 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
just wondering if all the anti's would turn pro.
what would it take to make it ok for outside intervention.
what would it take to make it ok for outside intervention.
The possibility that intervention would be a. possible, and b. work.
This is one of those horrible situations where there's no right answer, no good plan of action, no right thing to do.
When you say 'turning a bit Hitler' what do you mean? You do know we didn't fight Hitler to stop the holocaust don't you?
This is one of those horrible situations where there's no right answer, no good plan of action, no right thing to do.
+1
grum, as in a bit more extreme.
what would it take to make it ok for outside intervention
Taking out nasty, mass murdering thugs and leaving ordinary people to get on with their lives is a winner in my book.
'turning a bit Hitler'
[img]
?w=228&h=300[/img]Movember?
If we could get through to seeing the future, we could see who is doing what to who. We could then decide what to do and make sure we did the right thing. Shame it doesn't work like that.
Taking out nasty, mass murdering thugs
And leaving what behind?
and if we do nothing?
What makes you think we will make things any better? We don't exactly have a great track record in the Middle East.
What gives us the authority to attack countries without UN consent?
And leaving what behind?
Good question which is why the leadership in both the West and the East have often actively supported such mass murderers because "at least they know who they are dealing with" and "he keeps things under control".
The will of the people wherever it may lead is a much trickier thing to contemplate and negotiate with.
grum, I did not ask about that, all I wanted to know was how long before people who were against would change their minds.
Looking back over history as to how well these things seem to go...
Iraq
Afghanistan
Vietnam
Northern Ireland
Somalia
We had some success in the former Yugoslavia, the Falklands and liberating Kuwait.
It's not the best track record to use to promote further military action, yes something needs doing but either way it's not going to play well with anyone, we still don't know what is going on - not everything is black and white.
Folk might change their mind if they knew that the outcome would be any better. History leads us to believe otherwise.
grum, I did not ask about that, all I wanted to know was how long before people who were against would change their minds.
It's not that simple though. There are no easy answers or black and white 'lines'.
We carried on supporting Saddam when he gassed the Kurds BTW.
Being devils advocate here and trying to see who benefits from an airstrike/regime change/possible ground war in Syria leaves one neighbouring country out in front, I don't buy it that Assad/syrian army sanctioned or used chemical weapons when the previous week Obama laid out a clear intention that if such weapons were used then the US would intervene, not to mention use them when UN inspectors were on the ground?, he may be crazy but that is hanging upside down bat-shit crazy. - Say what you like about Assad, and i'm sure he does deserve his reputation as there is no doubt he is as despicable and ruthless as he's made out to be but i do not think he is suicidal, nor do i imagine he wishes his government to fall due to US led airstrikes which is the only possible outcome he could expect if he used such chemical weapons against his own people.
Is it really above suspicion that a neighbouring country could have committed such an atrocious act to finger the Assad regime and engender it's removal?, if syria does fall then Iran may be next and then?.......
Someone is stirring the shit in the middle east.
IMHO of course.
We carried on supporting Saddam when he gassed the Kurds BTW.
Precisely my point.
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Saddam Hussein
Gaddafi
et al.
Ultimately millions of ordinary people lost their lives when a precise strike would have saved a lot of suffering.
Ultimately millions of ordinary people lost their lives when a precise strike would have saved a lot of suffering.
Ummm.... Not sure if you've noticed but Iraq isn't exactly a picnic since we got rid of Saddam.
At least 75 people were killed and more than 200 others wounded Wednesday in a wave of bombings and shootings across the country.Analysts say the country appears to be sliding back toward civil war, as Sunni militants linked to al-Qaida mount increasingly deadly attacks on Shi'ite targets on a near daily basis.
The United Nations says nearly 4,000 people have died this year, most of them since April, when forces of the Shi'ite-led government cracked down on a Sunni protest encampment north of Baghdad.
http://m.voanews.com/a/1739921.html
Ummm.... Not sure if you've noticed but Iraq isn't exactly a picnic since we got rid of Saddam.
