Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Syria and Obama


  • Please log in to reply
351 replies to this topic

#81 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,720 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 09:25 AM

So glad I've kept my S10...

Remember to occasionally steal your wife's talc and practice your decontamination routines.  Still have your Survive to Fight?


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#82 Wiltshire Rhino

Wiltshire Rhino
  • Coach
  • 2,293 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 09:39 AM

Thanks for that, I didn't know what TheTerminator was implying until I read your post.

No worries Sev! Us Wiltshire folk need to help you Gloucestershire bumpkins out! ;-)

Edited by Wiltshire Rhino, 28 August 2013 - 09:59 AM.


#83 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,492 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 09:44 AM

Arab League says Assad regime did it.

 

Also, taking on and reversing John's point: if we fail to act then we clearly haven't learned any lessons at all.

 

There's a very good reason that every time we've used chemical weapons since the first world war that international outrage has led to tighter and tighter restrictions and international taboo.  We can't be the world's policeman stopping everything but we can hold the high line by stopping the escalation to routine use of chemical weapons.  If we don't act then we take on the role of international appeaser.  If we don't act because Syria is "difficult" then when will we ever act?

 

For me, I'd strongly prefer if any action was led by the Arab League or similar, even if it's being the lead sanctions enforcer to show that it's not just the western Christian nations imposing our morals on them.  If they won't though then we should act, even if it has no UN security council backing.

 

But if we act without UN endorsement or approval on this (again), how can we ever demand other nations follow UN resolutions in future without them just laughing in our faces, when we ourselves only take heed of the UN when it suits us and does our bidding?

 

We can't be the world's policeman. Full stop after that, as far as I'm concerned.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#84 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,720 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 09:52 AM

But if we act without UN endorsement or approval on this (again), how can we ever demand other nations follow UN resolutions in future without them just laughing in our faces, when we ourselves only take heed of the UN when it suits us and does our bidding?

 

We can't be the world's policeman. Full stop after that, as far as I'm concerned.

Legally, we don't need Security Council approval as there are many treaties on this that are quite clear that it's illegal and requires international intervention.  This is one that's far, far clearer than the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions.

 

Also, there is the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) protocol that was brought in by the UN as a whole in 2005 to get around this sort of cynical blocking by a vested party in the Security Council.  This specifically says it's "normal" for states to intervene to protect other states' citizens from state sanctioned genocide, it's no longer an exception or something we need to go get permission to do, we can intervene anywhere in the world that there's genocide going on and the state is doing nothing to stop it.  We SHOULD go through the Security Council if we want to use force but we don't have to any longer.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#85 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,492 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 10:05 AM

Legally, we don't need Security Council approval as there are many treaties on this that are quite clear that it's illegal and requires international intervention.  This is one that's far, far clearer than the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions.

 

Also, there is the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) protocol that was brought in by the UN as a whole in 2005 to get around this sort of cynical blocking by a vested party in the Security Council.  This specifically says it's "normal" for states to intervene to protect other states' citizens from state sanctioned genocide, it's no longer an exception or something we need to go get permission to do, we can intervene anywhere in the world that there's genocide going on and the state is doing nothing to stop it.  We SHOULD go through the Security Council if we want to use force but we don't have to any longer.

 

Legality in international law is open to quite wide interpretation. We discovered that after Iraq. A government will always be able to find someone to tell them that what they are doing is legal. And there will be others who argue that it isn't. Either way, I doubt any would-be suicide bombers will be checking with a lawyer before using any action taken by the UK and others in Syria as a further justification for exacting their own kind of retribution on British civilians whenever they get the opportunity.

 

As for it being "normal" for states to intervene to protect other states' citizens from state sanctioned genocide, if that's the case, why have we done nothing so far in Syria where the bodies have been piling up for many months? If/when there are any strikes to take out chemical weapons, we'll be back to turning a blind eye to the further piles of bodies that will accumulate afterwards so long as they die as a result of 'conventional' bombs and guns.

 

The humanitarian justification is a fig leaf.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#86 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,725 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 10:22 AM

No worries Sev! Us Wiltshire folk need to help you Gloucestershire bumpkins out! ;-)

 

 

Now that's a civil war we could all laugh at. Pointed sticks and combat smocks issued yet?

