Syria - The US Empire's Suez Crisis?

[LT Selfridge]

Since the other thread is about former British Empire angst, perhaps a separate thread on the implications of the Syria crisis for the US Empire would be appropriate. As the readers of this forum probably don't need a history lesson perhaps we can jump straight to its parallels with Suez.

Attempted strong arming of a country of geopolitical importance, under false pretences, expecting the support of its traditional friend who, on assessing the implications, backs out - thus marking the moment where the prevailing Empire discovers it can no longer get it's way.

Cue the slow (and hopefully dignified) decline.

[Snafu351]

That seems a reasonable proposition.
Sadly i doubt the decline will be dignified.

[melmothtw]

...expecting the support of its traditional friend who, on assessing the implications, backs out - thus marking the moment where the prevailing Empire discovers it can no longer get it's way.
That's a completely false and fatuous comparison. There's absolutely no correspondence between how the US reaction to Suez in 1956 affected the UK, and how the UK's reaction to Syria today might affect the US.

The US was bankrolling the UK during Suez, and its threat to pull-the-plug if we didn't cease-and-desist would have bankrupted the country, so demonstrating what a paper tiger we had become by then and so hastening our further decline on the world stage.

By contrast, while the US would like UK support for political reasons, it doesn't need it to intervene in Syria in the same way that we needed US support over Suez, and not getting it certainly won't usher in the end of the 'American Empire', as you so glibly put it.

Also, many will find your assertion that the West is looking at "strong arming of a country of geopolitical importance, under false pretences" offensive. Gassing your own population is not a false pretence, and demands a response.

[Courtney Mil]

the cheese eating yellow bellied surrender monkeys

Dislike, Mate. :=

[Shack37]

It looks like the US Empire has a new best friend, quite a change for the cheese eating yellow bellied surrender monkeys. Or is it just the usual French desire to demonstrate their weaponry to the world's markets? Whoops, got a bit cynical at the end there http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif


So profound for a 13 year old. Majored in history I guess.:rolleyes:

[langleybaston]

I think you will find the offending phrase ceybsm is a quotation, and I am sure the author knew that.

After all, just because the said ceybsm don't like us, there is no reason for us to dislike them, is there?

[Two's in]

Gassing your own population is not a false pretence, and demands a response.

Here's the one I struggle with. So they can be ripped apart by 7.62mm rounds, eviscerated by random 81mm mortar rounds or vaporized by air dropped munitions but somehow using CW crosses a line?

Genocide is genocide, a pogrom is a pogrom. Determining whether a military response is required by the means used to murder the population is completely asinine, and points to populism and global attention getting rather than any moral fortitude about truly protecting the innocent.

[Snafu351]

Two's in, quite.

melmothtw, whilst the circumstances may not be exactly the same the outcome may not be so different, i rather beleive that's the point.

[t43562]

By rights nothing bad would happen to anyone and there literally would be a policeman for every incident. We know that won't happen because it's such a huge burden to carry.

But we'd probably rather things don't get any worse. Against someone with a gun you can at least hide or find your own gun or throw a rock but you can't really respond to people shooting nerve gas shells at you.

And now everyone else in the world will be thinking about getting their own supply - since it's tolerated and effective.

[melmothtw]

Snafu and Two's in, I absolutely agree! I made the point about CW as that (appeared to be) the 'red line' and that the international community had drawn and what had brought us to the current position of impending strikes (by the US and France at least), but I definitely feel that action should have been taken long before now.

[bcgallacher]

For the Americans of all people to accuse any nation of 'war crimes 'is cynical to say the least.In Vietnam they napalmed, bombed and contaminated with agent orange thousands of children without a second thought.Remember Mai Lai?- hundreds of Vietnamese men women children and babies machine gunned by American troops under the command of Lt William Caley. More would have died except for the bravery of a Huey pilot who told them to stop or he would order his door gunner to open fire.
That was only one of several incidents - the rest were kept quiet.
Try to read an article by Nicolas Tomalin - later killed on the Golan - entitled ' The General goes zapping Charlie Cong'

[maxred]

but I definitely feel that action should have been taken long before now.

Not being cheeky, but why precisely?

What action, and siding with which side?

The Mekon had previously, publically stated, that they wanted to arm 'the rebels'. Why?

This is a very nasty, very dirty civil war, where whether you like it or not, a regime/government, is fighting to save their country. If the boot were on the other foot, we would do the same, I hope.

[Tankertrashnav]

So tell me Shack, when do the French do anything that doesn't support their own self interest?


Isn't that a desirable aim for the administration of any country? If that end can be achieved without doing others harm, all the better. A little bit of enlightened self - interest would go down well in this country once in a while.

As regards a Suez moment - forget the generally well-informed and much travelled American members on this thread, I suspect a sizeable majority of the US population have never heard of the "special relationship", and couldn't care less (translation "could care less" ;)) what decision the UK makes in this matter.

[BEagle]

The wretched Mekon has been noticeable by his absence from the media today....

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/mekon_zps79312842.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/mekon_zps79312842.jpg.html) ..............http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/mekon3_zps9199ef30.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/mekon3_zps9199ef30.jpg.html)

Which is the Foreign Secretary....and which is the Treen??


:hmm:

[air pig]

Two countries trying to deflect their people from troubles at home, particularly from the financial troubles.

[melmothtw]

You could have said the same about the Spanish Civil War Maxred, but history condems us for not intervening to help the Republicans against Franco's fascists.
We were worried about communists then in the same way we're fretting about Islamists now, but there is no equivalency between the actions of the rebels and those of the government in Syria today. To suggest there is is to repeat the mistakes of Bosnia when we referred to "all parties in the conflict", as though those being beseiged in Sarajevo and ethnically cleansed in the countryside were equally culpable as those perpetrating those crimes - it's an excuse to look the other way and do nothing, and it's reprehensible.

