Here it comes: Syria [Archive] - Page 4

hanoijane

30th Aug 2013, 12:21

Courtney,

“I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life.”

It certainly was the biggest catastrophe for the UK defence force budget.

"Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organization!"

He's correct, it's a political party. Its paramilitary wing is rather naughty though. If you have trouble grasping the difference, think Sinn Fein / IRA.

That a suicide bomb attack on the British Prime Minister“would be morally justified.”

Well, I could never support such a statement, but I see where he's coming from. Why not ask the relatives of those who died pointlessly in recent wars how they would feel about the moral justification of such an action?

To Saddam Hussein “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability”.

Quite. And, looking at Iraq now, don't you wish he was still there, albeit having had his ears boxed and taught how to behave in a reasonable manner?

Of Assad, “For me he is the last Arab ruler, and Syria is the last Arab country”.

I think you'll find this was said more in the vein of a prophecy than a statement of admiration.

Courtney, you have the right to seek council from whomsoever you wish. But I would respectfully suggest you choose advisors with a track record of making wise choices in difficult times, even if you dislike the cut of their cloth.

Frostchamber

30th Aug 2013, 12:25

Quite a lot of hyperbole in the press today about this signalling Britain's much reduced role in the world. Maybe a debate on that role is needed BUT all the vote really did is signal that, quite reasonably, the bar for undertaking military intervention has been set higher following Iraq and A'stan - and given the dogs breakfast that the Syria situation is, with no good guys on either side, no conclusive proof (in the public domain) on who used the chemical weapons, lack of clarity as to the strategy and valid concerns as to what the outcome would be, it all added up to a perception that the situation was dodgy enough not to warrant intervention at this stage.

Can't help feeling that it's being flagged as a diminution by those that have long wanted to see such a diminution - ie the wish being the father of the thought - whereas in fact it was democracy working.

Heathrow Harry

30th Aug 2013, 12:48

I listened to some of the debate and TBH the Govt side was a complete dog's breakfast - the only way we could intervene (lawyers!) was if we did something that immediately helped the HUMANITARIAN crisis - no regime change, no threats no.........

I think parliament got it right - the case for intervention, and what the results would be, was never made

Pontius Navigator

30th Aug 2013, 12:48

. . . lack of clarity as to the strategy and valid concerns as to what the outcome would be,

Ah yes, Selection of the Objectives

then not forgetting to Maintain the Aim

and Logistics

and Adminstration

At least one thing the forces usually get right, left to their own devices, is Administration.

Grimweasel

30th Aug 2013, 12:50

Significant that 30 Tories went against the Prime Minster. Time for an election to get rid of the Liberal element polluting the right's aims and agenda. No SANE person would surely vote that complete pri*ck Milliband in? He has just hijacked the situation for his own weasely political gain. What an ineffectual idiot he is...

Stuffy

30th Aug 2013, 13:05

I am not a fan of Milliband. I usually call him 'Moribund'.

But you miss the point.

Britain votes out governments, it does not vote them in.

Cameron is pretty useless anyway.

Courtney Mil

30th Aug 2013, 13:15

It could have been taken out of the Overseas Aid Budget http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Nutty, I love that. The idea of invoicing the enemy for the cost of fighting them.

Dengue_Dude

30th Aug 2013, 13:39

So, to paraphrase, you're saying "It's just w*g on w*g - who gives a $hit?"

Not exactly what I meant, but close enough for your intellect BEags.

I was more pointing to not increasing the perceived reasons for Jihad against us and ours, but if you wish to paraphrase, fill your boots.

Stuffy

30th Aug 2013, 13:45

I would add that, as in Iraq and Libya. Innocent civilians get blasted to bits and the corporations make huge profits.

Also when is Depleted uranium and Agent Orange not chemical attacks ?

Double standards and hypocrisy everywhere.

Depleted uranium used by US forces blamed for birth defects and cancer in Iraq ? RT News (http://rt.com/news/iraq-depleted-uranium-health-394/)

What's the REAL Reason the US Is Attacking Syria? - YouTube (http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=syv4rQiGJUQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dsyv4rQiGJUQ%26feature%3Dyoutu.be)

langleybaston

30th Aug 2013, 15:15

The aforesaid diminution is real enough, but it starts with reducing the forces and their budget, and is allowed to happen by very senior officers who do not have the balls to make it a resignation issue. They are then promoted. Strangely enough, after retirement and a seat in the Lords they all have grave reservations.
Let us hope the diminution is not fatal one day.

ORAC

30th Aug 2013, 16:17

Washington Post: Shamed into war? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-shamed-into-war/2013/08/29/b97a67a8-10cb-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html?hpid=z3) By Charles Krauthammer

Having leaked to the world, and thus to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a detailed briefing of the coming U.S. air attack on Syria — (1) the source (offshore warships and perhaps a bomber or two), (2) the weapon (cruise missiles), (3) the duration (two or three days), (4) the purpose (punishment, not “regime change”) — perhaps we should be publishing the exact time the bombs will fall, lest we disrupt dinner in Damascus.

So much for the element of surprise. Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing — then erasing — his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action. Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn’t commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.

Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose. The purpose can be either punitive or strategic: either a spasm of conscience that will inflame our opponents yet leave not a trace, or a considered application of abundant American power to alter the strategic equation that is now heavily favoring our worst enemies in the heart of the Middle East.

There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration. Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.

In 1998, after al-Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa, Bill Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles into empty tents in Afghanistan. That showed ’em. It did. It showed terminal unseriousness. Al-Qaeda got the message. Two years later, the USS Cole. A year after that, 9/11. Yet even Clinton gathered the wherewithal to launch a sustained air campaign against Serbia. That wasn’t a mere message. That was a military strategy designed to stop the Serbs from ravaging Kosovo. It succeeded.

If Obama is planning a message-sending three-day attack, preceded by leaks telling the Syrians to move their important military assets to safety, better that he do nothing. Why run the considerable risk if nothing important is changed? The only defensible action would be an attack with a strategic purpose, a sustained campaign aimed at changing the balance of forces by removing the Syrian regime’s decisive military advantage — air power.

Of Assad’s 20 air bases, notes retired Gen. Jack Keane, six are primary. Attack them: the runways, the fighters, the helicopters, the fuel depots, the nearby command structures. Render them inoperable. We don’t need to take down Syria’s air defense system, as we did in Libya. To disable air power, we can use standoff systems — cruise missiles fired from ships offshore and from aircraft loaded with long-range, smart munitions that need not overfly Syrian territory. Depriving Assad of his total control of the air and making resupply from Iran and Russia far more difficult would alter the course of the war. That is a serious purpose.

Would the American people support it? They are justifiably war-weary and want no part of this conflict. And why should they? In three years, Obama has done nothing to prepare the country for such a serious engagement. Not one speech. No explanation of what’s at stake. On the contrary. Last year Obama told us repeatedly that the tide of war is receding. This year, he grandly declared that the entire war on terror “must end.” If he wants Tomahawks to fly, he’d better have a good reason, tell it to the American people and get the support of their representatives in Congress, the way George W. Bush did for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

It’s rather shameful that while the British prime minister recalled Parliament to debate possible airstrikes — late Thursday, Parliament actually voted down British participation — Obama has made not a gesture in that direction.

If you are going to do this, Mr. President, do it constitutionally. And seriously. This is not about you and your conscience. It’s about applying American power to do precisely what you now deny this is about — helping Assad go, as you told the world he must. Otherwise, just send Assad a text message. You might incur a roaming charge, but it’s still cheaper than a three-day, highly telegraphed, perfectly useless demonstration strike.

U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html?hpid=z1)

The Old Fat One

30th Aug 2013, 16:30

No SANE person would surely vote that complete pri*ck Milliband in?

"To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity" Oscar Wilde.

Grimweasel, I''ve edited your quote for you below....

No SANE person would vote.

NutLoose

30th Aug 2013, 17:07

“I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life.”

In a strange way I agree to that, the USSR was a check and balance to the USA, neither would of dared march into any Country for fear of triggering WW3, without that check the USA marches quiet happily into any countries it deems is in their best interest.

SaddamsLoveChild

30th Aug 2013, 18:04

I guess with the vote and Mr Cameron's assurance that we will have no military involvement that those who are deployed in preparation in neghbouring countries will be coming home......oh no my mistake they are now helping build international relations or on Exercise with foreign troops........FOI request from the press would be interesting. We will be involved for a while me thinks...........:ugh:

glad rag

30th Aug 2013, 18:14

I do honestly :} feel a bit for cmd.
Unlike the last ****

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad69/OzzieOsmond/6a00d83451586c69e2014e8b3fee6b970d-pi.jpg

who took us to war he has had the decency to recognise the democratic process and has said he will stand by it's decision :D:D:D:D:D

I have had to sit back and totally rationalise this [these] terrible civil war[s] in the middle east down to the fact that if we were to intervene some where down the line we would later be blamed.

What our aim should be now is to ensure that we secure our borders [whilst still retaining an humanitarian outlook] and prepare to defeat the storm when it arises.

The only way to do that is to incorporate those states [yes Russia etc] who are not aligned with our defense strategy into a common front.

500N

30th Aug 2013, 18:40

ORAC

I ,like that Article piece - Washington Post: Shamed into war? By Charles Krauthammer.

I hope people in the US take note.

NutLoose

30th Aug 2013, 18:46

The last time a British prime minister was defeated by the Commons on a war motion was 1782 when MPs refused to go on fighting – of all people – the restless Americans wishing for independence.

- See more at: Spectre of Blair haunts Syria war | Alex Thomson's View (http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/syria-blair-spectre-haunts-war-cameron-uk/5534#sthash.30uX0Kg2.dpuf)

How ironic, mind you I could understand the reluctance to carry on, I mean where would we have housed all the prisoners?

..

glad rag

30th Aug 2013, 18:57

BBC News - Syria chemical weapons attack killed 1,429, says John Kerry (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23906913)

"Shortly afterwards, President Barack Obama said the Syrian chemical attack threatened US national security interests."

Whatever.

Obama won't listen, won't smell the coffee, the septics government will just wade. on. in.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

500N

30th Aug 2013, 18:59

If Obama goes ahead, I do not see this ending well, for him or the US
on a long term basis.

Dak Man

30th Aug 2013, 19:01

^^^^ he may be ousted before the "shack & ore" has quietened.

dead_pan

30th Aug 2013, 19:04

Hmm, I don't think its going to end well whatever the US do now. On balance, I believe the risks from not acting are far greater.

500N

30th Aug 2013, 19:09

"On balance, I believe the risks from not acting are far greater."

For who ?

The US or everyone else ?

I DON'T believe this is about Chemical weapons any more.

This is now about Obama saving face in the world.

Dak Man

30th Aug 2013, 19:14

^^^^^ agreed, it's turned into a pissing contest.

dead_pan

30th Aug 2013, 19:21

Yes it is, and if he backs down the US will be tested on all fronts - NK, Taiwan, S China Sea, you name it.

Putin, and to a lesser extent, China, are ultimately behind this. Iran/Syria couldn't function without either's support. Perhaps the time has finally come for US to make a stand.

I do wonder what a Republican prez would have done in the circumstances. Anyone care to hazard a guess?

500N

30th Aug 2013, 19:29

"Putin, and to a lesser extent, China, are ultimately behind this."

I hope Obama / the US realised that a long time ago before
he opened his mouth.

Unlike Libya, Syria was always going to be a US versus Russia
because of Russia's closeness to Syria and Russian warm water ports.

So they should have realised the end game was not about Syria beforehand
so they never got into this mess.

Obama is going to look a fool if he does and a fool if he doesn't.

Putin is sitting back, having a drink and laughing his head off
as he has got Obama up against a wall in a Squirrel grip :O

All he has to do now is Squeeze hard and watch Obama squeal.

seadrills

30th Aug 2013, 19:59

I wonder if the 6 Typhoons will be coming home shortly ? Very ashamed. I wonder why we have a military.

glad rag

30th Aug 2013, 20:05

Very ashamed. I wonder why we have a military.

Excellent trolling. :sad:

SASless

30th Aug 2013, 20:12

Odumbo is a Fool!

One does not posture in public on fiercely complicated matters....the Fool did.

He then appoints two Fools to the Secretary of State Office....Cankles and the Traitor.

His SecDef was also a foolish pick.....look back at the Confirmation problems he had with Hagel.

Add in General Martin Dempsey (sounds of spitting heard) and you can only wonder what kind of advice he is getting from the Joint Chiefs via Martin.

Finally.....with his pick for the UN Ambassador's job.....well hell she was on vacation when the Syria thing was being discussed at the Security Council wasn't she?

Now folks....what could possibly go wrong with that Team at bat?

The American Congress....particularly the Republicans better seize this opportunity to stand up and stop Odumbo. We know he has an out of control Ego, the Media trumpets his Talking Points and does not challenge anything he has to say.....and the Democrat Party will march right off the cliff following the Idiot.

The very last thing we need to do right now is kick off another War of some kind. We got involved in Korea....Vietnam....Iraq and stayed way too long in Afghanistan.....completely screwed up in Libya and Egypt.....nope....time to sit this one out and let the Syrians fight their own Civil War.

We turn our back on Mexico's war, the atrocities in Dafur, completely ignored Rwanda.....so why should we get our collective knickers in a twist over a few Thousand more dead Syrians?

PEI_3721

30th Aug 2013, 20:17

Kobayashi Maru scenario; James T Kirk solution.

500N

30th Aug 2013, 20:24

SaSless

Why do you not like General Martin Dempsey ?

dead_pan

30th Aug 2013, 20:31

So they should have realised the end game was not about Syria beforehand so they never got into this mess.

Well they did pretty well to stay out for as long as they did. By accident or, more likely, design, Assad, with Russian acquiescence, has brought the situation to a head, knowing full well that our media would peddle the story and remind our electorates and politicians of commitments and actions previously made regarding non-proliferation. The whole thing has an air of inevitability, like events in Sarajevo in 1914.

America backed down over Georgia in 2008 (and, pray tell, who was in charge then - ah yes, him), which only served to embolden Putin. Will they do it again?

500N

30th Aug 2013, 20:37

Will they do it again? (back down).

I have a sneaking suspicion he might, depends on a couple
of things happening on the weekend including US polls,
the feedback he gets from Congress and others.

What the UN report says for one.

That's just my HO though.

henra

30th Aug 2013, 20:52

Unlike Libya, Syria was always going to be a US versus Russia
because of Russia's closeness to Syria and Russian warm water ports.

So they should have realised the end game was not about Syria beforehand
so they never got into this mess.

Yup, profoundly stoopid idea.

I have no idea if he/his advisers (who ever they were) was hoping to get the Russians driven out of the Mediterranean by the Rebels driving out Assad?!

Anyway, the question is what is worse: The Russians having a warm water port of a friendly Nation somewhere in the Mediterranean or Al Qaeda conquering the next Country.
I know what makes me sleep better at night.
Hint: It's definitely not the Russians that worry me. They don't have any Ideology/Religion which they want to impose on the world. They maybe want to protect their Oil&Gas Sales and some political influence but -come on- there are other Countries as well that even more offensively protect their Energy and Economic/Influence interests (Guess who).
Even if Putin is by no means a proponent of pure Democracy in a US/European sense, there are far more unpredictable and reckless Guys out there. Islamic Nutters getting grips on the next Country on the other hand do worry me profoundly.

500N

30th Aug 2013, 20:56

I don't see whay the US would have a problem with "The Russians having a warm water port of a friendly Nation somewhere in the Mediterranean".

After all, it's been there for years, isn't exactly a problem and as you
said on the other points re predictability.

And, may I add, the US / UK has plenty of similar around the world
so why can't the Russians ?

dead_pan

30th Aug 2013, 21:02

Yes but doesn't it worry you that Russia is teaming with the likes of Syria and Iran, who are pulling all kinds of strings in the region, some of them connected to proscribed groups who we would count alongside AQ as our enemies.

