Michael Fallon - "Morally Indefensible" not to saction force over Syria
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael Fallon - "Morally Indefensible" not to saction force over Syria
Michael Fallon: 'Morally indefensible' not to bomb IS in Syria - BBC News
When I heard Michael Fallon saying that it was morally indefensible for the UK not to sanction use of force over Syria to attack ISIS/ISIL targets it made me weep.
Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of the UK having a consistent foreign (and joined-up) military policy to combat the threat to the UK's national interests - and they don't have to be from only Muslims - ANY terrorist organisation that was a threat to the UK should be treated the same.
ISIS/ISIL makes no distinction of national boundaries and the RAF should, I believe, be tasked (and resourced) to support our allies already conducting strikes over Syria. Why should they be left to do our "dirty work" for us?
By the same token, I also find it "morally indefensible" for the UK to expect our allies to employ their MPA assets in our territorial waters when we suspect an unknown submarine may be snooping off our shores. There have been several occasions reported where USN, French and Canadian P3's, Atlantiques and Auroras have been called on in the recent past and I wonder what Michael Fallon's feels about that! He should find it embarrassing, and something that a government should feel ashamed enough about to be motivated to address the capability gap.
The Cold War may have ended 25 years ago but the world is still a dangerous place and the UK needs to remember that in the next SDR.
MB
When I heard Michael Fallon saying that it was morally indefensible for the UK not to sanction use of force over Syria to attack ISIS/ISIL targets it made me weep.
Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of the UK having a consistent foreign (and joined-up) military policy to combat the threat to the UK's national interests - and they don't have to be from only Muslims - ANY terrorist organisation that was a threat to the UK should be treated the same.
ISIS/ISIL makes no distinction of national boundaries and the RAF should, I believe, be tasked (and resourced) to support our allies already conducting strikes over Syria. Why should they be left to do our "dirty work" for us?
By the same token, I also find it "morally indefensible" for the UK to expect our allies to employ their MPA assets in our territorial waters when we suspect an unknown submarine may be snooping off our shores. There have been several occasions reported where USN, French and Canadian P3's, Atlantiques and Auroras have been called on in the recent past and I wonder what Michael Fallon's feels about that! He should find it embarrassing, and something that a government should feel ashamed enough about to be motivated to address the capability gap.
The Cold War may have ended 25 years ago but the world is still a dangerous place and the UK needs to remember that in the next SDR.
MB
Last edited by Madbob; 6th Nov 2015 at 11:05.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: beyond the Pale
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is morally indefensible to start a war with no hope of winning it, given the resources allocated to, and RoE imposed on, the armed forces involved.
..and this would be war #4 the UK will lose in a row.
..and this would be war #4 the UK will lose in a row.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people on here probably voted for the red faced **** and his thought process, so let him crack on anyway hey? And who really cares about servicemen's risk, or lives - especially in this month?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me it's morally indefensible that we maintain our pig-headed stance that "Assad must go" when we do so clearly to placate our "friends" in Riyadh, who in the long-term are anything but. Over many years we have shown that we are quite happy to be on civil terms with strongmen who keep their countries in order, most recently Presidents Xi and Sisi (and of course the al-Saud themselves). The fact we take a different stance over Assad is totally inconsistent, hypocritical and arrogant. Obama and Cameron were blinded by hubris in 2011 when they declared who would be on the 'right' and 'wrong' sides of history, not thinking for a second that history might refuse to follow the path set out in their idealistic liberal playbook.
There is a morally-sound middle ground somewhere between "propping up dictators" in the manner exemplified by Putin's support to Assad, and calling for (or implementing) regime change as the West has so disastrously tried on many occasions. We've found that middle ground in our relations with China and Egypt. Time to apply the same principle in Syria.
There is a morally-sound middle ground somewhere between "propping up dictators" in the manner exemplified by Putin's support to Assad, and calling for (or implementing) regime change as the West has so disastrously tried on many occasions. We've found that middle ground in our relations with China and Egypt. Time to apply the same principle in Syria.
Last edited by Easy Street; 7th Nov 2015 at 11:18.
When I see Fallon in combat gear, spearheading the charge in to Syria against the jihadist scum I might consider he has some credibility in his assertions. I suspect I'm more likely to see CaMoron end expenses for the members of the house of Conmen, so have a free swivel on me Fallon
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`•¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('....(...(´.. ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........\............... _.•´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
I have the honour to be a civilian, and beyond your distorted morality.
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`•¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('....(...(´.. ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........\............... _.•´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
I have the honour to be a civilian, and beyond your distorted morality.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure I follow your argument, smuj. I'm no keener that you to see us trying to pick sides in this ghastly civil war. But our political leaders haven't gone to serve in combat for hundreds of years. How is Mr Fallon any better or worse than any other defence/war minister since the Middle Ages?
Not sure I follow your argument, smuj. I'm no keener that you to see us trying to pick sides in this ghastly civil war. But our political leaders haven't gone to serve in combat for hundreds of years. How is Mr Fallon any better or worse than any other defence/war minister since the Middle Ages?
Call me Dave's experience in ATC is not enough as he was politely told.
How many Govt members have Military Experience or kids in uniform.