[brickhistory]

I don't think the Suez comparison is accurate as previously discussed above this post.

I also don't think Obama has a clue of what to do. We can discuss the absurd irony of his willingness to schwack someone without UN and/or a coalition's support.

This, if it happens, is a face-saving gesture on his part. He proclaimed his red line a year ago and until the latest mess complete with widespread photos appeared, he was satisfied to think he had spoken. Which is all he can really do well.

Now that the liberal press, world, and hand-wringers are in full cry to "do something!" he thinks he is John Wayne.

Well done to the British Parliament for saying "Hell no!" and keeping you out of it and cutting Barry off at the knees.

Pity our Legislature won't. Most likely it'll be ignored and then won't do anything about that slight, just as they didn't for Libya. War Powers Act be damned, never mind the Constitution.

There is no U.S. vital national interest at stake in Syria.

Just Barry's pride.

[Ronald Reagan]

melmothtw, only about 9% of the population of the UK, France and the USA support military action. Getting involved would be a disaster. The best outcome is for Assad to hold onto power. The idea of the rebels taking control of all of Syria is terrifying beyond comprehension! How long before the west then has to fight them somewhere, possibly even in our own nations, after they have created even more terrorists from the training camps they would likely put into operation in Syria. I do wish the Assad regime would use some restraint in its actions to civilians and this needs to be pointed out to him by Russia. But give me a somewhat secular dictator over a bunch of terrorists any day.
All this talk of how if Assad remains its the end of the world, he and his father before him have ruled this country for decades, I hardly see how its now now priority number one for the west! Sorting our own economies out at home and defeating Al-Qaeda and other such groups should be our priority. Not removing a long established dictator in the middle east, especially when the last two times we did have lead to a total disaster and chaos in the two nations concerned.

[melmothtw]

There was no vital US interest at stake in Europe in the 1940s.

[melmothtw]

Ronald Reagan, if you think that not acting will help defeat Al Qaeda you're wrong. Our inaction in Syria has only strengthened their hand. Assad and Putin will be celebrating the UK's decision not to intervene, and that tells me all I need to know about that.

[NutLoose]

Here's the one I struggle with. So they can be ripped apart by 7.62mm rounds, eviscerated by random 81mm mortar rounds or vaporized by air dropped munitions but somehow using CW crosses a line?

I believe they get round that moral dilemma by stating the first are targeted weapons where innocent casualties can be avoided, the latter they can't be..

Though both in this case appear to be failing miserably.

[maxred]

With respect, melmothtw, they can not be compared, The Spanish Civil War, and the mess of Bosnia.

Looking at the adage, you reap what you sow, the current situation in Syria, is, has, will be, fuelled by events that began with Iraqi, could be argued a lot earlier than that, but the West (US), moved in and under huge false pretences, duplicity, invaded a country, for regime change, and financial gain, and then raping said country of its resources. The PUBLIC, the illiterate masses, duped along the way.

Then Egypt, then Libya, now Syria, aspirations on Iran.

It has to stop.

It is tough to watch the carnage, it is tough to make decisions, but the decision to not get involved here, and join the US in its folly, is, IMO, entirely the correct one, for the UK.

[Ronald Reagan]

melmothtw, you don't get it do you? If Assad were to win and take back all of Syria he will wipe out Al Qaeda in his country. If we had left Saddam in place there would be no Al Qaeda in Iraq. If we had left Gaddafi in place there would be no Al Qaeda in Libya.
Its our interventions which have caused this. If Assad should fall then Al Qaeda will control various parts of Syria. This puts absolute fear and terror into the minds of most Syrians who wish to keep living a secular life like the Assad regime provided them with. The enemies of Al Qaeda should be our friends ie Assad, Gaddafi and Saddam.

Besides Putin is a fairly good guy, a tough and strong leader who has done wonders for Russia. He is also good at trying to stop us in the west waging war all the time, his Chinese allies are good to!

[melmothtw]

I respect your opinion maxred, though I doubt the same can be said for those Syrian civilians who will cotinue to be bombed and gassed as a result of this decision not to act.

[melmothtw]

I've heard it all now Ronald Reagan. So Saddam, Assad, Ghadaffi, and Putin are the good guys? Sweet Jesus!

[Ronald Reagan]

Putin is a fairly good guy. The others are good compared to Al Qaeda!
You have to choose between Al Qaeda or Assad! Gaddafi even helped us in the war on terror but it was not enough to save him, the west allowed Al Qaeda into Libya and even launched airstrikes on their behalf! Its pathetic as is all this western talk about Syria. Sticking our noses into things which are none of our business and making things far worse.

[Trim Stab]

Here's the one I struggle with. So they can be ripped apart by 7.62mm rounds, eviscerated by random 81mm mortar rounds or vaporized by air dropped munitions but somehow using CW crosses a line?

Agreed - the argument that some forms of lethal weapon are less morally acceptable than others is difficult to understand when looked at dispassionately.

Some might argue that WMD do not discriminate between "civilian" and "military" targets - but that distinction has become blurred in recent asymmetric conflicts (and the other side are not always to blame) . Some might argue that WMD are strategic weapons in that they enable an attacker to inflict mass casualties with minimum risk to their own personnel - but we already do that by using drones and cruise missiles where the bearers of deadly power bear no personal risk.

I've never read a rational argument for the illegality of WMD compared to so-called "conventional" weapons which are just as indiscriminate and deadly, and which require no risk on behalf of the military personnel who deliver them.

It is not really even clear that CW should be classified as WMD. They are by no means as capable of "mass destruction" as nuclear or advanced biological weapons. At worst, in purely destructive terms, they are no more powerful than many legal so-called conventional tactical weapons.

Ironically, their only real strategic value is that they are "classified" as WMD. So as we saw in the 2003 in Iraq, their nebulous existence was "justification" to start a war that continues to cause horrific casualties to this day, and as we see today in Syria it is possible for elements of the international community to be duped into alarming attacks on entirely spurious evidence of their misuse.

