homosexuality a " filthy disease". And what made these comments worse were the thousands of supporters cheering when he made these comments. Nice one Zimbabwe in the movement towards equality and clearly showing the world you don't accept bigotry even though you suffered under Colonialism http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/mugabe-anti-west-anti-gay-rant-inauguration/

" Somosas" Most people probably won't know they are. We have a strong Indian community in South Africa so Somosas are very common and delicious. They aren't that good for you as they suppose to be fried in oil but with the various options as ingredients they can be very yummy . My favourite is the potato and cheese

Another healthy dinner, good one Are you are vegetarian Leferd?

While I love Erikson's books to death, anyone can see what a mess the storyline became towards the end. As for Jordan and Martin, they are both discovery writers so not much planning there, though Sanderson said that Jordan always had an idea of how the story was gonna go/finish. Steve Erikson .. The riddiculous cases like Jordan and in a lesser extent Martin aren't so common. Hang on there a minute, for a second I though you were implying the Erikson had a well planned series. Say it ain't so, Malekith. His series has some of the most massive continuity errors of all time! Of all time! I'd be pretty certain that both Jordan and Martin planned their series as well, sticking to the plan on the other hand... Sticking to the plan is probably one thing the game story development process does better than the book process. Yes. He knew the end from the start, he knew how to get there. Malazan was a ten book series from the start, and he sticks to his plan admirably. Now, that the last five books should be 200-300 pages shorter, with tighter editing, and that Erikson forgets (or ignores on purpose) the details in his story are valid criticisms. But you cannot cut whole books from Malazan the way you can in Wheel of Time, which is a good six book series stretched to a bad 14 book one Guys I'm currently reading the last book, The Crippled God, and even though I am loving the series I agree with Zor that there are certain inconsistencies. Also I find they bring concepts into the series that aren't explained probably. So how are are you suppose to know why something is happening? For example the K'Chain Nah'Ruk intercepting Tavore and decimating the Bonehunters. It just seemed random? Anyway the series is still good