whembly wrote: Going to war (you know, blowing things up and killing people) is an act of extremely serious moral dimension. We should not even consider this engagement unless we are satisfied that at least one of the two is true:
1) That such action is so manifestly in our own selfish interests that we can be forgiven for taking the violent action.
2) That the action is so manifestly in the interests of general altruistic good we would scarcely forgive ourselves if we didn't take the violent action.
Which one is it?
That is what the powers that be should have been asking before the "red line" talk. It would have prevented it looking like the US was doing this
I've got to say, I'm in two minds about it. Whilst I abhor the idea of standing around and doing nothing about the blatant chemical attacks on innocents, I am loath to support another foray into the Middle East.
Speaking as a staunch patriot (I know what people will think - 'Oh God, not one of them' - but I would like to think I'm not one of these senseless drones who accepts all the Governments propaganda - my patriotism is based on a sense of cultural and historical pride in my nation and a very healthy does of cynicism ), I feel the British Army is, and always will be, up to the job, especially as part of a UN taskforce - but we haven't even fully pulled out of Afghanistan before committing ourselves in another Middle Eastern debacle that already looks like it's turning more and more religion based (The Sunni-Shia schism), rather than based on the peoples basic right of freedom.
On strategic level, the British Army is more than capable of pulling off an intervention, I would even go as far to say with or without UN support. However, on a global level - I'm not so sure. Government cuts have reduced the number of regular troops radically, and the combined with our current Afghanistan deployments, I reckon there would scarce be enough to support a protracted engagement in Syria. I think overall, it would be foolish to engage in another embroilment, but it's a trade of between moral obligation to your own nations soldiers and civilians (Not to waste their lives) and obligations to the international community (The innocent victims in Syria). In any case, I wouldn't support either veiwpoint until the UN inspectors have confirmed the presence of Chem weapons.
All said, that's just my opinion based on being a UK citizen, no doubt others (primarily in the US) will have a different view on things.
Mr. Burning wrote: Lets lay our cards on the table here. The most successful Western military interventions since the end of WW2 have been Grenada and the Falklands. everything else has been a hamstrung clusterfeth or has seen muddled aims get even more tangled.
Mali seems to have turned out well. Panama seems ok.
BaronIveagh wrote: F14s are nice , but ten times as many Flanker Cs are a bigger concern, I don't care how awesome you think the Tomcat is.
There isn't a 4/4.5 gen fighter that's a serious threat to anything we'd be throwing into the Middle East out there right now. What possibly makes the F-14 a pain in the ass is the way in which the Iranians have been employing it. Neither is a "concern," and concern status for neither would be based on, of all things, maneuverability. We don't let you in close.
That's because you're used to the superbug. Flanker's nothing to sneeze at, and according to the Jerusalem Post they bought in bulk. She's got a higher climb speed and more engine thrust than that superbug and if she's carrying the newer Russian package she's a very viable threat.
We see the Flanker long before the Flanker sees us. We kill the Flanker before it ever knew we were there. The Russians aren't exporting AESA, last I checked, largely because they still haven't figured it out completely.
And if you're going to insist on the knife-fighting scenario, again, AIM-9Xs. You've got supermaneuverability? Off-boresight heaters don't give a gak, because as long as you're between 3 and 9 o'clock, you're smoked. Not that we'd even truly need them; low and slow is where the Rhino eats. It's how they get gun kills on F-22s.
For the giggles, here's footage of the new model flanker from the Paris air show
Clean air show config doesn't tell you much of anything about combat performance, especially on a jet that carries its stores externally. What it can do with nothing on the pylons and what it can do with a full load are completely separate. Also, that's an Su-35. If they bought Flanker Cs, as stated, they bought two-seat Su-27s - a design from the '80s. The Russians haven't been able to get anybody to bite on export sales of the Su-35, or Flanker-E, and only have like 40 of them themselves.
We won't be fighting Flankers of any variant in close. Even if we do, nobody's come up with good defensive tactics against off-boresight heaters yet. The French claim they have, but they haven't. The Iranians sure as hell haven't.
Syria chemical weapons response poses major test for Obama
WASHINGTON — The apparent poison gas attack that killed hundreds of Syrian civilians last week is testing President Obama's views on military intervention, international law and the United Nations as no previous crisis has done.
The former constitutional law professor, who came to office determined to end what critics called the cowboy foreign policy of George W. Bush, now is wrestling with some of the same moral and legal realities that led Bush to invade Iraq without clear U.N. consent in 2003.
As U.S. officials discussed diplomatic and military options with allies in Europe and the Middle East, White House advisors indicated Tuesday that they were unlikely to seek either a vote in Congress or at the U.N. Security Council to authorize use of force. Last week, Obama said he had concerns about launching an attack on Syrian President Bashar Assad's government without a U.N. mandate.
Russia and China would almost certainly veto or delay any U.N. resolution condemning Syria or sanctioning reprisal. Top British and French officials, who are likely to support U.S. military action, have signaled they don't think a detour to the U.N. would be worthwhile.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that virtually no one doubted that Assad's government had carried out a chemical attack last week. But the Obama administration has yet to reveal the intelligence that led to that conclusion.
Syria's foreign minister, Walid Moallem, denied that government forces had used chemical weapons. "I dare them to produce any single piece of evidence," he said at a news conference in Damascus, the Syrian capital.
White House officials cautioned that Obama was still considering the options, but the administration appeared positioned to act quickly once he chooses a course. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said during a visit to Brunei that the Pentagon was prepared to strike targets in Syria and hinted that such a move could come within days.
Some experts said U.S. warships and submarines in the eastern Mediterranean could fire cruise missiles at Syrian targets as early as Thursday night, beginning a campaign that could last two or three nights. Obama leaves next Tuesday for a four day trip to Sweden and Russia, which strongly supports Assad's government, for the G-20 economic summit.
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.
"They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said.
Obama and his top aides have shared intelligence with key members of Congress. But White House aides made it clear Tuesday that Obama would not wait for Congress to return from its monthlong recess on Sept. 9, and House and Senate leaders signaled no plans to call members back for an emergency session.
"I can't imagine the president is going to do much more than the outreach he's already doing," said Jim Manley, former aide to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after a briefing that the administration was "proceeding cautiously." Obama is "considering a broad range of options that have been presented by our military leaders," he said.
Still, a growing number of lawmakers in both parties pressed the White House to seek authorization from Congress.
Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) collected nearly three dozen signatures of House members on a letter he intended to send to the White House. It states that military action without a congressional vote "would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution." Congress stood ready to return for a debate on the issue, the letter says.
Other lawmakers worried that a few days of missile strikes might be counterproductive.
Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said it would be "little more than a slap on the wrist" to the Syrian government, but could provoke retaliation from Assad that could draw America into "a much wider and much longer-term conflict that could mean an even greater loss of life within Syria."
Because of safety concerns, the team of U.N. inspectors in Damascus was forced to scrub a planned visit Tuesday to one of the suburbs allegedly hit by poison gas. They are to leave Syria on Sunday, but they probably will be withdrawn earlier if Washington warns that missile strikes are imminent.
"I would doubt" the United States or its allies would attack while the U.N. team was still in Syria, said Jean Pascal Zanders, a Belgian scientist and author of a blog that focuses on chemical weapons issues.
The U.N. team includes experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the World Health Organization. Led by a Swedish scientist, Ake Sellstrom, the investigators are seeking to determine if sarin nerve gas or other toxic agents were used in Syria, though not who used them.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has summoned Parliament to a special session Thursday. In addition to the British and French, Germany has indicated it could support military action if use of chemical weapons was confirmed. Turkey and Saudi Arabia, two regional foes of Assad, have indicated they could support a military response.
The Arab League said Tuesday that it had determined that the Syrian government was responsible, and it asked the United Nations to punish Damascus.
The White House has not put forward a legal framework for armed action in Syria, which has not threatened or attacked U.S. citizens or facilities, the usual justification for punitive strikes. Normally, nations may not use military force against other nations except in self-defense or when acting at the behest of the U.N. Security Council.
"Neither of those options is obviously in play here," said Ashley Deeks, a former State Department lawyer who teaches at the University of Virginia. She said the administration was looking at the 1999 intervention in Kosovo for legal precedent.
President Clinton joined with NATO allies in a so-called humanitarian war that targeted Yugoslav forces who had besieged Kosovo. Russia and China objected and called the "unilateral use of force … a flagrant violation" of the U.N. Charter. It took nearly three months of bombing to end the conflict.
Since then, lawyers who specialize in international law have been split over whether the United States must closely abide by international law or sometimes take military action to save lives.
Obama's aides include some who are wary of military action as well as backers of "humanitarian interventionism." Samantha Power, now the ambassador to the United Nations, repeatedly urged Washington to take bold action to stop genocide overseas before she joined government.
"Some people inside the administration have argued for a new legal doctrine that would say the United States has a legal right and an obligation to intervene to protect individuals who are being abused," said John B. Bellinger III, the State Department legal advisor under Bush. "But my guess is the president will see that as too risky, that a broad new doctrine could be used by others in ways that we don't foresee."
As recently as Thursday, Obama warned about intervening without U.N. support.
"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented," Obama told CNN, "then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it. Do we have the coalition to make it work? Those are considerations that we have to take into account."
Over the weekend, as more evidence of a chemical attack surfaced, the White House dramatically changed its language.
Aides decided to clip references to a "U.N. mandate" and "international law" from the administration's talking points. Since then, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden have said Assad violated international "norms" regarding use of banned weapons.
Allegedly Russia have said that they will strike against Saudi If there is a Western Intervention.
The Saudis have sent aircraft to their northern border.
On the downside, I'm in the firing line.
On the bright side, last time this sort of thing happened, we all got loads of danger money
I highly doubt that Russia will really risk stirring up things with the both the USA and the UK - their current economic situation thrives on the trade to and from the west. I would be surprised if they wanted to upset that balance over Syria.
Warpig1815 wrote: I highly doubt that Russia will really risk stirring up things with the both the USA and the UK - their current economic situation thrives on the trade to and from the west. I would be surprised if they wanted to upset that balance over Syria.
Considering that as of right now the "Syrian Electronic Army" has been found to be based in Russia--I think they might be willing to take things a bit further.
Warpig1815 wrote: I highly doubt that Russia will really risk stirring up things with the both the USA and the UK - their current economic situation thrives on the trade to and from the west. I would be surprised if they wanted to upset that balance over Syria.
You mean like giving asylum to Snowden? Sending AAA to Syria? Sending military trainers to Syria? Providing hard cash to Syria? Stating it will veto any UN action? I'm so glad Russia isn't stirring the pot
The revelations come amid high tension in the Middle East, with US, British, and French warship poised for missile strikes in Syria. Iran has threatened to retaliate.
The strategic jitters pushed Brent crude prices to a five-month high of $112 a barrel. “We are only one incident away from a serious oil spike. The market is a lot tighter than people think,” said Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review.
Leaked transcripts of a closed-door meeting between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan shed an extraordinary light on the hard-nosed Realpolitik of the two sides.
Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria. “Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets,” he said at the four-hour meeting with Mr Putin. They met at Mr Putin’s dacha outside Moscow three weeks ago.
“We understand Russia’s great interest in the oil and gas in the Mediterranean from Israel to Cyprus. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area,” he said, purporting to speak with the full backing of the US.
The talks appear to offer an alliance between the OPEC cartel and Russia, which together produce over 40m barrels a day of oil, 45pc of global output. Such a move would alter the strategic landscape.
The details of the talks were first leaked to the Russian press. A more detailed version has since appeared in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which has Hezbollah links and is hostile to the Saudis.
As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.
Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”
President Putin has long been pushing for a global gas cartel, issuing the `Moscow Declaration’ last to month “defend suppliers and resist unfair pressure”. This would entail beefing up the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), a talking shop.
Mr Skrebowski said it is unclear what the Saudis can really offer the Russians on gas, beyond using leverage over Qatar and others to cut output of liquefied natural gas (LGN). “The Qataris are not going to obey Saudi orders,” he said.
Saudi Arabia could help boost oil prices by restricting its own supply. This would be a shot in the arm for Russia, which is near recession and relies on an oil price near $100 to fund the budget.
But it would be a dangerous strategy for the Saudis if it pushed prices to levels that endangered the world’s fragile economic recovery. Crude oil stocks in the US have already fallen sharply this year. Goldman Sachs said the “surplus cushion” in global stocks built up since 2008 has been completely eliminated.
Mr Skrebowski said trouble is brewing in a string of key supply states. “Libya is reverting to war lordism. Nigerian is drifting into a bandit state with steady loss of output. And Iraq is going back to the sort of Sunni-Shia civil war we saw in 2006-2007,” he said.
The Putin-Bandar meeting was stormy, replete with warnings of a “dramatic turn” in Syria. Mr Putin was unmoved by the Saudi offer, though western pressure has escalated since then. “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters,” he said, referring to footage showing a Jihadist rebel eating the heart and liver of a Syrian soldier.
Prince Bandar in turn warned that there can be “no escape from the military option” if Russia declines the olive branch. Events are unfolding exactly as he foretold.
The problem is, that the BBC haven't really focused on the Russian side of things, so I can't really talk too much on that hand - but I can say that it quotes the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying that his nation has 'no plans to go to war with anyone'. Hence, I reckon that Russia is only likely to react by imposing punitive measures such as increased weapons supply to Damascus.
EDIT: I should probably have clarified my first post by stating that by 'Stirring', I meant a direct military opposal - I am well aware of their arms deals.
Mr. Burning wrote: Lets lay our cards on the table here. The most successful Western military interventions since the end of WW2 have been Grenada and the Falklands. everything else has been a hamstrung clusterfeth or has seen muddled aims get even more tangled.
Mali seems to have turned out well. Panama seems ok.
Warpig1815 wrote: The problem is, that the BBC haven't really focused on the Russian side of things, so I can't really talk too much on that hand - but I can say that it quotes the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying that his nation has 'no plans to go to war with anyone'. Hence, I reckon that Russia is only likely to react by imposing punitive measures such as increased weapons supply to Damascus.
EDIT: I should probably have clarified my first post by stating that by 'Stirring', I meant a direct military opposal - I am well aware of their arms deals.
Every large nation has plans to go to war. The sane ones hope they don't have to implement those plans
All Russia has to do is keep supplying Syria with munitions, weapons, training, and diplomatic cover. It a lot more effective (cost effective, and otherwise) for them compared to what the US, UK, and France are considering. Also its not like Russia has an independent press that will hold them to account, or like the Kremlin cares what the rest of the world thinks about them.
Here's the first page of the article, visit the link above to read the whole thing.
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.
BY SHANE HARRIS AND MATTHEW M. AID | AUGUST 26, 2013
The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned..
In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.
U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.
According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.
In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.
In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons' use -- even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.
It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States' knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.
Here's the first page of the article, visit the link above to read the whole thing.
Breaking News!! Governments are hypocrites when it comes to protecting their own interests. In other shocking revelations water is wet, and the Pope is outted as a Catholic.
To be honest, all the US, UK and France (Though I'm not sure what role France thinks it's gonna take) seem to be doing is prematurely flexing their muscles, without waiting for adefinitive UN resolution?. It's to little to late now. If anything, this matter should have been addressed when it kicked off - back in 2011 along with Libya. It seems like now it's just a rush to see who can 'intervene' faster as they've only just realised how bad things have gotten. So what does Russia stand to gain, aside from the supposed political high ground in the Middle East?
Warpig1815 wrote: To be honest, all the US, UK and France (Though I'm not sure what role France thinks it's gonna take) seem to be doing is prematurely flexing their muscles, without waiting for adefinitive UN resolution?. It's to little to late now. If anything, this matter should have been addressed when it kicked off - back in 2011 along with Libya. It seems like now it's just a rush to see who can 'intervene' faster as they've only just realised how bad things have gotten. So what does Russia stand to gain, aside from the supposed political high ground in the Middle East?
Regaining it's prestige on the world stage and enhancing it's own national pride. Showing prospective allies and client states that it is not the toothless tiger from the 90's and early 2000's. That it has enough international clout to protect those that enjoy it's favour from other world powers. Jockeying for position on the world stage as it thumbs it's nose at the US over successive actions, and expands it's sphere of influence.
So if that's the case, then why is it presented (At least from a BBC aspect) that Russia simply wants a political solution. Mind you, having said that, it would vindicate their goals if they could force down the USA politically...
Oh, I'm not taking them at face value - of course Russia has ulterior motives. I'm simply perplexed as to why the BBC is being suspiciously quiet and conservative on the subject of Russia, and why the theorised Russian reaction in the US is so different from the theorised Russian respone in the UK...
Warpig1815 wrote: So if that's the case, then why is it presented (At least from a BBC aspect) that Russia simply wants a political solution. Mind you, having said that, it would vindicate their goals if they could force down the USA politically...
Because either way Russia wins. It's supported Assad this entire time. A political solution means that they are showing that they are relevant on the world stage and can dictate terms. Also given how strong their hand is any political deal over Syria would doubtless have something to offer Russia to allow a political settlement to be reached.