[Pontius Navigator]

Was Franco good or bad? Was Tito good or bad? Neither really received general acclaim by the free world but the former kept Spain neutral and the latter gave his country a fairly benign form of communism.

Who supported Giap against the Japanese?

Who was better, Batista or Castro? Who backed Castro and who backed Batista?

History is riddled with one state backing or opposing the leadership of another.

Husain and Assad both controlled and pacified their countries as indeed did Gadhafi and Mubarak.

In some way France's prosperity and stability was the result of De Gaulle's control and we know who didn't support him.

[melmothtw]

Not sure what point you're making there Pontius. Was Hitler good or bad? Was Pol Pot or Milosovic? There comes a point where the international community has to stand up for what's right, and 'right' is not a relative concept - it is laid down in the United Nations charter to which all its members (including Syria) have signed up to.

[Pontius Navigator]

mel, I am on your side. The UN is a 'new' organisation. The point is that the side that we support may not be the best side in he long run.

It is arguable that Hitler rescued Germany from its post WW1 armistice, that Franco avoided being on the losing side in WW2, that Tito prevented Stalin's boot. None of these achieved what they did through democracy but they did bring stability.

Giap was supported by the US as was Castro. The UK, OTOH supported Batista, or at least preferred him as a least bad option.

Of the other, the west treated with them again as least bad options.

Are we right to interfere? May be. The point is though that while the International Community stands up for human rights the 'International' community does not take action. Action is left to just one country with a little support from a very few others.

Having taken action is the outcome (or has the outcome) been better than before?

[maxred]

The point which is missing here, is factual evidence of who unleashed the CW.

In the Kerry press conference of today, there are no FACTS, on this, only assertions and an assumption, that it was the Governemnt forces.

Look, we all know the CW were used. That is abhorrent, but the whole nasty situation is abhorrent, with civilians being killed and maimed by all manner of 'weapons'. The whole region is now an almighty F**k up.

As I said earlier, you tend to reap what you sow..

Lets not do it again, although it appears highly likely that is what exactly what is going to happen.

Cruise missiles, lets hope the GPS guidance is up to speed.

[melmothtw]

No one is missing that point maxred, it's just that most can see it for the red herring it is.

To suggest the rebels gassed their own people to garner international support is obfuscation of the same order as that which saw the UN refuse to intervene in Bosnia for years on the basis that it had no 'proof' as to which side was actually sending the shells into Sarajevo (this despite Canadian peacekeepers being stationed at the airprort just yards from some of the Serb guns that were doing the firing).

It's just a convenient excuse to do nothing that serves no one but Assad.

[t43562]

Are all the rebels muslim extremists?

[VinRouge]

No, but if you think the less extremist elements will hold the reigns after Assad falls, I think you seriously need to reappraise.

The best they will get is a fractured unstable country, unwelcome to westerners, with multiple and differing parties in control.

But like the best we can hope for in Afghanistan post pull out.

Yeah, whoop! Success!

Or not....


Do you really want to be supporting these animals?
Chechnya...


http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/04/19/chechen-muslim-slits-russian-soldiers-throat-leaving-him-to-bleed-out-like-a-halal-slaughered-animal-warning-graphic-images/

Syria, shooting unarmed and injured Syrian tankies....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aea_1377610601


Or how about eating human organs, because "that's what they did in 600 AD, and I had no choice"?
Abu Sakkar: Syrian Rebel Cuts Out and Eats Soldier's Heart In Ghastly Propaganda Video (http://www.policymic.com/articles/41777/abu-sakkar-syrian-rebel-cuts-out-and-eats-soldier-s-heart-in-ghastly-propaganda-video)

Go ahead. Support salsafists. Same mutters we have been hunting down since before 9/11 and I don't see a reason why we should stop turning them into cactus food now.

[t43562]

So anyone who isn't extreme in one way or another will lose at least partially because nobody supports them.

[GeeRam]

Are all the rebels muslim extremists?

It's very likely that the majority of the 'rebels' aren't even Syrians.....

[VinRouge]

T43652, that's got nothing to do with the immediate security of the uk. Not my problem, not the UKs problem. Fortunately, a majority of democratically elected MPs agreed last night.

[SASless]

It looks like the US Empire has a new best friend, quite a change for the cheese eating yellow bellied surrender monkeys. Or is it just the usual French desire to demonstrate their weaponry to the world's markets? Whoops, got a bit cynical at the end there

They were our first "Best Friend" as you might recall....unlike another bunch who teamed up with the Germans against us.

Oddly, the last time your Prime Minister lost such a vote....it was when he wanted to pick a fight with us.

Amazing how the World turns ain't it?

[MG23]

There was no vital US interest at stake in Europe in the 1940s.

That's why they, quite sensibly, waited for Hitler to declare war on them before they joined in.

[thing]

We've had two and a half thousand years and spilt endless amounts of blood in our own countries to get democracy to where it is now, programmed into the western brain and culture as an inaliable right. Yet we expect people to whom it is an alien concept both politically and culturally to embrace it literally overnight. Are we all insane?

What's happening in Syria is appaling from both sides, however they need to sort out their own problems, or at the most let the Arab nations of that area sort it out. We cannot understand the mindset of these people so how can we sit and pontificate on what is good or not good for them? And do we have the right?

For the hand wringers and 'something must be done' brigade may I remind you that less than 20 years ago some 800,000 (some put the estimate as high as a million) Rwandan men, women and children were literally hacked to death. 500,000 of those were murdered in just 100 days. That's 5,000 per day or 208 an hour, every hour of every day for 100 days. It was the most successful genocide of the 20C. We just sat and watched it happen. Or were those human's lives somehow less worthy?

