Here it comes: Syria
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Too thoughtful for my current state, air pig, but strongly agree on first looks at points 4 and 6.
I have no time for the entirety of Arabism, but had hoped this might have been one of those occasions when they might have got off their gold-plated chairs and done something constructive for their brethren.
Wrong sort of Islam?
I have no time for the entirety of Arabism, but had hoped this might have been one of those occasions when they might have got off their gold-plated chairs and done something constructive for their brethren.
Wrong sort of Islam?
Air pig,
Good points, well made. We seem to be following a path last trodden in 2003, when spin and rumour supplanted real intelligence, and look what we ended up with. As you say, many are the atrocities committed in Africa etc, where our pollies care not a jot. I have to say, if I believed that anything that we are about to witness will stop further atrocities in Syria, I would support it. I suspect its more "hair shirt" politics than an honest attempt to control CW. I'm also still struggling to understand how the killing that will result from this action, will be done with no evidence of guilt. What would the pollies do if the UN announced that opposition forces had carried out the attack. As a country, we have been lied into war in the recent past, I'm sure if they get involved in Syria, they should produce the evidence before a bomb is dropped.
Smudge
Good points, well made. We seem to be following a path last trodden in 2003, when spin and rumour supplanted real intelligence, and look what we ended up with. As you say, many are the atrocities committed in Africa etc, where our pollies care not a jot. I have to say, if I believed that anything that we are about to witness will stop further atrocities in Syria, I would support it. I suspect its more "hair shirt" politics than an honest attempt to control CW. I'm also still struggling to understand how the killing that will result from this action, will be done with no evidence of guilt. What would the pollies do if the UN announced that opposition forces had carried out the attack. As a country, we have been lied into war in the recent past, I'm sure if they get involved in Syria, they should produce the evidence before a bomb is dropped.
Smudge
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread reminds me of the John Stuart-Mill quote learned some years ago:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things, the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things, the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 27th Aug 2013 at 19:14.
It seems that the IDF had several overflights of Lebanon today.
Gathering target data for Uncle Sam?
Gathering target data for Uncle Sam?
I've written to my MP, even though she is a labour front bencher asking her to vote against the idea of a strike, so will follow orders. As below via the They work for you website:
Dear Maria Eagle,
With regard to the recall of Parliament to discus the situation in
Syria. I would request that you vote against military intervention on
the following grounds:-
1. The UN inspectors have not had time to finish their inspection let
alone analyse their specimens, data or evidence, the last time this
happened was before the start of GW II and the very suspicious death of
Dr David Kelly. What did he know and would have revealed?
2. What is the exit strategy?
3. How robust is the intelligence, I remember the former leader of your
party giving a 45 minute warning in the House before GWII and at the
Security Council by Colin Powell using UK data
4. Most importantly we do not know who deployed the chemicals thought
to be Sarin, until we have the evidence how can we launch an attack
5. If the Assad regime is attack and hit back by targeting Tel Aviv
with CW armed weapons, would you support the Israeli government, which
they surely would retaliate with nuclear weapons.
I reiterate, that you should vote against action even defying a party
'whip' as a matter of conscience.
Yours sincerely,
Air pig.
Got try and at least register a protest against this foolishness, even with the cynical view it will be ignored and be dismissed as both a closet racist and 'little Englander'
quote: UKIP is the grumpy old men's party.
I am sorry I introduced politics, it didn't help here
BUT I AM INDEED A GRUMPY OLD MAN so you might say "home at last!"
When the Arabs and also sensible nation states like Switzerland decide to have a pop at Assad I will begin to feel that I am wrong in my opinions.
Until then I am vehemently opposed to action against the legal Syrian murderous government and their backers.
I am sorry I introduced politics, it didn't help here
BUT I AM INDEED A GRUMPY OLD MAN so you might say "home at last!"
When the Arabs and also sensible nation states like Switzerland decide to have a pop at Assad I will begin to feel that I am wrong in my opinions.
Until then I am vehemently opposed to action against the legal Syrian murderous government and their backers.
air pig:
I do not agree with your alarmism in re the Israelis necessarily using nukes.
I seriuosly doubt that their response to any Syrian attack would be other than conventional.
They have ample conventional means to hand, and do not need to invite the charge of over reaction that would make them the bad guy and play right into the hands of various Iranian and Arab world parties who seek an excuse to go after them, politically or otherwise.
If Assad launches a strike on Israel (I am not sure why he would) he knows full well that they'll whack him smartly at the very least.