 

;) :tongue:


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#87 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 10:24 AM

If Parliament votes to intervene in Syria, then we clearly haven't learned any lessons at all.

They haven't, we have.

 

Wrt the UK public was very divided but ultimately most people supported intervention, this time, there is almost no public support for it. I saw a poll in the USA where 9% of the US public supported intervention in Syria.

 

Politicians as ever go their own way.



#88 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 10:26 AM

Translation: Sunni Arabs blame Shi'a Arabs.



#89 Wiltshire Rhino

Wiltshire Rhino
  • Coach
  • 2,293 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 10:35 AM

Now that's a civil war we could all laugh at. Pointed sticks and combat smocks issued yet?

;) :tongue:

Always at the ready! Oooooaaaarrrrr!!!

However other counties would probably stick their noses in to keep the West Country's precious resorces (cider) flowing to the to the rest of the country!

Edited by Wiltshire Rhino, 28 August 2013 - 10:55 AM.


#90 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,205 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 11:14 AM

I'm unsure on this one! I really don't think we should be getting involved in every civil war and uprising, and whilst what is happening in Syria is a real crisis, for me all the options seem terrible!

Either we let the rebels and the Assad regime fight it out themselves and kill a ridiculous number of innocent people get killed and then be accused of not helping

or

Invade, destroy the regime and chemical weapons, leaving little or no infrastructure left in the country and killing a ridiculous number people, and afterwards be accused of invading and making the country worse.

I appreciate the varying degrees and those are the extremes but personally I just don't see what the end game is there. As much as I was against the Iraq invasion it obviously had a purpose (get rid of Sadam and to a lesser extent bring an oil producing nation under US control). I'm not sure we can protect the innocent people on the ground by invading and causing more casualties.

I read an article this morning by Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Doctors Without Boarders as they've branded themselves over the last few years (they are one of the charities I like to support).

http://www.huffingto...l?utm_hp_ref=uk

grim reading either way, but I'm glad I support them.

#91 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 4,747 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 11:42 AM

Arab League says Assad regime did it.

 

Also, taking on and reversing John's point: if we fail to act then we clearly haven't learned any lessons at all.

 

There's a very good reason that every time we've used chemical weapons since the first world war that international outrage has led to tighter and tighter restrictions and international taboo.  We can't be the world's policeman stopping everything but we can hold the high line by stopping the escalation to routine use of chemical weapons. 

 

Again, I completely agree. The issue for me isn't the systematic killing of civilians on both sides; there is nothing we can do to stop that as the UN as ever is proving to be an incompetent talk shop plus we don't have the resources to set the precedent of getting involved in every conflict across the globe on humanitarian grounds (something JD correctly points out). However, we are setting a truly dark precedent if we don't intervene in some way to combat the threat of the use of chemical weapons, albeit on either side in this conflict. The use of such weapons against civilians (or military targets for that matter) is despicable and horrifying. If we do not punish the perpatrators for this horrifying act, we have not learnt any lessons from history and sending a clear message to other regimes around the world that they can act with impunity.

 

If the green light is given, there isn't going to a Western invasion of Syria. That would be a truly ridiclous concept and rightly, the public wouldn't stand for that. However, a punishment, which will hurt the regime and show them that they cannot act with impunity despite the backing of the Russians and Iranians, will send a clear message to Assad, the rebels and the rest of the world that you cannot use Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sadly, economic sanctions do not work unless backed by the entire international community. That leaves a military strike against key elements of the Assad Regime and its chemical weapons capabilities. A line does have to be drawn somewhere and this is it.


Edited by GeordieSaint, 28 August 2013 - 11:50 AM.

  • ckn likes this

Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#92 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,720 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 11:48 AM

Again, I completely agree. The issue for me isn't the systematic killing of civilians on both sides; there is nothing we can do to stop that as the UN as ever is proving to be an incompetent talk shop plus we don't have the resources to set the precedent of getting involved in every conflict across the globe. However, we are setting a truly dark precedent if we don't intervene in some way to comabt the threat of the use of chemical weapons, albeit on either side in this conflict. The use of such weapons against civilians (or military targets for that matter) is despicable and horrifying. If we do not punish the perpatrators for this horrifying act, we have not learnt any lessons from history and sending a clear message to other regimes around the world that they can act with impunity.

