Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Random Rants
Syria: to bomb or not to bomb? |
|
|
|
Sep 7 2015, 09:56 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2015, 03:42 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2015, 05:01 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2015, 06:32 PM
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2015, 06:40 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2015, 06:50 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2015, 07:13 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2015, 09:55 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592
|
60mpg me mate! 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2015, 10:08 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2015, 03:04 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|