Edit: Changed Sudan to Syria, slip of the brain there.

[t43562]

I think you are really all ashamed at heart and are searching for justification.

[NutLoose]

?

End result of attacking, people die at our hands.
End result of not attacking, people die at their own hands.

And at the end of the day attacking you may be killing the innocent and nothing has been proved irrefutably, go ask the UN, they wouldn't be still looking if they had all the facts and answers.
I would say a lot of consciences on here are fine. There are a lot of people in here will have been in that position...




..

[SASless]

go ask the UN, they wouldn't be still looking if they had all the facts and answers.


You been hitting the Cooking Sherry again Nutty?

They only find answers if it involves the Israeli's or Americans.

At least the American's have the Veto Power on the Security Council!

[SASless]

You know how youngsters are....they get snippy when they don't get their way!

I don't suppose we have a monopoly on using a Veto though do we.

You reckon other members with the Veto power used it to harm their own interests?

[melmothtw]

Quote:





Originally Posted by melmothtwhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/522571-syria-us-empires-suez-crisis-post8021670.html#post8021670)

There was no vital US interest at stake in
Europe in the 1940s.

That's why they, quite sensibly, waited for Hitler to declare war on them
before they joined in.


Depends how you define 'joining in'. They were involved long before Hitler declared war on them.


I think you are really all
ashamed at heart and are searching for justification.


Spot on!



Or how about eating human organs, because "that's what they did in 600 AD, and I
had no choice"?
Abu Sakkar: Syrian Rebel Cuts Out and Eats
Soldier's Heart In Ghastly Propaganda Video (http://www.policymic.com/articles/41777/abu-sakkar-syrian-rebel-cuts-out-and-eats-soldier-s-heart-in-ghastly-propaganda-video)

Absolutely horrific, but you can't judge an entire cause by the actions of a single psychopath.

[Ronald Reagan]

Putin: Claims that Assad used chemical weapons 'utter nonsense' - YouTube (http://youtu.be/QmPoMT1ZV18)

[West Coast]

Hang your hat on Putin's word RR?

Anyway, I'd say its premature to ask the q.uestion that is the premise of the thread.

[Ronald Reagan]

I trust him more than our leaders. Everything said by Kerry could just be wrong. There is no way to know. Considering all the past lies by our politicians and monumental disasters that the past military interventions have been its so much better to do nothing, not to mention the financial cost to ourselves if we did do something.

[NutLoose]

Blimey... Looks like our example has effected the USA enough to do the same by taking it to congress to get permission to strike.

[seadrills]

Well done USA.... At least they have a leader who guides and leads his Government.... Shame the UK doesn't

[AtomKraft]

There will be no strike.

Hitting Syria must be about the most stupid thing the US has ever contemplated- and that's going some!

[Ronald Reagan]

I hope Congress votes no.

[SASless]

For every question Odumbo asked Congress and the People today....I have one for him in return.

He asked....if we can just ignore the use of Chemical Weapons....but gives us exactly one choice of action.....a limited strike against the Assad Government.

He does not let us consider (nor does he) diplomatic measures, sea blockade, economic sanctions, or any number of other measures....just fire off a bunch of Cruise Missiles and blow up stuff.

What is the goal for this Attack?

He has not told us at all what he hopes to accomplish....not a word.

He has told us he intends to leave Assad in Power....the very evil person who authorized the use of Chemical Weapons against innocent, defenseless Children.

So if Assad is so evil....why leave him alive....why not make him Target Number 1 of 1.....and play Whack a Mole until we get him!

Odumbo has diddled the pooch oh this....he shall lose in Congress....count on it!

[10Watt]

l`m not ex-mil and apologise for being here looking for conversation.

l will leave if asked.

Throw your minds back to when journalists reported news rather than

creating it themselves.. " now we are going over to Jeremy Arsewipe

for his views on what will be happening next "

The problem is that the people with a vote lose interest and those

who haven`t a vote are empowered by that absence.

lt could even lead to untrustworthy politicians being elected.

Sorry, l take that back, obviously that isn`t possible.

[West Coast]

RR

Putin is a straight shooter then? He doesn't lie? I could understand if you said you don't know what the truth is, I have a hard time giving your boy Putin the edge as a font of truth and honesty. He's as entrenched as any in the argument.

[GreenKnight121]

Here's the one I struggle with. So they can be ripped apart by 7.62mm rounds, eviscerated by random 81mm mortar rounds or vaporized by air dropped munitions but somehow using CW crosses a line?
I believe they get round that moral dilemma by stating the first are targeted weapons where innocent casualties can be avoided, the latter they can't be..

Though both in this case appear to be failing miserably.


Agreed - the argument that some forms of lethal weapon are less morally acceptable than others is difficult to understand when looked at dispassionately.

Some might argue that WMD do not discriminate between "civilian" and "military" targets - but that distinction has become blurred in recent asymmetric conflicts (and the other side are not always to blame) . Some might argue that WMD are strategic weapons in that they enable an attacker to inflict mass casualties with minimum risk to their own personnel - but we already do that by using drones and cruise missiles where the bearers of deadly power bear no personal risk.

I've never read a rational argument for the illegality of WMD compared to so-called "conventional" weapons which are just as indiscriminate and deadly, and which require no risk on behalf of the military personnel who deliver them.

It is not really even clear that CW should be classified as WMD. They are by no means as capable of "mass destruction" as nuclear or advanced biological weapons. At worst, in purely destructive terms, they are no more powerful than many legal so-called conventional tactical weapons.

Ironically, their only real strategic value is that they are "classified" as WMD. So as we saw in the 2003 in Iraq, their nebulous existence was "justification" to start a war that continues to cause horrific casualties to this day, and as we see today in Syria it is possible for elements of the international community to be duped into alarming attacks on entirely spurious evidence of their misuse.