 

If the green light is given, there isn't going to a Western invasion of Syria. That would be a truly ridiclous concept and rightly, the public wouldn't stand for that. However, a punishment, which will hurt the regime and show them that they cannot act with impunity despite the backing of the Russians and Iranians, will send a clear message to Assad, the rebels and the rest of the world that you cannot use Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sadly, economic sanctions do not work when backed by the entire international community. That leaves a military strike against key elements of the Assad Regime and its chemical weapons capabilities. A line does have to be drawn somewhere and this is it.

+1


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#93 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,492 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 12:17 PM

Again, I completely agree. The issue for me isn't the systematic killing of civilians on both sides; there is nothing we can do to stop that as the UN as ever is proving to be an incompetent talk shop plus we don't have the resources to set the precedent of getting involved in every conflict across the globe on humanitarian grounds (something JD correctly points out). However, we are setting a truly dark precedent if we don't intervene in some way to combat the threat of the use of chemical weapons, albeit on either side in this conflict. The use of such weapons against civilians (or military targets for that matter) is despicable and horrifying. If we do not punish the perpatrators for this horrifying act, we have not learnt any lessons from history and sending a clear message to other regimes around the world that they can act with impunity.

 

If the green light is given, there isn't going to a Western invasion of Syria. That would be a truly ridiclous concept and rightly, the public wouldn't stand for that. However, a punishment, which will hurt the regime and show them that they cannot act with impunity despite the backing of the Russians and Iranians, will send a clear message to Assad, the rebels and the rest of the world that you cannot use Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sadly, economic sanctions do not work unless backed by the entire international community. That leaves a military strike against key elements of the Assad Regime and its chemical weapons capabilities. A line does have to be drawn somewhere and this is it.

 

You make it sound so simple and clinical. But from past experience we know the reality will be nothing like that.

 

It assumes that every strike will hit its intended target. It assumes that every instance of chemical weaponry will be wiped out in one fell swoop. It assumes the Assad regime and its supporters will just take all this on the chin.

 

It takes no account of what might happen next or the immediately increased danger we place ourselves in of non-chemical weapon attacks upon ourselves by joining in such a strike when in my view there is absolutely no need for us to do so whatsoever.

 

Most countries in the world will be doing nothing about this. Just for once, why can't we be one of them?


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#94 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,700 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 12:37 PM

I agree with JD. We are not some big shot country and Cameron should butt out acting the big man. Help out wherever possible, but keep the hell out of it and worry about our country, which is hardly short of problems itself.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#95 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,720 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 12:54 PM

You make it sound so simple and clinical. But from past experience we know the reality will be nothing like that.

 

It assumes that every strike will hit its intended target. It assumes that every instance of chemical weaponry will be wiped out in one fell swoop. It assumes the Assad regime and its supporters will just take all this on the chin.

 

It takes no account of what might happen next or the immediately increased danger we place ourselves in of non-chemical weapon attacks upon ourselves by joining in such a strike when in my view there is absolutely no need for us to do so whatsoever.

 

Most countries in the world will be doing nothing about this. Just for once, why can't we be one of them?

If we ignore one then we lose the moral right to act again in future.

 

Where do you draw the line?  If you ignore chemical weapons then you've essentially said that there's no problem in the world that we'll bother with.  Does that mean you'll let North Korea have its nukes, they can't hit us here in the UK.  Same with Iran.  What if Iran then uses the nukes on Israel?  Not our problem after all.

 

What about the stuff that's less serious on the world scale than a modern criminal state that not only has WMDs but will use them?  Just walk out of Afghanistan?  Stop helping Pakistan with their extremists?  Pull out of UN peacekeeping missions?  Not our problem after all.

