Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Here it comes: Syria

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Here it comes: Syria

Old 4th Sep 2013, 22:26
  #1121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,867
the most horrendous breach of international law in recent history.
Oh please!! Really? What about Rwanda? And even if it was the regime that used CW (still to be proven) they can always claim they targeted the 50 or 60 rebels reportedly killed in the alleged attack, everyone else was collateral damage (and there are going to be more of them if Obama gets to play with his weapons).

And I'm not sure which is more horrendous, killing a few hundred from over 100000 deaths just because one particular type of weapon was used? Or perhaps the execution, by beheading, of POWs and Christian clerics? Or perhaps the ethnic cleansing that is going on all over Syria?

And Obama sure looks like he's trying to spread the responsibility for his red line in the sand (I wonder if I kept a copy of the cartoon of Obama painting an ever retreating red line in the sand from last year?).

And as Syria are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons ban how can they be breaking "international law"?
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 22:28
  #1122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Just ask yourself:

What can America actually achieve, by bombing Syria?



Now ask- how could this go wrong, and 'are the yanks doing this to avoid losing face?

These cnuts should be locked up.
AtomKraft is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 22:31
  #1123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 61
Posts: 1,463
These cnuts should be locked up.
Pansy!!!! Shoot the bastards...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 22:34
  #1124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Hey SAS.

I buy into your 'total war' concept.

Only thing is- they done nothing to you.

So, if you bring the 'TW' thing to them, without them doing a sweet thing to you- then you are the aggressor- and the world (that's not the US btw) will turn on you.
AtomKraft is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 22:35
  #1125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 66
Posts: 2,054
Blimey No,

Uniform, boots, weapon and out the back of Albert on a static line. DZ Damascus. All of em. They want war. Let them have some. Maybe the rest won't be so keen then.

Smudge
smujsmith is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 22:36
  #1126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Airbone.

Glad to hear from Detroit.

Thought it was a goner....
AtomKraft is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 22:42
  #1127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 61
Posts: 1,463
Thought it was a goner....
We in the suburbs are keeping our heads above water... Ammunition is low but we have a lake to drink from and a septic tank, (quiet in the cheap seats... ), to sustain us. If I send a lat/long can you send a C-130 of ammo and beer... It would be much appreciated... Oh, and ice... Need he ice for the beer...

Still living the dream...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 22:43
  #1128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Luton
Posts: 60
So what`s the interest here ? it`s certainly not humanitarian, ye gods,

there are enough peoples around the world being roughed up with no

interest from western media.

A little bit far from the oilfields, but very close to lsrael.
10Watt is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 22:49
  #1129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 61
Posts: 1,463
So what`s the interest here ? it`s certainly not humanitarian, ye gods,

there are enough peoples around the world being roughed up with no

interest from western media.

A little bit far from the oilfields, but very close to lsrael.
It's perfect...

No accusations of stealing oil. O'Bummer has shown his contempt for Israel so no problem there. Western media seem to "care"...

It's the perfect opportunity to add the word "strong" to his existing "Messiah" label...

Slam dunk really...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 23:00
  #1130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,903
Not disagreeing with the thrust of your post, Roland, but just because they're not signatories doesn't mean that they can't be considered in breach of international law; the argument (and the lawyers will argue...) is that it is customary international law, since the majority of states have agreed, either in declaratory or tacit form that CW are beyond the pale and thus illegal.

The difficulty, of course, is that international law is not quite the fixed, immovable corpus that some assume it to be; it evolves through precedent, custom, treaty, agreement, etc, etc. This is why you have the debate about Responsibility To Protect: is it part of international law, or is it a legitimate approach which may - on occasion - appear to conflict with international law (arguably see Kosovo).

If Assad did use CW, he can't say that the use was aimed against the rebels and that the other 300, 400, however many that figure is now were collateral damage; indeed, that argument falls over under Additional Protocol 1 (1977) to the 1949 Convention. It doesn't fit in with Articles 51 and 57, since CW lack the discrimination required under those articles:

Article 51...

...4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction...

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.


Article 57...

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
(i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
(iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
I suggest that CW fail to meet 57:2:ii and are insufficiently discriminating as the context of their use in Syria meant that it was almost certain that civilians were going to be gassed as part of the process, and the users of the CW failed to meet their responsibilities.

That doesn't necessarily mean that this demands the appearance of a large number of TLAMs in Syria airspace, though, simply that there are at least reasonable grounds to contend that the use of CW is a clear breach of the 1949 Convention and Additional Protocol 1.

The point, as you note, though, is that a case can be made to say that a number of elements of the civil war that did not see the use of CW contravene the Convention and AP1.

[Devil's Advocate]
To which some might claim that intervention should've occurred some time ago and that measured against the Convention, AP1 and the notions of R2P, the UN and international community have fallen down on their obligations and that Putin and to a lesser extent the Chinese have been particularly egregious in not living up to what they are expected to do...
[\Devil's Advocate]

Last edited by Archimedes; 4th Sep 2013 at 23:02.
Archimedes is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 23:09
  #1131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Luton
Posts: 60
The only thing we haven`t had so far is a definitive statement from

Putin.

lt`s not looking good. Not good at all.
10Watt is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 23:13
  #1132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 94
The rest of us would prefer that you take yourself off to the quiet corner for a long time...
Self-appointed forum president for life are we, AA? Now simmer down and get back to your favourite Sarah Palin tome (signed, of course).
Broadsword*** is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 23:16
  #1133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 54
Posts: 4,245
As I was driving to vote, here was Obama on the radio

"when something happens in the world, everyone asks
what the US is going to do about it. Be it Bosnia, Rwanda,
Sierra Leone (+ a couple more) .......


