IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Syria: to bomb or not to bomb?
Sherlock
post Sep 7 2015, 09:56 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 12-January 12
Member No.: 8,467



Has anyone seen a plausible case for bombing Syria? Seems to me the reason that Cameron's last attempt to get the Commons to sanction this failed because he couldn't demonstrate that aerial attacks would actually achieve anything positive and might easily result in a worsenign of the situation.

An unconventional enemy like Isis would have no qualms about using human shields, or basing themselves in hospitals and schools and could move around using unmarked vehicles.

I'm not against the idea of military action in Syria if it can be shown that it will improve the situation but based on our military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seeming inability to answer the question 'What next?' I'm deeply sceptical about what seems to be being considered. The active involvement of Russian troops supporting Assad http://goo.gl/eFZobr helps to ensure that a chaotic, complex and unpredictable situation is made even more dangerous.

Anyway, perhaps that's wrong and our politicians and military planners have got it right this time. If so, I think we need at least an outline explanation of what they have in mind and what it will achieve.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Sep 7 2015, 03:12 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



I think we should stop sticking fingers in pies that don't belong to us.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 7 2015, 03:34 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



It seems to me that the most appropriate way forward would be to use the UN or, as there is a material impact on Europe, NATO. As the OP suggests direct military action isn't likely to achieve the desired result. What appears to be needed is essentially a peace keeping force on the ground. If that happens can we please keep the parasitic lawyers away.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Sep 7 2015, 03:42 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Sherlock @ Sep 7 2015, 10:56 AM) *
Has anyone seen a plausible case for bombing Syria? Seems to me the reason that Cameron's last attempt to get the Commons to sanction this failed because he couldn't demonstrate that aerial attacks would actually achieve anything positive and might easily result in a worsenign of the situation. An unconventional enemy like Isis would have no qualms about using human shields, or basing themselves in hospitals and schools and could move around using unmarked vehicles. I'm not against the idea of military action in Syria if it can be shown that it will improve the situation but based on our military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seeming inability to answer the question 'What next?' I'm deeply sceptical about what seems to be being considered. The active involvement of Russian troops supporting Assad http://goo.gl/eFZobr helps to ensure that a chaotic, complex and unpredictable situation is made even more dangerous. Anyway, perhaps that's wrong and our politicians and military planners have got it right this time. If so, I think we need at least an outline explanation of what they have in mind and what it will achieve.





It wasn't a case of Cameron not being able to "demonstrate," but more of a case that he was in a coalition government and the Lib-Dems and Labour were hostile and still are hostile to intervention. He isn't going to put another attempt forward without knowing 100% that he will win, and at the present moment I don't think he could. Labour would vote against him, SNP have made it clear that they would vote against him and then there are a few rebels on his side that need persuading.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Sep 7 2015, 05:01 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (motormad @ Sep 7 2015, 04:12 PM) *
I think we should stop sticking fingers in pies that don't belong to us.

I largely agree here with my friend motormad.

If the UN Security Council were to unanimously mandate a peace-keeping operation then obviously we should offer UK support, but not otherwise, and even were we to offer support I don't believe it would be the most appropriate thing for that offer to be accepted and for the British military to get directly involved, not when you consider our history in the region.

That position does rather depend on the other members of the Security Council sharing a similar disposition towards tyranny and oppression and that's debatable, so it might not be the best option but it is the least worst.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Petra
post Sep 7 2015, 06:21 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 16-March 15
Member No.: 10,567



Hi all,

Personally, I believe that if we are going to act, then the European Union should act as a whole and united. We are no longer a force that we once were, but as part of a United States of Europe, then we will be one of the most formidable forces in the world, and surely isn’t that the point of the European Union? To Challenge the world and to be dominant.

