Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Syria and Obama

352 posts in this topic

I am conflicted by this.  Chemical weapons are a big no.  Strange as it may seem but wars have rules, certain weapons are banned even though you are trying to kill each other in as bigger numbers as you can.  Limb shredding shrapnel is OK, blinding by lasers is not, fuel-air bombs turning your insides to mush are OK, ball bearing cluster bombs are not...etc.

 

I think Kristen Guru-Murphy said on twitter last night that its strange that we show more on TV on the effects of the chemical attack than we do of bog standard horrific war.  Does our outrage come from not seeing what is happening on a day to day basis?

 

I'm conflicted by the fact that we have a regime (possibly, the rebels appear to use them too) that has used chemical weapons and is generally being a bad guy fighting rebels which have amongst their number people who we are happily bombing in other countries and are generally bad guys.  Syria is a proxy war, that I see no-one as being a nice winner.

 

There are people on the rebel side who are fighting for freedom, however they have allies who will quickly take over in any power vacuum if Assad is defeated.

 

Someone one said last night, when we invaded Iraq we helped Iran boost its regional power immensely, so it's only natural we now give AQ a hand too!  Having clear enemies is so old fashioned!

 

Rambling post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Mission creep is the problem. Having launched a strike at Assad, we could hardly afford for him to stay in power. Removing him altogether then becomes necessary. At which point we become responsible for what happens next. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that the Arab League are against US military intervention, I wonder whether a US/UK backed intervention by Saudi and Qatari forces may happen instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am conflicted by this.  Chemical weapons are a big no.  Strange as it may seem but wars have rules, certain weapons are banned even though you are trying to kill each other in as bigger numbers as you can.  Limb shredding shrapnel is OK, blinding by lasers is not, fuel-air bombs turning your insides to mush are OK, ball bearing cluster bombs are not...etc.

 

 

It seems odd to me that the world would stand by and let 1,000,000 Rwandans be hacked to death with knives, or let 3,000,000 Congolese die in the worst war of the past half century while the west did nothing yet we seem to be willing to risk so much over 300 Syrians because some kind of bizarre military honour code was breached.

 

You know what, I don't think any of this is really about the chemical weapons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mission creep is the problem. Having launched a strike at Assad, we could hardly afford for him to stay in power. Removing him altogether then becomes necessary. At which point we become responsible for what happens next. 

 

If the US pings over a few cruise missiles for show, without really hitting anything, then the World might just get away with it.   After all, they used to drop bombs on Libya from time to time and Gadaffi went on and on.   He seemed to accept it as the price of doing business.   Assad may well do the same.

 

If anything, he may welcome it as an opportunity to rally his troops to the cause.    Nothing gets 'em going like blaming the Great Satan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

If not intervening to stop Very Bad Things happening costs us the moral right to act, then we lost it a long, long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the US pings over a few cruise missiles for show, without really hitting anything, then the World might just get away with it.   After all, they used to drop bombs on Libya from time to time and Gadaffi went on and on.   He seemed to accept it as the price of doing business.   Assad may well do the same.

 

If anything, he may welcome it as an opportunity to rally his troops to the cause.    Nothing gets 'em going like blaming the Great Satan.

Gaddafi funded / equipped the IRA and blew up a plane over Lockerbie. That was the price of dropping bombs on Libya from time-to-time.

Assad has terrorist connections (Hezbollah). I wonder how many Hezbollah sympathisers there are in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that the Arab League are against US military intervention, I wonder whether a US/UK backed intervention by Saudi and Qatari forces may happen instead.

No.

Just no.

The Saudi and Qatari military forces largely consist of total morons who are overweight and completely feckless and irresponsible. Oh and lazy and pathetically childish.

That's not just my opinion. It is the opinion of just about anyone who has ever had any dealings with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Sorry JD, I disagree and think ckn has it pretty much smack on with his final sentence below.

 

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.

 

I wasn't intending to sound simple and clinical but do not underestimate the capability that the US (and ourselves) actually have to implement such a strike. I personally don't want to get involved but a clear message has to be sent as a line must be drawn and this is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mission creep is the problem. Having launched a strike at Assad, we could hardly afford for him to stay in power. Removing him altogether then becomes necessary. At which point we become responsible for what happens next. 