It also lets them gloat that they could get a political settlement as the West could only resort to threats of force, and the Arab League could do nothing. It places them as a new contender for influence in the Middle East outside of just selling military hardware.
Well then, correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be counter-productive for the USA and the UK to rush headlong into armed intervention if that just weakens their influence in the area? It seems even should be forgo armed intervention then Russia gains influence, but if we intervene and topple the regime then Russia still gains a moral high ground.
On Syria, here are 14 points that need to be pondered a lot more than they are. I think in may ways we Westerners are misreading what is going on in Syria - something I reviewed in the free-swim portion of Midrats Sunday.
1. Bashar is the second son whose oldest brother was to be next in line until died in a car accident in '94. Bashar was a mild-mannered ophthalmologist and had less than 7-yrs to transition from a London eye doctor to head of a government.
2. Bashar is the leader of a family who has seen two of his brothers die prematurely in accidents and a brother in law killed in a civil war. His only surviving brother is the head of the Republican Guard and a survivor of a previous assassination attempt.
3. He is a member of a small Shi'ite sect who are not even seen as Muslims by Sunni fundamentalists. They are hated by most Syrians for the preferential treatment they have received for over 40 years. He knows if he does not hold power, Alawites will be slaughtered wholesale. His tribe does not have the best reputation either.
4. He has no options for him, his family, his tribe and his co-religionists other than victory.
5. He is of no serious threat to his neighbors and is focused on one thing; survival.
6. Some focus on taking out his "offensive power" - most of which is on paper only. Even if he had the ability, he has nothing to gain by attacking Western naval and air targets when his capital is infested with insurgents. He gains nothing from attacking his neighbor to the south. He gains nothing from attacking British bases in Cyprus.
7. What he needs are three things; time, Russia & Iran. Giving the West an excuse to attack him buys him nothing.
8. Always ask, "Who gains?" Small uses of gas helpful at the Tactical level? No. Useful at the Operational level? No. From a Strategic or Political level, does his use of gas produce any positive effects? No; for him.
9. If the international community thinks that Assad used poison gas, who gains positive Political and Strategic effects? The anti-Assad forces.
10. If Assad falls, who gets possession of all of Syria's poison gas stockpiles? The anti-Assad forces.
11. Who in the anti-Assad forces has the most military power to keep and control the gas? Al-Qaeda affiliated groups.
12. Who has the most to gain from Assad's use of gas? Al-Qaeda.
13. What is one weapon-set Al-Qaeda has wanted to use against the West since even before 9/11? WMD; chemical, biological, or nuclear.
14. What is the #1 target of Al-Qaeda if they had WMD? The West in general, USA specifically.
So, if we contribute to the fall of Assad, we are giving our enemy the weapons they want to kill thousands of OUR people.
If that is the case - is it in our national interest to see Assad survive? Yes.
Is that pretty? No.
Which is worse, thousands of dead Sunnis or thousands of dead Shi'ite & Christians? They are all bad ... but none of them are worse than thousands to tens of thousands of dead Americans gassed in subways in 2016.
On Syria, here are 14 points that need to be pondered a lot more than they are. I think in may ways we Westerners are misreading what is going on in Syria - something I reviewed in the free-swim portion of Midrats Sunday.
1. Bashar is the second son whose oldest brother was to be next in line until died in a car accident in '94. Bashar was a mild-mannered ophthalmologist and had less than 7-yrs to transition from a London eye doctor to head of a government.
2. Bashar is the leader of a family who has seen two of his brothers die prematurely in accidents and a brother in law killed in a civil war. His only surviving brother is the head of the Republican Guard and a survivor of a previous assassination attempt.
3. He is a member of a small Shi'ite sect who are not even seen as Muslims by Sunni fundamentalists. They are hated by most Syrians for the preferential treatment they have received for over 40 years. He knows if he does not hold power, Alawites will be slaughtered wholesale. His tribe does not have the best reputation either.
4. He has no options for him, his family, his tribe and his co-religionists other than victory.
5. He is of no serious threat to his neighbors and is focused on one thing; survival.
6. Some focus on taking out his "offensive power" - most of which is on paper only. Even if he had the ability, he has nothing to gain by attacking Western naval and air targets when his capital is infested with insurgents. He gains nothing from attacking his neighbor to the south. He gains nothing from attacking British bases in Cyprus.
7. What he needs are three things; time, Russia & Iran. Giving the West an excuse to attack him buys him nothing.
8. Always ask, "Who gains?" Small uses of gas helpful at the Tactical level? No. Useful at the Operational level? No. From a Strategic or Political level, does his use of gas produce any positive effects? No; for him.
9. If the international community thinks that Assad used poison gas, who gains positive Political and Strategic effects? The anti-Assad forces.
10. If Assad falls, who gets possession of all of Syria's poison gas stockpiles? The anti-Assad forces.
11. Who in the anti-Assad forces has the most military power to keep and control the gas? Al-Qaeda affiliated groups.
12. Who has the most to gain from Assad's use of gas? Al-Qaeda.
13. What is one weapon-set Al-Qaeda has wanted to use against the West since even before 9/11? WMD; chemical, biological, or nuclear.
14. What is the #1 target of Al-Qaeda if they had WMD? The West in general, USA specifically.
So, if we contribute to the fall of Assad, we are giving our enemy the weapons they want to kill thousands of OUR people.
If that is the case - is it in our national interest to see Assad survive? Yes.
Is that pretty? No.
Which is worse, thousands of dead Sunnis or thousands of dead Shi'ite & Christians? They are all bad ... but none of them are worse than thousands to tens of thousands of dead Americans gassed in subways in 2016.
That pretty much sums it up...eh?
Pretty good summation. It's like someone went and made a "Why We Should Not Intervene For Dummies"
In a word - yes. It's quite strange that even should the West's intentions be purely noble (which they probably aren't) intending to help innocents will still end up harming them.
Grey Templar wrote: And if Syria does get invaded and occupied, the Russians at least got some field tests on their weapons
Yup! They get to test their new toys against the hardware and tactics that they had in mind when they were designed
Warpig1815 wrote: Well then, correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be counter-productive for the USA and the UK to rush headlong into armed intervention if that just weakens their influence in the area? It seems even should be forgo armed intervention then Russia gains influence, but if we intervene and topple the regime then Russia still gains a moral high ground.
Then we should have chosen the least worst option. Take the course of action that causes the least harm to your goals, and start mitigating against the harmful effects as much as possible.
@Dreadclaw - Which pretty much sums up everything I said in my very first post - thanks for clarifying that, I was just wading in to see what others were thinking on the matter.
So... um, waterboarding 3 terrorist = evil bush admin... republic is being destroyed.
But, droning untold targets = nobel peace prize obama... republic is a-ok.
amirite?
Let's not get into the debate of which leader is the most evil. It draws unwanted comparisons.
Off topic, can a nobel prize be revoked?
On topic, I'm not sure I'd care about this conflict if Assad went on television spraying nerve gas into an orphanage. I'm sorry, I'm just all out of care about the middle east.
§ 10.
No appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize.
On topic, I'm not sure I'd care about this conflict if Assad went on television spraying nerve gas into an orphanage. I'm sorry, I'm just all out of care about the middle east.
On the surface... I'd agree with ya.
But look who's watching... (Iran, Hezbellah, etc...). See my drift. If Assad's wrist get slapped, are we going to see more WMD style attacks?
whembly wrote: But look who's watching... (Iran, Hezbellah, etc...). See my drift. If Assad's wrist get slapped, are we going to see more WMD style attacks?
Yes, eventually. But that was always a matter of time.
Medium of Death wrote: There is absolutely no reason for the UK, and the West in general, to wade into the middle of a bloody and complex civil war.
Who actually wants this? What good will this achieve?
Personally, I don't see how anything bad could come of parking a cruise missile in Assads bedroom.
Plus, as our admin leaks more and more details about how we are going to strike (does this strike anyone else as a really stupid thing to do), it's becoming increasingly clear that all we will do is help prolong this effort by slightly weakening Assad's fighting capabilities, putting the opposing forces more at parity.
djones520 wrote: Plus, as our admin leaks more and more details about how we are going to strike (does this strike anyone else as a really stupid thing to do), it's becoming increasingly clear that all we will do is help prolong this effort by slightly weakening Assad's fighting capabilities, putting the opposing forces more at parity.
Maybe they're hoping it's a way of putting pressure on the Assad regime knowing that they might be targetted. That might force them to make a political settlement rather than risk a missile strike.
djones520 wrote: Plus, as our admin leaks more and more details about how we are going to strike (does this strike anyone else as a really stupid thing to do), it's becoming increasingly clear that all we will do is help prolong this effort by slightly weakening Assad's fighting capabilities, putting the opposing forces more at parity.
Maybe they're hoping it's a way of putting pressure on the Assad regime knowing that they might be targetted. That might force them to make a political settlement rather than risk a missile strike.
One of the only settlement the rebels want is the ousting of Assad, his family and their family 'tribe'.
Mr. Burning wrote: One of the only settlement the rebels want is the ousting of Assad, his family and their family 'tribe'.
Assad Cannot bow to demands or threats.
Looking at it from his perspective he is a part of a minority sect in Islam that is seen as heretical, and he's been in charge during the civil war. Of course he isn't going to step down without assurances, and possibly guaranteed asylum and protection in another country.
On Syria, here are 14 points that need to be pondered a lot more than they are. I think in may ways we Westerners are misreading what is going on in Syria - something I reviewed in the free-swim portion of Midrats Sunday.
1. Bashar is the second son whose oldest brother was to be next in line until died in a car accident in '94. Bashar was a mild-mannered ophthalmologist and had less than 7-yrs to transition from a London eye doctor to head of a government.
2. Bashar is the leader of a family who has seen two of his brothers die prematurely in accidents and a brother in law killed in a civil war. His only surviving brother is the head of the Republican Guard and a survivor of a previous assassination attempt.
3. He is a member of a small Shi'ite sect who are not even seen as Muslims by Sunni fundamentalists. They are hated by most Syrians for the preferential treatment they have received for over 40 years. He knows if he does not hold power, Alawites will be slaughtered wholesale. His tribe does not have the best reputation either.
4. He has no options for him, his family, his tribe and his co-religionists other than victory.
5. He is of no serious threat to his neighbors and is focused on one thing; survival.
6. Some focus on taking out his "offensive power" - most of which is on paper only. Even if he had the ability, he has nothing to gain by attacking Western naval and air targets when his capital is infested with insurgents. He gains nothing from attacking his neighbor to the south. He gains nothing from attacking British bases in Cyprus.
7. What he needs are three things; time, Russia & Iran. Giving the West an excuse to attack him buys him nothing.
8. Always ask, "Who gains?" Small uses of gas helpful at the Tactical level? No. Useful at the Operational level? No. From a Strategic or Political level, does his use of gas produce any positive effects? No; for him.
9. If the international community thinks that Assad used poison gas, who gains positive Political and Strategic effects? The anti-Assad forces.
10. If Assad falls, who gets possession of all of Syria's poison gas stockpiles? The anti-Assad forces.
11. Who in the anti-Assad forces has the most military power to keep and control the gas? Al-Qaeda affiliated groups.
12. Who has the most to gain from Assad's use of gas? Al-Qaeda.
13. What is one weapon-set Al-Qaeda has wanted to use against the West since even before 9/11? WMD; chemical, biological, or nuclear.
14. What is the #1 target of Al-Qaeda if they had WMD? The West in general, USA specifically.
So, if we contribute to the fall of Assad, we are giving our enemy the weapons they want to kill thousands of OUR people.
If that is the case - is it in our national interest to see Assad survive? Yes.
Is that pretty? No.
Which is worse, thousands of dead Sunnis or thousands of dead Shi'ite & Christians? They are all bad ... but none of them are worse than thousands to tens of thousands of dead Americans gassed in subways in 2016.
That pretty much sums it up...eh?
It could be a triple bluff. Assad could be assuming anyone with a sense of logic will conclude it couldn't be him, and therefore think he's safe to use gas. Or alternatively, he could just believe the West will never intervene(not unjustified by the death toll and 'meh' response so far) and not be applying that logic particularly himself.
Or both sides could be using gas.
The funny thing about these things is that all three could be true.
Loads of kids die around the world every day and nobody "cares". Not really sure what your point is here? Complicating the civil war, all the while escalating it to an international incident, wont bring these kids back.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.
What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.
Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.
What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.
Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.
What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.
Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.
What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.
Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.
Nice!
I'm sure Ouze didn't mean any disrepect...
I don't think he did either, but he's posted this a couple times the past couple of days, and that's how it's coming across.
Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.
The US citizenry paid for that uniform so, yeah, he is.
Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.
The US citizenry paid for that uniform, so I'm not entirely certain you can paint yourself as a victim.
Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.
The US citizenry paid for that uniform, so I'm not entirely certain you can paint yourself as a victim.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.
What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.
Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.
You're not victims, but you are employees of the US government. I have the right to express an opinion that our resources not be squandered in search of monsters to destroy, not when we have plenty of starving children of our own at home who yearn to be fed and clothed. When you say "we", the money and resources they didn't get so you could wear that uniform - They're also part of "we".
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.
What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.
Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.
Why would you act like that? I'm sure you'd rather not fight, and possibly die, in a conflict that you have no business of being in.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.
What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.
Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.
Why would you act like that? I'm sure you'd rather not fight, and possibly die, in a conflict that you have no business of being in.
Because most soldiers and sailors that signed up will defend their country no matter the cost?
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.
What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.
Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.
Why would you act like that? I'm sure you'd rather not fight, and possibly die, in a conflict that you have no business of being in.
Because most soldiers and sailors that signed up will defend their country no matter the cost?
Remind me again how going over there defends the U.S.
I am a United States Sailor.
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.
I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.
I proudly serve my country's Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment.
I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all.
Nice, I needed B4. I've got a few hours left and already it's looking like I'll have a row soon.
Anyway, so far as the OP goes, I know I've argued in this thread pretty hard for isolationism but the truth is I still remain awfully conflicted about this. It really is a terrible thing going on.
Nice, I needed B4. I've got a few hours left and already it's looking like I'll have a row soon.
Anyway, so far as the OP goes, I know I've argued in this thread pretty hard for isolationism but the truth is I still remain awfully conflicted about this. It really is a terrible thing going on.
It is. A lot of the points raised against intervening are very valid. The decision to do something is not an easy one to make. But I feel between choosing to do something, and not to, action is better then inaction.
Would be interesting if there is a lack of action, to see if any survivors among the rebels will seek vengeance for the West condoning genocide. Perhaps they will smuggle chemical weapons to set off into the west.
Last time we had someone gasing his own people on this level., I'm sure everyone was in favour of invading.
not when we have plenty of starving children of our own at home who yearn to be fed and clothed
And why would that be important when its easier to let nature run its course? You can't feed everyone, nor is that a worthy goal.
Ouze wrote:That's swell, but what's it got to do with Syria?
If you don't get it, then they're just words to you.
My grandfather served in World War 2, and to his dying day was proud of the things he achieved, not for himself, but so that other men might live without fear. Without torture, without their children being murdered by a tyrant.
Doing the right thing is not always in one's national interest. It doesn't always make a huge profit. Men give their lives to do the right thing every day though.
Why? The answer is in the very document in which free men cast off the yoke of tyranny.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
not when we have plenty of starving children of our own at home who yearn to be fed and clothed
And why would that be important when its easier to let nature run its course? You can't feed everyone, nor is that a worthy goal.
Trying to feel starving children is not a worthy goal? Bravo, sir. 10/10, I'm sure you'll get some bites.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Why? The answer is in the very document in which free men cast off the yoke of tyranny.
Yeah, specifically, our yoke - not everyone else in the worlds.
Feed children, only to let them continue in the limbo of poverty. If your struggling to feed the people you have now, why on earth would any sensible race continue to contribute to a rapidly expanding population?
A better goal would be to maintain a sensible population limit, within reason, to assure as best a quality of life for everyone.
Yeah, specifically, our yoke - not everyone else in the worlds.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You do have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? It doesn't say 'Just Us 'muricans' it says all men. Everyone has those rights. Every where in every nation on this globe. Jefferson was right in that.
Yeah, specifically, our yoke - not everyone else in the worlds.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You do have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you?
Youre using those lines? Just look at the rest of history after they wrote this. It doesnt even hold meaning to those who wrote it. I still dont see the difference between poison gas and a bullet to a child, both can be equally horrible and painfull.
BaronIveagh wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You do have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? It doesn't say 'Just Us 'muricans' it says all men. Everyone has those rights. Every where in every nation on this globe. Jefferson was right in that.
So we go in, save the men and leave the women behind? After all, it is only men that are created equal
BaronIveagh wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You do have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? It doesn't say 'Just Us 'muricans' it says all men. Everyone has those rights. Every where in every nation on this globe. Jefferson was right in that.
So we go in, save the men and leave the women behind? After all, it is only men that are created equal
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You do have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? It doesn't say 'Just Us 'muricans' it says all men. Everyone has those rights. Every where in every nation on this globe. Jefferson was right in that.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You do have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? It doesn't say 'Just Us 'muricans' it says all men. Everyone has those rights. Every where in every nation on this globe. Jefferson was right in that.