Yes because he was allowed to be in power for so long. All coherent opposition had been eradicated.
EDIT
And we didn't just kill Saddam did we?
Interesting that Hitler and the Nazis have been mentioned in connection with Syria - given that country's record of harbouring wanted Nazi war criminals...............
ton why arent you clamouring to invade north korea?
those crazy kims have concentration camps
and have already killed millions of their own people
Assads small fry compared to some dictators
-
Even Hitler didn't stoop so low as to use chemical weapons on the battlefield. Assad' s Regime would have been despised and condemned by the Nazis. Imagine that. "In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke
redfordrider - Member
Even Hitler didn't stoop so low as to use chemical weapons on the battlefield. Assad'
no he just herded civilians into chambers to use them?!?!!?
For me there are 2 main problems with military intevention.
1. Against who? No one had produced any substative evidence as to who was responsible for the attack. THere seem to be as many sources pointing the finger at both sides.
2. How will blowing up more civilians and some parts of Syria as part of an intevention help? You can be certain that it wont really affect whoever is behind the attack. Is a court not the appropriate place to deal with people who break the law?
Kimbers. Even the Nazis had their limits, as despicable and immoral as they were. Assad appears to have none.
redford what planet are you on?
when assad has rounded up 6 million men women and children, herded them into concentration camps executed them invaded half of europe and plunged the world into a war that killed 2.5% of its population then yeah he can go on the list with hitler, stalin and pol pot
until then hes just another nasty tin pot dictator doing his best to stay in power while saudi backed islamists try and overthrow
[i]say what you like about the nazi's atleast they didnt....[/i]
is it me or is it getting a bit surreal around here?
Not all German soldiers were Nazis, despite wearing the uniform. Plenty were decent people. SS soldiers on the other hand certainly had no limits.Even the Nazis had their limits
all I wanted to know was how long before people who were against would change their minds.
A UN mandate, even then only as part of a multinational UN force.
The right course of aciton is not always the easiest, that's where leadership comes in. Just cause its difficult and we can't always see the end game, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. The world is connected and to say that things that happen out of our boarders has no impact or knock-on effects to us and our way of life is wrong, things have a habbit of coming back round to bite you eventualy. I think in time getting rid of Saddam will be shown as having been the right thing to do - but you can't re-invent a country overnight, but at least we've given the people of Iraq a chance to form a country of their own and some control over their destiny. The trick is to continue the help and assist for as long as is necessary, which is decades, and it is this committment that we've not really got our heads around and committed to, or have a model for. We take freedom and democracy for granted - but for some people who have never known it, it is a completely alien concept and doesn't always come naturally and will take a few generations to take root.
Assad has shown that he is just as ruthless and capable of 'evil' as Hitler and has taken a step even Hitler didn't dare take in using chemical weapons on his own civilians. What more do you need to justify some form of active and direct invervention? Some seem to think it isn't enough.
If Assad does deploy chemical weapons again I hope that Milliband and all the other politicians who voted against last night watch the horrific images on screen will realise that this is the result of their course of action and publically apologise. I hope it doesn't happen and they're right. To not even have the threat of retaliation out there undermines our influence and is giving them the green light.
say what you like about the nazi's atleast they didnt....is it me or is it getting a bit surreal around here?
Indeed. I expect a 'what have the Roman's ever done for us' comment any time now 🙂
oh come on the jews were hitlers own people! they were germans too
even the americans 'intelligence' indicates that assads regime didnt mean to kill those civilians- the intercepted calls are from regime officials asking an artilery unit wtf theyve been gassing people!!
dont get me wrong assads a scumbag and im sure hes more worried about american retaliation than any innocents killed
I suspect assad will continue to use whatever he has at his diposal to win the war, if the americans do bomb him and tip the scales in favour of the rebels whos to say he wont become more desperate and launch even more chemical attacks?