Yours, Petra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Sep 7 2015, 06:32 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Petra @ Sep 7 2015, 07:21 PM) *
Hi all, Personally, I believe that if we are going to act, then the European Union should act as a whole and united. We are no longer a force that we once were, but as part of a United States of Europe, then we will be one of the most formidable forces in the world, and surely isn't that the point of the European Union? To Challenge the world and to be dominant. Yours, Petra





So you won't be voting "no" in the European referendum then? tongue.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 7 2015, 06:35 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Europe have no bottle. Anyhow, unless it is the UN, then it shouldn't happen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Sep 7 2015, 06:40 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 7 2015, 07:35 PM) *
Europe have no bottle. Anyhow, unless it is the UN, then it shouldn't happen.





At the moment they are too divided, but once it becomes a united European states of Europe and a central government governing for all, then it will be a different thing. And I think that was what Petra meant. It was a dream that Hitler had (a single currency, a single European government, Germany dictating etc.), and we are not that far off it. There is an old saying, it doesn't matter how you get there (peaceful or not) so long as you get there.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 7 2015, 06:50 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 7 2015, 07:40 PM) *
At the moment they are too divided, but once it becomes a united European states of Europe and a central government governing for all, then it will be a different thing. And I think that was what Petra meant. It was a dream that Hitler had (a single currency, a single European government, Germany dictating etc.), and we are not that far off it. There is an old saying, it doesn't matter how you get there (peaceful or not) so long as you get there.

I still maintain this shouldn't be a unilateral EU venture, it should be the UN. The EU are much more likely to plant daisies in gun barrels than bullets; perhaps that is a good thing to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Sep 7 2015, 07:13 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Petra @ Sep 7 2015, 07:21 PM) *
Personally, I believe that if we are going to act, then the European Union should act as a whole and united. We are no longer a force that we once were, but as part of a United States of Europe, then we will be one of the most formidable forces in the world, and surely isn’t that the point of the European Union? To Challenge the world and to be dominant.

You forgot "Mmmmmwwwwahahahahahaha".


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Sep 7 2015, 08:17 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,576
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



Kaboom! Back to the stone age, after all, not that far to go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Sep 8 2015, 09:22 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 7 2015, 08:13 PM) *
You forgot "Mmmmmwwwwahahahahahaha".



laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


Is there oil in Syria? Because if there is, watch the planes fly by........


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Sep 8 2015, 09:26 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (motormad @ Sep 8 2015, 10:22 AM) *
laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


Is there oil in Syria? Because if there is, watch the planes fly by........

Well, we all need it...........especially you I should imagine! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Sep 8 2015, 09:55 AM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



60mpg me mate! laugh.gif

I just think oil is a motive for war more than peace.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Sep 8 2015, 10:08 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (motormad @ Sep 8 2015, 10:55 AM) *
I just think oil is a motive for war more than peace.

You're right of course but unfortunately the whole western economy depends on it.
We all use it to maintain our way of life and standard of living.
If we are all willing to sacrifice that then maybe wars over oil may be averted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Sep 8 2015, 03:04 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 7 2015, 07:50 PM) *
I still maintain this shouldn't be a unilateral EU venture, it should be the UN. The EU are much more likely to plant daisies in gun barrels than bullets; perhaps that is a good thing to.





The EU wouldn't do anything until they have one voice speaking for them (i.e. one government). Then they would be a power unto themselves.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Don
post Sep 8 2015, 03:13 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 3-March 15
Member No.: 10,556



Howdy,

Somebody who has been in the army and seen action I am against wars. They are needless. Wasn't it Churchill who said 'jaw jaw' instead of 'war war'? Negotiation should be the first resort and war the last one.

Don
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Sep 9 2015, 08:32 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Don @ Sep 8 2015, 04:13 PM) *
Howdy,

I am against wars. They are needless. Wasn't it Churchill who said 'jaw jaw' instead of 'war war'? Negotiation should be the first resort and war the last one.

Don

Yes agreed, if only the whole of the world's population felt like that. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Berkshirelad
post Sep 10 2015, 09:01 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 271



The whole Middle East issue will only be resolved when we work out how to extract, refine and distribute radioactive oil...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st December 2021 - 10:15 PM