I do not agree with your alarmism in re the Israelis necessarily using nukes.
I seriuosly doubt that their response to any Syrian attack would be other than conventional.
They have ample conventional means to hand, and do not need to invite the charge of over reaction that would make them the bad guy and play right into the hands of various Iranian and Arab world parties who seek an excuse to go after them, politically or otherwise.
If Assad launches a strike on Israel (I am not sure why he would) he knows full well that they'll whack him smartly at the very least.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bombing Assad for using chemical weapons risks triggering a bloody escalation. If the regime digs in and uses chemical weapons again, or launches retaliatory attacks against the U.S. and its allies in the region, Obama will come under fierce pressure to respond more forcefully, increasing the chances of full-scale war.
Russia and Iran could up the ante, too, by backing Assad more powerfully in response.
We shouldn’t forget that the last time the United Nations investigated claims of chemical weapons use in Syria, its inspectors concluded that it was the rebels and not Assad’s forces who were likely behind the sarin gas attack.
We need to tread carefully here!
Bob C
Russia and Iran could up the ante, too, by backing Assad more powerfully in response.
We shouldn’t forget that the last time the United Nations investigated claims of chemical weapons use in Syria, its inspectors concluded that it was the rebels and not Assad’s forces who were likely behind the sarin gas attack.
We need to tread carefully here!
Bob C
air pig:
I do not agree with your alarmism in re the Israelis necessarily using nukes.
I seriuosly doubt that their response to any Syrian attack would be other than conventional.
They have ample conventional means to hand, and do not need to invite the charge of over reaction that would make them the bad guy and play right into the hands of various Iranian and Arab world parties who seek an excuse to go after them, politically or otherwise.
If Assad launches a strike on Israel (I am not sure why he would) he knows full well that they'll whack him smartly at the very least.
I do not agree with your alarmism in re the Israelis necessarily using nukes.
I seriuosly doubt that their response to any Syrian attack would be other than conventional.
They have ample conventional means to hand, and do not need to invite the charge of over reaction that would make them the bad guy and play right into the hands of various Iranian and Arab world parties who seek an excuse to go after them, politically or otherwise.
If Assad launches a strike on Israel (I am not sure why he would) he knows full well that they'll whack him smartly at the very least.
1. During Gulf War 1, it was said that the Israeli's had James Baker warn the Iraqi's off, about using WMD through the UN.
2. The Israeli's reserved the right to use the Samson option and did have their nuclear weapons uploaded during GW1.
3. Considerable air and special forces assets were deployed in the Iraqi western desert to hunt for Scuds.
4. The actions of a despot in bringing the house down on himself and people rather than surrender and end up like Hussain, Ghadaffi or Coschescu (sp) and end up on the end of a rope or in front of a firing squad.
5. And, I have made this comment in the past, that after having 6million co-religionists industrially murdered over 12 years along with millions of other victims of Nazi Germany they would not allow it to happen again, no matter the cost. This has been displayed at Entebbe and in Ethiopia and in actions capturing Eichmann and the recent Dubai debacle.
My comments are not meant to to be alarmist just a view that needs to be made as the consequences of not thinking this thing through will have devastating consequences not just for the people of Syria but the region and the world.
Last edited by air pig; 27th Aug 2013 at 21:00.
airpig, thank you for the reply.
bottom line up front:
Good point, and we are in accord on your general concern. If I may offer a rejoinder to points raised.
Point 1: there was more to that than the Israeli issue, and Saddam shot Scuds at them anyway to try and drive a wedge between the US and its various Arab allies GW1. Didn't work.
Point 2: Of course they do. What's the point of having nukes if you don't reserve the right to use them, in extremis? As I see it, that has naught to do with current situation. I'd say their nuclear target list includes zero target sets in Syria, for a lot of reasons (proximity being one). Check a bit further east for their target list, I'd say.
Point 3: Irrelevant to the current situation, but possibly relevant if Assad tries to copy Saddam's Scud attacks on Israel.
Point 4: That indeed is the wild card, and the great unknown. Speaking of the Samson option ... pulling the house down indeed!
To what extreme will he go? Your guess as good as mine.
Point 5: Israel will do what is necessary to ensure Israel survives. Agreed. In the long term, use of nukes may turn neutrals against Israel who aren't antagonistic now. The Strategists in Israel have to think long term, not just deal with a present problem. I think the smarter ones know that, and do that.