If you think Russia are in this just to protect their deep water port, you're mistaken. They could do this easily on their own if they so desired (think Kaliningrad-on-Med). Why do they need Assad for this? They could just as easily secure it as payback for supporting the west and the rebels. The truth is Putin is meddling, possibly trying to counter the US-Saudi/Sunni-Israel axis in the region.

500N

30th Aug 2013, 21:12

"Yes but doesn't it worry you that Russia is teaming with the likes of Syria and Iran, who are pulling all kinds of strings in the region, some of them connected to proscribed groups who we would count alongside AQ as our enemies."

Substitute the US and Israel for Russia and Syria / Iran and all the US's allies in Arabia could say the same thing.

So it works both ways.

No, it is NOT about a warm water port and your reasons are as good as any.

And I think Putin, having got Obama's measure and being snubbed again
is quite happy to "turn the screws" on Obama and make him look a fool.

It is a game that Putin plays very well and Obama mis read it.

After all, re Syria and putin playing games, what is the worst that can happen ?

The US still fire off a few cruise missiles at Syria ? That would be called acceptable collateral damage in Putin's eyes. Russia is never in Danger here.

And if the US does nothing, all he has done is won another round of
the game of ping pong brinkmanship.

Obama should never have snubbed Putin or got on the wrong side of him.

500N

30th Aug 2013, 21:14

Re Iran, I am more worried about Iran winding up and arming
Israels enemies and having Israel react to that where the ultimate
end game would be Israel attacking Iran itself.

Then watch the shyte hit the fan !!!

dead_pan

30th Aug 2013, 21:33

Rather than go after Assad's CW capability, I reckon that if the US do go in they should plink those S300 batteries. Kill a few of their Russians operators. And when Russias table a motion at the UN S/C condemning the attack, blithely use their veto to squash it. Two can play at that game.

dead_pan

30th Aug 2013, 21:40

Obama should never have snubbed Putin or got on the wrong side of him.

The thing is, Putin also got the measure of GWB too. S'funny how some people around here have conveniently forgotten about this.

500N

30th Aug 2013, 21:41

dead pan

Who are you referring to ?

Sunfish

30th Aug 2013, 21:58

dead_pan

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 443
Rather than go after Assad's CW capability, I reckon that if the US do go in they should plink those S300 batteries. Kill a few of their Russians operators. And when Russias table a motion at the UN S/C condemning the attack, blithely use their veto to squash it. Two can play at that game.
Last edited by dead_pan; 31st Aug 2013 at 07:34.

Maybe if the "Russian operators" succeed in downing a few western aircraft and the Assads publicly hang the pilots as war criminals, you might reconsider the jingoistic nonsense you post.

In any case good on yer Parliament! At last some common sense!

Melchett01

30th Aug 2013, 22:02

The result of last night's vote in no way results in a diminution of either GB plc or the rationale for having Armed Forces as suggested by the likes of Paddy Ashdown. Only those that would like to see the British military totally neutered would put forward such an argument as they believe it strengthens their case.

It does not. What last night's vote does do is to make a series of very important points across a range of issues, of which the lack of UK involvement in Syria is merely a symptom.

Firstly, it finally, re-emphasises the primacy of the Legislature and the people over the Executive. For too long, and certainly since Blair, this country has not been ruled by Parliament but by a form of 'kitchen table' or 'sofa' cabinet, where decisions were made by a few individuals, advised by unelected and unaccountable SpADs who could peddle their own ideas and agendas, and which were then presented to the Legislature to be rubber stamped. That is not the action of an effective democracy. Last night's vote was a move against that trend and potentially the first steps to the re-establishment of Parliamentary rather than Cabinet government.

Secondly, the whole thing was rushed and ill-thought through. Cameron may well have had the kernel of an idea, but it was nothing more than a kernel. There was little or no supporting work to back up his case. General Dannett summed it up very nicely by suggesting that you don't make decision by kicking a ball down the pitch and deciding what to do on the basis of how it bounces. Any decision to launch a military campaign must be backed up by strategy, an examination of how the action supports that strategy, what the likely outcome is going to be and what we do if things don't go to plan. If anybody on this site that is currently serving presented a piece of operational staff work to the same standard that Cameron presented his case to Parliament, it would be sent back covered in red pen as being half considered with many questions still to be answered. The moral of the story, is get your ducks in a row and don't base your planning on assumptions, otherwise you look stupid when it all goes wrong. If the standard of evidence and argument presented to Parliament were presented to a court of law in a capitcal case where the burden of proof were set high enough to reflect the likely severity of the sentence, the case would be thrown out or the defendent acquited.

Finally, I think the comparisons of Syria to Iraq and the dodgy dossier miss a fundamental point. Firstly, Milliband was always going to play the 'learning from Iraq' card; it puts further distance between the Labour Party of 2013 and the Labour Party of 2003 and helps try to heal a running sore that will blight the Labour Party for a long time when it comes to foreign policy. Secondly, there have been a number of statements suggesting that this demonstrates a lack of trust in the intelligence services. This in itself is a misunderstanding; the intelligence agencies - if managed correctly and not heading off on their own little power trips and agendas - will only work to advise the government of the day on the basis of the government's stated policies and agendas. How that intelligence is used by the politicians, especially if it is seen to be inaccurate or unuseable i.e. it doens't fit the politicians' ideas of what they want to do, is another matter entirely. When you hear of intelligence agencies being blamed, it is almost always because they have told the decision makers some unpalatable or inconvenient truth they didn't want to hear.

Those that know me will testify that I am right at the back of the queue when it comes to being a bleeding heart sandal wearing liberal, but where lives are at stake I would like to see a fully formed and reasoned argument which I just don't think has been presented by the Government. In such a case, last night's defeat should be seen not as a political victory for one side or another - although it clearly will be - but as a victory for common sense, for not pilling in both feet first without actually checking and as a strengthening of the democratic process. If the Government had done it's job properly and put a fully formed and evidence based rather than emotive case, they would have won and on that basis I would be more than happy to be convinced of the necessity to act.

NutLoose

30th Aug 2013, 22:15

Well said.... :D:D

What we need is decisive leadership, where is Ed Balls when he's needed.....

Joke

Broadsword***

30th Aug 2013, 22:18

It is bad enough that our limited capability means we would have been unable to make more than a token contribution to any military action against Assad, but we are now completely sidelined. I'm with Paddy.

Paddy Ashdown 'ashamed' of Britain over Commons vote
The former leader of the Liberal Democrats said he is “ashamed” of Britain’s decision not to take action following the chemical weapons attack in Syria which saw hundreds killed and thousands more injured.

Syria crisis: Paddy Ashdown 'ashamed' of Britain over Commons vote - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10275565/Syria-crisis-Paddy-Ashdown-ashamed-of-Britain-over-Commons-vote.html)

NutLoose

30th Aug 2013, 22:23

One of the main problems is the UK has now so many gaps in their capability they need to piggyback off other Countries to do anything.... That's what I'm ashamed off.

paully

30th Aug 2013, 22:35

Are they bringing the jets back from Cyprus now their not going to be needed, anybody know?

NutLoose

30th Aug 2013, 22:45

As there is more than just the UK out there, one would imagine they will stay until it's all calmed down a bit, after all they need to work on their tan and get a few descent meals down them..
They will simply be there to protect the assets in the area and not in an offensive posture... But then that's just my best guess.

Broadsword***

30th Aug 2013, 23:01

Firstly, it finally, re-emphasises the primacy of the Legislature and the people over the Executive. For too long, and certainly since Blair, this country has not been ruled by Parliament but by a form of 'kitchen table' or 'sofa' cabinet, where decisions were made by a few individuals, advised by unelected and unaccountable SpADs who could peddle their own ideas and agendas, and which were then presented to the Legislature to be rubber stamped. That is not the action of an effective democracy. Last night's vote was a move against that trend and potentially the first steps to the re-establishment of Parliamentary rather than Cabinet government.

It could have something to do with our fine unwritten constitution, which has the effect of making the prime minister de facto president and gives our commander-in-chief all the power to declare a new community centre open.

SASless

30th Aug 2013, 23:18

Yes but doesn't it worry you that Russia is teaming with the likes of Syria and Iran, who are pulling all kinds of strings in the region, some of them connected to proscribed groups who we would count alongside AQ as our enemies.

That kind of stuff has been going on since Stalin's times.....hit its peak in the Cold War....so what is new?

Lowe Flieger

30th Aug 2013, 23:44

Atrocities continue in Syria. It is a terrible civil war in which innocents bear the brunt of conflicting ambitions, as always seems to be the case. Yet I still do not see why there is an imperative for the UK to take military action and I still fail to see what limited bomb strikes are going to do to make things better in the country. Will Assad come to heel? I doubt it. And if he doesn't what do you do next? Increase the strikes? And if that doesn't work? I think the UK Parliament has acted correctly here. Seldom do I find myself agreeing with Miliband, but I think he got it right, even if my sense is that he saw the political opportunity to court party political popularity first, and found his conscience second.

Who are the rebels we are supporting? I really don't know but it seems to be an incoherent grouping of various interests, some of whom are definitely not the people we would normally want to side with. That they would be happy for Western fire power in their hour of need is undoubted; that they will be fighting us with a bitter hatred once we are no longer of use is probably equally true. And why is it the UK's problem? Perhaps because we are a permanent member of the UN security Council, an influential position we will increasingly struggle to hold on to as our military power and economy decline? I suspect Cameron was taking the long-term view on US/UK political alliances when he tried to support military strikes. That may be damaged somewhat now, although I don't think Obama has been that supportive of the UK anyway. It seems we have to face up to some very uncomfortable truths of being a fading power.

Where we could help is in providing aid - which - could be practical as much as financial - to the various charities trying to deal with the humanitarian crisis; using what influence we still have to get other Arab nations to support this aim too; working with the major powers to seek a political solution which might mean leaving Assad in place as the lesser of many evils. Despots such as Saddam and Assad, keep a semblance of order by ruthlessly suppressing their populations. Once removed, a whole host of warring factions rush to fill the vacuum. So, firing a few missiles, leader deposed, democracy introduced, factions agree to become docile citizens committed to peaceful co-existence, is a tempting thought but it won't work like that. Moreover it won't work like that even if the West embarks on Afghanistan II. Hard as it may be, the best people to find a way through the mire are the Syrians, and that will be a long hard road too. Anything imposed from outside is extremely unlikely to be effective, even if well intentioned.

LF

AR1

31st Aug 2013, 07:24

The nature of the beast Eclan. When the flag drops - The bulls**t stops.

The meeja reporting of this is getting right up my nose. Democracy was seen to be in action and now the subject is 'Has the PM lost authority' He can't win can he?
The reporting of chemical weapons - In Iraq many bodies on the ground, in Syria people having their eyes washed. Proof? and if there is, prove who did it before you do something about it.

The bomb 'dropped on a school' - Without the context of what was happening around the school or indeed in it. Then backed up by a shot of a brand new childs shoe placed in the rubble.

Whats happening in Syria is not good for the people or the country, but I simply don't trust how it's being reported.

Pontius Navigator

31st Aug 2013, 08:01

The bomb 'dropped on a school' - Without the context of what was happening around the school or indeed in it. Then backed up by a shot of a brand new childs shoe placed in the rubble.

That shoe issue has of course been a well played propaganda ploy by media and others through the years.

On the 'school' issue, it occurs to me to ask where did the CW attacks take place.

Were they 'military' attacks against 'legitimate' targets where there happened to be countless innocent civilians in the target area, or were they 'terror' attacks deliberately targeting the civil population in their opponents rear area?

If the former, why were civilians in the target area? Historically civilians flee target areas except when they are surrounded. Is that the case here?

If the latter, the case should be easily proven. Why has it not been demonstrated that the attacks were in residential areas away from the fighting?

Heathrow Harry

31st Aug 2013, 08:18

Well said Melchett!!

I'm sure the re-appearance of that creep Bliar in the pages of the "Times" mid week advocating action on Syria reminded a lot of people where we went wrong on his watch

BEagle

31st Aug 2013, 08:46

I'm sure the re-appearance of that creep Bliar in the pages of the "Times" mid week advocating action on Syria reminded a lot of people where we went wrong on his watch.

Quite so. That wretched oleaginous Bush-poodle should have the sense to keep quiet as no-one will believe anything he says.

For all his faults, at least Gordon Brown has had the good grace to keep quiet about day-to-day politics since leaving office.

henra

31st Aug 2013, 09:11

If Obama manages to start his war and the Russians wade in, it will be interesting to see how the western combat aircraft fare in a real air-to-air war.

You can be sure this simply won't happen. The Russians are not stupid and Obama will also make sure upfront that nothing gets out of hand. If the Russians themselves are manning S-300s at present I suspect even for those they will find an agreement upfront.

This thing isn't important enough for either side to risk anything serious. Remember how reluctant Russia was to give asylum to Snowden since they didn't want to harm their relationship with the US too much?
Also both sides know very well that a couple of air strikes won't make any difference to the outcome of this.

This is about Face Saving a bit on both sides. Obama will fire his couple of Tomahawks (and enable a real world test of the X47B :E) after having informed the Russians upfront about it. The Russians will scream and shout a bit and also protest in the UN S/C and after those two/three days of air/cruise missile strikes Business will continue as usual.

Israel doesn't seem to be willing to get involved -which they are usually not too reluctant about. As others have pointed out this is the strongest indication we can get that a protracted civil war in Syria is probably the preferred state of affairs by Israel and the US.

Edit:

After decades of simulation and "Red Air", the first time in a long while for real air warfare against current generation Eastern BLOC aircraft flown by pilots who know what they're doing.

Out of curiosity: Where is this eastern BLOC and which countries belong to it? What is their global goal and Ideology?
Did you get the news what happened during the last 25 years?
If you are talking about Russia: Yes they are still a Power to be reckoned with. They have national interests like other Countries do. Maybe they still have somewhat more Toys and influence to foster them then many other Countries. They are also probably not a shining example of an open democracy. But I don't see much efforts by them to conquer the world and invade into foreign Countries against their will.

Stuffy

31st Aug 2013, 09:36

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels.

» Shocking Story That Could Derail Attack on Syria Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/shocking-story-that-could-derail-attack-on-syria/)

» Bombshell: Kerry Caught Using Fake Photos to Fuel Syrian War Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-kerry-caught-using-fake-photos-to-fuel-syrian-wa/)

» Kerry Lies About Number of Syrian Chemical War Dead Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/kerry-misrepresents-syria-chemical-war-dead/)

Pontius Navigator

31st Aug 2013, 10:15

Apart from UK media using unattributed archive imagery of the wrong aircraft to illustrate a story, it is only a step to use similar archive imagery and insert in in official documents.

Now however it is possible to submit any image to an image search program that will present matches to archived imagery. users of archive imagery will get found out and no matter how accurate the basic reportage, such archive fakery will totally destroy that reportage credibility.

AtomKraft

31st Aug 2013, 10:34

My 2p worth (again).

I think the UK have done rather well here.

In fact the UK has enhanced its reputation and shown real strength.
It's been a while since I've felt even slightly proud of our politicians. This is as close as I've been for a long, long time.

We have actually influenced the US, into doing nothing- which is precisely what they will do.

How much better is that, than supinely supporting them as they make an arse of themselves- and us, again? :D

glad rag

31st Aug 2013, 10:36

Captbod,

Yes, Sarin is non-persistent, regardless of what the journos say. It's very volatile and in the Syrian heat would not remain in liquid form for more than about half an hour - even in the cold it will only last some 7-10 hours.

NutLoose,

I'm Courtney, not Coff, Mate. :ok: I wasn't trying to be patronizing, sorry. As to your point, even if the precursors were stored on the same site, they still need to be mixed effectively. Blowing up storage tanks wouldn't do that very well. In any event, extreme heat helps break down most nerve agents.