 

Punitive raids aren't meant to be regime changing.  We know where their military bases are, we can flatten 90% of their fixed artillery sites quite easily without even coming near a civilian area, coincidentally their main three fixed bases near the rebel areas are where their chemical weapons are stored.  We don't need to hit all their chemical weaponry as we know how easy it is to make, they could make new supplies in a week or two.  We don't need to hit all their artillery sites, we know they have more than we can realistically target in months of bombing.  We don't need to take out their political leadership.  What we do need to do is to make a statement that we will punitively strike back against people who use these weapons that are realistically one step off nuclear weapons.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#96 getdownmonkeyman

getdownmonkeyman
  • Coach
  • 1,741 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 01:18 PM

One thing I am struggling to comprehend is how the US and UK cannot determine which side is using chemical weapons.

 

The vast array of satellites and communications that are monitoring the globe, which, must be heavily fixed towards Syria at this point in time, must be able to monitor the flight path of missiles that have landed in the area where chemical weapons have been used. Or, am I looking at this technology too simplistically/naively? 

 

All the posturing, from both sides, is then put to bed, nobody can hide behind the finger pointing scenarios being played out. There is a culprit and danctions/military action can be taken.



#97 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,492 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 01:20 PM

If we ignore one then we lose the moral right to act again in future.

 

Where do you draw the line?  If you ignore chemical weapons then you've essentially said that there's no problem in the world that we'll bother with.  Does that mean you'll let North Korea have its nukes, they can't hit us here in the UK.  Same with Iran.  What if Iran then uses the nukes on Israel?  Not our problem after all.

 

What about the stuff that's less serious on the world scale than a modern criminal state that not only has WMDs but will use them?  Just walk out of Afghanistan?  Stop helping Pakistan with their extremists?  Pull out of UN peacekeeping missions?  Not our problem after all.

 

Punitive raids aren't meant to be regime changing.  We know where their military bases are, we can flatten 90% of their fixed artillery sites quite easily without even coming near a civilian area, coincidentally their main three fixed bases near the rebel areas are where their chemical weapons are stored.  We don't need to hit all their chemical weaponry as we know how easy it is to make, they could make new supplies in a week or two.  We don't need to hit all their artillery sites, we know they have more than we can realistically target in months of bombing.  We don't need to take out their political leadership.  What we do need to do is to make a statement that we will punitively strike back against people who use these weapons that are realistically one step off nuclear weapons.

 

Who appointed us as the world's conscience and what right do we have to claim such a title anyway, given the blind eyes we have turned to numerous other conflicts where we have had no vested interest over the centuries?

 

Where is the morality in wanting to intervene over how a state can massacre its own citizens, but not actually caring that they still get massacred in the end. Gas? Not ok. Bombs and bullets? Carry on killing.

 

All these matters should be under the auspices of the UN. It's what it is there for.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#98 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 01:37 PM

 

Who appointed us as the world's conscience and what right do we have to claim such a title anyway, given the blind eyes we have turned to numerous other conflicts where we have had no vested interest over the centuries?
 
Where is the morality in wanting to intervene over how a state can massacre its own citizens, but not actually caring that they still get massacred in the end. Gas? Not ok. Bombs and bullets? Carry on killing.
 
All these matters should be under the auspices of the UN. It's what it is there for.


It's got nothing to do with conscience.

We also intervene non militarily in plenty of places where the state simply can't be arsed to look after it's citizens, see the "bongo bongo" land thread.

#99 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 5,159 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 02:11 PM

The vast array of satellites and communications that are monitoring the globe, which, must be heavily fixed towards Syria at this point in time, must be able to monitor the flight path of missiles that have landed in the area where chemical weapons have been used. Or, am I looking at this technology too simplistically/naively? 

 

Unfortunately there is no way to tell where the missiles or shells came from. Unless you are on the ground with tracking equipment.


Edited by Bedford Roughyed, 28 August 2013 - 02:25 PM.

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#100 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 5,159 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 02:13 PM

Remember to occasionally steal your wife's talc and practice your decontamination routines.  Still have your Survive to Fight?

 

 

I think that link sums up my feelings on NBC quite nicely!

You can do the sniff test, I'll hang back here suited up thank you!

 


Edited by Bedford Roughyed, 28 August 2013 - 02:25 PM.

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users