Is a court not the appropriate place to deal with people who break the law?
Exactly. How about the ICC issues a warrant for Assad's arrest, and we go get him and put him on trial? Except the Americans don't like the ICC, and prefer summary justice.
If Assad does deploy chemical weapons again I hope that Milliband and all the other politicians who voted against last night watch the horrific images on screen will realise that this is the result of their course of action and publically apologise. I hope it doesn't happen and they're right. To not even have the threat of retaliation out there undermines our influence and is giving them the green light.
And would Cameron have to watch horrific images of the children who die when we start bombing and then apologise?
Asad's def got the Hitler tache going on, so maybe just maybe he may turn all Hitler.
On a serious note, there's no doubt that using chemical weapons on your own people is wrong, but can anyone tell me why the neighbouring Arab bredren aren't willing to intervene in the abuse of their fellow brothas and sistahs?
but can anyone tell me why the neighbouring Arab bredren aren't willing to intervene in the abuse of their fellow brothas and sistahs?
No one intervened when Hitler did the same to his own population
Or why the Rwandan genocide went on so long
etc
We carried on supporting Saddam when he gassed the Kurds BTW
Here's [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_British_use_of_chemical_weapons_in_Mesopotamia_in_1920 ]a quote[/url] from good old Winston Churchill, from 1920, referring to the Kurds:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"
just wondering if all the anti's would turn pro
Perhaps at least some idea of an end game plan, sadly lacking in every other military intervention of the last couple of decades. Given the pretext for this one is chemical weapons, in order to get hold of them (from either the government or the multifarious rebel groups) - we would need boots on the ground. Que long protracted operation, messy ending with no defined outcome and ample room for terrorist linked Islamic militant groups to get a boot in the door.
No one intervened when Hitler did the same to his own population
Or why the Rwandan genocide went on so long
etc
Off on a tangent that, anyone else?
Are any other countries bothered/worried/arsed about what's going on over there? I'm not that well up on the news but I don't seem to hear much about any other countries possible involvement apart from the UK & the US. By that I mean any other country saying stuff like 'lets send in our military' & not 'ooh, that's awful, i think we'll stop importing sand from Syria' etc.
France is waving it's genitals around. No one else that matters though as far as I'm aware. I always laugh when I hear people going on about how we have to be involved in this sort of thing in order to be a 'successful', 'influential' country and so that we 'can sit at the top table'. And then I look at Germany. For obvious reasons they've not done much military adventuring in the past 60 years and it doesn't seem to have done them much harm in the global scheme of things.
I don't seem to hear much about any other countries possible involvement
The gulf states have been pouring money and weapons into Syria. The opposition is funded and armed to a significant extent by KSA and Qatar. That is a key reason why the opposition is quite so toxic - much of the heavy lifting is being done by people we would happily describe as "al-qaida" if they popped up anywhere else.
Turkey has been permitting opposition fighters to base on its territory, and has been providing some logistical support I think. I'm not clear what Turkey's perception of the risks created by partition of Syria and a potential link-up between kurdish syria and the kurdish autonomous region in Iraq are.
Russia supplies weaponry and credit to the Syrian government, which provides Russia with warm-water naval facilities that aren't locked up behind the Bosphorous. Russia has modern warships in port in Syria at present.
Iran has been funnelling weapons and personnel into Syria to support the government. Iran needs Syria friendly as its conduit to hesbollah, apart from the importance of avoiding isolation.
Large numbers of hesbollah fighters from Lebanon appear to have been fighting with Assad's troops.
Israel is staying pretty quiet. Iran has threatened to retaliate against Israel if Syria is hit. Israel's disputed border in the Golan has been reasonably quiet, although Syria facilitates hesbollah's confrontation on the Lebanese border. I suspect the Israeli calculation is that a KSA-sponsored shambles with a government looking something like Hamas would be worse for its security than the ba'athists are.