LIFE.
LIBERTY.
THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
I'm sure England is a beacon of morality throughout history, what with their attempts to try and deny sovereignty to a nation whom they are stealing resources from. The 'UK' hasn't a leg to stand on.
The UK has experienced worse atrocities commited by one of its member countries than anything in those pics.
Youre using those lines? Just look at the rest of history after they wrote this. It doesnt even hold meaning to those who wrote it.
I'd suggest it clearly meant something to someone, because more Americans gave their lives in a war over slavery then in any other war.
After other nations had already abolished it without a Civil War? Holding a Civil War over slavery just shows how much support it still had. And its not like everyone was instantly equal after that war. That why were celebrating the MLK dream speech 50 years later. Those lines held no meaning at the time and for a long time after that. The ones who wrote those things down even had slaves in some cases.
Its like saying more Germans died fighting against Totalitarianism, even though they were made to do it by a totalitarian regime themselves.
Yeah, specifically, our yoke - not everyone else in the worlds.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You do have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? It doesn't say 'Just Us 'muricans' it says all men. Everyone has those rights. Every where in every nation on this globe. Jefferson was right in that.
Sure. Now show me the part that says we're the ones who enforce that. Maybe I'm just too stupid to read that.
Trial balloon for cruise missile strikes. No regime change, no boots on the ground. Shoot something up to feel like you're helping. Don't take any responsibility for the future of Syria, after all that might have to involve some kind of plan for what happens after Assad, there’s some great contenders for his job, that rebel leader who eats the hearts of his enemies seems like a class act. For now this seems like it will be a raytheon love tap, nothing more.
On a side note, isn’t it creepy how excited network news people get when the drums starts to beat? The talking heads look like they’re in mid orgasm while desperately trying not to fart. They can hardly contain themselves.
The threat of attack is starting to seem like a bunch of horse gak anyway, Obama's not going to start throwing cruise missiles at a Russian backed regime while he's attending the G20 in Russia. At least, I don't think he has the balls to do that.
I say the west should do sweet feth all about Syria, they really can't afford to do much other than try and look tough, either way the security council is never going to approve anything seeing as Russia and China will veto that gak into the ground.
Ouze wrote: Sure. Now show me the part that says we're the ones who enforce that. Maybe I'm just too stupid to read that.
There is a certain amount of irony in using the Declaration of Independence to justify violating another nation's sovereignty, and meddling in their affairs.
xole wrote: And it wasn't exactly over slavery. It was over states rights. It was made to be about slavery to get more Northern support
I've said as much to Baron before, but as far as he's concerned the only reason was slavery. Social and economic differences and State's rights were not a concern.
Medium of Death wrote: Scottish nationalist debate aside. Quoting some irrelevant bs about how everyone is equal and this is done under the best intentions is just risible.
I'm not pointing the finger solely at America, the Great Satan, most Nations don't have a leg to stand on/glass houses etc in that regard.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: There is a certain amount of irony in using the Declaration of Independence to justify violating another nation's sovereignty, and meddling in their affairs.
Clearly the founders of a country who, at the time it's constitution was written had no permanent standing army, intended for us to sally forth across the globe and liberate everyone who wasn't free. Today, Syria, tomorrow we're penciling in China.
I mean, Baron, you are endorsing a war with China, right? Because, they're pretty short on freedom too.
Ouze wrote: Clearly the founders of a country who, at the time it's constitution was written had no permanent standing army, intended for us to sally forth across the globe and liberate everyone who wasn't free. Today, Syria, tomorrow we're penciling in China.
I mean, Baron, you are endorsing a war with China, right? Because, they're pretty short on freedom too.
Well we still have the racial divide in the US, parts of the world have less wealth than we do, Darfur is still a mess, ditto Rwanda, Mexico is spiraling out of control, Russia has little freedom too, etc. Where do we begin our liberation efforts? Do we start with the nearest? The longest standing??
Trying to feel starving children is not a worthy goal? Bravo, sir. 10/10, I'm sure you'll get some bites.
Well, if preventing them from being exposed to poison gas isn't a worthy goal, then clearly feeding them wouldn't be either.
Yeah, really. I mean, come on. The little fethers are just asking to die, being born into poverty and overpopulation. Screw 'em! We're better off without 'em!
~Tim?
(And yes, this is sarcasm aimed the stupidity expressed by Mr. Hyena in saying that "feeding starving children isn't a worthy goal")
Medium of Death wrote: Scottish nationalist debate aside. Quoting some irrelevant bs about how everyone is equal and this is done under the best intentions is just risible.
I'm not pointing the finger solely at America, the Great Satan, most Nations don't have a leg to stand on/glass houses etc in that regard.
Trying to feel starving children is not a worthy goal? Bravo, sir. 10/10, I'm sure you'll get some bites.
Well, if preventing them from being exposed to poison gas isn't a worthy goal, then clearly feeding them wouldn't be either.
Yeah, really. I mean, come on. The little fethers are just asking to die, being born into poverty and overpopulation. Screw 'em! We're better off without 'em!
~Tim?
(And yes, this is sarcasm aimed the stupidity expressed by Mr. Hyena in saying that "feeding starving children isn't a worthy goal")
Would a Dog Pound-like scheme be better? Injections could be simpler and more humane.
If you two fine gentlemen would like to have a p*ssing contest over nationality perhaps you could take it to PMs or another thread
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
If you two fine gentlemen would like to have a p*ssing contest over nationality perhaps you could take it to PMs or another thread
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
Trying to feel starving children is not a worthy goal? Bravo, sir. 10/10, I'm sure you'll get some bites.
Well, if preventing them from being exposed to poison gas isn't a worthy goal, then clearly feeding them wouldn't be either.
Yeah, really. I mean, come on. The little fethers are just asking to die, being born into poverty and overpopulation. Screw 'em! We're better off without 'em!
~Tim?
(And yes, this is sarcasm aimed the stupidity expressed by Mr. Hyena in saying that "feeding starving children isn't a worthy goal")
Would a Dog Pound-like scheme be better? Injections could be simpler and more humane.
Trying to feel starving children is not a worthy goal? Bravo, sir. 10/10, I'm sure you'll get some bites.
Well, if preventing them from being exposed to poison gas isn't a worthy goal, then clearly feeding them wouldn't be either.
Yeah, really. I mean, come on. The little fethers are just asking to die, being born into poverty and overpopulation. Screw 'em! We're better off without 'em!
~Tim?
(And yes, this is sarcasm aimed the stupidity expressed by Mr. Hyena in saying that "feeding starving children isn't a worthy goal")
Would a Dog Pound-like scheme be better? Injections could be simpler and more humane.
Poverty IS a misery that can't be grown out of.
You really are twisted, aren't you? Poverty IS a misery that CAN be grown out of. Saying otherwise is simply an excuse ripe for manipulating into justification for genocide.
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?
If you two fine gentlemen would like to have a p*ssing contest over nationality perhaps you could take it to PMs or another thread
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
Explain WW2.
Well thats easy enough. The UK and France got in to defend Poland against Nazi aggression. Then the Soviet-Union got in because of Nazi agression too and to finish of the list so did the US.
Trying to feel starving children is not a worthy goal? Bravo, sir. 10/10, I'm sure you'll get some bites.
Well, if preventing them from being exposed to poison gas isn't a worthy goal, then clearly feeding them wouldn't be either.
Yeah, really. I mean, come on. The little fethers are just asking to die, being born into poverty and overpopulation. Screw 'em! We're better off without 'em!
~Tim?
(And yes, this is sarcasm aimed the stupidity expressed by Mr. Hyena in saying that "feeding starving children isn't a worthy goal")
Would a Dog Pound-like scheme be better? Injections could be simpler and more humane.
Poverty IS a misery that can't be grown out of.
You really are twisted, aren't you? Poverty IS a misery that CAN be grown out of. Saying otherwise is simply an excuse ripe for manipulating into justification for genocide.
~Tim?
Its clearly working well in africa and most nations then.
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'.
By a combination of many nations, which you took all the credit for. Anything else?
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?
We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?
We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.
If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?
We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.
If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.
So Poles, Czechs, former Eastern Germans speak Russian now too, thats a first. Its like saying we speak English because of the US/UK/Canadians, which isnt true.
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?
We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.
If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.
So Poles, Czechs, former Eastern Germans speak Russian now too, thats a first.
Its like saying we speak English because of the US/UK/Canadians, which isnt true.
Russia wasn't very friendly to countries it invaded. Former PACT countries can agree to that.
I don't ever remember hearing about a war of liberation across the continent of Africa against the despots and tyrants that lurk there.
Who would waste time in a place with even less chance of improving itself?
Disciple of Fate wrote: It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.
Disciple of Fate wrote: It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.
You'll have to forgive me if I highly doubt that.
Poland, former Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany would like to talk to you about their existence.
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?
We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.
If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.
So Poles, Czechs, former Eastern Germans speak Russian now too, thats a first. Its like saying we speak English because of the US/UK/Canadians, which isnt true.
Russia wasn't very friendly to countries it invaded. Former PACT countries can agree to that.
Yeah and seeing as how we were preceived as Germans we might even have been better off with Nazi rule as the master race. But that doesnt even make sense, were glad someone got rid of the nazi's, we would never want to be part of that.
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?
We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.
If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.
So Poles, Czechs, former Eastern Germans speak Russian now too, thats a first.
Its like saying we speak English because of the US/UK/Canadians, which isnt true.
Russia wasn't very friendly to countries it invaded. Former PACT countries can agree to that.
I don't ever remember hearing about a war of liberation across the continent of Africa against the despots and tyrants that lurk there.
Who would waste time in a place with even less chance of improving itself?
That last sentence came across as being unintentionally racist.
Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".
The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?
We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.
If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.
So Poles, Czechs, former Eastern Germans speak Russian now too, thats a first.
Its like saying we speak English because of the US/UK/Canadians, which isnt true.
Russia wasn't very friendly to countries it invaded. Former PACT countries can agree to that.
I don't ever remember hearing about a war of liberation across the continent of Africa against the despots and tyrants that lurk there.
Who would waste time in a place with even less chance of improving itself?
That last sentence came across as being unintentionally racist.
~Tim?
If you look at Hyena's posting habits a bit, may not be that unintentional.
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings and would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.
Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long? Either way, the extremists are gaining ground against the FSA. Fighting against an idea is a lot thougher than just an army.
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.
Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.
Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?
Both.
Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?
Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.
It doesn't really matter either way as long as Assad is outed. Ends justifies the means.
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.
Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?
Both.
Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?
Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists. Even if they have a choice they might not pick us.
What is it with you and the constant England bashing?
Scotland has went along with many attrocities committed by the British Empire, hand in hand with England. Hell sometimes they sent Scottish people because they were worse.
We are not some put upon "victim" nation. If we get independence I fear attitudes like yours will multiply and turn the bitter Scottish stereotype into a reality.
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.
Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?
Both.
Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?
Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.
What is it with you and the constant England bashing?
Scotland has went along with many attrocities committed by the British Empire, hand in hand with England. Hell sometimes they sent Scottish people because they were worse.
We are not some put upon "victim" nation. If we get independence I fear attitudes like yours will multiply and turn the bitter Scottish stereotype into a reality.
Might be because of the Imperialism that is causing it to oppress a nation.
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.
Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?
Both.
Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?
Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.
So the lack of our ground troops being killed against terrorists was lacking in assistance? Should more have died to prove the point? What was our lack of assistance, what could we have done so that the population picked us? We were already there on the ground trying to improve their lives and trying to keep the terrorists from trying to blow everyone that didnt bow to their every wish to kingdom come.
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.
Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?
Both.
Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?
Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.
So the lack of our ground troops being killed against terrorists was lacking in assistance? Should more have died to prove the point? What was our lack of assistance, what could we have done that the population picked us? We were already there on the ground trying to improve their lives and trying to keep the terrorists from trying to blow everyone that didnt bow to their every wish to kingdom come.
Build a nation to change minds or leave people to die and become vengeful. If more countries were in building FULL infrastructures, people would have thought differently.
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.
Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?
Both.
Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?
Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.
So the lack of our ground troops being killed against terrorists was lacking in assistance? Should more have died to prove the point? What was our lack of assistance, what could we have done that the population picked us? We were already there on the ground trying to improve their lives and trying to keep the terrorists from trying to blow everyone that didnt bow to their every wish to kingdom come.
Build a nation to change minds or leave people to die and become vengeful. If more countries were in building FULL infrastructures, people would have thought differently.
I hope you like being in poverty, cause the amount of money we'd need for rebuilding FULL infrastructures. Oh wait, that's a disease right? Guess we can't do that.
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.
Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?
Both.
Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?
Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.
So the lack of our ground troops being killed against terrorists was lacking in assistance? Should more have died to prove the point? What was our lack of assistance, what could we have done that the population picked us? We were already there on the ground trying to improve their lives and trying to keep the terrorists from trying to blow everyone that didnt bow to their every wish to kingdom come.
Build a nation to change minds or leave people to die and become vengeful. If more countries were in building FULL infrastructures, people would have thought differently.
We tried that, but as you might have noticed they werent so willing to accept that. The countries already in did those things. How many countries do you have to pile in to achieve such a thing, this is a bar thats constantly being hightened. You can just keep saying, no wasnt enough, nope again not enough. What would be enough? Shouldnt this be the exact reason you should be against intervention? Even less countries are willing to show up this time.
xole wrote: It also undermines the reason for going to Syria
Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.
Whole lot of a difference there.
Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?
Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.
Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?
Both.
Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?
Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.
So the lack of our ground troops being killed against terrorists was lacking in assistance? Should more have died to prove the point? What was our lack of assistance, what could we have done that the population picked us? We were already there on the ground trying to improve their lives and trying to keep the terrorists from trying to blow everyone that didnt bow to their every wish to kingdom come.
Build a nation to change minds or leave people to die and become vengeful. If more countries were in building FULL infrastructures, people would have thought differently.
We tried that, but as you might have noticed they werent so willing to accept that. The countries already in did those things. How many countries do you have to pile in to achieve such a thing, this is a bar thats constantly being hightened. You can just keep saying, no wasnt enough, nope again not enough. What would be enough? Shouldnt this be the exact reason you should be against intervention? Even less countries are willing to show up this time.
If every nation either put boots on the ground or donated a substantial sum instead, more progress should logically be able to happen. But we ended up with quite a few UN countries who did considerably jack-all to assist. Which is a great argument for a reduction on their say on world affairs. If you don't get involved, you don't get a say.
If people are unwilling to compromise like that, then do the simple thing and glass the warzone. Equal, fair and cheap.
Mr Hyena wrote: If every nation either put boots on the ground or donated a substantial sum instead, more progress should logically be able to happen. But we ended up with quite a few UN countries who did considerably jack-all to assist. Which is a great argument for a reduction on their say on world affairs. If you don't get involved, you don't get a say.
If people are unwilling to compromise like that, then do the simple thing and glass the warzone. Equal, fair and cheap.
So what happened in Iraq? The had enough oil to make a substantial amount of money. We even had the US surge of troops to help there. Your argument hold no value, since we cant logically determine the amount of forces or money needed. Dont you think planners have spend the last 10 years brainstorming on this issue? Well I guess they should have just hired you. Have every Afghani get a million dollars and a soldier as a bodyguard, problem solved?
I once had a pint at the Oyster House with David Kincaid, Gerry Adams, two historians and a cop during Irishfest in Pittsburgh. That conversation went surreal places. BTW: Even a rock (semi) star like Kincaid thought Bill Clinton got too much ass. (This is a guy who would import girlfriends from Germany and the Netherlands so he had a steady supply of mind blowing ass to tap at the time, though I hear he's settled down since then)
Ouze wrote: I would not define anything about going to fight in Syria as "defending our country".
I would, but let's grant for a moment that it isn't. Do you think we should have intervened during the Rwandan genocide despite it not threatening our national security?
Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.
In 2009 (most recent data I could find at a glance without having to dig through loads of numbers), there were 17 European nations that gave more foreign aid as a percentage of GDP than the US. "Useless" indeed.
Ouze wrote: I would not define anything about going to fight in Syria as "defending our country".
I would, but let's grant for a moment that it isn't. Do you think we should have intervened during the Rwandan genocide despite it not threatening our national security?
A rare moment, I agree with Seaward. "With great power comes great responsibility" and all that.
On that note, I think part of the reason why us non-Europeans expect the US to go in and solve stuff like this is because (in the words of He-Man), you have the power. You're so much more powerful than anyone else on Earth that we believe you to have a responsibility to use that power to do good. Take my native Sweden for example; even if we upped military spending to go back to the sort of military capability we had during the Cold War there'd be no way that we'd be able to do anything more than provide a token military force for an international mission. There are more people in NYC than in our entire country; it just wouldn't be possible. The US, meanwhile, enjoys the advantages of having the world's third largest population and having a well-educated populace (well, relatively, let's not go into the whole Honey Boo-Boo thing ). Sure, other nations have well-educated populaces as well, letting them punch above their weight (again, Sweden and similar countries), but being a country of 300 million people pulling in roughly the same direction while having a good educational system gives you loads of perks simply by giving you loads of influential intellectuals, but having those perks will make other, less powerful nations ask you to use your priviliged position to do good for humanity as a whole, as opposed to just looking out for yourselves. It's more or less individualism vs. socialism on a national scale.
