My two penny worth.
So yet again, the UK is trailing in the USA's steps by trying to act as the world's police force.
It is NOT OUR BUSINESS what happens in Syria. This air attack will come back to bite us in the bum., by increasing and encouraging both foreign born and UK born followers of the "Religion of Peace" to carry out more of their terror attacks.
|
Good morning Roger. I used to be from the “Bomb them off the face of the earth†brigade, but times and thoughts change and i’m now inclined to your direction. However I don’t know that any one policy will ever produce the results that WE desire. The terrorist threat is a major concern but can only be changed through education. Religion should be banned in my book.
A pleasant weak end to all.
|
|
It's their country and their culture - distasteful as it may seem to (most of) us. We should keep our noses out of their business; when we have interfered in the past, we have only made matters worse. We should have learned that by now.
|
On Question Time the other night the panel mostly seemed agreed that what the Govt was proposing were wrong but none managed to suggest what they would do.
I'm in modest agreement with what Haywain says - I've often said the same about (e.g.) Islam and some of the barbaric or medieval (to us) practices and habits that other cultures have.
However I also believe that, up to a point, we should help the helpless. For me this would be more about providing humanitarian aid, and support, alongside trying to resolve the crisis by diplomatic (and maybe economic) means rather throwing our weight about.
However, without wishing to appear somewhat indecisive, I do also think a case can be made for limited and carefully targeted military intervention, if it strikes at the command.
Interesting to see an article somewhere yesterday that our spooks disrupted Al Quaeda comms over a long period, and this was considered to have contributed to its significantly reduced effectiveness.
|
|
The air strikes were for the specific and sole purpose of deterring the Syrian Regime from using further chemical weapons. Whether that will be effective who knows but I think that a line has to be drawn. I know that you can make an argument that Assad gassing people is no worse than Assad bombing them but to me at least it does seem completely repugnant. I am reluctantly in favour of this mission. Effectively saying to Assad “we don’t care about you gassing your people†seems morally worse.
|
None of our business. keep our noses out and we will be fine
"Russian chemical attack - Salisbury"
OH! that's a good plan then
|
I'm presuming this is all part of Putin's masterplan for Greater Russia.
Once he can have a cold war fully reinstated he can work around re-incorporating the old Soviet states into a new Moscow led bloc.
I think the best defence against Putin is to wreck Russia economically until he gets the boot.
|
The problem is we have been here so many times before, and launched so many attacks on places with often the best of intentions but almost invariably with the results of making things worse.
So now, when I am inclined to agree with GCN that this one is a special line which should be held, we have already thrown away all our credibility and moral right on so many dubious past actions.
It's curious though this revelation that there is apparently some kind of hot line with the Russians, and we can coordinate our actions for mutual advantage.
|
You're just as dead if you are killed by beheading with a knife, burnt in a cage, bombed, rocketed, nuclear bombed, gunshot, or by chemical weapons.
Why the high toned moral outrage abut the chemical route?
It is not, as far as I know, been positively proved that Assad's forces were responsible, or indeed if this was a staged propaganda effort by persons unknown.
The same applies with the Salisbury attack. Circumstantial evidence in both cases; yes - proof sufficient for a conviction - hardly.
Ask the age old question - who really benefits?
Not Assad. Not Putin.
Please feel free to disagree!
|
Ask the age old question - who really benefits?
>> Not Assad. Not Putin.
>> Please feel free to disagree!
>>
Who do you believe benefits?
|
....if anyone thinks this has much to do with the welfare of Syrian citizens, then I'm afraid they are deluding themselves.
There are many other similar "humanitarian" crises that we could easily get involved in - how about us going and exacting punishment on Myanmar for its treatment of the Rohingya? (One example from many, chosen at random - there are many more possible candidates). I know it's further away, and we no longer have a floating airborne strike-force, but hey!
The action has everything to do with wider geopolitical sensitivities including a sense by the Western powers that they have miscalculated with Putin and even after realising that he's cocking a snook virtually at will , have ignored the consequences too long.
Combine that with three political leaders who each face their own political (and personal) issues at home, so could do with a diversion (and or the Maggie Thatcher "Falklands Effect"); and, of course, as always with the Middle East, the desire to keep strategic tabs on the wider oil-producing region, and it's chocks away for a show of "power".....