China and Russia, fairly crucially, are actively against anyone intervening. The Chinese are pretty absolutist about the sovereignty of states (understandable both due to their past history and also to their current government arrangements) and Russia has always defended its right to deal with secessionist territory as it sees fit.
Sorry for the brain dump. The maxim "gassing people is bad" is clearly correct. Applying it as policy to Syria is almost impossibly hard. 😕
Syria doesn't have any debt owed to the Rothschild-controlled central banks.
That's what this is really about.
[TANNOY] Mel Gibson to the forum please.
Two questions from me:
Assad has being bombing his own people for how long now....why are chemical weapons the straw that broke the camels back?
At what point do you think that we should go in a bomb them ton? I believe that you have kids in the forces....at what point would you support Cameron et al sending them into a war zone?
May be a little insensitive; apologies, but what is the point of chemical weapons on the general population? In warfare there's bullets and bombs and soldiers develop ways of shielding themselves, bunkers bullet proof vests etc so chemical is a different angle of attack. Why use it on civilians? Is it cheap? I wouldnt have thought so, so is it the terror factor? Or what?
Just a macabre thought I was pondering
Militarily, I would guess it's fairly effective of clearing an area and killing all the people there without destroying it.
It's probably cheap, and fast, compared to other ways of doing the same thing. Urban fighting is very expensive in terms of the resources it consumes (ie soldiers), and very destructive.
Why they did this in this case? Who can guess. It's beyond me how these people can sleep at night, likewise the incendiary school attack we're seeing reports of. I don't even dare roll the film.
Assad has being bombing his own people for how long now....why are chemical weapons the straw that broke the camels back?
I'd like to know too.
Send in the militia to wipe out a village and that's somehow "not un-acceptable". Do the same with shells and gas and it's a war crime. Both events are horrible and the outcome is the same. It troubles me that using bullets or artillery isn't regarded the same way.
I think it is a very hard call and to be honest, god knows the answer.
but what I do know is, that it is far worse to stand by and watch a countries army kill it's own people. if that means we invade, then so be it.
we cant just let it happen, bashar needs to be caught and brought to justice.
both my kids are in the forces now, and both decided to do so themselves.
and both realise what it entails.
Absolutely mattjg. Doesn't make sense to me but we seem to find the phrase so emotive that it can be used to (try to) justify an attack.
Anyway, to answer the OP, let me know if he invades Czechoslovakia and we'll talk. Perhaps then more than 3 of the 200ish countries in the world would show an interest in intervening too. Until then it will be just another in the long, long history of western attacks in the Middle East which will inevitably cause more problems than it solves.
Problem is the west missed the opportunity to support the rebels. Now there are a lot of extremists within the rebels making them no better than Assad. Capable of their own atrocities.
**** knows what is really going on except loads of civilians are dying.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
But we should not be helping al-Qaeda
Perhaps then more than 3 of the 200ish countries in the world would show an interest in intervening too.
I feel a bit like this too. What's to stop some of the other 197 countries stepping up to the plate this time? Especially all the other Arab countries. Step up guys and help your 'brothers'.
Why is it only the US? Again?
I should've known better than to post in this thread 🙂
Just to clarify, my intended point was that if we (or the US/France/whoever) are in such a tiny minority then we should definitely not go it alone, and should wait until/if there is more of a consensus. No three countries alone should be able to decide on such action, whatever you or i may think and however big our country's guns may be.
If we believe in democracy then 3 shouldn't outweigh the other 190+. If others don't agree then just like Mr Cameron in parliament last night we should recognise that we are in the minority and should take no action.
All IMO of course. Anyway, that's me done on the subject.
If Assad does deploy chemical weapons again I hope that Milliband and all the other politicians who voted against last night watch the horrific images on screen will realise that this is the result of their course of action and publically apologise.
And if the Tomahawk attacks take place and chemical weapons are used again then what? Assad is fighting for his life. I don't think missile attacks will stop him using chemical weapons if that is what it takes for him to win his civil war. And I'm not sure the other side are any nicer either.