The difference is that while bullets, mortar rounds, and air-dropped munitions are all legal weapons in not only most (if not all) nations, there is no international treaty banning their use.

There is, however, just such an international treaty banning the use of CW:
The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_control) agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon). Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_the_Prohibition_of_Chemical_Weapons) (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hague), in the Netherlands.The US and GBR both ratified the Convention on 29 April 1997, and as of June 2013 total of 189 nations had ratified (65) or acceded (124) to the Convention.

Israel and Myanmar (Burma) have signed but not ratified, the Republic of China (Taiwan) (while not having ratified, acceded, or signed) has declared its obedience to the Convention, and Angola has declared its intention to ratify... leaving only Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan, and Syria as defiantly non-compliant nations.


So yes, there is a near-total international consensus that CW are banned as weapons, and that any nation, organization, or individual using them in a conflict (including a "civil" war) is committing a War Crime!


I know... "Its just a scrap of paper"... but so was the Treaty of London (1839).

[10Watt]

So every one who plays cricket has established the rules of cricket

excepting the ones who didn`t want to play cricket and have no concept

of the game of cricket anyway.

Meanwhile, on the other bench, things are slightly different.

The UN doesn`t work.

Let`s fix that first.

[SASless]

Let's do away with the UN.....that would be the better plan.

As the Syrian's did not sign onto the Treaty....why are giving them stick over using Chemical Weapons....they violated no Treaty Obligations did they?

We may not like it, we may not condone it, and it is surely evil....but what legal right do we have to attack them for something they did within the confines of their own country....to their own people?

[Toadstool]

We may not like it, we may not condone it, and it is surely evil....but what legal right do we have to attack them for something they did within the confines of their own country....to their own people?


Because, no matter how you look at it, using chemical weapons against your own country is just wrong. Isn't it?

[NutLoose]

But shooting them, bombing them, using phosphorus on them is ok? Because we all ignored that little tit for tat, and indeed still are.

..

[Toadstool]

Nope, that's wrong too....isn't it?

[ShotOne]

Agreed, Toadstool both acts are horribly wrong. How though, does incinerating some more people with cruise missiles make it right?

And why are we so selective on which wrongs we try to right? The 1500 or so killed in this attack would have represented a light mornings work in Darfur.

[500N]

SaSless

People go on about Treaties, the US and Australia I believe
have both supplied Nuclear material to a country that is not
a Signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty ?

Whether they have signed it or not is irrelevant IMHO.

[Toadstool]

Shot, i totally agree. We do however keep going on about the times and places in the past where we have made mistakes, as if this is somehow a justification for doing nothing now. We have to learn from this. I am not clever enough to know how launching a couple of TLAMs would make a difference, but to do nothing would also send a message. However you look at it, nobody is winning right now, especially in Syria.

[Pontius Navigator]

TLAM would certainly tell 'em, but tell 'em what exactly?

Plinking every single HAS in Iraq told 'em some 'at but a launch of a load of TLAM alone it a very limited message.

In Iraq there was a rather large armoured force, a heavy attack force and thousands of troops to ensure the message was delivered and delivered again.

Fire off your 90 SLAM per ship and then . . . ?

[LS-4]

He does not let us consider (nor does he) diplomatic measures, sea blockade, economic sanctions, or any number of other measures....

Haven't some sanctions been in place for a while already? Are they working as intended?

He has not told us at all what he hopes to accomplish....not a word.

A signal, I believe.

So if Assad is so evil....why leave him alive....why not make him Target Number 1 of 1.....and play Whack a Mole until we get him!

And then what? What if this creates a situation / vacuum were other unwanted elements seize power? What if things get even worse, in Syria and elsewhere?

[NutLoose]

Home for tea and biscuits................ And medals.





..

[ShotOne]

To come back to the thread topic, Whats happened has more to do with the bitter aftertaste of Iraq than the rights and wrongs of Syria. I don't believe this is America's Suez. Indeed the constitutional effects of the last few days, on both sides of the Atlantic, will last long after everyone has forgotten where Syria is.

[GreenKnight121]

Besides... I would really like to see the OP's list of the "Imperial possessions" that make up the "US Empire"?

You know... those possessions that are not States of the Union or Internationally accepted Territories of the US, but in which the US controls the governments and economies (the normally-accepted definition of "Imperial possessions".

[Pontius Navigator]

GK, you clearly missed the inference. By 1956 Britain did not have an Empire but, like America now, had spheres of influence. Also Suez was never a part of the British Empire.

[Chugalug2]

SASless:-
Let's do away with the UN.....that would be the better plan.

That really is the crux of this dilemma, isn't it? The UN is indeed a right mess; corrupt, incompetent, and hamstrung by the vetoes of its permanent members of the Security Council. For all of that, it's the best mess on offer (rather like democracy is), if only because the alternative of individual states playing "world's policeman" have so often made matters worse, not better.
I agree with 10watt when he says:
The UN doesn`t work.... Let`s fix that first.
That would require real diplomacy from the likes of the State Department and the Foreign Office, a very tall order indeed, but Jaw Jaw is better than War War. Isn't it?

[Pontius Navigator]

Give them the power to demand a Head of State to present his case in person.

[BEagle]

I see Bliar still cannot keep quiet.....

But I did like Clare Short's comment "He should shut up and go away!"

She had the honour to resign rather than be a part of Bliar's illegal war in 2003 and for that she has my respect.

Perhaps even Congress will vote against this absurdly gung-ho, yee-hah, shoot 'em up cowboy diplomacy from 'tother side of the Pond?

Isn't it time that McCain was put out to grass? His recent comments border on lunacy.

[NutLoose]

Remind me what was the position BLiar took up upon retiring from politics?

Ohh yes..... Middle East Peace Envoy

Going round recommending we blow seven shades of poo out of them, does seem to be a bit of a conflict of interests there.

..