I'm with the post above that takes the view that, if you really want to punish either the headline or underlying miscreants, targeted (and personal) economic sanctions are probably the most appropriate measures - difficult to get everyone to toe-the-line, though.
I have a wider concern that this has bypassed the oversight of Parliament, something that even David Cameron didn't attempt on this matter, but that this Government seems to be doing with increasing impunity. On principle, I abhor that, but given the above view, and that the UN might just see this as an illegal act, I think it would have been better to have the full democratic weight of the country behind it. (Even if I would still be saying "not in my name").
|
There are many other similar "humanitarian" crises that we could easily get involved in -
>> how about us going and exacting punishment on Myanmar for its treatment of the Rohingya?
Its an idea, I'm not sure it's one that holds much water though. It's not really so binary as to involve in all or none of the various crises around the world.
>> I have a wider concern that this has bypassed the oversight of Parliament, something that
>> even David Cameron didn't attempt on this matter, but that this Government seems to be
>> doing with increasing impunity.
Its a relatively new thing, getting a vote in parliament? I'm not sure that it allows achieves much, seems to me the tactic now is to vote down the government to give themselves a boost politically.
|
Yep, I agree, the greatest thing putting it before parliament would achieve is enabling individual MPs or parties to points-score at the governments (and often our) expense.
Sometimes you just need to grow a pair and just get on with stuff.
|
What really is the purpose of Western intervention on account of use of chemical weapons?
People killed by gas are no more or less dead then those killed by bullets or barrel bombs. The Syrian civil war seems to be almost won for Assad. However unpalatable he is the rebels are not a united opposition. Many of those we initially supported turned out to be offshoots of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other disturbing elements. As soon as they'd seen off Assad's guys from their patch the opposition started fighting amongst themselves with predictable consequences.
Regime change in Iraq and Libya has not resulted in people uniting into western style democratic states. Instead they've fragmented into rogue territories in the hands of gangsters, terrorists and people smugglers. The result is, for the ordinary citizen much worse than under a strongman like Assad.
If the 'regime change' mantra has failed in same way twice it's utter folly to expect something different if same happens again. My Mother used to say one of the markers for what was then (early seventies) called educationally sub-normal was 'fails to learn from experience'.
It may be that best hope for a stable Syria is rebuilding under a chastened Assad.
Do Trump's strategy people think about Syria and its people or are they looking for an opportunity to flush out Iran and justify ending the nuclear agreement?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 14 Apr 18 at 11:00
|
Intervention rarely, if ever works. If anything it tends to make things worse rather than better. There is no credible alternative to Assad in Syria and those who would take power should he be toppled would probably be as bad or worse than he is.
Sometimes you just have to stand back and accept that people in certain far off countries will never be peaceful democratic nations and will always suffer from internal strife because the various factions will not broker any dissent to their thinking or way of life and are prepared to commit genocide to further it.
|
>> those who would take power should he be toppled would probably be as bad or worse than he is.
This is something that people are either incapable of learning or simply don't want to.
When there is a leadership battle it is not good versus evil, or like and not like, it is one villainous, despotic a*** versus another. There isn't an angelic side which will run the country in a western democratic manor.
So we need to bear that in mind.
I think I believe that when we get involved in a leadership struggle we are wrong. But we should stand against oppression and mass murder & similar.
So if someone want's to be a dictator, if someone want's to murder the odd colleague, then we might be rude to them, but we should take no steps.
In the case of genocide, mass murder, etc. etc. then it should be known that whilst we don't really care who the leader is or how he runs the country, for that we will kill him.
That ought to about do it.
Morally wrong of course, but I think action versus inaction is sometimes a choice between big bad and very big bad.
|
|
Talking of growing a pair. Spare a thought for the 8 RAF people flying into a very hostile air-space - doing their duty, rightly or wrongly, with the potential of being shot at by the Russians.
|
|
It seems that this particular operation has ended. It's not likely to finish assads regime, but then it was never meant to. Whether or not it is successful in its aim, only time will tell.
|
But I bet they had a real buzz R.P.. think of the adrenaline rush. After all the training they were doing it for real.
A good friend of mine served in Armagh, lost several friends, but when we have chatted about it he wouldn’t have swapped it for the world despite the constant danger whilst out on patrol.
|
>> Talking of growing a pair. Spare a thought for the 8 RAF people flying into
>> a very hostile air-space - doing their duty, rightly or wrongly, with the potential of
>> being shot at by the Russians.