AirPig,

Re the "bath tub" Sarin. The Russians decided that the Sarin used in the Aleppo CW attack back in March was not factory made as it did not appear to contain stabilizers. They used that 'fact' to claim that it had been made by the rebels. But those stabilizers are only there to extend the shelf life, not to make it more persistent. Again, given the temperatures, victims' contaminated clothing only poses a threat for around 30 minutes with Sarin. We also saw a lot of water being sprayed around in the videos of the latest attack. Water breaks Sarin down very effectively. So I don't think there was too much risk to unprotected rescuers and doctors, but I don't think that can be used to assess where it came from.

Courtney, I think the highlighted text is what has us all a wee bit "tense" about the septics governments plans, you know......

ShotOne

31st Aug 2013, 11:22

Well said, atomkraft. There have been some comments on how this might "Reduce our influence" in Washington...as if they wait for our say so when deciding policy. If you use the phrase "special relationship" there, you'll get a blank look.

Eclan

31st Aug 2013, 11:23

Where is this eastern BLOC and which countries belong to it? ........
Did you get the news what happened during the last 25 years? etc etc...

Yes okay calm down, I think you know what was intended. There I fixed it for you. The reference to Eastern Bloc was in regard to the air war in Vietnam which you may've heard about. I think it was still the Eastern Bloc back then but feel free to correct it.

To be even more clear, I am referring to the latest MiGs and Sukhois, HMS, the latest AA missiles, etc...

You can be sure this simply won't happen. The Russians are not stupid and Obama will also make sure upfront that nothing gets out of hand. .........This thing isn't important enough for either side to risk anything serious.

Hahaha... we can, can we? Okay then, there you have it, we can all relax again - you can trust Obama!!

But in the meantime you may wish to catch up the news of the last 42 years in terms of US economic policy, then let us know if another war is important to the US or not. If you think this is about all nerve gas, you're woefully naive.

But for the record, I hope you're right about Scenario 'A' because 'B' potentially involves a lot more countries than just Russia and Syria on the Red team.

LS-4

31st Aug 2013, 11:35

I seem to remember some hubbub in relation to Kosovo as well. Don't know if we ever were close to any disaster of that sort. Pristina airport?

I don't expect the Russians to step it up, but it would surely suck. How would people feel about facing R-77s and such?

Dunky

31st Aug 2013, 12:01

I wasn't impressed by the comments of some of the politicians following the vote, notably Paddy Ashdown, Menzies Campbell, and Bob Stewart. Drifting off thread, it was the latter of course who demonstrated how not to check for land mines or IED's in Bosnia. If you haven't seen the film, after a vehicle hit a land mine, he leant out of the back of his rover, and with his head directly over the the road, dumped his webbing on the road to check for mines! The only one that impressed me was Lord Dannatt.

parabellum

31st Aug 2013, 12:42

The 'No' vote was probably one of the worst events in British political history for a long, long time and those who rejoice at it either don't see the big picture or their motives and political persuasion are seriously suspect.

The alliance of the USA, UK and France was bringing very heavy pressure to bear and eventually Putin would have had to step in and advise Assad to desist permanently from gas attacks. The 'No' vote has immediately taken all the pressure off Putin and I doubt he has finished laughing his socks off at the disarray of the alliance. One has to wonder where Milliband takes his instructions from.

henra

31st Aug 2013, 13:09

But for the record, I hope you're right about Scenario 'A' because 'B' potentially involves a lot more countries than just Russia and Syria on the Red team.

Just to be sure I understand correctly what your scenario is: Are ou really assuming we are going to see WW3 over Syria?

Or if not, what is the scenario?

Do you assume the Russians to send a hand full of Aircraft down there with their own pilots in order for them to get shot down within hours?
Or do you rather expect Russia to dislocate more than 30% of its active inventory of Fighter Aircraft down there within a few days in order to stand a reasonable chance to survive Day 1?
Where would all these Russian planes be stationed?
In Syria? In order to get shot down by rebels or destroyed on the ground by airstrikes/Tomahawks?
What will then be the next step of Russia?

Honestly I have some difficulties imagining a realistic scenario for your 'doomsday' scenario.

NutLoose

31st Aug 2013, 13:16

Well it showed labours true colours, not worried about the world stage, but simply about gaining political points over the opposition, there was no reason the vote couldn't have been carried subject to the clauses set out re evidence, it was Milliband simply scoring short term gains.. If proof had been laid out and it was clear and unambiguous then action should have maybe been taken, it wasn't and it isn't.

However

The USA has showing its true colours after the vote by suddenly becoming Frances best friend and snubbing the UK like some petulant child... Right or wrong that is how it's panned out and we still are supporting them probably base wise.. Was it right, history will write that answer, however given the chance I bet a lot of the US populace would have voted against it too...

..

SASless

31st Aug 2013, 13:34

Do we know what Secret Alliances are in place between Russia and Syria?

Could there be an agreement that would bring them into the mix as a hostile force acting against Syria's aggressors?

Is that a risk Odumbo should be taking?

We are being seen as weak and vulnerable to some degree by Putin and others....and that does not make for our being able to "go it alone" and damn the torpedoes and all that kind of stuff.

Ronald Reagan

31st Aug 2013, 13:57

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

henra

31st Aug 2013, 15:07

Henra are you French?

No, I'm not. Not that it would make much of a difference, though.

You obviously have an internet connection - might be time to use it.

I was curious to understand YOUR scenario not that of some Tin Foil Hats out there in tha interweb...

In the meantime if you RTFP you may gain slightly more insight. Possibly not though because as you readily admit you do have some difficulties.
Again, I don't give a flyin' f*ck what some lunatics out there think/write/post. We had a link or two here of that species.
If that is your scenario, then -thank you- I can do without.
No, won't waste my time reading further into it.
I was curious to know if you are one of 'them' or if I misjudged you/your post. Seems unfortunately, I did not.

Dunky

31st Aug 2013, 15:42

The USA has showing its true colours after the vote by suddenly becoming Frances best friend and snubbing the UK like some petulant child... Right or wrong that is how it's panned out and we still are supporting them probably base wise

I agree, it was a real kick in the teeth for the UK when John Kerry described France as the USA's oldest ally. It's not before time that we took an independent decision on military action.

sitigeltfel

31st Aug 2013, 16:01

I agree, it was a real kick in the teeth for the UK when John Kerry described France as the USA's oldest ally.

Has anyone told Obama/Kerry which country allowed the USA to launch attacks on Libyan bases in 1986 from its shores...........and which country denied them overflight rights?

Agaricus bisporus

31st Aug 2013, 16:12

I agree, it was a real kick in the teeth for the UK when John Kerry described France as the USA's oldest ally.

What an extraordinary statement!

What the heck else would you expect them to emphasise just after their erstwhile "Best Ally" had just publicly and shamefully kicked them in the teeth?

Anyway, Oldest Ally is historically true after all...

Melchett01

31st Aug 2013, 16:13

I agree, it was a real kick in the teeth for the UK when John Kerry described France as the USA's oldest ally

Little more than a diplomatic attempt at a slapped wrist. If any 'western' states were going to get involved other than the UK, it was always going to be the US and France.

Obama has little choice having backed himself into a corner by publically showing his hand as to what does and doesn't constitute a 'red line'. Having drawn the line early he now has to do something if he is to maintain credibility and not appear as a paper tiger for the rest of his term. But paradoxically, that he can't be re-elected means that he also has the flexibility to make such mistakes.

Hollande, well, other than desperately needing a distraction from the rapidly growing pile of socialist disasters he is inflicting on his countrymen (even his ministers have come out and said they have over done it on the tax front), Syria was always within the French sphere of influence. In the WW1 era, the Levant & Middle East was "neatly" carved up between Britain, France and Russia under the Sykes-Picot agreement with lines drawn on maps that put present day Syria firmly in the French sphere of influence. The French are not getting involved out of any sudden desire to appear punchy or to get in bed with the US - there will always be a degree of distrust between them and I very much doubt this will see a sudden UK-US divorce; the French are getting involved because it suits them to do so. In foreign policy and international relations terms, an archetypal realist response.

con-pilot

31st Aug 2013, 16:15

Has anyone told Obama/Kerry which country allowed the USA to launch attacks on Libyan bases in 1986 from its shores...........and which country denied them overflight rights?

Doesn't really matter really, as he (Obama) could care less. Most Americans do, that is the important bit. Obama's father's hatred of all things British still to this day strongly influences his actions.

One needs to look no farther than the Obamas first state visit as President and First Lady to to see proof of this.

TEEEJ

31st Aug 2013, 16:15

Ronald,
Putin is just stating his opinion and guessing on the mindset of Assad or elements within the Syrian forces. Yes it is utter madness for such an attack but what if Putin is incorrect?

Ask yourself how much control does Assad actually hold? Who is pulling the strings behind the scenes and what about rogue elements within the armed forces? What if that rogue element carried out the chemical attacks without Assad actually ordering it? Assad as a puppet figure head could be sitting there blissfully unaware that it was elements of his forces that launched the attacks and he is being told that it was the rebels. Either that or he now knows that it was his forces, can't or won't come clean, and is simply going along with the guidance of his advisers?

Snippets from Kerry's transcript

We know that for three days before the attack the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area making preparations. And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons. We know that these were specific instructions.

We know where the rockets were launched from and at what time. We know where they landed and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.

We know that a senior regime official who knew about the attack confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime, reviewed the impact, and actually was afraid that they would be discovered. We know this.

And we know what they did next. I personally called the Foreign Minister of Syria and I said to him, “If, as you say, your nation has nothing to hide, then let the United Nations in immediately and give the inspectors the unfettered access so they have the opportunity to tell your story.” Instead, for four days they shelled the neighborhood in order to destroy evidence, bombarding block after block at a rate four times higher than they had over the previous 10 days. And when the UN inspectors finally gained access, that access, as we now know, was restricted and controlled.

In all of these things that I have listed, in all of these things that we know, all of them, the American intelligence community has high confidence, high confidence. This is common sense. This is evidence. These are facts.

Statement on Syria (http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/08/213668.htm)

The Senate and House will be presented with the classified brief. Putin is asking for the US to present that evidence to the UN Security Council. Under Bush junior they got it wrong with Iraq. What if Obama has it right in regards to events in Syria?

SASless

31st Aug 2013, 16:34

it was a real kick in the teeth for the UK when John Kerry described France as the USA's oldest ally.

Check yer history folks.....they were and are.

Maybe not the best or most loyal....but they were the first at a time when it mattered most to this Country called America.

Perhaps as some are saying it is the Americans who are not the most loyal and staunchest of Allies.

Ya'll do remember a bit of unpleasantness at a place called Yorktown do you not? Something about the French Navy, a fellow named Lafayette and some trespassers known as Hessians and some fellows in Red led by a guy named Cornwallis?

BEagle

31st Aug 2013, 17:04

....it was a real kick in the teeth for the UK when John Kerry described France as the USA's oldest ally.

I doubt it. Kerry seems hell bent on 'oo-rah git 'em boys' military action and I very much doubt whether any sane person believes a single word he says.

West Coast

31st Aug 2013, 17:22

Why not Beagle? Are you aware of some evidence that is contrary to what he is saying or are you simply being a contrarian? I haven't made my mind up if action is appropriate, I also haven't dismissed what he's said as a lie. How have you arrived at the conclusion he is?

Pontius Navigator

31st Aug 2013, 17:39

I wonder if France still has rights to use Akrotiri?

Out towards TPMH was an area known as French Camp and once a couple of Mirage IV and a KC135 lobbed in without warning despite Akrotiri being PPR. They made their duty-free trip to the Officers' Mess and departed having cited CENTO agreements as their authority.

So, did they have rights? Do they still have rights?

NutLoose

31st Aug 2013, 18:00

Looks like the Americans are going down the same route as us and putting it to congress, I wonder if our parliamentary vote has swayed their thinking, never expected that.

seadrills

31st Aug 2013, 18:01

Well done Barack Obama .....

Ronald Reagan

31st Aug 2013, 18:03

I hope Congress votes no.

Stuffy

31st Aug 2013, 18:27

What it is really about is money. Forget about Kerry's crocodile's tears.

» America Totally Discredited Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/america-totally-discredited/)
By
Paul Craig Roberts : who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book,*The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West*is now available.

cokecan

31st Aug 2013, 18:34

Alex Jones.

ha ha ha.

nice one Stuffy.

Stuffy

31st Aug 2013, 19:10

Alex Jones did not write the article.

Toadstool

31st Aug 2013, 19:12

Aw, we're best buddies again - part of Obama's speech

"As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress and undoubtedly they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

LeggyMountbatten

31st Aug 2013, 19:33

He also said BBC News - Obama: US Congress should authorise Syria military action (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23916637) "I am the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy". Hmmmmm....

BEagle

31st Aug 2013, 19:41

Aw, we're best buddies again - part of Obama's speech...

Perhaps his extended phone call was to CmD, apologising for Kerry's comments?

Kerry epitomises everything wrong about the oo-ess-of-aye. A blinkered obsession with a personal agenda with scant regard for any independent evidence.

World's oldest constitutional democracy my ar$e. Democracy was born more than 2200 years before Uh-merica was invented....:rolleyes:

Pontius Navigator

31st Aug 2013, 19:51

But was there a written constitution?

BEagle

31st Aug 2013, 20:08

You don't remember...???

.

smujsmith

31st Aug 2013, 20:08

Beagle, Pontius et al,

Without getting myself a reputation for grovelling. I have more respect for yourselves and most of the other contributors to PPRUNE, than I would ever have for "Stoneface" Kerry. Barely 24 hours ago he's "shoving it to the Brits" on our failure to support American policy. Today Paddy Obama decides to duck the issue and throw it at Congress. If they reflect, as did our parliament, the American people's opinion, they will be stopped dead in their tracks. His close cousin Paddy Ashdown, with his shame for being British also begs some believing. Meanwhile a little research reveals;

"Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use" From Wikipedia.

A little research by Mr Kerry of his own countries' history might make him a little less critical of a real democratic decision, and of his own hypocrisy on the matter. Ashdown might care to reflect on his disrespect for the democratic principle. There's a lot of political waffle going on at the moment, but I honestly believe that the decision that our parliament took on Thursday was the right one.

Smudge

Two's in

31st Aug 2013, 20:11

In some slightly more recent and relevant history than 1776, the cafeterias in Congress were directed in 2003 to rename French Fries to "Freedom Fries" and French Toast to "Freedom Toast". This followed the French refusal to partake in the invasion of Iraq led by the US.

A loyal and trusted ally indeed, funny how that nice Mr Kerry forgot all about this bit of history and the associated resurgence into popular American usage of the phrase "cheese eating surrender monkeys".

This whole incident tells you nothing new about historic alliances, but confirms what a bunch of lying, self-serving crooks ALL politicians are.

LeggyMountbatten

31st Aug 2013, 20:11

The lack of a single codified constitution does not mean we are not a constitutional democracy.

I suspect that there's an appropriate phrase ending with "the key to flexibility".

The trouble comes when government benches are populated by un-thinking sheep but Thursday night was not such.

Stuffy

31st Aug 2013, 20:37

Back to cokecan's comment - such a nutritious drink.

If you like 'bimbo' news, watch Fox or CNN.

I Write: Following the Kondratiev Long Wave economic cycle. The bottom of the depression should be 2014, or 2015.
The last depression in the 1930's, bottomed out in 1934. This was when the work on the two Cunard Queens, stopped.

During the period of the bottom of the depression, the public have no desire or appetite for war. There is no money for a war. I expect this to be reflected in Congress. With another no.

IMHO, I expect a quiet and poor period for five years, until 2019, when things start to hot up.

The US is at the edge of an economic abyss.

» Pat Buchanan: Chemical Attack ?Reeks Of False Flag Operation? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/pat-buchanan-chemical-attack-reeks-of-false-flag-operation/)

CoffmanStarter

31st Aug 2013, 20:42

Mr Kerry ... Never trust a man who uses that much hairspray ... correction ... Never trust a man who uses hairspray period :mad:

dagenham

31st Aug 2013, 20:43

Politics aside it is hard to see so many people being slaughtered without feeling revulsion and thinking something has to be done... The question remains by whom.