[smujsmith]

A bit of recent British input into your peculiarly American debate chaps;

Kerry's cosy dinner with Syria's 'Hitler': Secretary of State and the man he likened to German dictator are pictured dining with their wives at Damascus restaurant before civil war broke out | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408805/Kerrys-cosy-dinner-Syrias-Hitler-Secretary-State-man-likened-German-dictator-pictured-dining-wives-Damascus-restaurant-civil-war-broke-out.html)

Of course, we couldn't push the launch buttons without coercing NATO support, Oh, Look;

NATO chief convinced Syrian government behind chemical attack | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-nato-idUSBRE9810BO20130902?feedType=RSS)

As Senator McCain says (hate those bloody oven chips), the whole place is a sh1t hole. Lets just bomb the lot. Nice temperate and diplomatic control, I'm sure he is talking about something he had for dinner. I ask a simple question, how is killing more people, with missiles, than he killed with gas (if proven), any sort of "military response" ? I honestly had a bit more respect for our respective military principles than that. There's no answer to this because for everyone who asks for proof, the "Kerries" want to shoot , before anyone changes their minds. My main concern in all that's happening re Syria is the damage its doing to international relations accross western governments. Divide and conquer is an old, but maybe wise, strategy !

Smudge

[SASless]

Beags,

Your grasp of American Geography is woefully deficient.

That or your rant needle is stuck.....Dubya has been out of office for over five years old fellow....he is gone back to Texas.

The current occupant of the White House is Irish not Texan don't your remember?

Please do catch up with current events please....or is your Yank Bashing so ingrained you just cannot grasp the difference between the Kenyan Muslim and the Texas Cowboy that were the Leaders of the Free World?

Beags is exactly right in his evaluation of John Boy McCain....he is way past his Sell By date.

[Lonewolf_50]

Maxred: you attempted equivalence between Islam and communism is a non starter. Communism was barely two generations old in 1936, while Islam has been a cultural staple and institution since about 700 AD. Being anti communist was a moral position, please note the slaughter of the Russians and Chinese by their own communist leaders in the first 50 years of communism in their respective nations. Pretty good argument against communism coming elsewhere, don't you think?

Islamism is a form of reactionary societal and political change, not quite as "progressive" and "empowering" as Marx hoped for communism to be.

As to the Suez and Syria, UK and US: piss poor parallel. The current mess in Syria no more than another banana war for the US, displaced across the pond from where our former banana wars were played out. We have an interest in the region, but not a pressing security interest.

I'll go a step further. Trying to endlessly compare something current to something previous can lead to blinkered thinking, and blinkered policy making. Sure, one wants to see what one can learn from preivous problems, and how solved (or not) but each problem in the political environment has its own unique characteristics.
No
Cookie
Cutter

Back to the question: is Syria the trigger for signalling decline of American Empire? I'd say not. Iraq and the end of that much ballyhooed "Pax Americana," which lasted roughly 1991 to 2003, is a far better marker, since the sell out to China began in the late 80's/early 90's, and the economic mess of the past ten years has put a permanent change in slope for US and its rival China in the Pacific Rim.

Syria has bloody fech all to do with America's decline, or its comeback.
What happens in WestPac has everything to do with it.

If you are going to talk about empires, you first need to know what the hell you are talking about. The OP does not demonstrate that understanding.

[LT Selfridge]

Hey Lonewolf,

'The current mess in Syria no more than another banana war for the US...We have an interest in the region, but not a pressing security interest.'

Really? I won't comment but I'll hold on to that thought for a bit.

'Back to the question: is Syria the trigger for signalling decline of American Empire? '

Where did that come from?

To clarify I am suggesting that Syria may be that point for the US where it went too far in expecting unquestioned support to wage war from traditional allies.

With Suez the UK backed down and their loss of influence was confirmed. What will the US do with Syria?

[BEagle]

From the BBC:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned America and its allies against taking one-sided action in Syria.

He said any military strikes without UN approval would be "an aggression".

US President Barack Obama has called for punitive action in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.

Mr Putin said Russia did not rule out supporting a UN Security Council resolution authorising force, if it was proved "beyond doubt" that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.



That seems fair enough to me. Rather than the shoot 'em up / bomb some sense into them bull$hit coming out of the White House.

Go without UN approval and the US will definitely be viewed as a pariah state without credible world influence.

[Lonewolf_50]

That seems fair enough to me. Rather than the shoot 'em up / bomb some sense into them bull$hit coming out of the White House.
You'll not ever stop BS coming out of the White House. Politicians live there. That said, my heart's with you on that one.

Beags, your knee jerk anti Americanism needs to be given a rest.

Go without UN approval and the US will definitely be viewed as a
pariah state without credible world influence.
Untrue, though you wish it were so. See Kosovo for how the US was not viewed as a pariah state, and remains a credible world influence. No UN there. See Iraq, which many people objected to ... and US remains a credible world influence. How about you lay off the BS coming out of BEagle, old bean?

A core problem that you almost reached in your post is that the UN is no longer credible, particularly as a collective security organization. Proven time and again, Rwanda and Bosnia being perfect examples. This state of affairs is sad, in my opinion, since the UN serves many worthwhile functions beyond collective secutiry, but that's the way of it.

Why is the UN not credible? The bickering members of its security council, which includes my nation and others.

@ LT Selfridge:

Jimmy Carter was a foreign policy buffoon, and during his time the US was on a down slope. That didn't end "American Empire." Obama is in some ways a similar babe in the woods, foreign policy wise. That doesn't end "American Empire" either.

Your OP is a crap attempt at an analogy.

[BEagle]

Knee jerk anti-Americanism? Moi?? Why - are you threatening to dig up Joe McCarthy and send him my way?

Putin is coming across as being more balanced and reasonable over this than Obama - who seems to be of the opinion that a TLAM attack is the solution to any international issue.