Morally indefensible? No. Strategically inexplicable? Yes given that the enemy we're fighting has an area of operations spanning 2 countries, and by stopping at the border it makes achieving the end state, such as it is, that little bit harder when the enemy are waving from the other side of a line on the map that only we recognise.
Still, even if we do go into Syria, to what effect? Another few dozen technicals, check points and strong points destroyed with expensive ironmongery by a handful of ageing jets? I guess the best that can be said for staying out of Syria is saving on the cost of the missions themselves that are risky but contribute little to an undefined strategy.
Still, even if we do go into Syria, to what effect? Another few dozen technicals, check points and strong points destroyed with expensive ironmongery by a handful of ageing jets? I guess the best that can be said for staying out of Syria is saving on the cost of the missions themselves that are risky but contribute little to an undefined strategy.
Last edited by Melchett01; 7th Nov 2015 at 23:22.
The last Parliament voted against intervening in Syria to help opposition groups including what we now refer to as ISIS.
What mock outraged allegations of moral indefensibility was Fallon garbing out that time?
I can't be bothered to check
Fallon has also said Jeremy Corbyn represents a threat to national security. That's about the size of fight Fallon should pick, and who knows he could even lose that.
What mock outraged allegations of moral indefensibility was Fallon garbing out that time?
I can't be bothered to check
Fallon has also said Jeremy Corbyn represents a threat to national security. That's about the size of fight Fallon should pick, and who knows he could even lose that.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fallon has also said Jeremy Corbyn represents a threat to national security. That's about the size of fight Fallon should pick, and who knows he could even lose that. "
Well said
Then again, Corbyn is only echoing what many people have began to think, that the current political "class" would never have the balls to do it anyway!!
Well said
Then again, Corbyn is only echoing what many people have began to think, that the current political "class" would never have the balls to do it anyway!!
So if we start bombing (the flavour of the month, might be our allies next year!) and lets say Assad does fall.. wtf next?
Can any of our politicians explain coherently what our plan of action would be after?
And none of this 'nation building' bull****... heard that too many times with f--- all done.
Can any of our politicians explain coherently what our plan of action would be after?
And none of this 'nation building' bull****... heard that too many times with f--- all done.
Shotone,
Yep, perhaps my thinking is not particularly clear there. I believe that the commitment in Iraq is as much as we could reasonably be expected to do, considering the austerity measures applied by this government. Now, we see a minister frustrated in his attempts to muscle in to further commitments in Syria, on the basis of our supplying a couple of Jets would salve his conscience. I honestly believe that the last reason to risk our servicemens lives is political vanity, so would definitely oppose this attempt to commit crews into an area they are not needed. Best do a good job in Iraq, than screw up in Syria for political face saving. As an ex SNCO perhaps I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, it's always interesting to read the opinions of my betters, something I was not often privy to during my time in service. Some interesting thoughts on here, well beyond an old bald blokes opinion. Thanks for your interest in my post.
Smudge
Yep, perhaps my thinking is not particularly clear there. I believe that the commitment in Iraq is as much as we could reasonably be expected to do, considering the austerity measures applied by this government. Now, we see a minister frustrated in his attempts to muscle in to further commitments in Syria, on the basis of our supplying a couple of Jets would salve his conscience. I honestly believe that the last reason to risk our servicemens lives is political vanity, so would definitely oppose this attempt to commit crews into an area they are not needed. Best do a good job in Iraq, than screw up in Syria for political face saving. As an ex SNCO perhaps I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, it's always interesting to read the opinions of my betters, something I was not often privy to during my time in service. Some interesting thoughts on here, well beyond an old bald blokes opinion. Thanks for your interest in my post.
Smudge
Originally Posted by StickMonkey3
It is morally indefensible to start a war with no hope of winning it, given the resources allocated to, and RoE imposed on, the armed forces involved.
On today of all days, I would imagine such an undertaking would be clearly defensible. Do I need to explain further? Or don't the little known World Wars count?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Smudge,
Forget the "betters" bit ! Doesn't apply !
What we have here is the old logical Daisy-chain:
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE........THIS IS SOMETHING........SO LET'S DO IT !
(however ill-thought out or counter-productive the results may be).
Danny.
Forget the "betters" bit ! Doesn't apply !
What we have here is the old logical Daisy-chain:
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE........THIS IS SOMETHING........SO LET'S DO IT !
(however ill-thought out or counter-productive the results may be).
Danny.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1 to the last four posts.
To the Corbynites fan club...really? The man who's stated he wouldn't respond even to a known enemy in the act of raining nuclear fire on us, aside from sucking up to every rabid polecat in the world who wants to murder British soldiers.
Military experience in government ? Yes let's bring in that nice Field Marshal Idi Amin, Gen Galtieri, Col Gadhaffi or Cpl.,Hitler (in no particular order of loathsomeness)
To the Corbynites fan club...really? The man who's stated he wouldn't respond even to a known enemy in the act of raining nuclear fire on us, aside from sucking up to every rabid polecat in the world who wants to murder British soldiers.
Military experience in government ? Yes let's bring in that nice Field Marshal Idi Amin, Gen Galtieri, Col Gadhaffi or Cpl.,Hitler (in no particular order of loathsomeness)