I nearly had a crash.

WTF did the US do in Rwanda and Sierra Leone ?
500N is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 23:19
  #1134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,310
AK.....that is exactly my point....or hoped you would understand that was anyway.

Exactly....what the hell have the Syrians done to the United States of America.....that gives us the right to Attack them?

That is the thrust of my arguments for the past ten days...to two weeks.

I wrote the first part somewhat tongue in cheek trying to suggest that if we as a Nation decide to wage War....then we as a Nation....should gear up for it....go on a Total War footing. Mobilize the Reserves, start conscription, convert our manufacturing to strictly military goods and only those absolutely necessary consumer goods, enact rationing, and then....focus our every effort on wreaking havoc upon the Enemy whoever and where ever they are.

Here is a video of yesterdays Senate Hearings....actually one small segment.

General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (sounds of spitting heard), was unable to answer the question "What is our Objective for this Attack the President wants us to authorize (or words to that effect)?". His response....."I don't know.".

Kerry, Hagel, and Dempsey made like the Three Stooges yesterday....and they are Obama's A-Team?

Rand Paul's Epic Showdown with John Kerry - Fox Nation


One key comment by Senator Paul.....he mentions "Not one American has told me they support a Military Attack of any kind on Syria!".

My Democrat Senator's Facebook page had over 500 posts on it....and less than five offered any support for an attack and none called outright for an attack.

The American People are not for this....not at all....it is the Democrat Party Party and the Obama Regime pushing for it. Most Democrats shall vote for the Resolution Authorizing the Attack simply because they cannot bear to see Obama embarrassed over this. He fecked it up when he made the Red Line comments, did not start developing a Coalition, did not take it to foreign leaders, and then Assad opted for the "Or Else" and Obama was caught flat footed between bases. Right now he is doing that old Baseball Run Down thing....and no matter how he tries....he is going to lose....either in Congress or in the eyes of the American People.

Last edited by SASless; 4th Sep 2013 at 23:26.
SASless is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 23:23
  #1135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 54
Posts: 4,245
"General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (sounds of spitting heard), was unable to answer the question "What is our Objective for this Attack the President wants us to authorize (or words to that effect)?". His response....."I don't know."."

SaSless

That is PISS WEAK, No if's or buts about it.

Sorry.


Like you,
"Exactly....what the hell have the Syrians done to the United States of America.....that gives us the right to Attack them?
That is the thrust of my arguments for the past ten days...to two weeks."

Exactly what I have been saying.
500N is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 23:23
  #1136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,903
SASless - I think I'm right in saying that you don't rate Dempsey as the sharpest knife in the draw, but is there any chance that this might have been a pointed 'I have no idea what it is that the administration is trying to get us embroiled in, Sir, but it will be a CF if you let them'? Or is that too sophisticated a gambit for him? (Genuine question - I've been lax in reading anything about Dempsey)
Archimedes is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 23:25
  #1137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 54
Posts: 4,245
Archi

That is a very interesting question - and how he can get a message
across without contradicting Obama.

Interesting thought.

Like you, I haven't read much about Dempsey.
500N is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 23:29
  #1138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,310
Read up on Dempsey.....you will find he lacks Wedding Tackle when it would be quite useful for the Troops if he did.

The place for Dempsey and others in the Military to contradict Obama is in very private, secure locations. They should be quite willing to stand up and tell the unqualified truth to Obama. That is their job....to ensure the President makes decisions based upon as much accurate information as possible.

Think about this for a minute.

Due to Budget cuts before Sequestration.....the US DOD made the decision to limit our Strategy of fighting Two Wars simultaneously to just a single War. Add in Sequestration Cuts, that Single War strategy is degraded to some extent.

We are engaged in a War in Afghanistan yet....and despite Obama declaring the War on Terror being over....that "War" continues.

Here we are pushing for an Attack on Syria....which is backed by Iran directly, and Russia directly. Is there anyone who doubts our Attack on Syria will not provoke Iran, Hezbollah, and even perhaps Russia to expand their support of Syria and even for Iran and Hezbollah to attack Israeli and American interests and people?

If this attack provokes and escalation of hostilities in the Middle East....is the US Military capable of responding adequately?

Dempsey of all people in the United States should have been able to clearly lay out the case for the Tactical and Strategic Objectives for this Attack. Even if he did not believe in them himself....he should have been able to articulate the Objectives ....because if you cannot do that....how in the hell do you think you know what you are doing?

No...in my View Dempsey is way out of his water....just as is Hagel and Kerry.

This situation scares me no end.

Last edited by SASless; 4th Sep 2013 at 23:40.
SASless is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 23:33
  #1139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 54
Posts: 4,245
I will.

I have read Wiki which is never a great source for military people IMHO
but provides links.

I notice he command 1 Armoured in Iraq / just as the insurgency took off
as they say did a good job in difficult circumstances.
500N is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 23:42
  #1140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,461
I imagine Dempsey is a good soldier. Sucks when your boss is the President and that people hang on every word looking for some hidden meaning or agenda. He has spoken his peace regarding Syria, and it falls in line with what seems to be the prevailing consensus here on the prune. Yet, he has his marching orders and I would imagine he will do exactly what he is told to the best of his capabilities despite his stated misgivings.

I see no need to trample on the General for following orders.
West Coast is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.