 

Mission creep would be an issue and I would be dead set against that, as I am sure ckn would be as well? We don't have to remove Assad from power; we just need to send a clear message, do not use any form of CBRN capability or you will reap the whirlwind... As Steve May has suggested, it has been done before: Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan etc without regime change. If done correctly, the global long term benefits of showing the world that CBRN attacks are not acceptable and do not go unpunished far outweigh the potential consequences of annoying the Assad regime. It know that sounds callous and inhumane but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mission creep would be an issue and I would be dead set against that, as I am sure ckn would be as well? We don't have to remove Assad from power; we just need to send a clear message, do not use any form of CBRN capability or you will reap the whirlwind... As Steve May has suggested, it has been done before: Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan etc without regime change. If done correctly, the global long term benefits of showing the world that CBRN attacks are not acceptable and do not go unpunished far outweigh the potential consequences of annoying the Assad regime. It know that sounds callous and inhumane but...

I agree entirely.  I'd have not a single ground unit there beyond maybe a few good spotters, even then I'd be unlikely to put them anywhere near harm's reach.   Stand back and hit them with missiles as described in the Telegraph.  A single period of punitive strikes against strategic targets making a very public statement.  Get the satellite streams running live with independent media witnesses to see the right targets hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mission creep would be an issue and I would be dead set against that, as I am sure ckn would be as well? We don't have to remove Assad from power; we just need to send a clear message, do not use any form of CBRN capability or you will reap the whirlwind... As Steve May has suggested, it has been done before: Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan etc without regime change. If done correctly, the global long term benefits of showing the world that CBRN attacks are not acceptable and do not go unpunished far outweigh the potential consequences of annoying the Assad regime. It know that sounds callous and inhumane but...

And as I said, it was done before with consequences for the civilian and military populations of the UK and USA.

I don't really understand why chemical attacks are considered "unacceptable" whilst torturing children to death (done by both sides in Syria) are just swept under the carpet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as I said, it was done before with consequences for the civilian and military populations of the UK and USA.

I don't really understand why chemical attacks are considered "unacceptable" whilst torturing children to death (done by both sides in Syria) are just swept under the carpet.

6 artillery guns firing 5 chemical rounds each could kill everyone in Central London if they had proper targeting information.  If you brought in the big boy artillery, e.g. the M110, then you can do the same with 3 or 4 guns.

 

Conventional artillery would take hundreds of guns firing hundreds of rounds.

 

See the difference?  They're one step off a nuclear device just less persistent.  There's a reason why they're called weapons of mass destruction

 

Genocidal conventional attacks are something I really, really wish we could do something about but unfortunately we can't as that would involve massive ground troop commitments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 artillery guns firing 5 chemical rounds each could kill everyone in Central London if they had proper targeting information.  If you brought in the big boy artillery, e.g. the M110, then you can do the same with 3 or 4 guns.

 

Conventional artillery would take hundreds of guns firing hundreds of rounds.

 

See the difference?  They're one step off a nuclear device just less persistent.  There's a reason why they're called weapons of mass destruction

 

Genocidal conventional attacks are something I really, really wish we could do something about but unfortunately we can't as that would involve massive ground troop commitments.

Yeah but we're not talking about anything like that capacity with Syria. It's like comparing a .22 with a tank gun.

 

Added to which I'm not sure that "If you cross this red line, we'll reduce your ability to cross it again but otherwise leave you to do as you will" is much of a deterrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: In fact, I've deleted my post as I think we're into stalemate territory here.  I'm not convincing the opponents of action and they're not convincing me.  I'll probably post again when something major happens...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Miliband has pulled the plug on the weekends bombing (at least from UK boats).

 

No.10 not happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Miliband has pulled the plug on the weekends bombing (at least from UK boats).

 

No.10 not happy.

Good, commonsense prevails. If the US wants commit suicide in the Muslim world again let them buts lets not handcuff ourselves to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest polls suggest 22% are in favour of missile strikes by the UK.

MP's obviously wary with such public opinion.

(null)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a sensible and reasonable move, Parliamentary democracy in action,  so clearly it wasn't Miliband's idea.


 


Also, Steve May, rest assured the NHS is safe  in the long term, as Labour will not get re-elected.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a mistake... I hit the "delete" button on a post by Bedford Roughyed and I now can't find that post to resurrect it...

 

He posted

 

No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***", said a govt source

 

Some people reported and PM'ed me about this.  I didn't mean to delete it, I meant to hit quote to give one source for why I was leaving it...

 

Sorry again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know why is this ###### going on ?please enlightin me.

Some people are ****s.  Others are nasty ****s.  Yet others are genocidal s****s.  One particular genocidal s*** has decided to become the Grand High Poobah of S***s by killing his own people with weapons of mass destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017