[West Coast]

Oh please Beagle. Your body of work on pprune strikes a decidedly anti US tone. You're not as bad as some, allowing you to fly beneath the radar much of the time but the bias is noted.

[Lonewolf_50]

Beags: I've called you on your "spam" epithet and sneers more than once. See West Coast's entry.

On the topic:

Putin's PR experience as a pol at the international level of operation is certainly obvious in contrast to Obama's trouble with knowing when to talk and when to shut up. (You can go back to early in Obama's first term and the whole insult to a Boston cop over a bogus race charge ... likewise his recent ill-advised mouthing off about the Martin-Zimmerman case ... ). That doesn't make Putin more honest, but it makes him appear to be the more reasonable voice between him and Obama ... on this matter. That's politics, isn't it? Trying to make your position appear better than the other guy's position.

Obama's copying, almost by rote, the Tomahawk-as-poultice method from Bill Clinton demonstrates to me that he doesn't understand the use of force as well as a man in his position should. His "red line" is coming back to haunt him. TR's "walks softly, carry a big stick" would have been a better mode of operation, as I see it.

[maxred]

Maxred: you attempted equivalence between Islam and communism is a non starter.

Lonewolf, I think you have mixed me up with someone else, that statement is far too high brow for the likes of me, and frankly, I did not post it.

Putin is making Obama, and his Democratic Hawks, look foolish, even more foolish than the wonderful job they have been doing without the input of the Russian.

He, Obama, has now quoted the dreaded regime change, BBC News this morning, which is the now natural by product of a limited strike:*Disappointing.

America's financial might is still too powerful for 'The end of The Empire', but they make few friends with their recent and current approach to Foreign Policy. Not that ours, the UK, is any different, equally lousy.

[West Coast]

Speaking in general terms, sometimes unilateral action, or action lacking UN approval is the only path forward. Where would Southern Europe be had NATO not led the way? Would the US have been labled a pariah if it had acted alone in Rwanda to stop the genocide there?
I understand the point your making but part of the calculation has to be of the impotence of the UN. Too may conflicting agendas.

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf, I think you have mixed me up with someone else, that statement is far too high brow for the likes of me, and frankly, I did not post it. Putin is making Obama, and his Democratic Hawks, look foolish, even more foolish than the wonderful job they have been doing without the input of the Russian.
Agreed
He, Obama, has now quoted the dreaded regime change, BBC News this morning, which is the now natural by product of a limited strike:* Disappointing. America's financial might is still too powerful for 'The end of The Empire', but they make few friends with their recent and current approach to Foreign Policy. Not that ours, the UK, is any different, equally lousy.
To each his own kind of screw ups, I suppose.

Max, please accept my apology for screwing up the quote. melmothw is the one to whom I should have attributed that line.

Egg on face, sunny side up, over here. :O

mel:
We were worried about communists then in the same way we're fretting about Islamists now,
My comment to max was actually a comment to you, misaimed. Ideologies are similar in being ideologies, but not are nither equal nor very often equivalent.

Politicians making stupid statements, on the other hand, appears to be a universal affliction. :cool:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Putin is making Obama, and his Democratic Hawks, look foolish, even more foolish than the wonderful job they have been doing without the input of the Russian.


A fair point. I also don't see that nice Mr Putin being too keen to condemn the domestic use of CW, let alone make it an automatic "red card"/armed response call from the UN. He may want to keep the option in his own plans for dissident control. I recall that limited CW was rather useful as a Terr supressant in a certain Moscow arts centre.

[smujsmith]

Chaps,

I have no dislike of USA, America, Americans, Yanks, Spams and any other epithet you care to mention for what we used to call "Our American Cousins". In fact most British serving and ex Serviceman would stand side by side with the "just cause". My problem is still with politicians, of all varieties, Yank, Brit, French whatever. All spouting probability as fact, all pushing intelligence (gathered from goodness knows where) as fact. Am I the only person who thinks Kerry, giving evidence looks more evil than Rumpsfeld did ? Putin is making a simple point. If the evidence, and it isn't all in yet, is irrefutable, He will not stop an action against Syria. Now maybe UN authority might just allow the British parliament to debate again and support UN policy ? What I do know is that if you look at the polls the Brits, French, and American people are against Military action between 60/40 - 80/20. Surely, if we are democracies then the pollies should follow the will of the people. I love the banter on this thread, I'm hoping that you Americans are not serious in charges of Beagle being anti USA, he's just giving "y'all a gentle tickle". Whatever, the previous is my thinking on the current situation. As and when the results come in from the UN team, I may change my opinion, seems to me that the politicians of our nations have already made their choice. In the meantime, I believe it's polite these days to sign off

Have a nice day dudes

Smudge:eek:

[Lonewolf_50]

smuj, I don't doubt that some in the political field have made a conclusion and are trying to fit facts to it. Kerry doesn't impress.

We'll see how it plays out.

[maxred]

To temporarily lighten, a serious thread, is that a genuine wig he wears???

[NutLoose]

What Smudge said..

I, as other servicemen current and ex would tend to stand side by side, it's these damn politicians that sit on their fat arses safe and sound at home, while simply playing at scoring point off each other with the lives of our Servicemen.. I feel sorry for the Americans as I feel they are being lead down the garden path to the cesspit at the end.

..

[NutLoose]

To temporarily lighten, a serious thread, is that a genuine wig he wears???


It's bad isn't it, I rate it on par with Trumps comb over that must start at his rectum

[Lonewolf_50]

Nutloose, that was well done. (Trump's Hair) Spilled my coffee, I did.

[SASless]

Westy,

Son....you lost me there for a bit.

How could NATO be considered "going it alone"?

Well, ugh......upon reflection....if the rest of the team is on the Roster but doesn't show up at game time.....well you do have a point I guess.

[Brian Abraham]

Knee jerk anti-Americanism? Moi?? Yes you Beags, having been on the receiving end of your denigration.