>>
They are all volunteers. They knew what they were signing up to.
|
>> They are all volunteers. They knew what they were signing up to.
And probably quite enthusiastic about getting some real action. Everyone who joins the military wants to see active service at least once in their career and those who don't think they have missed out on something.
You don't want to train to use all that high tech weaponry and never get a chance to use it for real.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 16 Apr 18 at 01:47
|
And probably quite enthusiastic about getting some real action. Everyone who joins the military wants
>> to see active service at least once in their career and those who don't think
>> they have missed out.
Oh I don't know about that, some like a sleepy desk job.
|
>> Oh I don't know about that, some like a sleepy desk job.
During National Service most probably did. But no one volunteers for the forces for a desk job.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 16 Apr 18 at 01:48
|
During National Service most probably did. But no one volunteers for the forces for a
>> desk job.
Like I said don't be too sure about that. I know a few that are more than happy with that.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 14 Apr 18 at 22:34
|
"Sometimes you just need to grow a pair and just get on with stuff."
Or grow a brain and say 'enough is enough'.
|
Wonder if we'll be shown any 'before' and 'after' photos like we did in the Iraq campaigns?
Plus I what happens to chemical weapons when they are hit, does the gas disperse in the local environment as if it had been used or is it vaporised?
Or were we attacking the delivery systems not the stores (the Russians will just send them a few more to replace any destroyed)?
|
I don't know what the correct thing is.
On the one hand other countries/regions ought to be able to lead their life their way. Yet surely we have to protect others?
Should we have left Hitler alone a long as he promised not to come to the UK (and we believed him)?
I read a report a while ago about Iraq and the intervention. Many more have died since than died before. But somehow we find that more acceptable.
We went into that one pushed by Blair and a media frenzy.
Firstly, I think we keep going into these things for the wrong reasons
Secondly I think we keep going about it the wrong way.
But mostly, I don't know that I've got a realistic and acceptable approach that would work in the world we currently have.
Standing aside while people die seems very wrong though.
|
If Bashar al- Assad is guilty of the chemical attack on his own people the Western allies should have dropped a bomb on his palace with him in it.
Also Mr Putin is pushing his luck too far out.First, the passenger Airplane where so many Dutch were killed.And the Chemical attack in the U.K
|
|
What Mark (and Dutchie says)
|
>> If Bashar al- Assad is guilty of the chemical attack on his own people the
>> Western allies should have dropped a bomb on his palace with him in it.
>
There's a curious very long-standing convention that one never directly targets the leader of a country with which one is at war. All sides seem to have observed it, apparently for centuries.
We did nothing to support German conspirators trying to kill Hitler, and the Germans it would seem made no attempts to assassinate Churchill. We intervened directly in Russia following the revolution, but never thought of assassinating Lenin. It would have been very easy - security in Petrograd was slack, and Lenin was at one point held up by common highjackers and had his car stolen (a Rolls Royce). He had to walk back to his office.
Until quite recently Downing Street was open to all and number 10 guarded by one policeman. I remember walking there and being shown where the Prime Minister lived, exchanging greetings with the policeman. Children used to be photographed standing next to him in the doorway.
|
>> There's a curious very long-standing convention that one never directly targets the leader of a
>> country with which one is at war. All sides seem to have observed it, apparently
>> for centuries.
Happy enough to string them up afterwards however, in fact its almost inevitable.
|
Didn't we once have a vote on whether we should intervene in some fracas somewhere? that was upheld and we stayed clear?
In cases like this, the public should decide if we stick the nose in, not just power mad politicians!
|
|
Not really. I can think of plenty of enemy leaders who survived wars with Great Britain. Louis XV in the Seven Years War, Napoleon Bonaparte and Kaiser Wilhelm 11 spring to mind. In fact which actual leaders of war with this country were “strung upâ€. Only Mussolini comes to mid and that was by others Italians.
|
>> Not really. I can think of plenty of enemy leaders who survived wars with Great
>> Britain. Louis XV in the Seven Years War, Napoleon Bonaparte and Kaiser Wilhelm 11 spring
>> to mind. In fact which actual leaders of war with this country were “strung upâ€.
>> Only Mussolini comes to mid and that was by others Italians.