Medium of Death wrote:What is it with you and the constant England bashing?
Scotland has went along with many attrocities committed by the British Empire, hand in hand with England. Hell sometimes they sent Scottish people because they were worse.
We are not some put upon "victim" nation. If we get independence I fear attitudes like yours will multiply and turn the bitter Scottish stereotype into a reality.
Might be because of the Imperialism that is causing it to oppress a nation.
Wait, that'll be the same Imperialism that came from a United Kingdom, that was once ruled by a Scottish Stuart dynasty, and is currently ruled by a mixed Germanic dynasty descendant from the very same Stuart dynasty - and yet you still have the audacity to blame it on the English?
May I ask, how on earth is Scotland an oppressed nation? All due respect to Scotland and the Scottish - because as an Englishman I feel they are very much a valuable and indispensable part of Great Britain and I personally have nothing against the Scottish people - but as a nation, you were willing participants in the 1707 Act of Union. The Imperialism you speak of brought widespread enlightenment to the world - a judiciary system, improved scientific, technological and medical understanding, a economic system that, arguably, now allows you yourself to put bread on the table and a roof over your head in a reliable manner.
You can argue all you like about the 'atrocities' caused by the British Empire (Note the word British - it's talking about Scotland being in there too), and I'll fully agree that there were - For example, colonial treatment of the Aboriginal tribes was appalling and downright shameful, so much so that we killed off all of the native Tanzanians - but I suppose you'll gently skip over the Border Reivers and the mass killings there? Or how about the pre-dominantly Scottish Jacobite sympathisers who ruthlessly eliminated any opposition to their political ideals? Furthermore, the so called Imperialism Britain spread was very much aided by Scottish regiments such as the Black Watch, the Scots Guards and the Scots Greys. Men, born in Scotland, raised in Scotland, but proud of a United Kingdom. I'm guessing though, you'll happily take the credit for the more glorious victories Scottish regiments have taken part in - Waterloo, Balaklava, WW1, WW2...
Turning to the recent Scottish Nationalist whinging - what exactly is Scotland going to do, should they become independent? I'm guessing your going to leave England the deficit (Thus negating any part Scotland may have played in ramping it up), run off with all the North Sea oil (Which, lets face it, has a massively fluctuating price) and to top it all off, you'll nicely hand over all responsibility of failing banks like RBS and HBOS to the English and Welsh (No doubt claiming it was our fault we didn't regulate YOUR banks). So, what are you going to do from there on? Perhaps you'll try to get in with the EU? - Good luck with that one. I'm sure Germany is just raring to hand out more money to a small, independent nation...
I would like to clarify that I don't hate Scotland or the Scottish - I just dislike the rather senseless arguments the SNP has come out with lately. I'm reckon they'll play Braveheart on repeat just before the referendum, just to get you all fired up...
Yeah, specifically, our yoke - not everyone else in the worlds.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You do have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? It doesn't say 'Just Us 'muricans' it says all men. Everyone has those rights. Every where in every nation on this globe. Jefferson was right in that.
Nothing there says that we have to risk terrorist attacks in a country thousands of miles away. Your argument is nonsensical.
Looks like the French and British are now getting cold feet. Awesome.
Yeah, specifically, our yoke - not everyone else in the worlds.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You do have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? It doesn't say 'Just Us 'muricans' it says all men. Everyone has those rights. Every where in every nation on this globe. Jefferson was right in that.
Nothing there says that we have to risk terrorist attacks in a country thousands of miles away. Your argument is nonsensical.
Looks like the French and British are now getting cold feet. Awesome.
Looks like Cameron is being forced to go through the motions of putting the issue to a debate in the Commons before commiting anything actually... While he can go over the head of the House and simply send in military support, it would be political suicide to do so.
While it looks like Canada is willing to support any military effort, (we could send medical teams, spec forces, and/or some F-18's), odds are our old canoes won't get them there in time...
At most it looks like Canada's government will authorise the use of the HMCS Toronto to act as an added escort to the 4 US ships already in the area.
Nothing there says that we have to risk terrorist attacks in a country thousands of miles away. Your argument is nonsensical.
Not to put too fine a point on it Frazz, but would you rather risk terrorist attacks in the US or a country thousands of miles away?
My argument is that the US has a moral obligation to do something. It might no be send troops, but action is required. Sitting back and letting it go to hell is most certainly not in it's national interest, and supporting Assad is abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on.
I'm with whembly on the matter - I do apologise to everyone for my tangent at Mr. Hyena so I'll stay on topic from now on, but I wasn't aware it was causing that much of a problem. I've never even pressed that button - ever.
Nothing there says that we have to risk terrorist attacks in a country thousands of miles away. Your argument is nonsensical.
Not to put too fine a point on it Frazz, but would you rather risk terrorist attacks in the US or a country thousands of miles away?
My argument is that the US has a moral obligation to do something. It might no be send troops, but action is required. Sitting back and letting it go to hell is most certainly not in it's national interest, and supporting Assad is abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on.
I reject your question. Attacking Syria will in no way secure safety in themainland US. If thats a concern pull our our forces out of the rest of the world and put them on the border.
We have no moral obligation to do anything. The theory of the White Man's burden died out with the British Empire.
I’ve wanted to watch Syria’s Bashar al-Assad get his clock cleaned for eight years, so it feels rather strange that I’m a bit ambivalent all of a sudden now that it looks like the United States might actually take action against him. Before we get into that, though, let’s look at how we got to this point and what we might expect in the near future.
The Syrian government allegedly used chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus and killed at least hundreds of civilians and possibly more than a thousand.
“We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks,” President Barack Obama said to NewsHour. “We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out.”
I can’t verify that, but I’ll accept it as most likely for now. The administration has access to hard intelligence data the rest of us can’t see. And anyway it’s not hard to believe that a war criminal who owns chemical weapons would commit a war crime with chemical weapons. No one’s fingering the King of Belgium for the deed.
It’s possible that Al Qaeda or the Free Syria Army got a hold of these weapons and did this themselves, but the thousands of survivors are certain the government did it.
So are the Israelis.
They could be wrong. Everyone could be wrong. It happens. But it’s spectacularly unlikely that everybody is lying. Conspiracy theories and convoluted explanations are almost never correct. Straightforward explanations are the right ones 99 percent of the time.
I don’t believe everything the government says, but lies about this sort of thing are much less common than lies about, say, the opposing candidate’s tax plan during campaign season. And anyway, why would the White House lie about this? The idea that Barack Obama is ginning up a fake excuse to bomb Syria makes no kind of sense. He has clearly been against getting involved if he can help it. He ran as the opposite sort of president from George W. Bush and he wants to govern that way. It must drive him crazy that he’s weighing an intervention against an Arab Baathist dictatorship over weapons of mass destruction, but that's what's happening.
So now there’s talk of cruise missile attacks that will last a couple of days at the most. We’ll have to wait and see if that pans out, but that’s the word from “senior US officials” as of late Wednesday. Assad’s forces are evacuating what they suspect are the target sites, so this might not even turn out to be a big deal.
This isn’t about regime-change. Not at this time, anyway. “I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change.” That was Jay Carney, the White House spokesman. Americans can rest assured that they’re safe from another long war—at least for now—and Assad can rest assured that he's safe as well.
This is about enforcing the Obama’s red line on the use of chemical weapons. He told Assad there’d be hell to pay if he used them, and if he doesn’t enforce it, he’ll lose credibility. It’s really not okay if a state sponsor of international terrorism thinks he has a green light to use weapons of mass destruction against civilians. It’s not okay if anyone does. Even if you don’t care a fig about Syrians, well, they aren’t the only ones within range.
If Obama doesn’t enforce this, he’ll also lose credibility on the other red line he’s drawn in the Middle East—the one against Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.
He desperately wants to convince Iran to abandon that program without going to war. The only way that’s even remotely possible, however unlikely, is if the Iranian government believes he’ll declare war if it doesn’t stop at some point. So if Assad gets to step over his red line, Tehran’s rulers will have every reason to believe they can step over theirs.
That’s the theory, anyway. That’s what this is about. I am not going to get in the way (not that it would make any difference), and I am not going to protest.
But a much better case could be made that the very existence of these chemical weapons stocks pose a threat not only to Syrians, but also to Syria’s immediate neighbors and even to people in more distant parts of the world. Because if Assad is overthrown by the rebels, that country will disintegrate into absolute chaos. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are already running around, and without the government in place to secure its stockpiles of weapons, anybody could go in there and get them and use them against whoever they feel like using them against.
The US, however, isn’t making that case and apparently plans to do nothing about it. So nothing on the ground is likely to change. Military action should be used to advance some kind of strategic objective, but unless the White House is keeping its plan a secret from everyone, it doesn’t look as if that’s going to happen.
Nothing there says that we have to risk terrorist attacks in a country thousands of miles away. Your argument is nonsensical.
Not to put too fine a point on it Frazz, but would you rather risk terrorist attacks in the US or a country thousands of miles away?
My argument is that the US has a moral obligation to do something. It might no be send troops, but action is required. Sitting back and letting it go to hell is most certainly not in it's national interest, and supporting Assad is abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on.
I hate do gooders who let feeling guide what should be policy decisions. There is zero 'moral obligation' that can't be as easily and as justifiably ignored as all the other times we have ignored the do gooders' call to Do Something!. Moral Obligation (or at least the definition of it you seem to hold) has NOTHING to do with national interest. Allowing Assad to remain in a civil war with the rebels (who have elements even worse than Assad's regime) is not abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on (nor is it supporting Assad, that is a silly premise). That would be why the founders refrained from being mega active across the globe, except when it came to pushing for US commercial and military interests. They didn't seek to interfere in the internal actions of other nations due to some Moral Obligation you seem to attribute to them.
If 'supporting Assad' is abhorrent and should be fought against, do you think we ought to impose sanctions on Russia, Iran and the Chinese for their support? How far are you willing to let your feelings that Something Must Be Done take our country down the road? Would sinking Russian ships in the AO supporting Assad be morally correct and therefore we should be obligated to doing so? How about shooting down Iranian aircraft bringing in supplies?
LONDON (AP) — Britain's leaders said Thursday it would be legal under humanitarian doctrine to launch a military strike against Syria even without authorization from the United Nations Security Council.
Prime Minister David Cameron's office said the legal conditions have been met for taking action against Syria for allegedly launching a chemical attack against civilians in a Damascus suburb last week. The British leader has been at the forefront of calls for action, but his push is likely to be slowed by objections from the opposition Labour Party and a stand-off at the U.N.
Cameron's office released intelligence and legal documents meant to bolster the case that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government and that retaliation would be justified. The documents were made public in advance of what is likely to be an emotionally charged debate in the British Parliament.
In addition to a legal summary, Downing Street released the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment that concludes it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 that killed hundreds of civilians.
I hate do gooders who let feeling guide what should be policy decisions.
Yes, because letting people who are in favor of torture and blood for oil worked out so well.
CptJake wrote: Allowing Assad to remain in a civil war with the rebels (who have elements even worse than Assad's regime) is not abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on (nor is it supporting Assad, that is a silly premise).
So, freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are just a myth? So, then, tell me who is this king, this Emperor of the United States I've heard nothing about then? Where are the slaves and the bound men? How is it possible there is outcry against domestic spying, when any such fools who would speak against their masters should have been disappeared long ago by the Secret Police?
The support of butchers and tyrants like Assad is very much abhorrent to the principals of the United States. He represents quite a bit of what is wrong with tyranny. While there are rebel elements far worse, numerically these are in the minority. However,they have been getting support, and aid, and reinforcement where the rest have only been getting token support from the West. This has led to them being more effective, and thus gaining local manpower and support, because they're winning, not because the people of Syria necessarily back what they stand for.
All sorts of people make a rebellion. After all, there were Catholics that supported a little colonial rebellion 200+ years ago and you know what scum those papists are.
If 'supporting Assad' is abhorrent and should be fought against, do you think we ought to impose sanctions on Russia, Iran and the Chinese for their support?
We already have sanctions on Iran. Personal opinion, we should have had sanctions on Chinese trade a long time ago, slave and near slave labor there has been slaughtering the US domestic production and has led to the current economic situation.
Chinese trade is a bit of a double edged sword - It sucks a lot of western domestic trade dry, but at the same time, at least from what I can see in the UK, the Chinese are suckers for the 'Western lifestyle'. Luxury clothes, cars and commodities that are pretty much un-producable in China (The very saw low quality manpower that churns out however many billion tons of cheap crap killing the West's economy is, funnily enough, inadequate for high quality merchandise) are all bought in from abroad - aka the USA and UK. It's absurd that as much as we loath them for taking away our monopoly, we still can't live without what custom they do give us...
Warpig1815 wrote: It's absurd that as much as we loath them for taking away our monopoly, we still can't live without what custom they do give us...
See, in the US case that's a lie that gets bandied about rather frequently. (Might be true for England). The short term shock to the stock market would be severe, but but the sudden increase in demand for domestic goods would rapidly offset this. My God, people might even be able ot get non-fast food jobs that pay a decent wage. Wal-Mart would go out of business. There would be jubilation in the streets.
Warpig1815 wrote: It's absurd that as much as we loath them for taking away our monopoly, we still can't live without what custom they do give us...
See, in the US case that's a lie that gets bandied about rather frequently. (Might be true for England). The short term shock to the stock market would be severe, but but the sudden increase in demand for domestic goods would rapidly offset this. My God, people might even be able ot get non-fast food jobs that pay a decent wage. Wal-Mart would go out of business. There would be jubilation in the streets.
And domestic goods would get cheaper? Obviously I don't know how it is there in shops, but domestics goods are always too expensive, losing china's trade wouldn't decrease those prices.
And domestic goods would get cheaper? Obviously I don't know how it is there in shops, but domestics goods are always too expensive, losing china's trade wouldn't decrease those prices.
Chinese prices are cheaper, but domestic not much more expensive, though some brands use 'Made in America' to charge more.
Cost of living would rise slightly, and there would be short term economic effects, but average income would rise more if more products are being produced domestically.
To be honest, it's probably a lie here too. Once, way back in the mists of time, England was renowned for quality goods - now however we have a complete influx of 'Made in China' with little incentive from past governments (I'm looking at you Labour) to increase our own production. Made in England is very much in short supply now, with most of our jobs seemingly falling into the tertiary services category. However, I should maybe revise my statement that we can't live without Chinese custom - rather though it still plays a large part in the British economy. This year alone we have more than 100,000 Chinese students (Second only in number to your own USA). Each paying around £50,000, this the economy a £5 bn boost (Some $7 billion). And that's without the exports to China which numbered to some £11 billion in July alone. So, it seems that even if we could survive without Chinese trade, it would still be a substantial blow should sanctions cut that trade off.
again, there is no tangable benifit to going in, maybe there is some murky feel good aspect, but I doubt we would want anyone coming over here to solve our politcal issues, so why we have a "moral responsability" to interfere in someone elses backyard is not the clear cut obligation some think it is.
there is are very tangable benifits to staying out, saving money, time, effort, and the inevitable collateral damage, and the backlash that creates with creating new terrorists ect.
@easysauce - The thing is that it's now transcended mere political differences and maneuvering. It's now descended into attacks on innocents. They may not be our innocents, but they are still somebodies innocents. Hence, unless a political resolvement can be made (Which Assad is plainly not going to back down to), then the only action that would stop the killing of innocent people would be to remove the perpetrators. I can understand why there is opposition to it - the USA and UK have not even pulled out Afghanistan before becoming embroiled in Syria and nobody wants another long war so soon, but if you ignore this war crime (For that's what it is) - how can any of us then complain when War crimes are visited on us? (Hypothetically)
It is a tough one, I'm in two minds about it, but ignoring Syria in 2011 has got us to this point, so what will happen if we ignore it further? An increased Russian influence should Assad win? Increased Al-Quaeda influence should the FSA win? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
CptJake wrote: Allowing Assad to remain in a civil war with the rebels (who have elements even worse than Assad's regime) is not abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on (nor is it supporting Assad, that is a silly premise).
So, freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are just a myth?
Seriously, how are you not getting this? You seem to honestly believe the document that laid down the principles of law in our country was also a dictate that we invade any country that is unfree; and make them like us. Is that actually what you think?
I think what he's getting at Ouze, is that America is no simply the only ones entitled to those ideals. As far as I can see from the quote you provided he's merely saying that if America (By extension the West) is allowed those ideals, then why should we America and the West stand by whilst others are refused them - hence, in an effort to make the whole world a better place, it is the moral duty of the privileged ones, to help others gain those privileges. Of course, that's just my interpretation of his words - both of you feel free to correct me if that's not what he's getting at...
Warpig1815 wrote: I think what he's getting at Ouze, is that America is no simply the only ones entitled to those ideals. As far as I can see from the quote you provided he's merely saying that if America (By extension the West) is allowed those ideals, then why should we America and the West stand by whilst others are refused them - hence, in an effort to make the whole world a better place, it is the moral duty of the privileged ones, to help others gain those privileges. Of course, that's just my interpretation of his words - both of you feel free to correct me if that's not what he's getting at...
Middle Eastern Muslims call those "ideals" Western Cultural Imperialism and those "ideals" have done wonders for the people of both Iraq and Afghanistan...
I didn't say I agreed with him, just that that's what I thought he was getting at. And yes, those ideals haven't worked in Iraq or Afghanistan (At least on the face of it - how many of us can truly say what the normal, less extremist, Iraqi thinks of it?), but other countries do enjoy better lifestyles now that western ideals have influenced them...
Warpig1815 wrote: @easysauce - The thing is that it's now transcended mere political differences and maneuvering. It's now descended into attacks on innocents. They may not be our innocents, but they are still somebodies innocents. Hence, unless a political resolvement can be made (Which Assad is plainly not going to back down to), then the only action that would stop the killing of innocent people would be to remove the perpetrators. I can understand why there is opposition to it - the USA and UK have not even pulled out Afghanistan before becoming embroiled in Syria and nobody wants another long war so soon, but if you ignore this war crime (For that's what it is) - how can any of us then complain when War crimes are visited on us? (Hypothetically)
It is a tough one, I'm in two minds about it, but ignoring Syria in 2011 has got us to this point, so what will happen if we ignore it further? An increased Russian influence should Assad win? Increased Al-Quaeda influence should the FSA win? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
thing is, when someone slaughters innocents here, we take care of it on our own,
these people need to figure their own problems out,
if someone killed a few hundred americains/yanks/canucks, and then china sent in the troops to deal with it, you think thats approprate?
syria, for better or worse, is a sovereign nation, and is responsable for itself.
there have been way worse massacres, even recently, all over the world, why is this particular one is worth going into, while the other ones are not even in the news?
not to mention, that many forces enjoy the destabilizing effect of nato/us/un sending in the troops, so making intervention the de facto solution really takes control away from these orgs, and puts it into the hands of the terrorists.
why try to overthrough a govnment yourself when you can just get the UN/us to do it?
again, damned if we do, damned if we dont,
dont costs less tangably without any doubt, morally both are equally "bad" or "good"
Warpig1815 wrote: I think what he's getting at Ouze, is that America is no simply the only ones entitled to those ideals. As far as I can see from the quote you provided he's merely saying that if America (By extension the West) is allowed those ideals, then why should we America and the West stand by whilst others are refused them - hence, in an effort to make the whole world a better place, it is the moral duty of the privileged ones, to help others gain those privileges. Of course, that's just my interpretation of his words - both of you feel free to correct me if that's not what he's getting at...
And I am sure you supported the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and fuly support an invasion of all countries in the Middle East with the exception of Israel and Turkey to make those rights happen. Right?
thing is, when someone slaughters innocents here, we take care of it on our own ...
if someone killed a few hundred americains/yanks/canucks, and then china sent in the troops to deal with it, you think thats approprate?
Actually, if history is anything to go by, they invoke Article 5 and expect NATO to come running. That's what happened, after all, after 9/11. The United States is the only country to ever invoke that clause, IIRC.
So... it's acceptable to demand every other NATO country drop everything and come running to the US aid, but the US can't be arsed to help anyone else with theirs?
And I am sure you supported the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and fuly support an invasion of all countries in the Middle East with the exception of Israel and Turkey to make those rights happen. Right?
Frazz, yes I supported Afghanistan. I also supported invading Iraq when it might have made a bigger difference. (But instead, they waited, and thousands more died because of that, which swelled the ranks of the people opposed to the US when we did eventually invade, because they felt the US betrayed them). As far as launching an invasion of the entire middle east: no, it's impractical. Syria can be successfully dealt with by the US and it's allies. The entire Middle East would be too large a front.
It's unfortunate that Israel and Saudi Arabia are the US allies. The simplest mechanism to create regional peace would be to inform them that if they do not cease this violence, Jerusalem and Mecca will be sent back to God in a pillar of Nuclear Fire if they did not, leaving them a sea of radioactive glass, and that no one could complete the Haj and live for another ten thousand years. (Yes, I know, also a war crime, but a credible threat of it might just work wonders).
@Frazzled - If you could have actually been bothered to view my next point, rather than simply cherry-pick the points that suitably vindicate your own point of view, then you'd maybe have noticed that went on to say:
Warpig1815 wrote:I didn't say I agreed with him, just that that's what I thought he was getting at. And yes, those ideals haven't worked in Iraq or Afghanistan (At least on the face of it - how many of us can truly say what the normal, less extremist, Iraqi thinks of it?), but other countries do enjoy better lifestyles now that western ideals have influenced them...
However, if you really just want to put words in my mouth then go ahead. I was actually only 6 when the US and UK invaded Afghanistan, and I reckon you're gonna say 'Well, he's only 18 - what does he know..' but at least I'm taking the time to make my own thoughts on the matter. It's more than most 18 yr olds do in the UK. Why would you assume I supported the invasions?
Again, you're just putting words in my mouth - take some time out to read. I haven't stated in any of my posts I wish for Syria to be invaded. Quite the opposite, I'm in two minds about it. Go, pick out a point where I specifically express the personal opinion that Syria needs to be invaded - I haven't. Or maybe you're just deliberately trying to twist my words. I don't know - I care even less.
Frazzled wrote: So you don't support invading all dictators etc., just this one.
No,I'm in favor of deposing all tyrants. But I'm also aware of the practical limits of the forces involved. I say Syria is doable as the faction that the US is currently backing (as of the last time anyone checked) still had about 80,000 men under arms, fighting the Syrian armed forces 100k.
In that case I apologise to Frazzled - I presumed, since it followed my own comment without an indication, that he was talking to me. So again - apologies Frazzled.
EDIT: @Baronlveagh - You've still got to remember though, that numbers don't account for the whole story. The Free Syrian Army is at best a militia, and whilst it may be holding it's own own (Although tenuously), Assad's forces at least have a modicum of training. Should the US (and everyone here seems to be forgetting that the UK inevitable perform in a vanguard role for operations like this ie. 1st Gulf, 2nd Gulf, Afghanistan) invade, then they would most likely shoulder the vast burden of combat operations - leading to increased losses or a more protracted involvement.
We're not getting involved it seems. And to be frank, I'm not surprised even slightly. Cameron seriously missed the political step on this one. He recalled Parliament before the UN report was in, and asked for a blank cheque with regards to what military action he could take (under the phrase 'military intervention').
If he'd waited a few days for the UN report and specified exactly what he had planned, he would have gotten the support he needed from Parliament. He slipped up though. So we'll be sitting this one out.
Ketara wrote: We're not getting involved it seems. And to be frank, I'm not surprised even slightly. Cameron seriously missed the political step on this one. He recalled Parliament before the UN report was in, and asked for a blank cheque with regards to what military action he could take (under the phrase 'military intervention').
If he'd waited a few days for the UN report and specified exactly what he had planned, he would have gotten the support he needed from Parliament. He slipped up though. So we'll be sitting this one out.
I would add, for now.
We currently have no clue how much farther south this crap will go.
Yup, I'd just logged back in to mention that but you beat me to it . Mind you, it was a slim margin that the proposal was turned down by - 13 votes. I can't for the life of me figure out why Cameron was trying to jump the gun, but he has lost credibility now. However, so has labour - their proposed amendment was rejected too.
Ketara wrote: We're not getting involved it seems. And to be frank, I'm not surprised even slightly. Cameron seriously missed the political step on this one. He recalled Parliament before the UN report was in, and asked for a blank cheque with regards to what military action he could take (under the phrase 'military intervention').
If he'd waited a few days for the UN report and specified exactly what he had planned, he would have gotten the support he needed from Parliament. He slipped up though. So we'll be sitting this one out.
I would add, for now.
We currently have no clue how much farther south this crap will go.
There's no more Parliamentary time allocated for it. Unless they're stupid enough to randomly attack our airbase on Cyprus, it won't be discussed again, and ergo no military action will be taken or sanctioned. Cameron, when asked point blank by Miliband as to whether he would invoke the Royal Prerogative, said that he would not do so.
If US bombs fall on Syria this weekend by the end of next month Articles of Impeachment will no doubt fall on Mr Obama's desk....
For those worried about no one having respect for his "red line" no one with any integrity has any respect for Mr Obama anyway...
Even the New York Times will call for his impeachment if he does this against the will of the Congress..and he knows it.
I really doubt there would be calls for impeachment. And certainly no legal reason for it. He would simply have 30 days to get a declaration of war from Congress or be forced to withdraw. A lot can be done in 30 days.
A sunburn sinking a us warship might complicate the impeachment a wee bit. The Brits might be out, France and Murica! are still very much in the game. The idea that Syria and its allies are just going to sit there and let the states lob tomahawks at them is insane. Russia is sending two more warships to the mediterranean.
What's everybodfy doing for world war three this weekend?
Took almost 3 months for Clinton to bomb Slobo into submission. And those strikes killed alot of civvies and accelerated the ethnic killings in that region until the Yugoslav forces withdrew. I'd wager militarily and politically, Assad has more staying power then Slobodan Milosevic.
I used the Kosovo air campaign as that is the example I see pro-intervention folks use for what our airstrikes should be like.
The only way I'd support US strikes into Syria(fairly long article from Foreign policy)
Spoiler:
New fears for Syrian Jihadists
Amid the considerable media frenzy regarding apparently imminent U.S.-led punitive strikes on Syrian military forces and facilities, one interesting party to this country's conflict has been largely ignored: the jihadists. In recent days, a notable number of members of the online jihadist community -- some involved directly and others indirectly in the conflict in Syria -- have been somewhat fixated on a widespread fear that their leaders, personnel, and bases will also be the target of Tomahawk cruise missiles.
While no Western officials have suggested any such eventuality is being considered, the extent of the discussion is telling. In the last one-and-a-half years, jihadists have established a concrete foothold in the heart of the Middle East. Jabhat al-Nusra maintains an operational presence in 11 of Syria's 13 governorates and the roughly four-month old Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) -- an extension of al Qaeda in Iraq's (AQI) front group, the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) -- is catching up fast. This is not to mention at least 10 other decidedly jihadist groups operating on a more localized level across the country. Clearly, this remarkable expansion in jihadist territorial spread and influence is of long-term concern to the West, and it is for this reason that jihadists are so concerned.
In a note entitled "Important Instructions... Before the US initiates its Mission," distributed via social media on August 27, senior Fatah al-Islam leader Abdullah Shaker (Abu Bakr) claimed: "For each and every missile that strikes a [Syrian] missile site, there will be another that targets the mujahideen's positions," suggesting such strikes would aim to kill as many jihadist leaders as possible. Shaker went on to advise all jihadists to "change your positions, take shelter, and do not move in public," and underlined how previous experiences in Mali, Iraq, and Afghanistan had seen "the mujahideen destroyed in a very short time," as the necessary precautions were not undertaken. Shaker also advised against any attempts to deploy anti-aircraft weapons against U.S. "raids" as this would "practically be suicidal."
Similar notes of warning and advice have been distributed by known Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS members and sympathizers, including an anonymous "brother familiar with the American media." He suggested on August 25 that in addition to U.S.-led strikes targeting Syrian "radar systems, air defence systems, the chemical weapons industry, and stocks of Scud missiles," a second set of strikes would target "the training camps of Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS, the group's top tier leaders, and the sharia courts." He also suggested "all leaders change their locations... avoid meetings and avoid being present in any area in large numbers... [and] provoke a torrent of misinformation about our plans and locations to confuse the enemy."
While the location of Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS leadership is kept highly secret -- with the actual identity of Jabhat al-Nusra's Abu Mohammed al-Golani still unknown in open sources -- the location of their facilities are well known. In fact, jihadist media material regularly announces and celebrates the opening of a new town headquarters, or a new sharia court, and so on and so forth. Videos and photographs are everywhere.
However, this is because jihadist groups have integrated themselves into the social mold, particularly in the northern governorates of Aleppo, northern Idlib, and Raqqa, and also in eastern Deir al-Zour. Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS govern villages, towns, and even a governorate capital, Raqqa, and as such, operate very much in the open. While such militant infrastructure could theoretically be targeted, collateral damage would be inevitable, and in many cases, high. Moreover, the incredibly fluid nature of a countrywide conflict would provide militants with ample opportunity to slip away.
Despite the high levels of concern, there appears to have been no notable shift in jihadist operations in Syria. If anything, ISIS has become more operationally active in the last few days as a result of it having launched its Revenge Volcano operation in reaction to the alleged chemical weapons attack in Ghouta on August 21. The first day of this operation (August 26) saw ISIS launch a series of mortars and Grad rockets into central Damascus, including several apparently aimed at the Four Seasons Hotel, where the U.N. chemical inspectors are staying. Meanwhile, Jabhat al-Nusra, who has also launched its own retaliatory operations -- applying the Islamic term Qisas, or simply, an Eye for an Eye -- continues to be extensively involved in ongoing operations across the country, including the assassination of the governor of Hama governorate on August 25 and the seizure of the strategic town of Khanasser in Aleppo province the following day.
As such, if precautionary moves are being made, they are only affecting the most senior levels of leadership. However, this fits closely with a line taken by a number of prominent jihadists online, which has emphasized that in the event of strikes targeting their leaders or assets, it is critically important that a group sustains its normal level of operations: "any decline in our work will be seen as defeat," said one such comment.
Placing this situation in a less Syria-constrained context was a August 27 report in the Jordan Times in which the notorious Jordanian Salafist Mohammed Shalabi (Abu Sayyaf) claimed the only reason the West planned to carry out strikes in Syria was "to prevent the Syrian people from establishing an Islamic state." In the same report, an unnamed alleged ISIS official threatened that Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS had already made the decision to carry out attacks "within Syria and abroad against the West should they target our fighters." While the latter threat is most likely bluster, it is notably one of only a small number of Syria-based jihadist threats to attack targets outside of Syria.
As is well known, jihadists worldwide view the West with immense hostility and assess its political motives, policy, and statements with complete skepticism. Throughout the Syrian conflict, a common jihadist assessment of the West's relative lack of a role in backing the armed opposition is that it, in fact, wants to prolong the conflict in order to eventually force a peace agreement whereby President Bashar al-Assad remains in power -- essentially an extension of Shalabi's argument, based on the foundational belief that the West is explicitly hostile to Islam.
Despite all of this highly speculative furor, one thing certainly does appear clear, that some level of U.S.-led, likely NATO ordered military strikes on Syrian military infrastructure is forthcoming. If, as many Syrians hope, such strikes serve to weaken the government's capacity to maintain its air advantage and to continue to prevent existentially threatening militant advances, the long-term issue of the extensive and consolidated presence of jihadist militancy in Syria will remain a key concern for policy makers in the West.
While the focus today remains on the current conflict in Syria and on how it will one day end, if Assad does eventually fall, a second battle will inevitably commence: one that will decide who, if anyone, takes the reins of power in Syria. Within such a situation, jihadists will very much be involved.
Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) is a terrorism and insurgency analyst based in London. The views expressed here are written in a personal capacity and do not represent those of his employer.
I really doubt there would be calls for impeachment. And certainly no legal reason for it. He would simply have 30 days to get a declaration of war from Congress or be forced to withdraw. A lot can be done in 30 days.
The War Powers Act doesn’t allow a president to use force absent authorization from Congress unless there is a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” . Period....Syria does not meet the requirement, 911 did.
The 60 then 30 days everyone talks about is how much time he has to bring all forces back without a declaration from Congress. If there is no threat to the US he can not launch in the first place without facing impeachment.
I can tell you're obviously working yourself up into a frenzy over this, and I sort of hate to be the one to say it because you're so excited, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever President. Obama is going to be impeached over strikes in Syria if/when he does that.
I really doubt there would be calls for impeachment. And certainly no legal reason for it. He would simply have 30 days to get a declaration of war from Congress or be forced to withdraw. A lot can be done in 30 days.
The War Powers Act doesn’t allow a president to use force absent authorization from Congress unless there is a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” . Period....Syria does not meet the requirement, 911 did.
The 60 then 30 days everyone talks about is how much time he has to bring all forces back without a declaration from Congress. If there is no threat to the US he can not launch in the first place without facing impeachment.
It could meet the requirement if you put the spin that Terrorists known to be hostile to the US are going to get their hands/may already have their hands on a WMD.
And either way, no impeachment would come because of the humanitarian crisis we would also be going in to halt.
BaronIveagh wrote: It's unfortunate that Israel and Saudi Arabia are the US allies. The simplest mechanism to create regional peace would be to inform them that if they do not cease this violence, Jerusalem and Mecca will be sent back to God in a pillar of Nuclear Fire if they did not, leaving them a sea of radioactive glass, and that no one could complete the Haj and live for another ten thousand years. (Yes, I know, also a war crime, but a credible threat of it might just work wonders).
So Assad allegedly using chemical weapons on his own people is a war crime and we must intervene militarily because the US was founded on certain ideals and we must force those ideals on other sovereign nations, but you are in favour of committing war crimes by carrying out nuclear strikes on civilian areas to further your own political goals.........
The bottom line is that every non-Muslim on the face of the earth is a target for Islamic Jihadists. Despotic Arab Nationalists keep Islamic Jihadists in check. We should be bombing the insurgents, not Syrian soldiers.
The UK won't be firing missiles into Syria. Cameron's still mouthing off, but no military action.
So I'm sure that means we can enjoy a nice, peaceful Syrian intervention without these weenies telling us what to do, right? There won't be any bs, "Do as I say, not as I do," out of Britain.
Last time we did something morally right was Somalia. Then the mission change from humanitarian to a capture the "Warlords" thing.
I think the time to "do something" is past. Lobbing Tomahawks now is pointless. I'm sure Assad already thinking surface to surface missile batteries can beat AD systems when over saturated.
Now what would the US do if one of our ships get nailed in the exchange. Use the "Tonkin Incident" to justified boots on ground?
That's not enough justification to put "Boots on Ground" and commence combat operations. Obama, I hope, will stick with the Tomahawks and send those in and not fighter pilots. I highly doubt we get a live pilot back if he/she was shot down over Syria.
I wasn't saying it would be wise or that I was endorsing it; simply that, legally speaking, if there were an attack on a US ship or other asset engaging in humanitarian operations there, it would satisfy the legal requirement in section 2(c)., Which may or may not even be required, depending who you ask.
My fault Ouze. I wasn't trying to call you out or anything like that. I should have clarified more. If we launch an attack on Syria with those destroyers and Syria responds back and nails one of our destroyers and then Obama commands to conduct ground operations. I have to call for impeachment for serious brain fart issues as in we attacked first.
It does have a certain element of "not hitting you, can't get mad" to it, doesn't it? Except I guess it would be more like "hitting you, but don't get mad or we'll stab you".
The UK won't be firing missiles into Syria. Cameron's still mouthing off, but no military action.
So I'm sure that means we can enjoy a nice, peaceful Syrian intervention without these weenies telling us what to do, right? There won't be any bs, "Do as I say, not as I do," out of Britain.
He's not the only one. It's interesting to skim through the bbc comments. About 10% of the American commentators regard their own Government as war criminals, 20% gloat about Obama getting egg on his face, and another 10% say, 'Whelp, your call, fair enough'.
What concerns me mildly is the other 60% going on about the British as being traitors, the special relationship ending now, etcetc. I begin to wonder if that's the general feeling over there, and if so, whether or not we should begin aligning ourselves more with Europe as a power after all.
We might well be allies, but that doesn't mean we have to follow America onto every battleground every time the President of the US feels like jumping into the Middle-East. When America was dubious about Libya, you didn't get that sort of reaction over here.
I dislike the concept that unless we're blind lapdogs, the US has no use for us despite our long history together. It's seriously caused me to start rethinking my position on Europe.
The War Powers Act doesn’t allow a president to use force absent authorization from Congress unless there is a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” . Period....Syria does not meet the requirement, 911 did.
Although that doesn't explain Iraq. Or Afghanistan for that matter, considering all but 1 of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi Arabian.
Jihadin wrote: That's not enough justification to put "Boots on Ground" and commence combat operations. Obama, I hope, will stick with the Tomahawks and send those in and not fighter pilots. I highly doubt we get a live pilot back if he/she was shot down over Syria.
Having a look around the net I found the US has bombed Syria before - 1983 in fact. A couple of planes were lost, I think one went into the sea and the pilots escaped, the other was captured and I think a diplomat travelled there some time later to negotiate his eventual release.
The War Powers Act doesn’t allow a president to use force absent authorization from Congress unless there is a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” . Period....Syria does not meet the requirement, 911 did.
Although that doesn't explain Iraq. Or Afghanistan for that matter, considering all but 1 of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi Arabian.
*face palms over the Afghanistan thing* The Taliban, Afghanistans governing body, was providing safe haven for Osama Bin Laden, that guy who ordered the attack on 9/11. Despite that, Congress still gave approval for a use of force. As for Iraq, President Bush did gain Congress's approval before th at happened.
So did you misunderstand what he was saying, or just wanted to showcase extreme ignorance?
About to go into work now so don't have time to write a reply (and I realise I've opened a can of worms here, my mistake, that to be honest I'm not going to spend effort trying to explain).
No need for the insulting reply though, in any case.
Well, to be honest, I'm personally a bit freaked out about this latest vote. Despite not tending to agree with Labour too often, their amendment did seem fairly reasonable (we agree to military action in principle, if there's compelling evidence). But that was discounted as well (yet Milliband still seems to be gloating over the votes results...)
If the UK doesn't then decide to get involved after the inevitable results from the UN team, history is not going to look favourably on us at all.
Edit: From my understanding the rough summary of the different proposals was:
Cameron: "Please agree with the principle of doing military action in response to the use of chemical weapons (but we'll probably wait for the UN to come back. Probably)."
Milliband: "Please agree with the principle of doing military action in response to the use of chemical weapons after we have some compelling publicly available evidence from the UN team and elsewhere."
Result: "No military action at all, no matter what. Yet."
The first outcome would have been 'fine' in my mind, if Iraq hadn't happened and there was some suitable reserve of public trust around. The second seems cautious, but fair enough at least there's a display of the UK having principles against war crimes.
The result? Well, the result just worries me. A whole lot.
The first outcome would have been 'fine' in my mind, if Iraq hadn't happened and there was some suitable reserve of public trust around. The second seems cautious, but fair enough at least there's a display of the UK having principles against war crimes.
We're in bed with Qatar and Saudi Arabia. We regularly hobnob with and court people who suppress and murder their own people. British politics has always been more accurately referred to as British Realpolitik. We got the label 'Perfidious Albion' from somewhere after all.
Ergo, we have no real principles against war crimes.
Ketara wrote: We're not getting involved it seems. And to be frank, I'm not surprised even slightly. Cameron seriously missed the political step on this one. He recalled Parliament before the UN report was in, and asked for a blank cheque with regards to what military action he could take (under the phrase 'military intervention').
If he'd waited a few days for the UN report and specified exactly what he had planned, he would have gotten the support he needed from Parliament. He slipped up though. So we'll be sitting this one out.
Ketara wrote: We're not getting involved it seems. And to be frank, I'm not surprised even slightly. Cameron seriously missed the political step on this one. He recalled Parliament before the UN report was in, and asked for a blank cheque with regards to what military action he could take (under the phrase 'military intervention').
If he'd waited a few days for the UN report and specified exactly what he had planned, he would have gotten the support he needed from Parliament. He slipped up though. So we'll be sitting this one out.
Maybe that was his intent?
.....you are a dangerous man, Frazzled. I hadn't even considered that possibility. You may very well be onto something there. I did think this was unusually clumsy politically by Call me Dave's standards.
Let's follow that thought.
Obama is on flimsy ground at home these days. He drew his line in the sand, and now its been crossed. He has to do SOMETHING, or look weak, both abroad and at home. So Obama's first logical step is turn his 'line' into him leading an international humanitarian intervention. That makes him look like a world leader, and shifts the blame from any trouble away from his shoulders and onto a more general front.
So Obama along with Francois Hollande, who is desperate to do something to boost his poll ratings (being the most unpopular French President ever at this stage), both are leaning on Mr Cameron. Cameron has no real dog in this fight with Syria. His election focus at the moment is on the domestic front, and he's already got Libya under his belt, He doesn't actually NEED a foreign intervention policy success. It's all risk and no gain for him. Not only will it strain his budget, he risks getting sucked into Afghanistan 2. At the same time though, he needs to show willing. Not only is it featuring heavily in the headlines lately, but international pressure is being applied to him and Hague by our erstwhile allies.
So. In that position, what's the best move?
Delegate it to parliament of course. Pick the worst possible moment, word it strongly but obliquely to get people's backs up, and watch it crash and burn. You'll note that Cameron actually didn't even employ a three line whip. That means that either he was struck by a blast of democratic conscience (unlikely), he didn't really care (unlikely considering he recalled Parliament early), or he wanted to lose. It would also explain why the Tory MP's shot down Milibands more reasonable amendment for potential action later on.
Then not only have you avoided a potentially disastrous and expensive foreign entanglement, you can hold up your hands and say 'I did my best! See! I even recalled Parliament!' to your allies. After that, you can even use it as a plus point on the election trail in six months to demonstrate how you listen to 'the will of the people'.
.....if that's what he's just done, I am genuinely in awe of that mans political savvy. I thought this was uncharacteristic of his usual operating methods. And taking that angle explains a LOT of loose/strange ends.
EDIT:-
That is not a man who was defeated on a very important vote.
In the interview afterwards, the Defence Secretary also focused on how they weren't going to do a Labour on Iraq, and lie and force through a war (Like Miliband did when part of Tony Blairs cabinet). But instead they're 'listening to the electorate'.
So they're taking a little egg from Milliband now to stock up attack points for the next election to boot.
I am genuinely gobsmacked. I had no idea my Government was this politically capable.
Ketara wrote: We're not getting involved it seems. And to be frank, I'm not surprised even slightly. Cameron seriously missed the political step on this one. He recalled Parliament before the UN report was in, and asked for a blank cheque with regards to what military action he could take (under the phrase 'military intervention').
If he'd waited a few days for the UN report and specified exactly what he had planned, he would have gotten the support he needed from Parliament. He slipped up though. So we'll be sitting this one out.
Maybe that was his intent?
.....you are a dangerous man, Frazzled. I hadn't even considered that possibility. You may very well be onto something there. I did think this was unusually clumsy politically by Call me Dave's standards.
Let's follow that thought.
Obama is on flimsy ground at home these days. He drew his line in the sand, and now its been crossed. He has to do SOMETHING, or look weak, both abroad and at home. So Obama's first logical step is turn his 'line' into him leading an international humanitarian intervention. That makes him look like a world leader, and shifts the blame from any trouble away from his shoulders and onto a more general front.
So Obama along with Francois Hollande, who is desperate to do something to boost his poll ratings (being the most unpopular French President ever at this stage), both are leaning on Mr Cameron. Cameron has no real dog in this fight with Syria. His election focus at the moment is on the domestic front, and he's already got Libya under his belt, He doesn't actually NEED a foreign intervention policy success. It's all risk and no gain for him. Not only will it strain his budget, he risks getting sucked into Afghanistan 2. At the same time though, he needs to show willing. Not only is it featuring heavily in the headlines lately, but international pressure is being applied to him and Hague by our erstwhile allies.
So. In that position, what's the best move?
Delegate it to parliament of course. Pick the worst possible moment, word it strongly but obliquely to get people's backs up, and watch it crash and burn. You'll note that Cameron actually didn't even employ a three line whip. That means that either he was struck by a blast of democratic conscience (unlikely), he didn't really care (unlikely considering he recalled Parliament early), or he wanted to lose. It would also explain why the Tory MP's shot down Milibands more reasonable amendment for potential action later on.
Then not only have you avoided a potentially disastrous and expensive foreign entanglement, you can hold up your hands and say 'I did my best! See! I even recalled Parliament!' to your allies. After that, you can even use it as a plus point on the election trail in six months to demonstrate how you listen to 'the will of the people'.
.....if that's what he's just done, I am genuinely in awe of that mans political savvy. I thought this was uncharacteristic of his usual operating methods. And taking that angle explains a LOT of loose/strange ends.
EDIT:-
That is not a man who was defeated on a very important vote.
In the interview afterwards, the Defence Secretary also focused on how they weren't going to do a Labour on Iraq, and lie and force through a war (Like Miliband did when part of Tony Blairs cabinet). But instead they're 'listening to the electorate'.
So they're taking a little egg from Milliband now to stock up attack points for the next election to boot.
I am genuinely gobsmacked. I had no idea my Government was this politically capable.
You must be talking about another David Cameron
I think you're reading too much into this and giving Cameron credit for something that was unintentional. Cameron expected to win this vote, the fact that there was only 13 votes in it is testament to that fact. He knew it would be close, but calculated that political backing from Parliament would give him the legitimacy he craved and be able to score one over Labour. He miscalculated, he lost. That sound you can hear is a political bandwagon doing a massive U-turn!
Ketara wrote: You seem to have a serious axe to grind, Seaward.
Not at all. I'd simply like your government to shut up once it's decided it's not going to do anything.
Well, good luck getting bogged down in another Middle East adventure. If you want a do's and don't guide to getting involved in the Middle East, there are plenty of books about the British Empire I can direct you too. Personally, I'm glad Britain has pulled the plug on her token involvement, and hope that the USA comes to it's sense and decided not to get involved. But Obama has painted himself into a corner with his red line talk.
Ketara wrote: We're not getting involved it seems. And to be frank, I'm not surprised even slightly. Cameron seriously missed the political step on this one. He recalled Parliament before the UN report was in, and asked for a blank cheque with regards to what military action he could take (under the phrase 'military intervention').
If he'd waited a few days for the UN report and specified exactly what he had planned, he would have gotten the support he needed from Parliament. He slipped up though. So we'll be sitting this one out.
Maybe that was his intent?
Cameron is as much a serious politician as I am a Texan! The guy is nothing more than an over-promoted PR man who has been lucky that his family are rich and influential enough to have opened the right doors for him since he was a teenager.
I think you're reading too much into this and giving Cameron credit for something that was unintentional. Cameron expected to win this vote, the fact that there was only 13 votes in it is testament to that fact. He knew it would be close, but calculated that political backing from Parliament would give him the legitimacy he craved and be able to score one over Labour. He miscalculated, he lost. That sound you can hear is a political bandwagon doing a massive U-turn!
.......
Cameron is as much a serious politician as I am a Texan! The guy is nothing more than an over-promoted PR man who has been lucky that his family are rich and influential enough to have opened the right doors for him since he was a teenager.
I think you underestimate him substantially. Nobody gets to be Prime Minister by virtue of being rich. You need to be at the very least politically savvy enough to smack down all your potential competition for head spot in your party, and then get a large enough majority to get your way in Parliament. Stupid people are not capable of that. As to the PR Man comment, well, anyone can be a PR man. Question is, can they be a good PR man? Again, to be a good one requires a certain amount of brains.
This man made it through the backstabbing internal politics of the Conservative Party and became its leader. Don't be foolish enough to dismiss him as an idiot. Even Miliband (who's twice as gormless) isn't a stupid man.
Regardless, think about it. If this vote was important for Cameron, why was a triple whip not imposed? If Cameron was desperate to intervene, why did the Tory MP's oppose Miliband's motion for a reconsideration later on? Surely if Cameron wanted to intervene so badly, he would have seized the chance to look at it again in a few weeks?
That highlights another oddity. Why recall Parliament exactly four days early when the UN report was due in another three? If one wanted to declare war on Syria or instigate armed intervention, your hand would be greatly strengthened by such a report (it could be spun several ways whatever it said). So why not wait the three days to increase your odds?
And on that note, look at the margin. Just a few seats between passing and failing. 13 to be precise. That means that some of the Tories voted against it. How hard would it be to take some of your backbenchers aside just before and ask them to vote against? But not so many that it looks overly bad for you. If you lost by too many votes (50+), it would look really bad for you. But to have failed by the slimmest of majorities, well, that looks like practically half the house agrees with you!
And I repeat again, no triple whip was used. For something important enough to recall Parliament four days early for, surely that's a little strange? One would think that if something is of enough magnitude to ship everyone back from holiday, it would be important enough to ensure the Government passes its motion.
As to a massive U-Turn, is it really? Watch the clip I posted. Then go and watch the Defence Secretary's interview. It strikes me as being very carefully written. Not something that was just spun out on the hoof to cover a defeat. I've seen them beaten before, and they weren't nearly as smooth as this.
Too much simply doesn't add up. I would bet 90% Cameron wanted to lose this vote. Nothing to gain whatsoever for him in winning it except potentially Iraq take 2. The man is far more cunning than I ever gave him credit for. I knew he was a decent politician and a fairly smooth operator. But this took quite some skill to set up.
A gfew token cruise missiles and a few token air raids and the U.S. involvement in Syria will be over. All Obama needs to do is show that crossing the "Red Line" has some price.
We're generally not in the habit of demanding our NATO allies take military action while we sit around crocheting, so I'd say yes.
It's an especially confusing denial for the British given the farcical face-saving nature of the whole thing. We're not going into Syria. We're going to shoot some Tomahawks at abandoned bus stations and go home and hope that everyone thinks that means we back our ultimatums up. The Brits could just show up in the form of one boat full of North Sea fishermen and claim involvement.
BBC wrote:
Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims 'like the walking dead'
29 August 2013 Last updated at 17:43 ET Help
A BBC team inside Syria filming for Panorama has witnessed the aftermath of a fresh horrific incident - an incendiary bomb dropped on to a school playground in the north of the country - which has left scores of children with napalm-like burns over their bodies.
Eyewitnesses describe a fighter jet dropping the device, a low explosion, followed by columns of fire and smoke.
Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway's report contains images viewers may find extremely distressing.
Im glad Britain has decided to not go along on this foray. The U.S. has no business in Syria, or Libya, or Iraq or Iran....
Syria in particular. Neither side likes us, we have nothing to gain in that area. It's a civil war between two belligerents hostile to the US. I understand the "Responsibility to Protect", but why do we have to be the world's policeman, and after we act, get called the world's villain? Let the world stew.....
Cowboy President got more countries (and congressional approval to boot) for Iraq and Afganistan... and yet,
Mr. Nobel Peace President is having a hard time garning support.
"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." - John Stuart Mill, inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews.
I think you're reading too much into this and giving Cameron credit for something that was unintentional. Cameron expected to win this vote, the fact that there was only 13 votes in it is testament to that fact. He knew it would be close, but calculated that political backing from Parliament would give him the legitimacy he craved and be able to score one over Labour. He miscalculated, he lost. That sound you can hear is a political bandwagon doing a massive U-turn!
.......
Cameron is as much a serious politician as I am a Texan! The guy is nothing more than an over-promoted PR man who has been lucky that his family are rich and influential enough to have opened the right doors for him since he was a teenager.
I think you underestimate him substantially. Nobody gets to be Prime Minister by virtue of being rich. You need to be at the very least politically savvy enough to smack down all your potential competition for head spot in your party, and then get a large enough majority to get your way in Parliament. Stupid people are not capable of that. As to the PR Man comment, well, anyone can be a PR man. Question is, can they be a good PR man? Again, to be a good one requires a certain amount of brains.
This man made it through the backstabbing internal politics of the Conservative Party and became its leader. Don't be foolish enough to dismiss him as an idiot. Even Miliband (who's twice as gormless) isn't a stupid man.
Regardless, think about it. If this vote was important for Cameron, why was a triple whip not imposed? If Cameron was desperate to intervene, why did the Tory MP's oppose Miliband's motion for a reconsideration later on? Surely if Cameron wanted to intervene so badly, he would have seized the chance to look at it again in a few weeks?
That highlights another oddity. Why recall Parliament exactly four days early when the UN report was due in another three? If one wanted to declare war on Syria or instigate armed intervention, your hand would be greatly strengthened by such a report (it could be spun several ways whatever it said). So why not wait the three days to increase your odds?
And on that note, look at the margin. Just a few seats between passing and failing. 13 to be precise. That means that some of the Tories voted against it. How hard would it be to take some of your backbenchers aside just before and ask them to vote against? But not so many that it looks overly bad for you. If you lost by too many votes (50+), it would look really bad for you. But to have failed by the slimmest of majorities, well, that looks like practically half the house agrees with you!
And I repeat again, no triple whip was used. For something important enough to recall Parliament four days early for, surely that's a little strange? One would think that if something is of enough magnitude to ship everyone back from holiday, it would be important enough to ensure the Government passes its motion.
As to a massive U-Turn, is it really? Watch the clip I posted. Then go and watch the Defence Secretary's interview. It strikes me as being very carefully written. Not something that was just spun out on the hoof to cover a defeat. I've seen them beaten before, and they weren't nearly as smooth as this.
Too much simply doesn't add up. I would bet 90% Cameron wanted to lose this vote. Nothing to gain whatsoever for him in winning it except potentially Iraq take 2. The man is far more cunning than I ever gave him credit for. I knew he was a decent politician and a fairly smooth operator. But this took quite some skill to set up.
Cameron has been humiliated on the world stage. Last week he promised he would stand shoulder to shoulder with the USA concerning military action. This week, he's been forced to hand back the deputy sheriff's badge!
Some facts (from the Daily Mail ) to counter your argument:
Prime Minister humiliated in the Commons after losing by just 13 votes
8 ministers, 2 whips and 2 ministerial aides failed to turn up
Justine Greening and Mark Simmonds claim division bell didn't sound
But Commons officials hit back and say all the bells have been tested
Chief whip Sir George Young faces the sack in expected reshuffle
Britain faces 'soul-searching' about role in the world, says George Osborne.
You would have us believe that Cameron's tactics are on a level with Bismarck's manipulation of the French. Not so. Cameron's policy has been a shambles from top to bottom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spacemanvic wrote: Im glad Britain has decided to not go along on this foray. The U.S. has no business in Syria, or Libya, or Iraq or Iran....
Syria in particular. Neither side likes us, we have nothing to gain in that area. It's a civil war between two belligerents hostile to the US. I understand the "Responsibility to Protect", but why do we have to be the world's policeman, and after we act, get called the world's villain? Let the world stew.....
Cowboy President got more countries (and congressional approval to boot) for Iraq and Afganistan... and yet,
Mr. Nobel Peace President is having a hard time garning support.
I think it was Condi hitting people with the handbag that got people falling into line behind GW
BBC wrote:
Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims 'like the walking dead'
29 August 2013 Last updated at 17:43 ET Help
A BBC team inside Syria filming for Panorama has witnessed the aftermath of a fresh horrific incident - an incendiary bomb dropped on to a school playground in the north of the country - which has left scores of children with napalm-like burns over their bodies.
Eyewitnesses describe a fighter jet dropping the device, a low explosion, followed by columns of fire and smoke.
Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway's report contains images viewers may find extremely distressing.
The US military dropped plenty of nasty stuff on Vietnamese civilians. This is not a historical points scoring game, but no country can criticise another for doing things said country has also done.
Gotta give Parliament credit due to the fact that they gathered over the issue while our Congress continues to sip Mai Tais and let the war drums beat to the only discussion being carried by the media talking heads and demagogues.
I do find it interesting that the UK has supported us through numerous conflicts (and deserves our respect for it), but now they back off and other European countries are following suit. Definitely something for me to take into consideration with this issue.
Ketara wrote: You seem to have a serious axe to grind, Seaward.
Not at all. I'd simply like your government to shut up once it's decided it's not going to do anything.
Just like yours right?
I don't think the current President ever shuts up...ever...
With each passing day, Obama seems to be slowly transforming in Jimmy Carter Mark 2.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: I'm gonna be honest, I don't generally consider headlines from the Daily Fail to be admissible as a serious counter-argument.
But eh. You seem pretty set in your mode of thinking, so I won't waste both of our time trying to discuss it further.
Fair enough. There's been a lot of talk about Britain's diminishing influence on the world stage, handing back the deputy sheriff's badge, third rate power etc but I for one am glad. We both know that this great nation has plenty at home to occupy it with, without the need for foreign adventures. That we can both agree on. I hope!
The US military dropped plenty of nasty stuff on Vietnamese civilians. This is not a historical points scoring game, but no country can criticise another for doing things said country has also done.
My response is.. don't let the little flag fool you. It's where the proxy server is (and mods refuse to correct it). As a citizen of SNI rather than USA (You remember us, right, your allies you fethed at the treaty of Versailles?) I have lots of room to find fault the USA for it's political, moral, and economic failings...
But hey, what would a bunch of dirty savages (and their occasional half Irish children) know about being allowed to die horribly while other countries, including their former allies, stand around and do nothing?
I will say that it is humorous to see that Frenchmen seem to have more courage from their convictions than Englishmen do these days.
Fair enough. There's been a lot of talk about Britain's diminishing influence on the world stage, handing back the deputy sheriff's badge, third rate power etc but I for one am glad. We both know that this great nation has plenty at home to occupy it with, without the need for foreign adventures. That we can both agree on. I hope!
Curiously enough, this concept of Britain as a 'declining power', is actually coming to be seen now for what it is, e,g. inaccurate. We're one of the greatest economic powers in the West, the only nation capable of mounting an invasion overseas independently apart from America, and a GDP that's more than a little impressive.
But I would quite agree that we have better things to waste my tax money on than funding Al Qaeda in Syria, or dropping vastly expensive missiles with no real aim or purpose bar negligible political goals.
Regardless of whether or not Cameron scored an own goal or not, I think things have worked out just perfectly for us. And he's gone up in my estimation regardless, as either he's a very slick statesman, or he's seriously prepared to consult the House of Commons instead of just invoking the Royal Prerogative. Either one is a pro in my eyes.
BaronIveagh wrote: My response is.. don't let the little flag fool you. It's where the proxy server is (and mods refuse to correct it). As a citizen of SNI rather than USA (You remember us, right, your allies you fethed at the treaty of Versailles?) I have lots of room to find fault the USA for it's political, moral, and economic failings...
BaronIveagh wrote: My response is.. don't let the little flag fool you. It's where the proxy server is (and mods refuse to correct it). As a citizen of SNI rather than USA (You remember us, right, your allies you fethed at the treaty of Versailles?) I have lots of room to find fault the USA for it's political, moral, and economic failings...
Pardon my ignorance, but SNI?
The SNI I know is that Seneca Nation of Indians, but I don't recall them being in the Treaty of Versailles.
The SNI I know is that Seneca Nation of Indians, but I don't recall them being in the Treaty of Versailles.
No, we were not. Which was the point. England, instead of including it's allies in the treaty or insisting on any provisions for them, pretty much left everyone to swing.
Mr Hyena wrote: How many countries have Syrian civilian blood on their hands now? Is this conflict now a justification for the legalisation of chemical weaponry?
Yes, this is obviously the truth.
If you want to troll at least try and make it halfway believable.
If you want to troll at least try and make it halfway believable.
Well, no, he has a point. If there' no enforcement of bans on chemical weapons, they're not bans, they're suggestions. If there's no repercussions for using them, they might as well be legal.
Mr Hyena wrote: How many countries have Syrian civilian blood on their hands now? Is this conflict now a justification for the legalisation of chemical weaponry?
Yes, this is obviously the truth.
If you want to troll at least try and make it halfway believable.
If Law isn't enforced, then its an Unenforceable Law.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pressed top administration officials Thursday night to take military action to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad in response to reports that he used chemical weapons in his nation’s ongoing civil war.
“It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security,” Pelosi said in a statement after the 90-minute conference call with members of the National Security Council and 26 high-ranking lawmakers.
The White House organized the conference call — which was unclassified because of a lack of secure phone lines — at a time when congressional demands for more information on both the intelligence regarding the alleged chemical weapons attack and President Barack Obama’s plans for a military response are growing.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was more measured than Pelosi in his approach, according to Democratic sources familiar with the call. Boehner, along with Pelosi and other lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, emphasized the need for administration officials to continue consulting with Congress —essentially saying Obama would be better served by working harder to win over Congress before launching military strikes.
But then, according to another source, Pelosi shifted gears. Pelosi “said we should do something,” the second source said, adding that Pelosi was advocating “for action.”
Boehner’s office declined to comment for this story.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John Kerry, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Sandy Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represented the administration.
Several party leaders from each chamber joined the call, as did most chairmen and ranking minority members of relevant authorizing and appropriating committees and subcommittees. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell were notably absent from the list of lawmakers released by the White House.
The leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), both endorsed the use of force in Syria in statements released after the call.
But their counterparts on the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), were less bellicose. Levin said the president should seek international support for a mission against Assad, and Inhofe remains opposed to any intervention.
”As I have said before, no red line should have even been drawn without first preparing a strategic plan and assessing our resources,” Inhofe said.
The call, part of what the White House describes as “robust” consultation with Congress, included a set of lawmakers who are seemingly much warmer to Obama’s consideration of reprisal strikes against the Assad regime.
Despite the challenges of acquiring lawmakers’ signatures during the August recess, two missives demanding a congressional debate have gained steam in recent days on Capitol Hill. One, spearheaded by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) and carrying the support of 140 House Republicans and Democrats, demands that the administration seek authorization from Congress before striking Syria. The other, drafted by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and supported by 54 Democrats, urges Obama to come to Congress for approval of military action.
The growing frustration in Congress mirrors that in the British Parliament where a Thursday vote rejected Prime Minister David Cameron’s efforts to join a coalition for the use of force in Syria. But Obama is ready to go it alone if he can’t get international support.
“The officials made clear that the administration’s focus is on preventing Assad from using chemical weapons again,” a Senate aide told POLITICO. “The administration is figuring out the best way to do that, and is seeking as much international support as possible but won’t let that dictate what our policy will be.”
whembly wrote: To me... this is proof that the criticism of Bush's Pakistan/Iraq engagements were for partisan political purposes.
The only way these are are connected, ironically I suppose, is if you are engaging in a partisan political attack. The circumstances are quite different between the two, not just broad strokes, but also in salient details. It is very easy to be for both, against both, or for one and not the other, as they are not similar enough to pretend otherwise. If you want to attack Pelosi for being silly attack her for that, but it seems odd to try and dredge the horribly mauled jus in bello that the Bush administration used in a different time and a different context just to try and justify your dislike. She is thoroughly dis-likable enough without having to go through all that trouble.
Mr Hyena wrote: How many countries have Syrian civilian blood on their hands now? Is this conflict now a justification for the legalisation of chemical weaponry?
Yes, this is obviously the truth.
If you want to troll at least try and make it halfway believable.
If Law isn't enforced, then its an Unenforceable Law.
Mr Hyena wrote: How many countries have Syrian civilian blood on their hands now? Is this conflict now a justification for the legalisation of chemical weaponry?
None?
Syria isn't even a signatory to the CWC so no country has any obligation to regulate their use of chemical weapons...
If you want to troll at least try and make it halfway believable.
Well, no, he has a point. If there' no enforcement of bans on chemical weapons, they're not bans, they're suggestions. If there's no repercussions for using them, they might as well be legal.
You can't enforce a ban on chemical weapons on a country that didn't even sign the treaty in the first place!
Mr Hyena wrote: How many countries have Syrian civilian blood on their hands now? Is this conflict now a justification for the legalisation of chemical weaponry?
None?
Syria isn't even a signatory to the CWC so no country has any obligation to regulate their use of chemical weapons...
Why would it make any difference signing a paper or not as to the morality of chem weapons?
Is the Genocide that Assad is inflicting legal then, since nothing was signed?
whembly wrote: To me... this is proof that the criticism of Bush's Pakistan/Iraq engagements were for partisan political purposes.
The only way these are are connected, ironically I suppose, is if you are engaging in a partisan political attack. The circumstances are quite different between the two, not just broad strokes, but also in salient details. It is very easy to be for both, against both, or for one and not the other, as they are not similar enough to pretend otherwise. If you want to attack Pelosi for being silly attack her for that, but it seems odd to try and dredge the horribly mauled jus in bello that the Bush administration used in a different time and a different context just to try and justify your dislike. She is thoroughly dis-likable enough without having to go through all that trouble.
You don't see the irony?
Please take off that anti-Bush / Pro-Democrat glasses... m'kay?
Mr Hyena wrote: How many countries have Syrian civilian blood on their hands now? Is this conflict now a justification for the legalisation of chemical weaponry?
None?
Syria isn't even a signatory to the CWC so no country has any obligation to regulate their use of chemical weapons...
Why would it make any difference signing a paper or not as to the morality of chem weapons?
What does morality has to do with international politics?
Mr Hyena wrote: How many countries have Syrian civilian blood on their hands now? Is this conflict now a justification for the legalisation of chemical weaponry?
None?
Syria isn't even a signatory to the CWC so no country has any obligation to regulate their use of chemical weapons...
Why would it make any difference signing a paper or not as to the morality of chem weapons?
What does morality has to do with international politics?
World War 2 showed what an effect Morality has. Syria's situation and the Final Solution has a lot of parallels.
I don't see what is the point banning Chemical Weapons from signed countries, if they are considered ok for use.
Mr Hyena wrote: Is the Genocide that Assad is inflicting legal then, since nothing was signed?
Please stop trying to use "argumentum ad passiones" as a logical discussion tool, they are quite transparent and just make it seem like you have nothing else to add.
World War 2 showed what an effect Morality has. Syria's situation and the Final Solution has a lot of parallels.
What did WW2 had to do with morality? England entered WW2 because they were Poland allies and Germany had invaded Poland. The US entered WW2 because they were attacked by Japan that was allied with Germany... What morality do you see in any of these actions exactly?!
There is irony here, but not where you seem to think.
Where do you see the irony?
whembly wrote: Please take off that anti-Bush / Pro-Democrat glasses... m'kay?
Yeah, half my post was about Pelosi being an idiot, but I'm pro-Democrat.
You fooled me. My apologies. And yes, I'm picking on Pelosi...
Just wanted to see that for those who voted/support Obama...you got what you wanted. You got the charismatic, multiracial, multicultural president... who would heal the wounds left by that loathsome monster George Bush\Darth Cheney\Haliburton\whatever... Who would bring peace to the world and stop the rising oceans and Global Warming(TM). And now here he is, on the verge of starting yet another war without the approval of Congress. (Remember Libya?) [disclaimer: He doesn't need it... but, as Senator Obama, he would want it]
I’m not going to claim I know the best course of action in Syria... I can see both sides. It appears that it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't". And if that's the case, I'd rather be in the "damned if you do" camp...
I’m just waiting for the people who shrieked for 10 years about the invasion of Iraq to tell me why this time it’s different. Pay attention as they try to reconcile the cognitive dissonance.
I thought they were just dropping chemical weapons on them like bombs, not rounding them up and putting them in to a death factory. There was more to Holocaust then just killing people, and your definition of 'systematically manner' is so broad that it seems any conflict ever would qualify as being the same as The Final Solution.
Mr Hyena wrote: Syria's situation and the Final Solution has a lot of parallels.
Really? we have reached that stage in this thread?
Do you disagree that gassing civilians in a systematic manner occured in both instances?
You would be better off comparing the use of any firearm, in any period, anywhere to kill a civilian as being the same as the acts of German police battalions against the Jewish populations of Eastern Europe.
Yes, I deny that Syria is gassing anyone systematically.
Ahtman wrote: I thought they were just dropping chemical weapons on them like bombs, not rounding them up and putting them in to a death factory. There was more to Holocaust then just killing people, and your definition of 'systematically manner' is so broad that it seems any conflict ever would qualify as being the same as The Final Solution.
There was more to it than Death Factories too. Read the Jager Report sometime for a look into how the Holocaust was carried out in the field, rather than in the camps (be prepared to lose sleep at night). He's not wrong in that there are similarities, but there are a lot of differences as well. A better comparison might be made to things like the suppression of Warsaw.
As far as Godwin-ing the thread goes: frankly we're talking about war crimes and slaughtering civilians, and a relevant comparison to an action by the Nazis is exempt in that situation.
I wasn't able to sum up a large, complex historical event in one sentence?
The point is that conflating what is happening in Syria with The Holocaust is both naive and hyperbolic at best, and at worse completely delusional and/or agitprop.
I wasn't able to sum up a large, complex historical event in one sentence?
The point is that conflating what is happening in Syria with The Holocaust is both naive and hyperbolic at best, and at worse completely delusional and/or agitprop.
The Holocaust over all, you're right, but there are instances within that broader category that it can be compared to. It's not a large preconceived effort to butcher people, it's an improvised, spur of the moment one, more akin to the Wola hospital massacre than the death camps.
As Secretary of State John Kerry addressed the nation on the administration’s call for military action against Syria, the White House declassified a four-page document detailing the Assad regime’s chemical attack on the suburbs of capital city Damascus.
Among the details about the August 21 attacks, the paper claims that 1,429 people were killed during the chemical attack, 426 of whom were children. The document also asserts that the administration has evidence confirming that the Assad regime was “witting of” and directed the attack.
Citing intercepted communications involving a “senior official intimately familiar with the offensive,” the document claims the regime worried the United Nations would obtain evidence of the chemical attacks. Thusly, it reads, the regime ramped up its artillery barrage on the suburbs for what the administration has suggested was a way of covering up the chemical deaths.
Interesting developments over here that further support the theory given earlier.
Apparently a number of Government Ministers voted AGAINST action in Syria. And another two senior Ministers simply didn't show up to vote despite being in the building at the time. They claim they didn't hear the bell, but it seems extremely coincidental that nobody noticed them missing, their meeting ran the same length of time as the vote, and the House of Commons staff insist all the systems are working perfectly.
Some of the other Conservative MP's who were absent have given some scarcely believable reasons as well.
Now six or seven ministerial votes might not sound like much total, but when the motion was only lost by thirteen votes? And when this was supposedly on something so important? And those six or seven votes make up roughly a third of the Cabinet? I smell a rat.
It's also interesting to note Cameron is now basically saying to Washington that his hands are tied because the Commons took a vote. Yet curiously enough, the motion for discussing it later on was also shot down by Conservative MP's, meaning it won't come up again unless there's a massive change of circumstance.
BBC wrote:David Cameron and US President Barack Obama have discussed Parliament's block on UK involvement in possible military action in Syria, the BBC understands.
The men spoke by phone for 15 minutes, and the tone of the conversation was said to be friendly.
The prime minister reiterated he still wanted to see a strong response to the suspected chemical weapons attack.
But he also explained the parliamentary process to the US president, who said he understood the PM's predicament.
Easy E wrote: A gfew token cruise missiles and a few token air raids and the U.S. involvement in Syria will be over. All Obama needs to do is show that crossing the "Red Line" has some price.
Does this really feel like Armageddon to anyone? [/quote
Don't know about feel, would smell like Impeachment to the United States Congress....there is growing support from both parties for it.
There is no such thing as token when you are killing people in another country for political face....
If Mr Obama does attack with out getting permission from Congress then he will be impeached and most likely put in prison afterward.
I am not sure if we would turn him over to the UN Commission on War Criminals or not.
Put me on that jury and he goes in the jail cell next to the former army sergeant who lost control and killed a few civilians.
He at least had the excuse of traumatic brain injury from getting blown up 4 times in combat. Mr Obama's is he would lose face over his red line statement?
His " political advisers" will be screaming and pulling their hair out all the way to the other prison cells and that will be the wake up call that this nation has had it with both political parties.
Michael Corgan, an international relations professor at Boston University, tells BBC Mundo's Thomas Sparrow the US faces a difficult conundrum.
"How do we attack something that doesn't bring down the Assad government, doesn't cause collateral damage and doesn't force one of the outside players to try to up the ante to counter what the US has done. No easy answers on this one.
I would add how do you ensure that Chemical weapons will not be a future factor? Bearing in mind the points above.
Michael Corgan, an international relations professor at Boston University, tells BBC Mundo's Thomas Sparrow the US faces a difficult conundrum.
"How do we attack something that doesn't bring down the Assad government, doesn't cause collateral damage and doesn't force one of the outside players to try to up the ante to counter what the US has done. No easy answers on this one.
I would add how do you ensure that Chemical weapons will not be a future factor? Bearing in mind the points above.
Destroying the weapons will be near impossible without a full scale invasion. That's not the goal. The goal will be to make the message "Do this again, and we'll make sure what just happened looks like a good day."
Spending weeks hemming and hawing over "what to do" is certainly going to lighten the impact though...
You may not be able to ensure destruction of ALL of it without an invasion, but you can damned sure destroy the known stockpiles, many of the delivery systems, and the C2 nodes by air/missile strikes. Any targeteer worth a darned can work up the target list and best means of hitting them.
Michael Corgan, an international relations professor at Boston University, tells BBC Mundo's Thomas Sparrow the US faces a difficult conundrum.
"How do we attack something that doesn't bring down the Assad government, doesn't cause collateral damage and doesn't force one of the outside players to try to up the ante to counter what the US has done. No easy answers on this one.
I would add how do you ensure that Chemical weapons will not be a future factor? Bearing in mind the points above.
Destroying the weapons will be near impossible without a full scale invasion. That's not the goal. The goal will be to make the message "Do this again, and we'll make sure what just happened looks like a good day."
Spending weeks hemming and hawing over "what to do" is certainly going to lighten the impact though...
Whatever loose coalition is assembled, that message is going to be near impossible to deliver within Obamas self asserted 'narrow scope' . Might as well just draw another red line for all the good it will do.
Michael Corgan, an international relations professor at Boston University, tells BBC Mundo's Thomas Sparrow the US faces a difficult conundrum.
"How do we attack something that doesn't bring down the Assad government, doesn't cause collateral damage and doesn't force one of the outside players to try to up the ante to counter what the US has done. No easy answers on this one.
I would add how do you ensure that Chemical weapons will not be a future factor? Bearing in mind the points above.
Destroying the weapons will be near impossible without a full scale invasion. That's not the goal. The goal will be to make the message "Do this again, and we'll make sure what just happened looks like a good day."
Spending weeks hemming and hawing over "what to do" is certainly going to lighten the impact though...
Whatever loose coalition is assembled, that message is going to be near impossible to deliver within Obamas self asserted 'narrow scope' . Might as well just draw another red line for all the good it will do.
CptJake wrote: You may not be able to ensure destruction of ALL of it without an invasion, but you can damned sure destroy the known stockpiles, many of the delivery systems, and the C2 nodes by air/missile strikes. Any targeteer worth a darned can work up the target list and best means of hitting them.
Good and accurate intel may prove to be the most effective weapon.
In an ideal world I would love for the US to just specifically target individual units. Maybe just taking out the odd commander responsible for authorising use of Chemical Weapons. That kind of surgical strike would speak volumes to Assad and to the leadership in Iran.
@Seaward - I'm amazed that you actually consider us 'weenies'.
Unfortunately for you, it means that now you've lost your vanguard troops. Now I'm not saying US troops aren't capable - far from it. But taking the 1st Gulf, 2nd Gulf and Afghanistan as examples, in all three conflicts, it was the British Army who was at the forefront with US troops spearheading the assault. In the 1st Gulf War, you'll remember that it was 22nd SAS, B Squadron's Bravo Two Zero that were the first boots on the ground in Iraq, swiftly followed by the 1 (UK) Armoured Division. Next up, in Iraq (2nd Gulf), 1st Armoured was right there alongside the lead elements of the US troops crossing the border, and if I remember rightly Basra, being the objective of the 1st Armoured Divsion, was the scene of the heaviest fighting of the campaign - and the British Army still took it before the US Army took Baghdad. Finally, again in Afghanistan, the SAS was again working right alongside US Special Forces. Yet you still think that we're just 'weenies' that have little impact?
It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces because the we in the UK tend on the whole to have a high regard of the US military. It's insulting even more so that the US seems only to view the British Army as a simple vanguard to clear out the hard bits they don't want to deal with. For a small nation, I'd wager our military still packs a punch, but there again, we ought to considering our experience of over 1000 years of warfare.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Seaward - I'm amazed that you actually consider us 'weenies'.
Unfortunately for you, it means that now you've lost your vanguard troops. Now I'm not saying US troops aren't capable - far from it. But taking the 1st Gulf, 2nd Gulf and Afghanistan as examples, in all three conflicts, it was the British Army who was at the forefront with US troops spearheading the assault. In the 1st Gulf War, you'll remember that it was 22nd SAS, B Squadron's Bravo Two Zero that were the first boots on the ground in Iraq, swiftly followed by the 1 (UK) Armoured Division. Next up, in Iraq (2nd Gulf), 1st Armoured was right there alongside the lead elements of the US troops crossing the border, and if I remember rightly Basra, being the objective of the 1st Armoured Divsion, was the scene of the heaviest fighting of the campaign - and the British Army still took it before the US Army took Baghdad. Finally, again in Afghanistan, the SAS was again working right alongside US Special Forces. Yet you still think that we're just 'weenies' that have little impact?
It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces because the we in the UK tend on the whole to have a high regard of the US military. It's insulting even more so that the US seems only to view the British Army as a simple vanguard to clear out the hard bits they don't want to deal with. For a small nation, I'd wager our military still packs a punch, but there again, we ought to considering our experience of over 1000 years of warfare.
I'm not in the military... but, I consider UK our battle-brothers! EDIT: link fail This is how we should feel 'bout each other:
Well, I'm not in the military either (But I'm mere months away from applying for a place in the Royal Air Force!), but I still have the highest regard for the US military - you share the risks our men do, and I'm sure as hell you'd give your lives for our lads as quick as we'd give ours for you. Even so, it amazes me the attitude the some Americans have when it comes to the British - it's almost as if they're still stuck in the War of Independence mindset...
Warpig1815 wrote: Well, I'm not in the military either (But I'm mere months away from applying for a place in the Royal Air Force!), but I still have the highest regard for the US military - you share the risks our men do, and I'm sure as hell you'd give your lives for our lads as quick as we'd give ours for you. Even so, it amazes me the attitude the some Americans have when it comes to the British - it's almost as if they're still stuck in the War of Independence mindset...
Pah! The filthy colonials should never have left the glory of the British Empire!
CptJake wrote: You may not be able to ensure destruction of ALL of it without an invasion, but you can damned sure destroy the known stockpiles, many of the delivery systems, and the C2 nodes by air/missile strikes. Any targeteer worth a darned can work up the target list and best means of hitting them.
Good and accurate intel may prove to be the most effective weapon.
In an ideal world I would love for the US to just specifically target individual units. Maybe just taking out the odd commander responsible for authorising use of Chemical Weapons. That kind of surgical strike would speak volumes to Assad and to the leadership in Iran.
With Isreali airstrikes and US dronestrikes against Hamas and Taliban leaders that shouldnt even be such a big problem. It seems better than to risk personnel on such missions if you could just send a missile or a drone. I would guess the US has some intel on the possible unit that used chemical weapons, seeing as they are trying to keep track of those weapons.
I wasn't able to sum up a large, complex historical event in one sentence?
The point is that conflating what is happening in Syria with The Holocaust is both naive and hyperbolic at best, and at worse completely delusional and/or agitprop.
The Holocaust over all, you're right, but there are instances within that broader category that it can be compared to. It's not a large preconceived effort to butcher people, it's an improvised, spur of the moment one, more akin to the Wola hospital massacre than the death camps.
This is were its starts to get wrong. ''Instances within that broader category''? So we could start comparing a single murder with such things? After all its an instance that can be compared. There are very few events on the scale of the Holocaust, very few. Starting to compare every random conflict that has not even had 1.66% (100.000) of the victims that died in those horrible years is madness. Were talking about the size of a country like Denmark full of people that are just gone. Syria hasnt even reached the points were it rivals the war in Former Yugoslavia in the 90's, which even had larger single warcrimes committed. Why immediatly start to compare it with an event like the Holocaust to begin with, if there are easier ''instances within that broader category that it can be compared to'' in other wars?
This is were its starts to get wrong. ''Instances within that broader category''? So we could start comparing a single murder with such things?
Because people have a tendency to lump every atrocity the Germans committed against civilians under that broad umbrella. Particularly when the same perpetrators are involved such as SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger. Point of fact, not all of their inhumanity had any relationship to a broader 'plan', they were just sent in whenever the command felt they needed to send a message and let Dirlewanger make it up as his men went. He was, after all, a man sent to the concentration camps for raping children, only to be released, given a brigade made up of men guilty of murder and worse, and turned loose on Eastern Europe, specializing in pacification via slaughtering every living human being in the area. This really does not fall under the holocaust proper, as they made no real distinction victims, they raped and killed everyone they found, committing crimes that even horrified their fellow SS. Estimates run between 30k and 120k civilians were tortured and killed before he was charged with suppressing Warsaw, where they achieved 40,000 killed in just two days, including the incident at Wola Hospital.
While Syria has not yet becomes this bad, the same inhumanity is at work. I have little doubt that if they had released such weapons to a man like Dirlewanger, he'd have used gas as well. Give the men who ordered the civilians in Syria gassed three years and means to do it, and you'll see them piled up a pyramid of skulls to rival anything Dirlewanger managed.
So Syria has accomplished or are we predicting that Syria is capable of out doing the "Final Solution"? Chemical warfare does not care who, what, or where you are from. Its use so far is on a tactical scale and not on a strategic whole sale slaughter scale. Saddam did a version of the "Final Solution" on the Kurds and all we did was establish a "No Fly Zone". Implementing a "No Fly Zone" over Syria is pointless being that it seems they have used a 155mm delivery system (artillery) already. Lets stick with Tomahawk strikes on military units and logistical hubs.
Jihadin wrote: Lets stick with Tomahawk strikes on military units and logistical hubs.
Best thing would be to take out their air-force on the ground. This has been a major issue for the opposition and it's elimination combined with hitting their logistics would cripple them. I think that would be a firm enough 'message' that Assad would get the point. Attacking individual units would be less effective, I think, unless you're hitting their armor. The Opposition have captured a number of T54/55s they've been using street fighting around Damascus. Not a great tank, but better than no tank.
Warpig1815 wrote: It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces
I don't think you should be extrapolating Seaward's attitude out to be representative of the US as a whole. I for one have always found the UK & Australia to be the peanut butter to our jelly, the Pancho to our Cisco, the Necrons to our Blood Anholy crap look at that Salma Hayek gif.
I have little doubt that if they had released such weapons to a man like Dirlewanger, he'd have used gas as well. Give the men who ordered the civilians in Syria gassed three years and means to do it, and you'll see them piled up a pyramid of skulls to rival anything Dirlewanger managed.
Unlike Dirlewanger, I don't believe that the Assad government has any particular desire to kill anyone. This seems more like a power group that wishes to maintain power because it knows that if it fails to do so the repercussions will be severe. So severe that the use of chemical weapons cannot exacerbate them. Hell, if it leads to direct intervention by the West it may even ameliorate them.
After all, there are lots of people in the Arab World who hated the Ba'athists well before they began to commit atrocities.
Warpig1815 wrote: It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces
I don't think you should be extrapolating Seaward's attitude out to be representative of the US as a whole. I for one have always found the UK & Australia to be the peanut butter to our jelly, the Pancho to our Cisco, the Necrons to our Blood Anholy crap look at that Salma Hayek gif.
Aye, the Brits are a fun bunch to work with. Aussies as well. We've got an RAAF Officer in my unit here, and I have to keep myself from giggling like a girl everytime he talks. Australian accents are so awesome.
cadbren wrote: What happens if evidence shows that the rebels were responsible for the gas attacks?
Does the USA start targeting rebel strongholds?
The only fair thing to do is target everyone in Syria. We know Gas Attacks happened, but aren't 100% sure who did them. Only Fair.
Or our leaders could learn to keep their mouths shut, let Syria have it's civil war, and let the Syrian people work out the details of "what to do to whom" later.
), I feel the British Army is, and always will be, up to the job, especially as part of a UN taskforce - but we haven't even fully pulled out of Afghanistan before committing ourselves in another Middle Eastern debacle that already looks like it's turning more and more religion based (The Sunni-Shia schism), rather than based on the peoples basic right of freedom.
Obviously I don't know how it is there in shops, but domestics goods are always too expensive, losing china's trade wouldn't decrease those prices.