The acid test is what will the un and the rest of the Arab world do. Saudi Arabia et al have some of the most powerful air arms in the world. It would be nice to know that green flag excercise is being put to some practical use.

I wait with worm on tongue to see what tommorrow's un weapon inspection report brings and hopefully it won't be an essay in fence sitting ( I am very aware it is not to say whom used but were they in fact chem munitions ) . Hopefully, the right people will make the right decision what ever that may be!

NutLoose

31st Aug 2013, 21:01

I do wonder if it's a coincidence Channel 4 is running the 911 programme again.

SASless

31st Aug 2013, 21:35

An interesting aside made on FOX this afternoon by a retired Naval Officer....."During all these phone calls this morning.....maybe one of them reported that Iran and Syria were in fact going to attack Israel if the American Attack took place....and it scared off Obama?"

Not out of the realm of possibility is it?

500N

31st Aug 2013, 21:37

No, something spooked him.

As I said on the other thread, this gives him an "out" and to let things
cool down a bit.

dead_pan

31st Aug 2013, 21:46

dagenham - my thoughts exactly. Obama should get on the front foot and shame them for not doing enough. Even more reason to Arabise the conflict if Syria/Iran are threatening to strike at Israel.

I'm beginning to wonder if Putin has also thought this through very much.

Broadsword***

31st Aug 2013, 21:49

Stuffy

31st Aug 2013, 21:50

Kerry's face looks like a dressed up skull.

The Skullman.

Skull and Bones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones)

NutLoose

31st Aug 2013, 22:02

Probably he's been getting cross party rejections as they have seen the UK's response, either that or his mum has called him and told him to behave.

..

racedo

31st Aug 2013, 22:10

Politics aside it is hard to see so many people being slaughtered without feeling revulsion and thinking something has to be done...

Remind me what happened in Darfur again ?

Stuffy

31st Aug 2013, 22:10

In the Thai language.

O ba ma.

O Baa mah.

Which in Thai.

O - no meaning.

Baa - Crazy

Mah - Dog.

O Ba Ma = O Crazy Dog.

Khrupp.

dagenham

31st Aug 2013, 22:12

At least Kerry served as a swift boat captain has a sense of what this all means.

I met Assad when he was an ophthalmologist at Moorefields and was not impressed with his manner or interactions. I find it even harder to understand while somebody who is trained as a doctor can act this way. I would use the same phrase as someone from No 10 described Ed Milliband earlier in the week, to describe Assad.

Stuffy

31st Aug 2013, 22:21

Back to my economic theme. Which is the real story.

The wars in Iraq. Were a form of Keynsian pump priming to the economy.

One can go back to the Aztecs doing human sacrifice, believing it would make the crops grow.

A few mega-deaths to revive the economy.

Same principle. Scary.

Human sacrifice to make the crops grow.

The Enigma of Aztec Sacrifice (http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.htm)

Chapter 47. Lityerses. § 3. Human Sacrifices for the Crops. Frazer, Sir James George. 1922. The Golden Bough (http://www.bartleby.com/196/103.html)

Human sacrifice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice)

SASless

31st Aug 2013, 22:25

At least Kerry served as a swift boat captain has a sense of what this all means.

You evidently know nothing about Kerry.

Read up on his service in Vietnam.....and all the Purple Hearts he put hiim self in for.....and never spent a single day in Hospital and never missed a day of duty from "Wounds"....then claimed a three heart ticket out of combat!

He then fabricated accounts of War Crimes falsely accusing honorable Men of those crimes......and then to top it off....gave Aid and Comfort to the Enemy during time of War as a Naval Officer.

He is a treasonous bastard and an embarrassment to those who served in combat....real combat and served with honour completely unlike Kerry.

He is sleaze personified!

500N

31st Aug 2013, 22:31

SaSless

Thanks, you beat me to it !!!

I was amazed what came out when he ran for President,
the sheer number of fellow Swift boat people, not all of
them could be wrong.

And what he did re testifying made my mind boggle.

Stuffy

31st Aug 2013, 22:32

SASless,

He looks a most unpleasant character.

He reminds me of the Mexican images of skeletal death.

Without doubt he has missed his true vocation.

Vlad Dracul is in his castle, knees knocking, fearful of Kerry.

Who can rest easy in their beds tonight?

Move over Boris Karloff, Kerry has arrived.

Freddy, from Friday the 13th, will soon be chasing his welfare cheque.

Kerry the 13th has arrived !

Even now executives from Hollywood are rushing for his signature.

Kerry, the Fourth Boresman of the Apocalypse, will be at a cinema near you.

Pillows will be provided for his somnabulism."You are under my spell, don't drop your popcorn!"

Saturday morning pictures will never be the same again.

Move over Arnie. A new Terminator has arrived.

The Boreminator.

SASless

31st Aug 2013, 22:37

I have said in the past I would volunteer to be the Officer-In-Charge of the Firing Party that was detailed to execute John Kerry and Jane Fonda after a conviction for Treason.

When asked why I would seek such duty.....I remind folks that the OIC is required by protocol to fire one Pistol Shot into the Head of each of those shot by the firing squad.

I would not find that duty onerous.

500N

31st Aug 2013, 22:43

Ah Yes, Hanoi Jane. She was a piece of work.

I remember an interview with her in some Mag and they asked
he re that photo of her sitting on the gun.

She said that when asked, she thought why not but as soon as she had
sat down on it, she realised what she had done and that it was not a
good idea.

Kerry and Hanoi Jane side by side at an anti war rally.
Also have a read of what is written.
Hanoi Jane Fonda Archives « Now The End Begins (http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?tag=hanoi-jane-fonda)

racedo

31st Aug 2013, 22:55

Back to cokecan's comment - such a nutritious drink.

If you like 'bimbo' news, watch Fox or CNN.

I Write: Following the Kondratiev Long Wave economic cycle. The bottom of the depression should be 2014, or 2015.
The last depression in the 1930's, bottomed out in 1934. This was when the work on the two Cunard Queens, stopped.

During the period of the bottom of the depression, the public have no desire or appetite for war. There is no money for a war. I expect this to be reflected in Congress. With another no.

IMHO, I expect a quiet and poor period for five years, until 2019, when things start to hot up.

Around the time US is estimated to be in a position not to need to import foreign Oil if it doesn't want it.

Now if you take US out of foreign oil purchases and Russia supplying Europe then whom is going to fund the welfare programs in the Middles East so beloved of a number of nations ?

SASless

31st Aug 2013, 23:00

https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526337_571970526198402_1085182319_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1237649_498130873608292_1958691413_n.jpg

So true....unless Odumbo orders and attack on Syria after Congress says "NO!".

Broadsword***

31st Aug 2013, 23:15

I have said in the past I would volunteer to be the Officer-In-Charge of the Firing Party that was detailed to execute John Kerry and Jane Fonda after a conviction for Treason.

Apparently Nancy Reagan is said to be quite happy that Jane Fonda is playing her in "The Butler". With that kind of Republican endorsement, I think Ms Fonda can consider herself 'rehabilitated'.

As for threatening the Secretary of State of the United States, it may not be treason, but it is probably a felony.

500N

31st Aug 2013, 23:19

SaSless

That is a very good photo of the Navy vet.

Stuffy

31st Aug 2013, 23:21

Kerry, he is not from Derry,
He doesn't wear a berry,
But he drives a horse and cart,
Dresses from Walmart.

Kerry, scares the horses and the children,
Munches on potatoes,
Doesn't eat veg,
Was once married to a woman named Meg,

She left him
Because he didn't like her wooden leg,
Kerry, not from Derry,
But drives a horse and cart.

Singin: " I've got a luverly bunch of turnips!"

Farmer Giles, who doesn't live miles,
Away, found Kerry in the hay,
Wanted him to stand in a field,
The best scarecrow to wield,

The thoughts of Kerry,
Frightening the birds,
In a field, scarecrow Kerry,
Strawman, his fate is sealed

Please Mr Scarecrow,
Can we have back our country,
No more swords to yield,
A quiet life,please stay in the field?

Mr Kerry,wears a berry,
Not from Derry,
Dresses from Walmart,
But he drives a horse and cart.

Singin:"I've got a luverly bunch of turnips!"

NutLoose

31st Aug 2013, 23:38

Broadsword***

31st Aug 2013, 23:48

I believe Jane Fonda was handed a note by POW's to smuggle out which could have resulted in their deaths, she gave it to the guards and they were brutally beaten, never watched anything she's done since, she should have been done for treason.

False. Just more fiction from the lunatic fringe of the American right.

snopes.com: Jane Fonda and American POWs in North Vietnam (http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp)

SASless

31st Aug 2013, 23:49

Broadsword***

1st Sep 2013, 00:40

Broadsword.....you know naught of US Law and it would appear your grasp of the English language fails you.
There was no threat on Kerry's life and there is no rehabilitating Jane Fonda's reputation.
Do show us where I threatened John (Who served in Vietnam as you might recall) Kerry's life!
Here is the daffy bitch sitting on the Anti-Aircraft gun mugging for the camera!
A photo of Kerry meeting in Paris with North Vietnam Government Officials while he was an Officer in the US Navy Reserve.

Of course there was no direct threat, but your bizarre statement about executing John Kerry could be interpreted as an implied threat to his person.

No one, including me, is suggesting Jane Fonda's visit to North Vietnam was not foolish, but it was a long time ago, she has since apologized (several times) and even the POWs who met with her have repudiated the more ridiculous accounts (e.g. note passing) of her visit. Read the link I posted.

As for the photo of John Kerry, it was taken while he was part of a congressional delegation, at a time when the US government was taking steps towards establishing formal diplomatic relations with the Communist government of Vietnam (a move that was also supported by John McCain).

10Watt

1st Sep 2013, 00:54

Very pleased indeed that you poor sods are not being launched off into

someone elses sh*t. Again.

Voted for Maggie since `79 and feel at a loss with "call me Dave".

l was shocked at the "Sun" today, with it`s warmongering. Never mind

the obituary notice of the special relationship and the dates listed of joint

operations, there was one year missing. 1982, the Falklands War.

They gave Jack S**t.

SASless

1st Sep 2013, 00:56

10Watt,

Don't blame all of us for how this special relationship has been going......there are far more of us who like the way it generally has been. I guess every relationship has its ups and downs and this "special one" is no different.

Broad,

I guess I will have to find a photo of him in Paris in '71 to keep you happy.

You skipped the part that said "if convicted of Treason.."....so no....no way to imply a threat....as I said....your poor grasp of English and American Law seems to be by design.

She has apologized for looking lame.....and recently said Vietnam Veterans who choose to boycott the film "Should get a life!", which doesn't strike me as being apologetic or seeking to find common ground.

Yes, the POW's did say the accusation that other POW's were beaten to death after she passed notes was untrue and that the incident did not happen. She did participate in Propaganda films and make statements in suppport of the North Vietnamese and by doing so gave aid and comfort to them during time of war.....while Americans were being mistreated by the North Vietnamese.

Spin it all you want to.....your views change nothing......and we both know the truth.....neither Kerry or Fonda are honorable people. She and Kerry went beyond the limit of correctness in their opposition to the War. They could have protested the War in an honorable way, told the truth, persuaded the American People and Politicians to end the war but done so in a manner that would have brought respect to them on their conduct. They failed grossly in that.

500N

1st Sep 2013, 01:01

"They gave Jack S**t."

In public, but that is what counts.

I think from what I have read that support behind the scenes
was more forthcoming.

SASless

1st Sep 2013, 01:16

Enhanced Side Winders, Stinger Manpads, Intelligence, and Fuel....but as usual....a bit slow to make the decision but when it was made....some of the items arrived within Six Hours and far more within Twenty Four Hours.

Your Fleet was out of fuel upon arriving at Ascension.....until we diverted a Supertanker with fuel to top off the Fleet and on-shore tankage.

Some interesting reading here......

Significant and Surprising: American Assistance to Great Britain in the Falklands War | Graham Jenkins - Academia.edu (http://www.academia.edu/367903/Significant_and_Surprising_American_Assistance_to_Great_Brit ain_in_the_Falklands_War)

10Watt

1st Sep 2013, 01:25

l wouldn`t know.

But l have read the memoirs of the Vulcan crew and seen the footage

of the burns casualties and that chappy yomping with a flag on his back.

That was for good reason.

An Arab spring ?

With one bunch of cut-throats ousted for another bunch of cut-throats ?

And why?

Oil. Money makes the world go around.

The ancient Greeks had it right, give the word for war by all means but

first kill your own first born.

That `ll settle the feckers down a bit.

BEagle

1st Sep 2013, 07:12

10Watt, US support for the Task Force during the South Atlantic conflict was considerable, but not widely publicised.

The SAS had received 6 Stingers. The only soldier trained to use thm was killed in an aircraft accident; however, his colleagues worked out for themselves how to use the missiles and shot down a Pucara and a Super Puma before the conflict ended.

Then there was that excellent AAM, the AIM-9L...... A vast improvement on the AIM-9G (even with SEAM), the all-aspect '9 Lima' was a game-changer for the Sea Harrier and achieved exceptionally high kill:launch ratios. Most 9 Limas were supplied direct from US war stocks.

Margaret Thatcher said in her memoirs that without the Sidewinder "supplied to us by US Defence Minister Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands."

With regard to Jane Fonda; she was very stupid to be duped into those propaganda photos. She has since apologised, but the lunatic redneck right refuses to accept that....

....whereas mass murderers such as the despicable Lt. William Calley, of My Lai infamy, escaped censure virtually scot-free.....

ORAC

1st Sep 2013, 07:58

Out towards TPMH was an area known as French Camp and once a couple of Mirage IV and a KC135 lobbed in without warning despite Akrotiri being PPR. They made their duty-free trip to the Officers' Mess and departed having cited CENTO agreements as their authority.

So, did they have rights? Do they still have rights? CENTO was dissolved in 1979.

I was at 280SU in Cyprus when the decision to dissolve CENTO was made and a signal sent out o handle all CENTO documents at one grade above their current classification. We had several at SECRET and no means to handle or destroy TS. After an exchange of telephone calls I was told to destroy them... and date the certificate 24 hours ago.....

dagenham

1st Sep 2013, 08:21

Yes i did see the swift boat adverts during the w re-election campaign... Yes i know there are some doubts. Just giving him a little credit for serving in a war zone.

Whatever he has allegidly done pails into insignificance compared to Assad.

Not sure economic arguement bears much fruit hear implosion of most of the semi stable middle east... Egypt, libya and syria will not do much for driving the propsects of oil based economies as the price of oil increases due to threats to suez and wider regional instability.

dragartist

1st Sep 2013, 08:36

Well said Beagle. 10W comments about US support to us during Falklands is out of order. Clearly he did not read every chapter of Roland Whites book. He also needs to read Hutchings.

We should also be grateful for the assistance afforded by the French and others.

Back to Syria:- I am pleased Obama has decided to wait for Congress. That buys time to fully consider what to do. Also for Putin to weigh the evidence from the UN. Hopefully he will fall in line and apply pressure to Assad.

airborne_artist

1st Sep 2013, 08:39

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02658/010913-MATT-ST-web_2658488a.jpg

hanoijane

1st Sep 2013, 08:53

SASless (why do I read that as 'senseless'?)

I'm not going to lecture you on the post-WWII history of Viet Nam. An idiot with a history book can learn everything they need to know about American principles in the region.

Suffice to say, Ms Fonda was an intelligent young woman who supported a people and a cause entirely deserving of her support. Had the American public been similarly brave, they would have saved their country from ridicule, embarrassment. loss, shame and defeat.

As a nation you still haven't recovered from the American War. An entire generation will have to die before you do. Yet you continue to marginalise and denigrate a woman who had the sense to point out what you were doing was wrong, both from the perspective of the Vietnamese and, ultimately, from the perspective of your own country.

For that one action, Jane Fonda will be remembered far longer and with far more affection in SE Asia than anything you or your country has done since. Yes, you can park your C17's up in Noi Bai and wander around the Rex in HCMC in your uniforms, and pretend all is forgiven. And it is. But as nation or as individuals you don't have one one-hundredth of the respect accorded to an aging 75 year old actress from New York City.

Pontius Navigator

1st Sep 2013, 08:55

ORAC, thank you. I wonder if the French read that as a cessation in their rights to use Akrotiri?

Yellow Sun

1st Sep 2013, 10:17

10Watt

the obituary notice of the special relationship and the dates listed of joint

operations, there was one year missing. 1982, the Falklands War.

They gave Jack S**t.

I will add to what has already been posted by saying that the support we received went a great deal further down the line than is generally acknowledged. United States officers at all levels sometimes went out on a limb to help us and we greatly appreciated it.

You are totally wrong.

YS

BEagle

1st Sep 2013, 10:40

Just to brighten up SASless and others' Sunday - the delectable Jane Fonda, voice of reason during the dreadful Viet Nam conflict:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/JF_1_zpsf1062572.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/JF_1_zpsf1062572.jpg.html)

Thankfully, Harold Wislon refused to agree to LBJ's call to commit the UK's armed forces.....probably because of the 1954 Geneva Conference. About the one good thing he ever did for Britain. Unlike the slimy geedubya-poodle Bliar, Wislon was at least prepared to stand up to pressure from a US president.

parabellum

1st Sep 2013, 10:40

hanoijane - Do please make it clear that you are speaking for yourself and your very small following only, you are in no way representative any majority.

Suffice to say, Ms Fonda was an intelligent young woman who supported a people and a cause entirely deserving of her support. Had the American public been similarly brave, they would have saved their country from ridicule, embarrassment. loss, shame and defeat.

Having identified yourself as a communist sympathiser, if not a full blooded communist, you must realise that you have virtually no credibility?

I see you were born around the time the American involvement started in Vietnam, for your information the USA won the military war, it was the South Vietnamese who then threw that away.

parabellum

1st Sep 2013, 10:43

Wislon was at least prepared to stand up to pressure from a US president.

Unfortunate that he couldn't exercise the same fortitude with Russia then BEagle, yes?

chuks

1st Sep 2013, 10:49

An idiot with a history book, or a "useful idiot" sat upon an enemy anti-aircraft gun?

If both idiots were of the female persuasion, then I guess it would have to depend on which one has the bigger tits, but that's just a vulgar pilot taking a wild guess. Well, my wild guess, and one underpinned by Hanoi Jane's later choice of cosmetic chestal embellishment, an obvious move to curry favor with we stupid Viet Nam vets. Did we take up the offered olive branch, though? No, sadly not... it's all this yadda-yadda about "treason" and "stupidity" and "being played like a cheap violin."

"Loss, shame and defeat"? I cannot speak for SASless, but I for myself I can say that when I left, we were winning! Someone must have screwed up there, but I do not blame myself.

Pontius Navigator

1st Sep 2013, 11:22

Parabellum, not sure what you meant there. I seem to recall that aside from the TSR2/F111 debacle he did buy F4s, Buccaneers for the RAF, C130s in pleasingly large numbers. I think he also ordered the Jaguar and the Nimrod. And maybe even the Harrier. Certainly the period 1965-1970 saw a mass of new orders for the RAF.

While he did not initiate the SSBN programme he continued with the re-equipment and deployment notwithstanding pressure from CND and within his own party.

Maybe not for nothing was Healey the self-professed Forces friend.

One could argue dispassionately the Labour, pre-1997, was better for the Services than the Tories. Even post 1997, who ordered the C17s?

HH, true, initially as a stop-gap until the A400 but they did order them (whether contract-hire or purchase). I believe that buying them was less expensive than paying the excess mileage charge that accrued :)

Remember they also bought the C130J for the same reasons.

Heathrow Harry

1st Sep 2013, 11:31

well the C-17's were rented to start with IIRC

SASless

1st Sep 2013, 12:38

Chuks Lad,

I will mail you a book of Bar Chits as an indication of solidarity re your Service and your views on old "Useful Idiots".

I left on my stretcher as we were at the high water mark in Cambodia where we had finally for the first time been allowed to go after the Enemy's source of Supply....something we had never been allowed to do before.

Sadly, those afterwards were also denied the ability to carry the fight to the Enemy as Brother "Claus" had advocated for many years prior to our being involved in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

It would appear the British Parliament has been doing reading some History books themselves and did not like what they saw was about to happen again. Perhaps it is true that those who ignore History are bound to repeat it.

Those who tell us they know best about our Vietnam Experience usually know the least about it.....and certainly did not participate in that experience. I would suggest to them they consider how similar so many of our last episodes have been to that of Vietnam.

Libya, Egypt, and now Syria....all Civil Wars and all completely muddled up by out side powers getting involved or caused by outside powers getting involved.

Obama and Company plainly ignored History....hell...they ignore current events it seems.

I would suggest the following books for those that are genuinely interested on how we came to lose the Vietnam War....because we sure enough did. The Enemy did not beat us.....we beat ourselves. We had a complete failure of Leadership in both our Civilian government and within the Senior Ranks of the Military. Just....as we are seeing today in my view. Thus, my concerns over Libya, Egypt, and now Syria.

"Dereliction of Duty" by H. R. McMaster ISBN 0-06-018795-6
"On Strategy" by Harry G. Summers, Jr. ISBN 0-89141-563-7
"The Army and Vietnam" by Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr. ISBN 0-8018-2863-5
"Westmoreland" by Lewis Sorley ISBN 978-0-547-51826-8
"Thunderbolt" by Lewis Sorley ISBN 0-671-70115-0

HJ.....you must be besotted with the real Hanoi Jane.

Have you sought clinical help for that fixation?

hanoijane

1st Sep 2013, 12:41

Nice picture, BEagle.

But damn you, Sir! Are you a Communist too ?

hanoijane

1st Sep 2013, 12:48

Indeed I have, SAthingy.

My doctor assures me my implants are settling down nicely. Soon I'll be wearing my first bra. Excited!!!!!

Pontius Navigator

1st Sep 2013, 13:39

HJ, why?

If you really want to emulate your heroine, no bra would be the order of the day :)

Seriously, for others, do read the contrarian views that HJ puts forward; they cast a different perspective and are often more realistic than some more extreme views published here.

SASless

1st Sep 2013, 13:49

PN,

I think if you slow down a bit and actually read what is being said....re HJ the original and John Kerry....it is the manner and method of their protest....not the views that have caused the long lasting and strong disapproval of their conduct.

There were honorable ways of protesting the War. Honorable people opposed and protested the War.

These two did not do that.

There lies the difference.

I am sure there are similarities in the way some folks opposed the British Governments actions in Northern Ireland....and some are viewed much the same as we view HJ and JK. Protest is one thing....but there is a line one must not cross before being viewed as giving direct support and assistance to the Enemy during a time of War.

By the way HJ....you are going to have to start sleeping with New Black Panther Party leaders if you wish to have the complete experience. I can refer you to the Shabazz brothers and a few others if you are interested.

Not that I would recommend that as a wise choice of conduct however.

Some idea of just how screwed up HJ the First is.....I have seen Fruitcakes that were not as nutty.

Jane Fonda said her biggest regret was not sleeping with Che Guevara | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2033795/Jane-Fonda-said-biggest-regret-sleeping-Che-Guevara.html)

NutLoose

1st Sep 2013, 14:18

Seems the ex Iranian leader Rafsanjani is now saying that the Syrians gassed their own peeps.... Not exactly the solidarity Assad would be hoping.

BEagle

1st Sep 2013, 14:19

HJ, no, I am not a Communist!

.

chuks

1st Sep 2013, 14:24

They have let Bradley Manning have both his sex change and access to the internet? What, oh what, are things coming to?

SASless, you better hurry up with those bar cards; I feel a heavy bout of self-medication coming on.

NutLoose

1st Sep 2013, 14:28

Bradley Manning have both his sex change

With luck they'll have Spaghetti and Meatballs on the menu for him the day after his op followed by Spottied Dick and Custard for pudding.

edit

Changed to name from Spotty to Spottied to appease LB even though in my neck of the woods it is known as the former.:ok:

Toadstool

1st Sep 2013, 14:29

The term swiftboating (also spelled swift-boating or swift boating) is an American neologism used pejoratively to describe an unfair or untrue political attack. The term is derived from the name of the organization "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (SBVT, later the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) because of their widely publicized[1] then discredited campaign against 2004 US Presidential candidate John Kerry.[2][3][4]

I understand that some people don't like Kerry because he had the moral courage to speak out against the war, but to try to discredit him means that a number of other people, by association, were also discredited. A shameful act against patriots just for political gain.

langleybaston

1st Sep 2013, 14:35

Does the custard help with the spotty dick? I ask because I prefer butter and brown sugar on it but that has not worked so far.

hanoijane

1st Sep 2013, 14:53

PN,

Pert nipples are the next op. Don't rush me...

chuks,

I deeply resent your suggestion that I am Chelsea Elizabeth in disguise. I'm far hotter.

SASless,

SAS, you blame your leaders for your country's failures in the American War. You're wrong.

You were - mostly - competently led and well equipped. Strategically you made few mistakes. You won the vast majority of the engagements in which you participated. Why, then, did you fail in your goal? And not only in VN, but in Iraq and Afghanistan too?

Sorry, but it's the guys on the ground who failed you. The guys who thought a 'free fire zone' meant killing every living thing in sight. The guys who were so poorly trained and led at squad level that they preferred to pop a few grenades and burn a house rather than to clear it properly and with due regard for its likely inhabitants. The guys who considered the appropriate response to a few VC in a village was to napalm the entire damn thing. The guys who assumed every male between the age of 16-60 not in South Vietnamese uniform was an enemy and treated them accordingly.

Yes, the Communists were horrendously cruel in the South to those they viewed as non-supporters. But they were perceived by the Vietnamese as 'our bast*rds' rather than the 'invading bast*rds'. No-one likes an invader, especially not when you have the history VN possesses. I think you'll find the same perspective exists in Afghanistan too.

You lost the war at an individual level. You failed to show compassion, respect, even love for the people you were there to serve and protect. To you, they were just 'gooks' of one hue or another. And still you do it. Listen to the voices on YouTube as you 'take out' your enemies. You learn nothing.

If you find comfort in blaming your leaders or your media or Ms Fonda for your loss, I'm happy for you. But you're pointing your finger in the wrong direction. Your failure was that of the ordinary soldier or airman, and his alone.

NutLoose

1st Sep 2013, 15:23

Syria crisis: 'Blair to blame for Cameron downfall' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10278424/Syria-crisis-Blair-to-blame-for-Cameron-downfall.html)

SASless

1st Sep 2013, 16:24

HJ,

You are talking silly now.

Read....it enlightens one's mind.

But....one must read from credible sources that provide factual accounts.

You are just like HJ the First.....when you talk as you do now.....being a useful Idiot.

You were not there....you do not really know what went on...and your intellectual curiosity is such you have not studied the War.

You quote popular myths and cling to them despite being offered the truth.

You probably have stood at the Military Museum in Saigon....looked at the Chinook and read the sign in front of it that describes the Radar System that was installed on it....and thought it to be true.

Perhaps when you stood in the Visitors Center at the Hoa Lo Prison (Hanoi Hilton), you skipped over the photo of Norm Gaddis being taken prisoner....Norm spent many years there as a POW and over coffee we have discussed what his time there was like.

Yes, My Lai happened, and yes Helicopter Crews flying that day stopped some of the killing by offering to shoot US Soldiers who were murdering innocent Vietnamese. They went on to report the Atrocities to their Commanders but the US Army tried to cover it up. Colin Powell, as you may recall as a Major tasked to investigate the initial allegations six months after the event, covered up the event by saying it was all a fabrication.

It was a war of reunification that we should never have gotten into.

We owe that to Harry Truman and his about face on the Roosevelt Doctrine of ending European Colonialism at the end of WWII. Roosevelt would never have supported the French and would have supported Ho and Giap over the French.

We were right in one regard however.....it was a war that helped bring the downfall of Communism in Europe, greatly altered the belligerency of the Chinese, and kept most of that part of the world from falling under the control of communist governments.

Can you discuss the difference between the Westmoreland Strategy and Abrams Strategy? At what point did we actually lose the War? What were the factors that lead to the Vietnamese Armed Forces being so unable to counter the NVA after the US Forces departed?

If you can answer those questions you can answer why Iraq and Afghanistan have gone wrong...along with Libya and Egypt and if we persist....Syria too.

racedo

1st Sep 2013, 16:31

I understand that some people don't like Kerry because he had the moral courage to speak out against the war,

He claimed he threw his medals away but then appears they were someone elses.........

Toadstool

1st Sep 2013, 16:42

Quote of the Day (via The New York Times): Homs resident: “Man, I wish Bush was the president,” he said. “He would have reacted right away. He may have invaded Cyprus or Jordan instead of Syria by mistake, but you know he would have done something at least.”

Indeed

chuks

1st Sep 2013, 17:32

We have us a hottie who is a scholar of the Viet Nam War? If she or he or whatever says so, I suppose so, but, really, as SASless said, just before he stole my bar card, "You had to be there."

Scholars argue to this day over the meaning of that, whether SASless meant, as many veterans still maintain, that one had to participate in the grand cluster-f*ck that was the American Viet Nam War in order to come to much of an understanding of what it was like for the average GI, or else he was simply stating the obvious, that I had to be there, instead of in Port Harcourt as I was, to keep hold of my bar card. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and apply his statement to the war.

Jane, you might want to spend your dosh on a set of books instead of a set of fake, albeit pert, nipples. (You might find your new nipples disappointingly numb, although that would make a good match for the quality of your thought.)

Viet Nam is made up of various ethnic groups, so that one really could argue that South Viet Nam was being invaded by North Viet Nam, as two somewhat different groups with very different desires.

I don't think too many people in South Viet Nam really went around muttering "Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh; NLF is gonna win," under their breath, let alone screech it out at full volume as your fellow believer did, but that is just another guess of mine.

hanoijane

1st Sep 2013, 17:40

chuks,

OMG, you said the 'you had to be there' thing! That IMMEDIATELY negates anything you said from there on in. ROTFL!!!!!

SASless, honey,

This is my last comment on this because my mommy won't let me stay up late talking to bad people on the Internets. And it's only the Internets so no-one really gives a hoot anyway...

You don't speak Vietnamese. This I guarantee. You still don't understand either the people or the county. This too I guarantee. You seek answers in a neat package. This I understand.

Almost everyone in 'South' Viet Nam of a certain age has a story to tell about the disproportionate use of force by Americans during the American war. Even those on the side of the Republic. Now they're either all fantasists or there is truth in their tales. You choose which you prefer.

The vast majority of the literature written by 'Vets' supports the hypothesis that most neither knew or cared why they were there, that winning 'hearts and minds' was not exactly a prime concern, and that compassion or respect for their adversary simply didn't exist. Or are you telling me they were all wrong? Again, take your pick.

The failure of the American supported regime to gain the trust of the local population created the very basis for the eventual collapse of the Republic. They trusted the other side more. Game over.

Yes, I'm certain there were good people on your side. Just not enough to make a difference.

Like most in Viet Nam today I have no real interest in wars past. As I keep being told, I'm part of a 'soft generation who couldn't do what we did'. And they're probably right. I have never seen the Hanoi Hilton and only visited the War Crimes Museum 'cos it was on the curriculum. The Chinook is a recent addition (4-5 years ago?) it wasn't there during my visit.

Again, SASless, the people who make the difference are the people who are actually on the ground, doing the fighting. Making sure they have the right mindset is a lesson you need to learn if you intend to keep on wandering into other peoples wars. Send scared barely-educated kids with their heads full of nonsense and you'll end up with another Viet Nam.

And you have, haven't you?

Now, it's time for my cuddle. May I go now?

FATTER GATOR

1st Sep 2013, 17:54

What does ROTFL mean?

Broadsword***

1st Sep 2013, 17:59

Sorry, but it's the guys on the ground who failed you. The guys who thought a 'free fire zone' meant killing every living thing in sight.

In my experience, some of them were a little too trigger-happy in Iraq and Afghanistan too.

racedo

1st Sep 2013, 18:06

What does ROTFL mean?

Rolling on the floor laughing not to be confused with ROTFLMFAO -Rolling on the floor laughing my fat ass off

Pontius Navigator

1st Sep 2013, 18:25

HJ, I am sorry to say that what I read and saw of contemporary accounts accords more with your view than SASLess.

One thing that the 'good guys' hated was the bitter and cunning irregular warfare fought by the bad guys - digging pits, inserting poisoned and sharpened bamboo canes designed to spear the boot going in and ankle coming out.

The ingenuity of using a 105mm shell to lob a second 105mm shell up to 5 km.

OK, keeping prisoners in cages wasn't nice but they could not risk large WW2 style POW camps - look what happened when a US Buffalo Hunter mission found a camp.

Popular culture too, with a fairly amusing, if you weren't there, RT chatter between an F4 flight dropping a load of ordnance and the FACs low down.

And HJ has it right when they say the NVA were 'our' bad guys. We would have felt the same had Clinton sent US Peace Keepers into Northern Ireland.

One vet I met, an AF WO was ashamed to be an American when he returned from VN. He had returned expecting a joyous home-coming to find instead a Jane Fonda welcome instead. Many in the US were anti-war because of the body bags. Were the soldiers in VN heroic fighters or risk averse and resorting to massive fire-power?

SASless

1st Sep 2013, 19:45

If Jane really understood the War, She/He/It would understand the great failure that Tet 1968 was for the North Vietnamese who fully expected the Southerners to rise up in concert with the NVA. The South did not....the NVA got their asses kicked proper!

Giap himself admits that.

In fact....had we pursued the enemy right back into his sanctuaries and homeland....the War would have ended right there.

We failed to capitalize on their miscalculation.

Old Walter stood there in Hue City wearing a Helmet and Flak Vest and told the American Public the War was lost despite the abject failure of the NVA.

Jane, I hate to burst your bubble, but it was not the individual soldier that lost the War....it was the senior leadership who lost it despite the performance of the Individual Soldier.

Play your word games...but the only person you are fooling is yourself.

I have been back to Vietnam several times and have travelled from Dien Bien Phu and along the Chinese Border through all the country down to the Delta. A more gracious and kind People one cannot meet anywhere. We have talked with our former enemies....in chance encounters all during our travels and have had not one bad experience.

Oddly, the common response is they harbor hatred of the French but not the American's. How would you explain that? Did we kill them nicely and the French did not? They beat the French and Us as well....so why the ambivalence?

I would gladly retire there if it were possible to do so...but family obligations prevent that currently. It is a beautiful country, filled with history, and is progressing well despite the War.

We get a better reception there than we do in a lot of other places around the World so we must not have done them too wrong while we were there.

But...you cling to your myths and bull****.....don't let facts and the truth get in your way.

PN,

Anyone that ever fought the NVA respect them as they were very good Soldiers. Depending which year of the War and where you were decided what you experienced. If you were dealing with local VC units or VC Units augmented with NVA troops.....or dealing with Main Force NVA units in Regiment or Division size, or NVA armored units, then the War could be altogether different.

Read up on the Aussies fight at Long Tan....something we commemorated quite recently.....that will give you an idea what Artillery and Air Strikes does to save small units from being over run by numerically superior enemy units.

You could serious discussions of the conduct of the War and see how Westmoreland embraced the notion of H and I Fires over the objections of his subordinate Artillery commanders.

The conduct of the War in Vietnam and that in Iraq have way too many parallels. They both also show similar failures to that in Afghanistan.

No War has ever been fought efficiently or without undue violence and mayhem. Just last night I watched a documentary about "Bloody Sunday" in Ireland. If you want to rehash old Wars and try to score cheap points and not have a serious discussion then not much need to keep pointing out the misconceptions you have.

There are some of you here that simply renew our faith that Colonel Blimp is alive and well....which is a shame really. Most that come here are bright enough to see the truth when they find it.

You and Jane are not amongst that group it would appear.

500N

1st Sep 2013, 19:54

" they harbor hatred of the French"

I have heard that as well. Maybe a carry over from the Colonial days ?

I also know plenty of people who have gone back and met the enemy,
sometimes the exact people they fought such as at Long Tan and respect
all round between them from what you saw and heard.

SASless

1st Sep 2013, 20:00

Some myths that PN and Jane still embrace I am sure!

Vietnam War Myths (http://www.rjsmith.com/war_myth.html)

https://sphotos-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/971500_470130886427840_155330933_n.jpg

chuks

1st Sep 2013, 20:28

Well, there you have it: "scared, barely educated kids." Yes, I guess Jane would have had "to have been there," to know how incorrect that notion is!

Well, let's not confuse HJ with facts, while she's either rolling on the floor or else searching for a cuddle. Heck, perhaps both at the same time!

hanoijane

1st Sep 2013, 20:45

No, chuks, I'm playing with my numb nipples, now leave me alone!

You want me babe, I know you do.

SASless,

Mommy said I can talk to you once more if you promise not to say 'you had to be there'. It makes me giggle uncontrollably and is bad for my surgically enhanced bosom.

Errr... where to start? Tet? OK. Yes, Tet.

That was about tweaking the American tail, but it was also about removing from circulation a significant percentage of the southern communist party - the VC - who you will know were not well thought of by those in the north. NVA regulars were hardly involved. It was a VC led series of actions. You do know the difference, right?

To put it simplistically, the northerners hung the southerners out to dry. If it worked, the north would take advantage and roll on down. If it didn't, a shock for the Yankees combined with the removal of a potential headache for the north. As you know, the VC were pretty much decimated, to be replaced by a northern trained cadre over the next few years. Problem solved.

Remember, the north was playing the long game. You weren't. When the war ended there was no communist party in the south to deal with, just well trained northerners. Smart, huh?

What the hell were you doing at DBP? That wasn't your war.

Ah, at the Chinese border too? Perhaps seeing where the Chinese (mis)adventure was played out? Another bloody nose for an invader.

As for the Vietnamese being nice to you... well, they are a polite people who accept the vagaries of life with a smile. And you're an old man now. No reason to harbour a grudge. The elderly are respected in Asia.

I assure you they tell the French that they like them and that it's the Americans who were bad. It's just a game. Offend no-one, at least not when they're standing in front of you.

True story. About five years ago I was at My Son 'cos I have a passing interest in Chiem Thanh architecture. I come across this western fellow crying like a baby next to an area still roped off because it's yet to be cleared. Long story short, it turns out he was one of the guys who dropped ordnance on this place when it was used by the VC, and now he returns, sees it's beautiful and feels ashamed.

A small crowd of local tourists has gathered. They ask what's wrong and I translate. Much sympathy and touching occurs. Western guy goes away thanking everyone. After he's gone, one guy turns to the other and says 'Weak bast*rds the Americans', and the crowd mumbles its agreement.

The point is, the Vietnamese don't care about you, or the Chinese or the Russians or Communism or Capitalism or even the damn war. It's past. Gone. History. All they care about is themselves. And, on a good day, their family. And that's it.

So swim around in angst and misery all you wish. View your world through 45 year old glasses. Continue to blame the wrong people. Fail to learn the lessons - though, to be fair, you seem to have learnt some.

I've never really known where I stand on this issue. Do I admire the Americans who come back? Do I pity them? I still don't have an answer. Probably never will.

One thing I suspect we agree on. When I first arrived in VN back in the 1990's someone told me that 'You may leave Viet Nam, but Viet Nam will never leave you' I think it's a quote from a Graham Greene novel but have never bothered to check. Anyway, I thought it was utter nonsense, but they were right. Viet Nam has my heart and, I suspect, has seen the best of me. Yet it's not my home. I wish it were.

At different times we've both flown in the same sky. I think that will have to do.

With respect and with kind regards,

Jane.

Yes mommy, the bad man is going away now...

glad rag

1st Sep 2013, 21:06

As Captain Blackadder said,

Thank fcuk for the ignore option, Baldrick. Over the top laddie, and onwards into history......

Nope you just don't get it hj, you never will. :(

SASless

1st Sep 2013, 21:21

Jane failed math it appears....and must be reading Communist Party Talking Points.

He/She/It skips right over the 70,000 NVA Troops involved in that soiree back in 68.

Ten PAVN Battalions and Six Battalions of VC attacked Hue City by itself.

The end result of the Tet 68 Offensive......

The Tet Offensive was a tactical defeat for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces. The Tet Offensive is widely viewed as a turning point in the war despite the high cost to the communists (approximately 32,000 killed and about 5,800 captured) for what appeared at the time to be small gains.

A scenic place called Khe Shanh took place at about the same time and that was no small bit of fun.

If Jane put down the Daily Worker and read Summers, Sorley, McMaster the light might come on.

But....too true about the Ignore feature.....there is a seat waiting for HJ in the Peanut Gallery.

One more fanciful yarn like those of today and he will be out of here like a Rat from an Acquaduct!

It is plain he has been indoctrinated by the Communist Propagandists and thus there is no hope in discussing anything with him.

Pontius Navigator

1st Sep 2013, 21:29

SASLess, I am bright enough to see what you are.

hanoijane

1st Sep 2013, 21:50

OMG, it's like a never ending headache...

Khe Sanh (it's Khe Sanh, not Khe Shanh) was NOT the Tet offensive. You were talking about the Tet offensive, right?

I know 'you had to be there'.

Seriously, are you following any of this? I mean, I'm trying my very best to structure things in a logical manner for you. An a leads to b leads to c kinda thing. Yet you run off at tangents.

Go for the ignore list. It's the kindest option for us both.

Edit:

Oh my goodness, you're actually quoting from CIA Dept of Defence files, which were themselves compiled from papers produced in the field in '68? No chance of bias there then...

glad rag,

If you've something to contribute, feel free. If you want to add me to an ignore list, please do. Just don't feel obligated to tell me about it.

parabellum

2nd Sep 2013, 03:59

No Pontius, wasn't thinking of provision of aircraft and won't mention the TSR2 otherwise pr00n will be along to give us a lecture!

I was thinking more about Aden, giving the Russians the warm water port they so desperately desired, remember, the first people into Aden after the British left were the STASI, who then presided over a bloodbath of biblical proportions, (that somehow didn't get fully reported in the UK), and prepared the way for the arrival of the Russian navy, equally badly reported in the UK. Additionally it was Wilson who forbade the use of the main armament on the Saladin armoured car in Aden on the day that twenty one British soldiers were killed. If you pick through the history of that time there are, sadly, many incidents where you would be forgiven for wondering just who was giving the orders.

SASless

2nd Sep 2013, 04:53

HJ....tis off to the Peanut Gallery....Bon Voyage!

chuks

2nd Sep 2013, 06:31

When I was young and stupid, we held the best hangover cure to be yet more alcohol. That did work, sort of....

So here we are, chewing the rag over a long-lost war, Viet Nam, when the only argument is about how or why we lost, not over the fact that, yes, we did lose, in that the Republic of Viet Nam, our chosen ally, finally was conquered and ceased to exist.

Would language lessons have helped us then? Perhaps, but it's not quite like high school Spanish to learn, Vietnamese, is it? Arabic is another tough one: what's Arabic for "Hände hoch! Stehen bleiben!" and how should one remember that under the stress of wondering who wearing what is under that burkha?

General Sherman may never have said, in so many words, that "War is hell," but he did state that "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it." One of our most popular military correspondents, Ernie Pyle, to read his stuff now, one gets the idea that some engagements consisted of handing out Hershey Bars to orphans instead of killing lots and lots of Germans and perhaps a few civilians as well. If that isn't an attempt to refine the cruelty of war, then what is it? Those were simpler times, though, when we were shielded from truth by distance and censorship. Today, thanks in part to one little dweeb currently basking in his fifteen minutes of fame, we know far too much about truth, and that is making it very, very awkward to go to war, even if it may seem that some folks really do need killing.

In there somewhere must also be the notion that in war, yes Jane, one uses "disproportionate force." That is just common sense, otherwise one should expect the policeman to drop his gun and pull a knife to fight someone armed with same.

In the time of the Viet Nam War, our indigenous chuckle-heads made the NLF and the NVA out to be the good guys, and the American military and our allies to be the bad guys, hence the original Hanoi Jane rooting for "them against us." Okay, there was the odd Communist massacre, as at Hue, brutal, carefully planned so wide-ranging, and done in cold blood, but there was nothing that could not be either brushed aside by comparisons with My Lai, or else politely ignored or contradicted.

Now, though, it's pretty hard to root for folks who want to see women killed for riding bicycles and such-like, (the shameless hussies)! I guess this is why we are hanging back now from taking that traditional hangover cure for defeat, plunging into yet another foreign adventure, while even the Janes do not seem to be able to figure out who to root for. Of course they know to protest against whatever it is we shall do, as soon as we figure out what that is. If we lob a few Tomahawks into Bashir's bedroom then that is unprovoked aggression using disproportionate force, but if we do nothing then that shall be a failure to support the brave fighters for Syrian freedom (and their right to keep women out of school and off bicycles).

Should we have a whip-round to buy Hanoi Jane a one-way ticket to Damascus, to do some anti-war, pro-peace demonstrating? I am sure there are photo ops a-plenty there, sat in the back of a "technical" on a 37-mm. antiaircraft gun. Why, yes, there she is, on You-Tube, grinning, gurning, waving happily at the camera in the Apache... but then the picture blossoms white as the soundtrack erupts in an argument about who authorized the use of a Hellfire on such a low-value target. Yep, "disproportionate force" once again, as if to say that we shall never learn.

500N

2nd Sep 2013, 06:38

" When I was young and stupid, we held the best hangover cure to be yet more alcohol. That did work, sort of...."

+ 1

Agree, then after a couple of drinks to get rid of the hang over,
add some food and water - water in copious amounts :O

Pontius Navigator

2nd Sep 2013, 06:46

Parabellum thanks, didn't know about the Saladin. Agree we pulled out of Aden but was it only a part of the East of Suez bit of simply it became an unsustainable drain?

We deployed through Aden out bound and 3 months later, when we were recalled by Wilson, now Prime Minister, we planned to return that way too.

Scant hours before we departed Malaysia we were ordered to route Bahrain, Akrotiri routing via Iran and Turkey.

I later saw papers urging Wilson to stay east of Suez as we could do things in the region that the US could not. We had been recalled as we were weakening our contribution to NATO.

Wilson really wanted to retain the Singapore base and as you will recall it we didn't really leave east of Suez until 1974.

Cows getting bigger

2nd Sep 2013, 07:17

..... And we've actaully had a permanent presence there since 1991

ORAC

2nd Sep 2013, 07:33

The 5 ways that Congress is splitting on Syria (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/01/the-5-ways-that-congress-is-splitting-on-syria/)

Pontius Navigator

2nd Sep 2013, 08:08

CGB, IIRC the RN retained a number of married quarters at Sembawang throughout.

hanoijane

2nd Sep 2013, 08:09

chuks, honey,

You silly sausage! Technicals are so 1980's. No-one with any style would be seen on one now! Today's must-have accessory is an Igla. The colour co-ordinates so well with my new Diesel jeans!

I fully support the right, if things get really bad, for the citizens of a country to kill each other if they wish. To fight for their own personal versions of freedom, be that to ride a bike or to stop people riding bikes.

War is simply a disagreement gone physical, usually on a national or international scale. And it only ends when one side kills sufficient numbers of the other to ensure they lose interest in continuing the disagreement. Now, with Totaler Krieg, Kürzester Krieg being the flavour of the day, everyone gets to play, even those without the means to defend themselves.

So is getting involved as a third party the smart option? Possibly, if you choose the 'right' side or if you have something to gain down the road if they win. But you shouldn't pretend you're doing it to 'stop the killing' 'cos, by golly, the only way you're going to do that is by helping to kill lots and lots of the other side.

If the UK, the USA, Russia or whoever really feel they have something to gain in Syria (and I suspect they do) then sure, wander along and choose a side. You can employ 'targeted warfare' with 'minimum collateral damage'. I'm sure it'll help lots. But remember, all you're doing is killing people and scaring the remainder into submission. You aren't destroying ideas, concepts, philosophies. And those are your real enemies.

One thing's for sure. The values espoused by both sides in this particular conflict will live beyond the eventual outcome, whatever it is. And you'll have to do this all over again, somewhere else, until you discover a more permanent way of solving this particular disagreement.

Enjoy your war :-)

chuks

2nd Sep 2013, 10:45

And you have been shot at how many times?

hanoijane

2nd Sep 2013, 11:19

Oh, a few. Nothing very dramatic, though I tell my children otherwise. But I like to think it was nothing personal. I'm sure it was the people around me they were aiming at.

I suspect you're going to tell me I was wrong :-)

chuks

2nd Sep 2013, 13:02

So, when little Malcolm X John Lennon asks you, you just brush it off, getting shot at? Whoah!

You know, you could be a pilot, an aviator even, the way you sling the bull. Do you happen to own a hat, a baseball cap, with "scrambled eggs" on its brim, and/or a very large wristwatch? Anyway, you will fit right in here, but watch out for SASless; he has very poor impulse control!

SASless

2nd Sep 2013, 13:26

We had been recalled as we were weakening our contribution to NATO.

It would appear that has been a very successful initiative considering the results.

Chuks,

I once had a TV Crew from CBS try to get on my aircraft and go with us "to where the action is..." back during the time Creighton turned us loose to do what the Army does best. My FE escorted them off the aircraft in a most rude manner at my behest. At that time we were not going were we were going and the CBS guys were not on the Guest List.

At the end of the day, as it would happen, we were fueling to do one more sortie....going out to fetch wounded and deliver ammo to some 11th ACR folks that were in amongst them. Up shows the same CBS film crew asking for a ride back towards Saigon.

Load'em Up sez I to the FE....who asked why....as we were not going back towards Saigon....to be told "Trust Me!"

When we landed in the LZ to a very warm welcome from both sides engaged there....the FE got to do the "Chunk the Bastards off the aircraft"...part two.

We got our wounded and off we went leaving the CBS crew there.

They begged for rides out for three days....begged. Seems there just wasn't room for them for some reason.

I guess being in the middle of a firefight changes one's views a bit.

HJ is safely ensconced in the Peanut Gallery and Peace reins.

hanoijane

2nd Sep 2013, 13:32

chuks,

No, no, you misunderstand. For my children I embellish. I'm a steely-eyed hero, fighting off the beastly enemy.

When serving in 'a military' (obviously not yours) no-one actually shot at me. I had no war. I just flew around pretending and, gosh, it was fun.

I was shot at afterwards when I was doing another job. Whisper it... 'Press'.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Sep 2013, 13:47

Stuffy:
Paul Craig Roberts' shrill noise about how America was about to start a war with Iran, back in 2007 or so, and crying wolf at the top of his lungs damaged his credibility. His cabinet experiences over thirty years ago are useful for his efforts at making points on how things happen at "high levels" but they do not provide him insights into the current states of play.

He's wrong more often than he isn't. He continues his squealing for the benefit of anyone who will put his byline on an article. I still like to read his stuff, as it isn't standard MSM output, but have no illusions about how close his predictions are to reality.

As to the "defer to Congress" move in progress, I am glad for that. If Assad is about to get whacked in a few weeks, he has plenty of time to move things around, a series of events that I am sure will be watched carefully. There is also more time for the UN team to provide more information, of whatever utility.

If he won't, in the end, get whacked then I lose no sleep. I remain disappointed in President Obama for painting himself into a corner with the red line gambit. Self inflicted wound, that.

The question remains: if the Arab League will not come out in favor of a strike on Assad, a show of support that was provided when the Libya thing went down, what in the name of all that is beer is the reason that our President feels compelled to do so, and the French? Something politically is going all crossed wires, as I see it. The political element of war is as important, even more important, than the things that go BOOM when fired.

Pontius Navigator

2nd Sep 2013, 15:36

:D

The political element of war is as important, even more important, than the things that go BOOM when fired.

What exactly will our leaders do for an encore after they flatten the place with TLAM?

Let us suppose that all CW is eliminated. Do they then say 'Job Done or do they have a Plan B?

Over 60 years ago the US Central Staffs wrote a war plan for war with the USSR. It covered every contingency that they could think of from pre-emptive strike, to long drawn out slug fest, to perhaps least bad option of immediate capitulation before the US and her allies had mobilised and were capable of policing and running the defeated nation.

That planning was conspicuous by its absence in Iraq.

500N

2nd Sep 2013, 15:42

"That planning was conspicuous by its absence in Iraq."

And Afghanistan ?

chuks

2nd Sep 2013, 16:42

One of our first casualties, after the formal shooting had stopped, was an Army sergeant who had been tasked with handing out candy to Iraqi children. He was busy doing that when someone sneaked up and shot him. That was one of the first clues that Rumsfeld had overlooked a few things when planning this adventure, particularly, "What happens after the surrender?"

I guess Rumsfeld figured it was going to be like the liberation of Paris back in 1944, when the happy Parisians greeted us with flowers.

"A steely-eyed hero" with fake tits... that sounds just like Bradley Manning to me, at least, once he gets his op approved.

I am afraid Jane's hero is going to have to fight off a few beastly enemies unless he/she gets a private shower, or at least soap on a rope.

Check out Dr. Demento's "Pencil-neck Geek," because I hear that song playing in my head every time I look at that dweebish Bradley wearing his/her silly little beret. And just whom is he/she planning to seduce in that cheap blonde wig? Going cruising for blind gays, are we?

hanoijane

2nd Sep 2013, 19:41

Hmmm... I'm guessing you're not wearing your Gay Pride t shirt tonight, chuks. Are you always this grumpy when it's in the wash?

I'm sure young Bradley/Chelsea is a fine fellow/woman. Though what he/she was doing with an TS - SCI clearance after only a year or so in the army and being very open about his/her 'issues' I have no idea.

And you're surprised it all ended in tears?

You do know Dr Demento claims a degree in 'Ethnomusicology'? Is that even a word?

SASless

2nd Sep 2013, 21:11

Post Victory....things were going fine for part of a day.....but when that Genius Paul Bremer fired the entire Iraqi Government, stopped all retirement pay, and decided to clean house of all Bathist Party Members.....well shall we agree things went to Hell in a Hand Basket?

Jay Garner, much like George Patton following WWII, was going to continue to man the Iraqi Military, Police, and other government agencies using the existing personnel.....and gradually removing those culpable in crimes against the Iraqi People during the Saddam Regime.

He got replaced and Bremer showed up and took charge.

That was the cause of the Insurgency pure and simple.

It was not as much lack of planning....it was an over abundance of stupidity....something the American Government seems to have an excess of no matter which party is in power.

air pig

2nd Sep 2013, 23:13

SASless:

Jay Garner, much like George Patton following WWII, was going to continue to man the Iraqi Military, Police, and other government agencies using the existing personnel.....and gradually removing those culpable in crimes against the Iraqi People during the Saddam Regime.

Why the hell politicians don't learn the lessons of history is beyond me, that's what happened in Germany in 1945 and then a de-nazification programme started and those who were known to have committed crimes hunted down brought to trial and numerous were executed.

It really is the old saying 'If you do not learn from the lessons of history you are destined to relearn them'. Politicians are generally a**eholes who need to be hit over the head with a pick axe handle at regular intervals. Their inability to learn has cost many men women and children their lives and our respective armed forces too many deaths and the 'loss of blood and treasure'. May the politicians bow their heads in shame.

RiP to the fallen and speedy recovery to the injured both physically and many of those with the unseen mental injury war brings.

500N

2nd Sep 2013, 23:19

Air Pig

Re Germany, wasn't that run by the military ?

I think in regards to Iraq, you also had to include Bureaucrats in that.

I would love to know why Paul Bremer did what he did and what the thought
process behind it was. I vaguely remember reading that he didn't listen to
the military commanders on the ground and had a very frosty relationship
with them.

Any clues from anyone ? I haven't read many books on that yet.

air pig

2nd Sep 2013, 23:26

550 N

Re Germany, wasn't that run by the military ?

I think in regards to Iraq, you also had to include Bureaucrats in that

It had a military commissioner but local things like infrastructure was run in the way it was before the surrender. The big thing was Germany was in four parts and each was run differently in the west, in the east the Russians just hovered up all the former Nazi's and used them to their advantage and people like Wollwebber and the communists that survived the concentration camps etc took over.

500N

2nd Sep 2013, 23:33

Thanks

Your post prompted me to look it up again.

Notice the military commanders that didn't have a civilian equivalent
for a while after the war in Germany ended.

Allied-occupied Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied-occupied_Germany)

air pig

2nd Sep 2013, 23:39

500 n,

A model in itself which again history apart from telling us what happened also tells us what our successes and failures are, Iraq was a failure to learn from history. In Iraq an added complication was outside interference from other countries and in country religious factionalism and short of banning religion (what a good idea) you would still have had an unstable state.

500N

2nd Sep 2013, 23:46

Agree.

I would say, as you would know being ex mil, people with time on their hands
with no control cause problems.

How many did they sack and so were unemployed ?

Millions.

I somehow doubt the or any uprising / insurgency would
have gained so much momentum so quickly if they had
been gainfully employed.

Just my HO.

air pig

3rd Sep 2013, 00:00

Stupidity in itself sacking people who knew the local infrastructure and how it worked. Iraq like Germany, you in effect had to be a member of the ruling party to get on, that doesn't mean you are a torturer or corrupted, just trying to live a daily life for your family. By removing those people chaos of not being able to run water and power brings the population to its knees and trouble flares when people cannot feed their family.

Your opinion in my view is totally correct, unless you give people hope of a better life in that situation you negate the reason for war from the start and has been proved caused a humanitarian disaster.

SASless

3rd Sep 2013, 05:08

Hey....put yourself in their shoes!

Your country gets invaded, defeated militarily, the government is there but leaderless, the Coalition forces guard only the Oil Ministry and Petroleum Assets. Anarchy breaks out and the Coalition does not have enough troop strength or Contingency Plans to cope with the problem.

Then along comes Paul Bremer who chucks the previously selected Leader of the country out of office, fires the government, disbands the Police and Military, terminates salaries, pensions, and does not seize or secure all of the arms, munitions, artillery, and explosives left over from the War.

Now...you reckon a guy whose country has been invaded, occupied, and is being run by foreigners and people who he does not like for any number of reasons....who is now unemployed, broke financially, has no hope of work, no source of income, but does have his AK-47 and RPG....is going to be a Happy Camper?

I am just a dumb ass old helicopter pilot but even I can see all that might cause a problem for some folks.

Paul Bremer, George Bush et al did not.

Yes the Insurgency took off....like a Rocket!

If the Police had been retained, the military retained, along with the civil servants....then things would have been a lot better. They would have had jobs, would have been running their own country, and would have been a part of bringing the country back to life. Ridding the ranks of Baathists who had perpetrated crimes could have been done in an orderly fashion over time. They would have had no reason to fight the Coalition forces as they did the way things took place.

Look at the situation we find ourselves in today....Libya a mess, Egypt in turmoil but fighting Radical Islamists but not being supported by Obama, and now the dildo butt wants to attack Syria......pure darn Genius I would say!

Every thing the guy has done has played right into the hands of Al Qaeda and other Radical Islamic groups.....and has done so way to nicely to be completely a product of miscalculation or by accident.

At least the Egyptian Military are fighting the Muslim Brotherhood and its excesses.....but the MB will succeed in Libya and in time probably win out in Syria. The Iranians are on a roll here. They shall be the dominant power in the Middle East within a few years.

We can thank Jimmy Carter for kick starting that.

500N

3rd Sep 2013, 05:16

SaSless

Oh yes, I think we would all have done what they did in Iraq if it was our country. Well, I would no qualms about it. I am just glad if everything turns
to crap in this country I have some training to fall back on that would allow
me to be effective.

Re Egypt and "At least the Egyptian Military are fighting the Muslim Brotherhood and its excesses....."

Imagine if the US did NOT have so much tied up in Egypt in terms of
military sales etc etc etc. Their was an interesting article about this in
one of the papers when Obama said the US would stop supply of XYZ
military equipment etc. Well it kind of pointed out that it wasn't as easy
as all that because the pipeline and lead time was so long.

I wonder if the US was not so involved they (Obama) might have tried
harder to get the MB back in !!!

Eclectic

3rd Sep 2013, 08:03

After two years of civil war and with the deeply engrained differences partition is now inevitable. It could just follow the facts on the ground, be a treaty setting up 3 countries or could be a loose federation.
Kurds: northern enclaves
Shia/Alawite: Damascus, Homs, coastal villages.
Sunni: Euphrates valley. Aleppo region.

Much is made that the opposition are islamic nutters. This is an exaggeration.
There are between six and ten thousand fighters in the islamic forces. But they vary in conviction. Many are there because they had more and better kit. Many are just devout Some salafists and some jihadists.
There are about 150,000 opposition fighters who are non salafist/jihadist.

Pontius Navigator

3rd Sep 2013, 08:32

Eclectic, one small problem in what should be an obvious plan.

The Kurds also claim parts of Turkey and Iran. In Iraq, with Shia in the Basra area, in Kuzestan they are also Shia Arabs rather than Persian.

Granting autonomy to different factions in the western countries of Syria and Iraq could be cause for more conflict between Syria-Turkey-Iraq-Iran in the north and Iraq and Iran in the south.

Carving up the Ottoman Empire really was the problem.

Eclectic

3rd Sep 2013, 08:40

USA has weapons specifically for use against chemical and biological stockpiles: http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

The U.S. Air Force has spent years developing so-called “Agent Defeat Weapons” designed to target and destroy stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons without dispersing or releasing them to surrounding areas, service officials said.

“The U.S. Air Force has Agent Defeat Weapons designed to limit collateral damage and effects,” Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy told Military.com. “The munitions are PAW (Passive Attack Weapon) and Crash Pad.”.......more

Eclectic

3rd Sep 2013, 09:16

The lines on this map look more sensible than the ones the imperialists drew:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/s720x720/969841_568208689882689_623815259_n.png

Pontius Navigator

3rd Sep 2013, 09:25

Eclectic, and that illustrates my point as Turkey, Iraq and Iran have larger Kurdish areas.

Eclectic

3rd Sep 2013, 09:31

Russian stirring?: ?????????? ?????? ????????????? ?????? ???? ?????????????? ????? ? ??????????? ?????????? ??????????????? | RT ?? ??????? (http://russian.rt.com/article/14893)

Russian Defense Ministry has fixed the launch of two ballistic targets in the direction of the eastern Mediterranean

According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the trajectory of ballistic targets two passes of the central part of Credizemnogo sea in the direction of the eastern part of the Mediterranean coast. According to Interfax, the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu told President Vladimir Putin on detection of the launch of two ballistic targets in the Mediterranean.
'Start of the two ballistic targets fixed at 10:16 MSK combat crew node in Armavir early warning ", - explained in the Ministry of Defense.
As ITAR-TASS in NATO headquarters, the alliance is now "checks the information about the launch of ballistic missiles in the Mediterranean region."
The Embassy of Russia in Syria no data about the start of the two ballistic targets in the Mediterranean Sea. "I do about it do not know anything," - said "Interfax" the representative of the Russian diplomatic mission in Damascus. Now in Damascus did not hear the ringing of the rocket attack and bombings in the city. This was reported
by ITAR-TASS Russian Embassy in Syria. "Signal warning of missile attacks and bombings in the city is not" - said the official.

maxred

3rd Sep 2013, 09:43

The Western Foreign policy in this region, has, for decades, been an utter joke, where three year old kids could have made better strategic decisions.

We tend to forget the nine year war, where a US backed, and fully funded Saddam Iraq war against Iran, claiming 1,000,000 lives, ended, then the US turned on Sadam, and the rest is history, as they say.:ugh:

In reality, no one really knows what to do, however, the pot was stirred with the inavsion of Iraq, and now everyone must reap what was sown. If it ever ends, it is not going to end well methinks

dead_pan

3rd Sep 2013, 09:57

'Start of the two ballistic targets fixed at 10:16 MSK combat crew node in Armavir early warning ", - explained in the Ministry of Defense.

"I do about it do not know anything," - said "Interfax" the representative of the Russian diplomatic mission in Damascus.

"Signal warning of missile attacks and bombings in the city is not" - said the official.

What gobble-de-gook is this? Do they all speak like Yoda?

Eclectic

3rd Sep 2013, 10:23

@dead_pan

Article is in Russian. Auto translated.

Re Missiles, they now looks like maybe an Israeli ALCM test. Why would they be doing that just now?

ORAC

3rd Sep 2013, 10:28

Re Missiles, they now looks like maybe an Israeli ALCM test. Why would they be doing that just now? If there was anything ballistic fired, it would almost be the Israelis testing (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/25/arms-israel-arrow-idUSL6N0BP0UF20130225) the Arrow ABM system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)).

The target IRBMs are ship launched from the central Med back towards Israel.

A wise precaution in case of any Syrian/Iranian response against Israel due to an American attack.

dead_pan

3rd Sep 2013, 11:21

The lines on this map look more sensible than the ones the imperialists drew:

Very interesting - any idea how recently this was drawn? Also, the areas indicated as loyalist or rebel held, can we extrapolate these reflect broadly the same ethnicity/religious bent?

Unfortunately the main blocks may be the wrong way around i.e. wouldn't it be better to have the Sunnis taking the south and Alawites (& Kurds) the north? Blimey, I'm probably beginning to sound like Sir Mark Sykes of yore.

NICKatNIGHT

3rd Sep 2013, 11:40

Go there and read...

Also watch x22report on YouTube.

Eclectic

3rd Sep 2013, 12:01

Breaking news. Go to @THE_47th on Twitter and follow in real time.

The head of medical services in Assad's Chem Warfare branch, Abdel Tawwab Shahrour, has defected with documents. He will reveal more evidence on Assad's 21st August chemical attack.
The first press conference will be held in Istanbul, they are trying to make it by 5pm local time today.

SASless

3rd Sep 2013, 12:42

Ah you terrible untrustworthy Brits.....Shame on You!

This will show you who is in charge!

US leaves ?unreliable? British out in the cold | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3858964.ece)

Now that I have your attention.....

Could it be the Intel doesn't match up with what Odumbo is saying is the situation and he is afraid the real truth might leak out instead of just what the Administration wishes to leak?

Ask yourself why Odumbo still gets Intel Briefings as after all he reversed himself and decided to go to Congress instead of carrying out the Attack he had ordered?

Then of course we know he does not listen or read his Daily Brief (PDB) with regularity so probably no big problem if he was cut off all together as he doesn't need no stinking brief to make up his mind...does he?

ORAC

3rd Sep 2013, 12:55

The Wrong Target on WMDs (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357367/wrong-target-wmds-mona-charen)

Broadsword***

3rd Sep 2013, 14:00

Odumbo

I thought you were 65, not 12.

Airborne Aircrew

3rd Sep 2013, 14:15

I thought you were 65, not 12.

Tsk, tsk...

You don't have to live under the "benevolent despot" and his cronies... You can sit back satisfied in the knowledge that the UK has already been through it's total collapse at the hands of socialist fools and that there is nothing you can do about it. Over here, we are still aghast at the speed at which a "few good men and a crazy lady" can trash a nation... Over here the consensus seems to be that the ship can still be turned...

Pontius Navigator

3rd Sep 2013, 14:36

it's total collapse at the hands of socialist fools and that there is nothing you can do about it. Over here, we are still aghast at the speed at which a "few good men and a crazy lady" can trash a nation...

who is this crazy lady?

spooky3

3rd Sep 2013, 14:40

The US has a plan to help Syria's rebels bring down the Assad regime

Syria: Obama Makes New Military Action Vow (http://news.sky.com/story/1136626/syria-obama-makes-new-military-action-vow)

Broadsword***

3rd Sep 2013, 15:09

You don't have to live under the "benevolent despot" and his cronies... You can sit back satisfied in the knowledge that the UK has already been through it's total collapse at the hands of socialist fools and that there is nothing you can do about it. Over here, we are still aghast at the speed at which a "few good men and a crazy lady" can trash a nation... Over here the consensus seems to be that the ship can still be turned...

And what of the unbenevolent despot, Dubya, who turned your country into a laughing stock? He's probably a hero, in your deranged Teaparty mind.

SASless

3rd Sep 2013, 15:13

There you go again! Thinking.....gets you into trouble every time don't it.

Not 65 and not 12.

You can call Odumbo Obama if you wish.....I on the other hand shall call him what i wish.

We Americans have a habit of being short with authority figures as you may have learned over several hundred years of dealing with us.

We and the Aussies seem to share that trait.....I wonder why that is?

Must be we have something in common that brings that out in us.

But....whatever.....you have gained entrance into a not very select group.....the Peanut Gallery.....right next to Hanoi Jane.

Lonewolf_50

3rd Sep 2013, 15:24

And what of the unbenevolent despot, Dubya, who turned your country into a laughing stock? He's probably a hero, in your deranged Teaparty mind.
Sometimes, it is best to play the ball and not the man. ;)
As to President Obama and official utterances ...
During a meeting of congressional leaders at the White House, he said: "What we are envisioning is something limited. It is something proportional. It will degrade Assad's capabilities.
"At the same time we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade
the capabilities of the opposition."
If you tell people your plan, they can begin defeating your plan. So, maybe, Mr President, you need to learn when to say less, and when not to say more. Like the "line in the sand" think he trapped himself with, he has committed himself and his nation to taking down Assad in favor of the opposition. Some have remarked (as the Chief Gunner's Mate a few pages back observed) that being Al Qaeda's air force isn't a role we ought to play. What he has just told us is that his course of action is likely to do just that, as the Al Q sorts have, so far, shown a capacity for action and focus that some of the other rebel groups have not.

While "Odumbo" is harsh, he isn't doing well at the moment.

500N

3rd Sep 2013, 15:25

And just who is Obama to decide to bring down Assad's regime ?

And for what proper reason ?

Does he think he is God or something ?

500N

3rd Sep 2013, 15:29

"If you tell people your plan, they can begin defeating your plan. So, maybe, Mr President, you need to learn when to say less, and not when to say more."

+ 10,000

The US military must love Obama.

Hell, it took Israel to have a big, bold plan to knock out Syria,
unless Obama blankets EVERY Airfield and EVERY Military
installation - which isn't already dispersed thanks to his warning
- he has buckleys chance IMHO.

OK, a few sites but I can bet that Assadd has been doing this
long enough to know WTF he is doing.

Lonewolf_50

3rd Sep 2013, 15:40

And just who is Obama to decide to bring down Assad's regime? And for what proper reason? Does he think he is God or something?
Who knows what he really thinks?
Oprah Winfrey called him "the One" back in his initial primary run, a not too veiled reference to a Messiah, even a Black Messiah. (Any number of conservative opponents have turned this element of early popular support into a sarcastic reference to him as "Messiah," but I don't recall his campaign ever adopting that theme. )

See the song by the Kinks for some of my feelings on black messiah's ...

Some thoughts from the news and comments lately. President Assad is, like President Obama, talking smack. Seems to be popular of late:
Referring to two of the U.S.'s fiercest enemies, Assad warned that "nobody would be able to separate Syria's interests from those of Hezbollah and Iran. Today regional stability depends on the situation in Syria."
"Russia is aware of this," he said, suggesting that a U.S. attack could draw
Moscow into the fighting.
He wishes.
Not seeing it.

500N

3rd Sep 2013, 15:45

That's the other thing.

Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, but why take on Syria when you know
full well that Russia will be involved and backing Assad.

Broadsword***

3rd Sep 2013, 15:58

If you tell people your plan, they can begin defeating your plan. So, maybe, Mr President, you need to learn when to say less, and when not to say more. Like the "line in the sand" think he trapped himself with, he has committed himself and his nation to taking down Assad in favor of the opposition.

Do you think issuing an unequivocal public warning to someone whom you suspect is about to use chemical weapons is a bad thing? I think any president (Democrat or Republican) worth his salt would have done the same. If we (the international community) do not make a stand on this, one of the worst breaches of international law in recent history, we will surely be setting a chilling precedent for all wars to come.

I cannot put it better than Lord Ashdown did:

"Seventy-seven years ago the League of Nations, the UN’s predecessor, faced a crisis.

Italy, flagrantly breaching international law, invaded Abyssinia. The League failed to act because Germany and Japan effectively vetoed it. From that moment, the League ceased to exist as an effective institution and was put out of its misery in 1939. Prime Minister Baldwin told the Commons, the League “failed ultimately because of the reluctance of… nations… to proceed to… military sanctions”.

What has happened in Damascus is a challenge to our humanity. It is also a challenge to our system of international law.

If the international community will not now find the means to make it clear that we will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction, like poison gas, for the mass murder of innocent citizens, then the fragile structures of international law that we have painfully erected these last twenty years will be undermined, and the threat of the future use of weapons of mass destruction will be widened."

500N

3rd Sep 2013, 16:02

"It is also a challenge to our system of international law. "

A system of law that the US doesn't always follow.

It doesn't recognise the ICC for a start.

Eclectic

3rd Sep 2013, 16:25

Akritiri.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS3gNFaIIAA8bbB.jpg

2x USAF U2s
2X French Navy Atlantique2 Maritime Surveillance & SIGINT
2X Tristars, 1X A-330, 1X Voyager, 1X E-3 Sentry, 6X Typhoons, 1X BAE 146

Fun and games: BREAKING: British Typhoons in near clash with Turkish jets over Cyprus (http://famagusta-gazette.com/breaking-british-typhoons-in-near-clash-with-turkish-jets-over-cyprus-p20439-69.htm)

British and Turkish fighter planes nearly clashed over the skies of Cyprus yesterday after two Typhoon Eurofighters scrambled from Akrotiri airbase.

Details remain unclear, but informed sources said the Typhoons, which are part of a total of six aircraft sent to the RAF Akrotiri airbase for possible actions against Syria, flew over the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus to intercept unidentified planes.

According to reports, Turkey sent two F-16 fighters to intercept the British planes claiming they violated the airspace over the occupied part of Cyprus.

glad rag

3rd Sep 2013, 16:46

Not
Able
To
Organise

glad rag

3rd Sep 2013, 16:48

Troops Are Posting Photos In Protest Of Syrian Intervention - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/troops-protest-syria-military-strike-2013-9)

Actually they have an extremely valid point, one that seems to have escaped POTUS.:ugh:

Wallah

3rd Sep 2013, 17:32

As somebody who is still in, albeit following the vote in parliament, one who is going to play bugger all part in whatever unfolds in the next few weeks, I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment expressed by Broadsword at post #990. If I was ordered to, I would happily go.

I think we have a morale duty to take action against regimes that openly use WMD against innocent civilians. Not to do so is cowardice of the worst sort.

To be clear, I have no love for either the rebels or Assad's regime; I do not think that we should intervene to 'tip the balance', but we cannot let this go by the wayside.

SASless

3rd Sep 2013, 17:33

This is how bad our Political Leadership is in my country!

I called my two Senator's Offices this morning....and the Republican said the phone is ringing off the hook soldily opposing any action whatsoever.

The Democrat waffled all over the place would not say what the call volume or opinion split was.....which tells me the same thing is happening as it goes against the Liberal seahunt's staunch support of Odumbo.

If the Republican Speaker of the House is going to support taking action....he damn sure is not a Poltician with cojones.

Just on partisan party politics this situation screams for the Republicans to cut Obama off at the knees by refusing to authorize a military strike. That throws the Hot Potato right back smack into Odumbo's Lap where it was before he threw it over to Congress.

On so many other levels it demands a "No" vote as well.

Our GOP Leadership are just flat incompetent......or terrified of taking a stand....I would have said "drawing a red line in the sand" but that would be a poor choice of words....as Odumbo found out!

500N

3rd Sep 2013, 17:38

Which ever way Congress vote, Obama has still shown his weak hand
to everyone in the world.

IMHO, most of the damage has been done.

Eclectic

3rd Sep 2013, 17:49

This morning's fun:
Israel Tests a new Target Missile Simulating Iranian Shihab 3 Missiles - Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News (http://defense-update.com/20130903_silver_sparrow_shihab-3_target_tested.html)

Israel’s missile defense organization (IMDO) and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) completed today a successful flight test of the Silver Sparrow, the latest, most advanced version of the Sparrow target missile family. The test, conducted at the Israeli test range over the Eastern Mediterranean Sea was the first test flight of the new missile.

The missile was launched from an airborne platform on 9:15, after an ascent the missile entered the trajectory, in according with the test plan. Through its flight the Silver Sparrow was tracked by the Arrow Weapon System’s Super Green Pine radar, which transferred the information to the Citron Tree Battle Management Control System. According to the IMOD announcement, all the elements of the system performed according to their operational configuration.

The Silver Sparrow developed by RAFAEL is an advanced version of the Sparrow air-launched ballistic target missile’. The Sparrow targets have a modular warhead section carrying different payloads such as inert, high explosive or water. The 27.5 (8.39 mw) long missile weighs over three tons and is designed to simulate Shihab 3 class missiles (Iranian ballistic missiles with 1,500-2,000 km range). The new target is an essential segment in the testing of the Arrow-3 exo-atmospheric interceptor........more

John Farley

3rd Sep 2013, 18:12

Looking back over the last 30 years I think it possible that if no country in the world ever interefered in any other country's civil war fewer people might be killed and injured overall.

The trouble with interfering (however clear the reason) is that it is bound to increase the weapons used in the particular war.

We shall never know of course.

Broadsword***

3rd Sep 2013, 18:14

Good to see a cross-party consensus starting to emerge.

Syria crisis: Republican leader John Boehner backs Barack Obama over attack plan - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10284178/Syria-crisis-Republican-leader-John-Boehner-backs-Barack-Obama-over-attack-plan.html)

Pontius Navigator

3rd Sep 2013, 18:28

2X French Navy Atlantique2 Maritime Surveillance & SIGINT

Well that sort of answers my CENTO question about French rights at Akrotiri, unless of course it is a bilateral agreement with our allies to cover our MPA holiday.

NutLoose

3rd Sep 2013, 18:28

Suprised the Ruskies are not intervening.

Lonewolf_50

3rd Sep 2013, 18:35

Do you think issuing an unequivocal public warning to someone whom you suspect is about to use chemical weapons is a bad thing?
What has that to do with my observation of, the warning having been issued last year, telling someone what your plan details are is stupid. "We intend to hurt you, but not very much:" That's the message being sent by intentions of limited strikes. Sorry, that's stupid. You may recall that limited strikes on Saddam during the 90's regarding his various misdeed in re UNSCRs did **** all to get him to change his course.

As to warning and threatening ... and then not backing it up, it does make one look quite the fool. I suspect you agree.

I don't need you to lecture me on Ethiopia and the Italians: I was fully aware of that in grade school, and have noted on this forum and others the parallels. While an Imperial expansion and a civil are are two different things, the impotence of international bodies seems to be "the same old thing."

I think that in re LoN and UN you and I agree.

I saw Secretary Kerry try to call what's up coming with Syria a "Munich" moment.

He's wrong.

Hitler's Germany was a Major Power.
Syria? Not quite.

His sense of scale is way off. Syria is more like Czechoslovakia, then, or Poland, or Austria, or even Spain ...

The Powers are not about to face off with each other just yet.