Would you like the link to the video of Sadam Hussein dangling on the end of a rope or will you find it yourself.
But mostly I guess you are right, leaders rarely, those high rankers immediately underneath always. The more gold braid you have the changes of dangling are higher.
|
>>
>> Would you like the link to the video of Sadam Hussein dangling on the end
>> of a rope or will you find it yourself.
>>
He was tried by an Iraqi court for crimes against the Iraqi people. Very much in the Mussolini tradition surely?
|
>> He was tried by an Iraqi court for crimes against the Iraqi people. Very much
>> in the Mussolini tradition surely?
He started a war, he lost, he dangled. The who where and why is immaterial
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 16 Apr 18 at 01:48
|
Leaders get the drop if they are found guilty of war crimes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
If they hadn't killed themselves the very top German brass would have joined the list who met Pierrepoint.
|
>> Leaders get the drop if they are found guilty of war crimes.
Ah but only the victors decide what are and what are not "war crimes" and who are guilty of it.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 15 Apr 18 at 18:26
|
" Spare a thought for the 8 RAF people flying into
>> a very hostile air-space - doing their duty, rightly or wrongly, with the potential of
>> being shot at by the Russians. "
If the media reports are to be believed, they simply took off from Cyprus, climbed to the appropriate level, stayed outside Syrian airspace and fired their 300 mile range missiles.
|
|
Yes I read that afterwards. Still within range of hostile fire though.
|
Winners do not commit war crimes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
makes depressing reading.
Yes, I know it is Wikipedia, but much of the material is source referenced.
|
"source referenced. "
Is that like an actual thing that I've never heard of before? Or did you make it up and really you mean "quotes it's sources"?
|
Or did you make it up and really you mean ......
You got it in one. Why use 4 words when you can use 2? :)
Actually it was lazy editing after I changed my actual wording. Looks like pretty good consultancy speak?
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Sun 15 Apr 18 at 18:50
|
>>
>> He started a war, he lost, he dangled. The who where and why is immaterial
>>
>>
I was responding to the suggestion that we should have targetted Assad's palace.
Mussolini and Saddam Hussein were not targetted by the allies but executed by their own people. We would indeed have executed the nazi leadership if caught, but we made no attempt to target them during the war.
I observed "There's a curious very long-standing convention that one never directly targets the leader of a country with which one is at war. All sides seem to have observed it, apparently for centuries." The who where and why would appear to be highly material.
|
|
But thats not what you were responding to, or quoting if you follow the thread.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 15 Apr 18 at 22:01
|
>>we made no attempt to target them during the war
Not entirely accurate...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley
|
>> >>we made no attempt to target them during the war
>>
>> Not entirely accurate...
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley
A plan vetoed before it became an attempt.
|
Some say the West want to topple Assad as he would not allow gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe be build. Currently Russia is main supplier of gas to Europe and Qatar would be a competitor to Russia.
Not sure how much substance in this claim as I don't know what % of gas comes from Russia elsewhere in Europe.
Based on history, whenever the West tried to topple a dictator in Middle East, the country went from bad to worse (e.g. Libya, Egypt, Iraq etc.)
|
>> Some say the West want to topple Assad as he would not allow gas pipeline
>> from Qatar to Europe be build. Currently Russia is main supplier of gas to Europe
>> and Qatar would be a competitor to Russia.
>>
>> Not sure how much substance in this claim as I don't know what % of
>> gas comes from Russia elsewhere in Europe.
Sounds like the same source that says the Americans never landed on the moon and 9-11 was a CIA inspired plot
|
>> Some say the West want to topple Assad as he would not allow gas pipeline
>> from Qatar to Europe be build. Currently Russia is main supplier of gas to Europe
>> and Qatar would be a competitor to Russia.
If it were true, assads acceptance would be currently the least of qatars worries.
> Not sure how much substance in this claim as I don't know what % of
>> gas comes from Russia elsewhere in Europe.
It various a lot from country to country, it's something like 8% for the UK.
|
|
Add Iran to the list. CIA toppled a democratically elected government (a rare beast in that part of the world) and installed their own puppet. And the rest, as they say is history and also current.
|
I believe the U.S spends trillions on its military complex.
If that is the case it will always be involved in wars.My Opa a wise and simple man told me once these things of destruction are meant to be used for real.
|
Syria - MD