Thanks again for your views, you raise some good and troubling points.
bottom line up front:
My comments are not meant to to be alarmist just a view that needs to be made as the consequences of not thinking this thing through will have devastating consequences not just for the people of Syria but the region and the world.
1. During Gulf War 1, it was said that the Israeli's had James Baker warn the Iraqi's off, about using WMD through the UN.
2. The Israeli's reserved the right to use the Samson option and did have their nuclear weapons uploaded during GW1.
3. Considerable air and special forces assets were deployed in the Iraqi western desert to hunt for Scuds.
4. The actions of a despot in bringing the house down on himself and people rather than surrender and end up like Hussain, Ghadaffi or Coschescu (sp) and end up on the end of a rope or in front of a firing squad.
5. And, I have made this comment in the past, that after having 6million co-religionists industrially murdered over 12 years along with millions of other victims of Nazi Germany they would not allow it to happen again, no matter the cost. This has been displayed at Entebbe and in Ethiopia and in actions capturing Eichmann and the recent Dubai debacle.
2. The Israeli's reserved the right to use the Samson option and did have their nuclear weapons uploaded during GW1.
3. Considerable air and special forces assets were deployed in the Iraqi western desert to hunt for Scuds.
4. The actions of a despot in bringing the house down on himself and people rather than surrender and end up like Hussain, Ghadaffi or Coschescu (sp) and end up on the end of a rope or in front of a firing squad.
5. And, I have made this comment in the past, that after having 6million co-religionists industrially murdered over 12 years along with millions of other victims of Nazi Germany they would not allow it to happen again, no matter the cost. This has been displayed at Entebbe and in Ethiopia and in actions capturing Eichmann and the recent Dubai debacle.
Point 2: Of course they do. What's the point of having nukes if you don't reserve the right to use them, in extremis? As I see it, that has naught to do with current situation. I'd say their nuclear target list includes zero target sets in Syria, for a lot of reasons (proximity being one). Check a bit further east for their target list, I'd say.
Point 3: Irrelevant to the current situation, but possibly relevant if Assad tries to copy Saddam's Scud attacks on Israel.
Point 4: That indeed is the wild card, and the great unknown. Speaking of the Samson option ... pulling the house down indeed!
To what extreme will he go? Your guess as good as mine. Point 5: Israel will do what is necessary to ensure Israel survives. Agreed. In the long term, use of nukes may turn neutrals against Israel who aren't antagonistic now. The Strategists in Israel have to think long term, not just deal with a present problem. I think the smarter ones know that, and do that.
Thanks again for your views, you raise some good and troubling points.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 27th Aug 2013 at 21:14.
Hollande describing a `vile act that threatens world peace' and Jay Carney telling White House reporters `expect it this week.'
Likely to see some surprising tactics etc used I think.
Since Kosovo and even Libya, experience with UAVs has increased considerably.
I remember reading something a few years back that said militarily, the US is not now a superpower, it is a hyperpower - with a military exponentially more lethal than GW1.
Personally, I think Putin and the Iranians are all talk.
They'll make all the noise in the world publicly beforehand, but openly confront the Americans in any significant way, or try and whack Israel with anything of substance?
They wouldn't dare.
With respect to those who hold different opinions (and we should hang our heads in shame for Rwanda) I think it's time to smash Assad.
Yes there'll be collateral damage, an Alawite/Shia/Sunni/Salafist mess afterwards, but are we really going to stand back and let someone like this gas his own people?
The speed with which the UK, France and other Allied nations have swung in to back the US suggests to me that the politicians and intel agencies know something we don't - yet.
Maybe sometimes the spooks do get it right.
This is different to Iraq (we don't have that terminal idiot Bush 43 in the WH, or a slippery little toad like Blair in Downing Street). As much as you all may dislike Cameron and Obama - I sense they've got a bit more integrity than those two.
Likely to see some surprising tactics etc used I think.
Since Kosovo and even Libya, experience with UAVs has increased considerably.
I remember reading something a few years back that said militarily, the US is not now a superpower, it is a hyperpower - with a military exponentially more lethal than GW1.
Personally, I think Putin and the Iranians are all talk.
They'll make all the noise in the world publicly beforehand, but openly confront the Americans in any significant way, or try and whack Israel with anything of substance?
They wouldn't dare.
With respect to those who hold different opinions (and we should hang our heads in shame for Rwanda) I think it's time to smash Assad.
Yes there'll be collateral damage, an Alawite/Shia/Sunni/Salafist mess afterwards, but are we really going to stand back and let someone like this gas his own people?
The speed with which the UK, France and other Allied nations have swung in to back the US suggests to me that the politicians and intel agencies know something we don't - yet.
Maybe sometimes the spooks do get it right.
This is different to Iraq (we don't have that terminal idiot Bush 43 in the WH, or a slippery little toad like Blair in Downing Street). As much as you all may dislike Cameron and Obama - I sense they've got a bit more integrity than those two.
Lonewolf 50, I suspect we are not too far apart with this situation. In regard to:-
1, The Israeli's were worried about the use of CW or radiological warheads in particular things like Cobalt 50 I believe, they did have Patriot as a defence and could tolerate conventional strikes as they did not want to break the coalition apart. The diversion and deployment of special forces, UK SAS AuSAS and Delta and the creation of Scud hunting boxes.
2. Under SALT and SALT II if I remember correctly the agreement was that nuclear weapons would be targeted at non national areas such as oceans, but how long does it take to upload a new target package.
3. Could be factor if this gets really very nasty and do we want troops from either country in a hostile CBRN environment.
5. Israel will always ensure its survival and right to exist and have fought for that since 1948. Sometimes a long term view is difficult when met with a potentially existence terminating short term problem. I suspect various Israeli governments like any responsible government holding WMD has had many discussions even crisis of conscience about the use of WMD in national defence and survival. The UK and the US will have had them.
I suggest that you try ARmy RSE - Army Rumour Service (ARRSE) and the thread in Interests and Hobbies, history thread about the release of historical papers about nuclear war preparedness. Interesting current affairs programme on BBC in the UK www.bbc.co,uk/newsnight showing now, available on iPlayer later.
As I said, we are not too far apart, just view this impossible position slightly differently.
Regards
Air pig
1, The Israeli's were worried about the use of CW or radiological warheads in particular things like Cobalt 50 I believe, they did have Patriot as a defence and could tolerate conventional strikes as they did not want to break the coalition apart. The diversion and deployment of special forces, UK SAS AuSAS and Delta and the creation of Scud hunting boxes.
2. Under SALT and SALT II if I remember correctly the agreement was that nuclear weapons would be targeted at non national areas such as oceans, but how long does it take to upload a new target package.
3. Could be factor if this gets really very nasty and do we want troops from either country in a hostile CBRN environment.
5. Israel will always ensure its survival and right to exist and have fought for that since 1948. Sometimes a long term view is difficult when met with a potentially existence terminating short term problem. I suspect various Israeli governments like any responsible government holding WMD has had many discussions even crisis of conscience about the use of WMD in national defence and survival. The UK and the US will have had them.
I suggest that you try ARmy RSE - Army Rumour Service (ARRSE) and the thread in Interests and Hobbies, history thread about the release of historical papers about nuclear war preparedness. Interesting current affairs programme on BBC in the UK www.bbc.co,uk/newsnight showing now, available on iPlayer later.
As I said, we are not too far apart, just view this impossible position slightly differently.
Regards
Air pig
Last edited by air pig; 27th Aug 2013 at 21:42.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really, why do we care?
No matter what it's a lose - lose situation. The USA has already screwed up twice in the Middle East in the last couple of years giving the radicals control in countries they never had before. So Assad is another "nasty man" but why is it our business? Let him kill his people enough that they actually have the power to throw him out themselves...
No matter what it's a lose - lose situation. The USA has already screwed up twice in the Middle East in the last couple of years giving the radicals control in countries they never had before. So Assad is another "nasty man" but why is it our business? Let him kill his people enough that they actually have the power to throw him out themselves...
Question 1:
Assad abdicating? First link raises that question of him considering exile in Iran. Betting the under on that.
Question 2:
is this funny or what?
Assad abdicating? First link raises that question of him considering exile in Iran. Betting the under on that.
Question 2:
is this funny or what?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2p worth.
1. What's the difference between killing a thousand civvies with guns and shells, and killing a thousand civvies with chemicals?
As far as I can tell, there's no difference.
We don't give a flying f*ck when he kills 10,000 with guns- but if he kills a few hundred by gassing them- we get all outraged and something must be done.
And what are we going to do anyway? As usual, where is our strategy?
ie, what do we hope to achieve, with our intervention, what are we doing it for? That sort of thing.
No amount of good tactics can compensate for second-rate strategy.
Also, no-one- including political parties, can say whether they are for or against military intervention, until the strategy has been outlined! Only when it has been made clear what we are trying to do can folk say whether they are for it, or against it. The actual tactics are very secondary here.
2. This is Syrians, killing other Syrians, in Syria.
What exactly has it got to do with the UK?
1. What's the difference between killing a thousand civvies with guns and shells, and killing a thousand civvies with chemicals?
As far as I can tell, there's no difference.
We don't give a flying f*ck when he kills 10,000 with guns- but if he kills a few hundred by gassing them- we get all outraged and something must be done.
And what are we going to do anyway? As usual, where is our strategy?
ie, what do we hope to achieve, with our intervention, what are we doing it for? That sort of thing.
No amount of good tactics can compensate for second-rate strategy.
Also, no-one- including political parties, can say whether they are for or against military intervention, until the strategy has been outlined! Only when it has been made clear what we are trying to do can folk say whether they are for it, or against it. The actual tactics are very secondary here.
2. This is Syrians, killing other Syrians, in Syria.
What exactly has it got to do with the UK?
Assad: abdicating, more like getting the family out so they do not become hostages or obtaining political cover in the UN or meeting the Russians/Chinese on friendly ground.
AA and AK, totally agree with your points of view.
AA and AK, totally agree with your points of view.
Last edited by air pig; 27th Aug 2013 at 21:53.
Eclectic,
That report doesn't make me feel any warmer or fuzzier. In fact it just seem to confirm my suspicion that they really don't know what's going on and this is a knee-jerk reaction by liberal western powers offended that not everybody shares their sense of 'fair play'.
When they are trying to make a case for military action, and in doing so describe a meeting of Obama's National Security Team which reportedly included " “detailed analysis” of evidence about the chemical attacks that provides “a near air-tight circumstantial case that the Syrian regime was behind it.” it doesn't fill me with confidence.
How on earth can you have a near air-tight circumstantial case? It's like being a little bit pregnant! It can't be done. It's either air tight and provides a robust case for action or it isn't. I just hope the powers that be can count, because right now it looks like they are trying to put 2 and 2 together - for all our sakes they had better come up with 4.
That report doesn't make me feel any warmer or fuzzier. In fact it just seem to confirm my suspicion that they really don't know what's going on and this is a knee-jerk reaction by liberal western powers offended that not everybody shares their sense of 'fair play'.
When they are trying to make a case for military action, and in doing so describe a meeting of Obama's National Security Team which reportedly included " “detailed analysis” of evidence about the chemical attacks that provides “a near air-tight circumstantial case that the Syrian regime was behind it.” it doesn't fill me with confidence.
How on earth can you have a near air-tight circumstantial case? It's like being a little bit pregnant! It can't be done. It's either air tight and provides a robust case for action or it isn't. I just hope the powers that be can count, because right now it looks like they are trying to put 2 and 2 together - for all our sakes they had better come up with 4.
How on earth can you have a near air-tight circumstantial case? It's like being a little bit pregnant! It can't be done. It's either air tight and provides a robust case for action or it isn't. I just hope the powers that be can count, because right now it looks like they are trying to put 2 and 2 together - for all our sakes they had better come up with 4.
Some female on Newsnight from the ? US State Department wittering on about the idea of attacking Syria, probably has never been down the road to Walter Reid to see the consequences of sending people to war.
Atomkraft,
A seriously important point you make there. The outrage amongst Western politicians regarding the use of Chemical weapons, begs that very question. Why is it OK to gun down 10,000, but gas 1000 and its end of the world, eyeball rolling faux moralistic spin is my opinion. Meanwhile, for all the assertions of "evidence" we still await US or UK Government publication.evidence of Assads guilt. After 2003 I have no trust in any Politician or Political lacky in their assertions of certainty. What do we think our governments reaction to a UN announcement that the Rebels had done this ? I suppose they would blame Assad because he was the President at the time.
Smudge
A seriously important point you make there. The outrage amongst Western politicians regarding the use of Chemical weapons, begs that very question. Why is it OK to gun down 10,000, but gas 1000 and its end of the world, eyeball rolling faux moralistic spin is my opinion. Meanwhile, for all the assertions of "evidence" we still await US or UK Government publication.evidence of Assads guilt. After 2003 I have no trust in any Politician or Political lacky in their assertions of certainty. What do we think our governments reaction to a UN announcement that the Rebels had done this ? I suppose they would blame Assad because he was the President at the time.
Smudge