[SASless]

Brian.....I shall save Beags and his defenders the time......they will tell you that it is mere Banter and one should not think it anything else.

However as we know very well....let it flow the other way and the Colonials are being insufferable pricks.

It does not hurt to remind them of this now and then.....though is has a very short half life.

[West Coast]

SAS

Lacking UN blessing doesn't lessen the validity and moral imperitive of certain missions is my point. Be that mission be with NATO, a smaller force or alone. The UN is fractured with so many opposing objectives that sometimes you have to act alone.

To be clear, this is a general viewpoint and not specific to Syria.

[SASless]

Beags,

Old Bean....when you have the military we do....trust me....we shall always have "influence".....sadly you folks have shrunk your Military to the point you might as well accept your two roles are Ceremonial Duties and being the Home Guard.

Your ability to project power elsewhere has grown a bit feeble over the years as has your need to do so what with the shrinking of the Empire.


The days of the Raj are behind you.

[BEagle]

The days of the Raj are behind you.

Yes, except for when slimy little toads like Bliar want to play poodle to Geedubya, we tend to leave other nations to look after their own interests these days rather than 'projecting power' playing world policemen....

you might as well accept your two roles are Ceremonial Duties and being the Home Guard.

Defence of the realm is essential; ceremonial duties are done with panache and elegance rather than that rather silly rifle spinning / robot gait marching(?) style of others.

[NutLoose]

Now now Beagle, don't upset the Colonies, Camaroon has already done that once this month.

[SASless]

Beags,

Panache? If measured in the Hundred Weight of fresh Horse ****....then you folks succeed handsomely.

How is it you lot can afford Horses for the Cavalry today but not decent housing for your Troops?

Twisted priorities I should think.

When Town Councils refuse the gift of MOD Housing for being sub-standard....that and the Horse **** should start ringing a Bell or two.

[Wyler]

I have read with interest the various threads and have been an avid wathcher of all the news reports. What do I think?

Cameron is useless and has now been shown to be totally out of touch with public opinion - well done Parliament for reminding him and his stooges that democracy is still alive and well in the UK.
Milliband is totally out of his depth and should be thrown down a well.
Obama is the leader of the greatest Nation on earth and yet all he can deliver is an amusing, above average, speech or two.
Hollande is so hated by his own people he has jumped on this bandwagon solely to try and deflect attention away from the fact that he is an utter f*ckwit.
The rest of the 'West' talks tough but only tends to turn up for exercises and air shows.

As to lobbing hardware at Syria? Fair enough, after all it is a well known fact that the best way to calm a dangerous dog is to repeatedly kick it in the nuts until it calms down and starts to behave......................

As to Yank bashing? Shame on you. I have worked alongside many American service personnel and still count a lot of them amongst my closest friends. At the coal face, we are remarkably similar and will do anything and everything to get the job done. The failings are those of the political class; and they are a completely different species who rarely represent the true nature, courage and wishes of their countryfolk.

[West Coast]

I know that as we age we tend to become stuck in certain time frames but Beagle it's time to deal with the current crop of questionable politicians.

[Lonewolf_50]

Wyler:
Cameron ... - well done Parliament for reminding him and his stooges that democracy is still alive and well in the UK.
Well done indeed. My cap is tipped.
Obama is the leader of the greatest Nation on earth and yet all he can deliver is an amusing, above average, speech or two.
What do you expect from someone who was unqualified for the job when he got it? He is learning on the job, and as we've seen before with some other presidents, learning on the job usually shows the "warts and all" qualities of the man in it. Since elected, he's done about as I've expected, and a few things better than I expected. This latest doesn't surprise me, given who he listens to.
Hollande is so hated by his own people he has jumped on this bandwagon solely to try and deflect attention away from the fact that he is an utter f*ckwit.
When's the next election in France? He may be digging his own political grave.
The rest of the 'West' talks tough but only tends to turn up for exercises and air shows.
:D While that was a fine jest, no small number of our NATO bubbas showed up for Bosnia, and quite a few showed up for Afghanistan and even Iraq. As to lobbing hardware at Syria? Fair enough, after all it is a well known fact that the best way to calm a dangerous dog is to repeatedly kick it in the nuts until it calms down and starts to behave ...
But if you only gently kick it in the nuts, once ("limited strike"), what does the dog usually do? It bites someone.
As to Yank bashing? Shame on you. I have worked alongside many American service personnel and still count a lot of them amongst my closest friends. At the coal face, we are remarkably similar and will do anything and everything to get the job done. The failings are those of the political class; and they are a completely different species who rarely represent the true nature, courage and wishes of their countryfolk.
Feeling is mutual regarding our cousins in th UK, and for that matter, a lot of my NATO bubbas. We have a lot more in common than we don't, and I was happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with you gents. :ok:

[smujsmith]

Wyler, Lone wolf 50,

That about sums it up for me. The problem as always is political, and its a shame to see any "discomfort" amongst the real special relationships in all military matters. Top thread and maybe food for thought as our pollies cut us down to ineffectiveness, this side of the pond anyway.

Smudge :ok:

[TomJoad]

Beags,

Panache? If measured in the Hundred Weight of fresh Horse ****....then you folks succeed handsomely.

How is it you lot can afford Horses for the Cavalry today but not decent housing for your Troops?

Twisted priorities I should think.

When Town Councils refuse the gift of MOD Housing for being sub-standard....that and the Horse **** should start ringing a Bell or two.

Somebody is trying just a wee bit too hard here. Bless.

[Toadstool]

SASless always bites.....its like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyway...back to the thread.

[TomJoad]

SASless always bites.....its like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyway...back to the thread.

Hey Toadstool just noticed your location - hailing from Fife it made me laugh. Left me wondering, are you missing Scotland or is it a celebration that you are not here?;)

Love it either way:ok: