1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Syria

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Risky, 5 Sep 2013.

  1. Risky

    Risky Modder

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,515
    Likes Received:
    151
    Some situations don't seem to have an obvious solution, but that doesn't always mean you don't have to take any action.

    Personally I was in favour of some limited punatie strikes against milltary or regime targets subject to sufficient proof emerging. This would have been just a clear reminder that using Chemical weapons isn't a cost-free option. I can't see that the US and it's remaining allies can actually practically prevent Assad from using them, but they can make it clear that they come a price - dome destroyed millitary bases, runways, palaces. Arguably if we had made it clear of the price earlier these attacks might not have happened.

    What certainly hasn't impressed me is some of the opposition.

    UKIP want to spend more on the military but then keep them purely for sabre-rattling about Gibraltar and the Falklands, and lets face it we aren't really going to end up in a war with Spain now are we? Other elements on the right object as they think that the Assad Regime is better than a likely Islamacist Regime and on the extemes are happy to see Muslims killing each other.

    On the left we have the Galloway elements that assume it is a Zionist plot (somehow, don't think too hard and bank that cheque from PressTV). Moreover there is the lareger group that feels that we shouldn't be supporting anything the Americans want to do ever because they are always wrong and anyone opposed to them mut have redeeming features. Or that america is looking for an excuse to invade (which if you have been following Obama's response to this since the Arab Spring looks like a bit impalausible).

    Then there are the legalists who blithely say that we have to respond to votes in the UN / UN Sec Council. Given the veto based setup this means we should only act if Russia and China say so. And to be quite frank I don't think those to countries are seen to have any concern beyond their own narrow geopolitical and economic interests. So you can be in favour of doing something in the full knowledge that the vote will never be passed.

    Where you stand? Just remember this isn't a opportunity to reargue the Iraq war. Lessons should be learned but each case has to be on it's own merits, the people affected deserve that much.
     
  2. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,420
    Likes Received:
    70
    If it wasn't for Iraq I would be all for military action, and I'm a pacifist (though I do suffer with occasional passive aggressive disorder).

    Sadly due to the major balls up in Iraq I am dead against going into/launching strikes against Syria. Yes, what is happening over there sucks balls but at the end of the day it's happening in other countries and we don't bat an eyelid because there's nothing in it for us. I watched a news article late one night about some African country and they were beheading children en masse. There were literally tiny little bodies littered around the ground with no heads.

    Yet we're not interested in that.

    To me the look on Dave's face when he got schooled said it all. He looked like a spoilt petulant child who had just been told "No you can't have that".

    We are also not in a financial position to be spending out on more wars. We never get anything back from them, it's all take take take. If the success rate was higher? yeah, fair play. Sadly it's not and all we seem to do is go around creating more problems than there were in the first ****ing place.

    A pic I got sent on Facebook said it all..

    "Syrians are killing Syrians. Quick ! let's kill more Syrians to punish them for killing Syrians".
     
  3. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 May 2005
    Posts:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    80
    I'm not really sure what Britain brings to this any more, the British sabre isn't quite what it used to be. We could lob our 5 cruise missiles and submerge the sub (hoping it doesn't run aground) or we can politically support the US and let them get on with it. Lets face it the US has more fire power in one of its two local task forces than the whole of the UK military could muster.

    We're not the great military power we used to be, we've not been for decades we just try to hide the fact. If the US wants to police the world they'll have to do it them selves for a while we can't afford to play.

    I can see why civilised countries would want to punish a country for using chemical weapons, it sets a bad precedent though I'm not really sure the UK, the US or Russian and China have the moral high ground to be dictating in this matter.
     
  4. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,420
    Likes Received:
    70
    I used to live in the USA. Nearly ten years to be exact.

    I lived with my wife, father in law and his new wife (not my mother in law) and her children.

    Their father was a Iraq vet from the original Iraq war. He was diagnosed with terminal cancer of the spine. When they did some digging it appears that the tank he used to run carried armour piercing uranium tipped shells. It was these (as he was sitting in front of a huge pile of them) that caused his cancer. He died six months after being diagnosed.

    So it's OK for 'Murica to use uranium tipped shells that cause cancer, yet, when some one uses chemical weapons we are all up in arms?

    We're ****ing hypocrites. Plain and simple. The U.S and us were using uranium tipped bullets too (basically to make sure that we killed some one even if the first shot only hit a leg).

    In WW2 we basically filled the sea with petrol and set it on fire. God only knows what damage that has done to the environment since.

    The only way to not be a hypocrite is to stay the **** out of it. It has nothing to do with us.
     
  5. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 May 2005
    Posts:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    80
    Which is great until some fundies get their hands on the gas and release it on the underground or more despots get it into their heads that using it carries no risk. International law should be upheld its just that the US and the UK have lost the moral authority to push the situation through the UN.
     
  6. Risky

    Risky Modder

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,515
    Likes Received:
    151
    So sine britain has done bad things in the past we should not take exception to anything any other country does? I'm not denying that there is a lng list of historical bad things the country has done. But that hardly put's you on your own, just about every country that has existed for any lenght of time has committed acts that wouldn't be acceptable now.

    Tanking of Hyppocracy can be await of ducking the question. Was Britian hypocritical in declaring war on Gernmany in 1939 because we had invaded other countries in the past and had indeed used concentration camps in the Boer War?

    We have to work out if we want to go for complete non-intervention or is there some point at which we have to act. Was it right for Nato to intervene in the Balkans in the 1990s? Would it have been better something had been taken before the Rwandan Genocide? Each decision to act has consequences, but also the decision not to act. If you think that the two Iraq wars were both wrong, you have to go with the conterfactual of what would have happened if another course of action had been taken at a given point.

    I feel the question has to be:

    "What are the consequences of some kind of strke on Syria now and what are the consequences of backing own and saying that what has happened will not lead to any action?"

    Who has enough moral authority then? France didn't invade Iraq so is it ok if they act here? And if it is right for them to act and not the US, then isn't this getting a bit nuanced.

    And I can't beleive that any amount of "moral authority" will pursuade Russia and China to change their positions on this. I do not see that their foreign policies are guided by anything concern other than narrow national self interest.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 5 Sep 2013
  7. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 May 2005
    Posts:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    80
    I don't disagree with you, my point is political. If the US and UK stand up in the UN and say we need to take action on Syria most countries will look at Iraq, shake their heads and move on to the next order of business. If the Arab countries (for example) tabled a similar motion and it were supported by others then we'd be on a strong footing to continue, ignoring the objections of China and Russia. As it stands the memory of the Iraq invasion means that when "we" propose action we are dismissed as war mongers.
     
  8. Kovoet

    Kovoet What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    7,128
    Likes Received:
    348
    We need to stop worrying about other countries and worry about ours. We hardly have an army anymore. Tax man is paying for this and I object. Slowly but surely pensions are going away. I'd much rather worry about the situation here. US and Uk needs to stop mingling with every body else.

    Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2
     
  9. Shirty

    Shirty W*nker! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    18 Apr 1982
    Posts:
    12,930
    Likes Received:
    2,058
    It's France's turn this time. We buggered up by making up reasons to invade Iraq, and it will be generations before that PR disaster is glossed over.

    "If I see two strangers fighting in the street, my immediate response is not to run over and knife one of them. That causes more problems than it solves."
     
  10. Krikkit

    Krikkit All glory to the hypnotoad! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    21 Jan 2003
    Posts:
    23,925
    Likes Received:
    655
    A sad case, but that's a very different situation to what's happening in Syria.

    DU rounds are mildly radioactive, as alpha and beta emitters, but most harmful when combustion products are inhaled. Whether being in a tank for a couple of months with them is enough to concretely say they caused your FIL's cancer, I am dubious. Their penetrating and ionisation properties from outside the body generally aren't sufficient to cause lasting damage, especially through layers of clothing etc.

    Back to the point, however, is that he was a soldier - he signed up for a dangerous, potentially deadly job, and unfortunately he was probably a casualty of that war. Sad, but something he should have known the risk of before he went.

    On the flip side, you've got weapons designed exclusively for highly efficient (much more so than regular munitions) killing being deployed against innocent civilians, solely for the purpose of extermination. That crosses a line in warfare, one which should generally be upheld.
     
  11. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    The US and UK ballsed this one up, I'm afraid. They drew a line in the sand and challenged an autocratic regime to cross it, without as much as a single consideration, plan or preparation for what they would do if --surprise, surprise-- that regime did cross it. Cue a hasty but vague proposal of military retaliation. No outline of what, how, how long for, or how the aftermath would be handled.

    Been there before: Iraq and Afghanistan. Ten years later we're still there. Original estimated cost: about $100 billion tops. Current price tag: $4000 billion (and counting). We just had a global recession. Tax payers are struggling. They are just not feeling it, sorry.

    What the US and UK (and other concerned countries) should have done at least 6 months ago is get the League of Arab Nations to spearhead diplomatic and military solutions to this. It is kind of telling that they are not terribly vocal about the situation.

    Meanwhile as AlienwareAndy points out, there are plenty of atrocities happening in other parts of the world, but nobody cares about that either.

    So yes, it is terrible and also terribly frustrating, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I for one remember the NATO intervention in Serbia --I was talking on the internet with another computer geek whose home town Nis in Serbia was being bombed as we were talking. All of a sudden it felt very personal: my country's air force was dropping bombs on his town. This guy was just a geek, with no political affiliations. I remember lamely apologising. He was rather good about it. That experience has made me think a bit harder about what it means to intervene --that it has to be done justifiably, really carefully and well considered, lest innocents get killed by friendly fire as well as the evil one. What Cameron and Obama are proposing is none of that.
     
  12. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    I have a feeling it will be WW3 if the U.S goes in. If Syrian Regime goes down, Russia looses a very important territory, and military base, which is really needs. I expect that the Russia will do everything it can to make the current regime win, including go to war against the U.S.

    Also, Assad father, did the same thing as his sun. No one cares, as he had good relationship with the U.S. Whole city was turned into dust, and no one cared.
     
  13. Risky

    Risky Modder

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,515
    Likes Received:
    151
    Do you mean that they shouldn't have drawn the line, or that they should have been ready to act without votes in Parliament or Congress?

    And if they haven't prepared, should they now prepare anyway,? Either they should act or the shouldn't. Unless you are saying they should have intervened already but shouldn't now, or something.

    I imagine the US will stop well short of that. And Syria definitely did not have a good relationship with the US in 1982 they were firmly a Soviet ally. This may affect Russia's attidude now.


    France doesn't haev the capacity to do anythign alone in Syria any more than we do. If there is be any military sanction it will need US support. If you say want intervention without US involvement you might as well say you don't want any intervention as it amounts to the same thing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 5 Sep 2013
  14. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 May 2005
    Posts:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    80
    Nah the world is too interdependent for a big war, Russia will shout a lot but they're just a big drug dealer (gas) and wouldn't risk loosing their biggest customer (Western Europe) over a territorial dispute. The bulk of Russia's economy is geared to selling Europe Gas and Oil and that market would quickly dry up in the event of WW3.
     
  15. Harlequin

    Harlequin Modder

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,131
    Likes Received:
    194
    today - rebel forces attacked a Christian village and tried to kill everyone - because they are not muslims....


    these are the sort of rebels david baboon wants to support.
     
  16. Risky

    Risky Modder

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,515
    Likes Received:
    151

    Link to your source, but quite possible (though the extreme right is putting a lot of stuff out there for there own reasons Link).

    Moderates don't survive long in a civil war without support. That window has probably gone. But just becasue some of the rebals are Islamacists doesn't mean I think it's ok to use Sarin on them.

    The issue is more of the wider cause of deterrance. Use Chemical weapson, we turn you palace into a carpark. Not subtle or nuanced but about at the level of the leadership there.
     
  17. Harlequin

    Harlequin Modder

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,131
    Likes Received:
    194
    didn't know you support the BNP


    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/17/uk-syria-crisis-checkpoint-idUKBRE97G04M20130817

    but have a REUTERS link instead.....
    also

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-target-christians-111350473.html#HZxsGaX


     
  18. docodine

    docodine killed a guy once

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2007
    Posts:
    5,084
    Likes Received:
    160
    the fundies here are the rebels, not the government

    assad is winning, and if everyone stays out then the rebellion will eventually be quelled

    putin has his own agenda (russian access to the mediterranean, etc), but i think his opinion is the right one overall.
     
    Last edited: 5 Sep 2013
  19. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    They should not have drawn the line without some real careful thinking about what they would do if Assad did cross the line. Makes sense, no? Perhaps if they had, they would not have painted themselves in a corner now, and perhaps thought of some viable alternatives instead. Like trying to rebuild relationships with the League of Arab Nations and working through them.

    They certainly should plan. So far I've heard nothing in that direction, except some vague threats of "military intervention". No mention of what, how, how long, what they expect the outcome to be and how they are going to manage that.

    I think that you are making the same mistake as Western governments in acting on the spur of outrage, rather than carefully planned long-term strategy. Several factors should be considered in this:

    • First, Assad has many supporters amongst Syria's own citizens (about 50%). It's why, like, there's this civil war going on for the last two and a half years. If everybody wanted him gone, it would have been 20 million Syrians against his army, making for an intense but short fight. So even if you manage to defeat his regime, there will be a lot of pissed-off Syrians not happy to co-operate with the formation of a new regime; they were quite happy with the old one, thanks. Cue more civil war. I mean, regime change worked out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    • Second, the Arab world has no warm fuzzy feelings for Assad. But their desire to see him put out of business will, for the most part, never be translated into support for Western military intervention. That is because of serious mistrust concerning Western motives, which go back to its shenanigans in Iraq (first supporting, then overthrowing) and Afghanistan, continuing drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, backtracking on the Palestinian question and the closure of Gitmo. Assad crossed the line? Big whoop. For the Arab world, Syria crossed all lines over two years ago. There are other reasons, but TL;DR: we have a bad reputation as opportunists and people who break promises. Nobody trusts us there.

    • Third, Russia has this military base in Tartus, Syria, which is not only its only base outside of Russia but also its only Mediterranean fueling spot, sparing Russia’s warships the trip back to their Black Sea bases through straits in Turkey. It holds some strategic value. The idea of Western forces meddling with its host country are not welcomed.

    • Fourth, it's not as if the West couldn't have acted earlier and been more helpful. Over the last 2 years the US pressured Arab states in the region to prevent the delivery of advanced weaponry, especially anti-aircraft missiles, to the Free Syrian Army (FSA). This was on the pretext that such weapons could fall into the hands of extremists, despite reassurances by the FSA. Indeed the US demanded that the FSA fight the jihadist factions, which would have inflicted huge damage on the revolution and risked its total disintegration. So making good on the threat behind crossing the line made this late in the day is just a geopolitical face-saving exercise.

    And what would military action achieve? It will not aim to topple the regime. Assad may hesitate to use chemical weapons in future; but will not hesitate to kill by many other varied and unpleasant means. In other words, Assad would continue to kill, but according to Western humane standards, of course, and the Syrian people would continue to pay a heavy price.

    So sorry, but it is quite literally: too little, too late. Our chance to be moral, meaningful and helpful passed two years ago.
     
    Last edited: 5 Sep 2013
  20. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Yeah well, using Sarin on civilians is pretty much the act of a totalitarian regime. Potáto, potāto.
     
Tags:

Share This Page