Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Syria: to bomb or not to bomb?
Posted by: Sherlock Sep 7 2015, 09:56 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.
Posted by: motormad Sep 7 2015, 03:12 PM
I think we should stop sticking fingers in pies that don't belong to us.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2015, 03:34 PM
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.
Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 03:42 PM
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.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 7 2015, 05:01 PM
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.
Posted by: Petra Sep 7 2015, 06:21 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
Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 06:32 PM
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?
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2015, 06:35 PM
Europe have no bottle. Anyhow, unless it is the UN, then it shouldn't happen.
Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 06:40 PM
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.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2015, 06:50 PM
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.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 7 2015, 07:13 PM
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".
Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 7 2015, 08:17 PM
Kaboom! Back to the stone age, after all, not that far to go.
Posted by: motormad Sep 8 2015, 09:22 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 7 2015, 08:13 PM)
You forgot "Mmmmmwwwwahahahahahaha".
Is there oil in Syria? Because if there is, watch the planes fly by........
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 8 2015, 09:26 AM
QUOTE (motormad @ Sep 8 2015, 10:22 AM)
Is there oil in Syria? Because if there is, watch the planes fly by........
Well, we all need it...........especially you I should imagine!
Posted by: motormad Sep 8 2015, 09:55 AM
60mpg me mate!
I just think oil is a motive for war more than peace.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 8 2015, 10:08 AM
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.
Posted by: GMR Sep 8 2015, 03:04 PM
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.
Posted by: Don Sep 8 2015, 03:13 PM
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
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 9 2015, 08:32 AM
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
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.
Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 10 2015, 09:01 AM
The whole Middle East issue will only be resolved when we work out how to extract, refine and distribute radioactive oil...
Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 10 2015, 09:03 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 7 2015, 07:35 PM)
Europe have no bottle.
Is that why they had a wine lake? Nothing to put it in?
Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 10 2015, 09:05 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 8 2015, 11:08 AM)
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.
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.
Not forgetting that there is now talk of "water wars" as parts of the world dry up.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 10 2015, 09:23 AM
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Sep 10 2015, 10:05 AM)
Not forgetting that there is now talk of "water wars" as parts of the world dry up.
Yep, more expensive than milk now apparently!
Posted by: Blake Sep 10 2015, 03:47 PM
Yes, the terrorists need bombing into oblivion right now with no mercy. We are not going to win the war on terror by going soft.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 10 2015, 06:25 PM
QUOTE (Blake @ Sep 10 2015, 04:47 PM)
Yes, the terrorists need bombing into oblivion right now with no mercy. We are not going to win the war on terror by going soft.
OK, but doesn't that kind of foreign policy make us the terrorists? Doesn't that kid of belligerence make us a legitimate target?
Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 10 2015, 09:03 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 10 2015, 07:25 PM)
OK, but doesn't that kind of foreign policy make us the terrorists? Doesn't that kid of belligerence make us a legitimate target?
It's called self defense.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 10 2015, 09:31 PM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Sep 10 2015, 10:03 PM)
It's called self defense.
And you can call a spade a "manual earth-moving device", but that doesn't change what it is. Launching a pre-emptive assault in Syria to bomb "terrorists" into oblivion would be disproportionate to the threat that they pose to us, and would do little to improve the situation for Syrians, and it would just provoke more of the danger that you fear. Our best defence is not to carry on like we have been carrying on for the last, well, 1000 years really, give or take.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 10 2015, 09:32 PM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Sep 10 2015, 10:03 PM)
It's called self defense.
I'm not sure you'd appreciate the smash in the face I'd give you because you seem very aggressive to me. Only looking after myself.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 10 2015, 11:34 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 10 2015, 10:32 PM)
I'm not sure you'd appreciate the smash in the face I'd give you because you seem very aggressive to me. Only looking after myself.
Not if I've got a bigger stick than you!
Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 10 2015, 11:36 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 10 2015, 10:31 PM)
And you can call a spade a "manual earth-moving device", but that doesn't change what it is. Launching a pre-emptive assault in Syria to bomb "terrorists" into oblivion would be disproportionate to the threat that they pose to us, and would do little to improve the situation for Syrians, and it would just provoke more of the danger that you fear. Our best defence is not to carry on like we have been carrying on for the last, well, 1000 years really, give or take.
Its called pre emptive, if you see a mad dog in your garden you don't wait for it to bite your children, or do you? Me, I go get the axe out of the woodshed.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 11 2015, 06:42 AM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Sep 11 2015, 12:36 AM)
Its called pre emptive, if you see a mad dog in your garden you don't wait for it to bite your children, or do you? Me, I go get the axe out of the woodshed.
No, I don't and nor do most people I know. We'd try to contain the dog, find out what was causing the issue, then put it right. The methods you advocate would suggest we would all be wise to equip ourselves with weapons if we venture into the town centre Saturday night.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 11 2015, 07:51 AM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Sep 10 2015, 10:03 PM)
It's called self defense.
Or even defence!!
We're still the UK (at present)
Long live the Queen...............oh! ........she has!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 11 2015, 08:03 AM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Sep 11 2015, 12:36 AM)
Its called pre emptive, if you see a mad dog in your garden you don't wait for it to bite your children, or do you? Me, I go get the axe out of the woodshed.
I just knew you'd have a woodshed with an axe.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 11 2015, 08:07 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 11 2015, 09:03 AM)
I just knew you'd have a woodshed with an axe.
And it's a biggun, and its sharp.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 11 2015, 08:07 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 11 2015, 07:42 AM)
No, I don't and nor do most people I know. We'd try to contain the dog, find out what was causing the issue, then put it right. The methods you advocate would suggest we would all be wise to equip ourselves with weapons if we venture into the town centre Saturday night.
**** right!
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 11 2015, 08:22 AM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Sep 11 2015, 09:07 AM)
**** right!
The problem is, bombing on its own will not work, especially if unilaterally performed by the west.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 11 2015, 08:37 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 11 2015, 09:22 AM)
The problem is, bombing on its own will not work, especially if unilaterally performed by the west.
Quite right, which is why we use napalm and chain guns as well, just to soften them up. Then go back with more bombs.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)