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 8th Sep 2013, 15:18
  #1341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
With all due respect you are telling me what your constitution thinks not you. I was seeking your opinion on the justness of intervention where there is no direct threat to us. I only raised it because AAs position of clarity on the issue in his previous post. Look, you clearly don't want to engage so let's just leave it there. Perhaps I was wrong maybe we do not all post our own minds thoughts. As always, cheers fella.

Last edited by TomJoad; 8th Sep 2013 at 15:20.
TomJoad is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 16:34
  #1342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: liverpool uk
Age: 62
Posts: 1,149
Gentlemen, we have now come to a position of stalemate on all sides. I suggest that we leave this discussion until action is taken by the outsiders in this conflict.

As I see it:

The UK, not going to do anything unless in concert with the USA after a Security Council resolution, which will not be forthcoming and there is no hope of pushing a debate and agreement in Parliament.

The USA, sends cruise missiles in, is that an act of war and a war crime and in conflict with the US Constitutionas they have not been attacked and therefore have no right of retaliation in self defence.

The Russians, sends more supplies, assistance and keep a warm water port in the Med.

The Chinese, as above.

The Iranians, as above also keeping their lines open to Hizboullah in Lebenon

The EU, incapable of militarily taking part unless the USA starts operations and supports the the EU forces with intelligence (contradiction in terms) C4ISTAR tankers S/DEAD and heavy lift.

The UN, incapable of anything unable to act and deadlocked in the Security Council.

We have had in two years many thousands of deaths for which little has raised concerns in general. The use of chemical weapons has moved it the front of peoples consciousness, but the electorates of both the UK and US want little if anything and are in fact hostile to the idea of intervention in any form. The have been deceived in the past from Iraq onwards through the so called Arab Spring and look what a disaster that has been, remember Libya and Egypt. In the former Hiliary Clinton, you and Obama bear responsibility for the deaths of the Ambassador, by your actions or lack of at a critical moment. Sometimes what countries need is a dictator with his knee on the throat of the population to maintain a 'civilised' society.

I am afraid the stupidity of Obama stating publically that the use of CW was a 'red line' is typical of politicians who let their mouths flap in the heat of the moment to obtain a headline which comes back to bite them in the a**e when they have to make good that statement. This is a classic of my old headmaster, 'whenever I open my mouth some fool says something'
.

I have posed the point before, what is the difference of being disembowelled by a burst of AK 47 fire, result of an artillery barrage or a Sarin attack. Many will die and continue to die in this conflict, it is religious, political and factional, outsiders who are not of the same culture or thought processes, such as beheading or shooting people because they don't pray at the right times or numbers at a set part of the day, do not comprehend or understand the insanity.

Last edited by air pig; 8th Sep 2013 at 17:02.
air pig is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 16:39
  #1343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 61
Posts: 1,463
Tom:

Do you think we should ever intervene when there is no direct threat to us?
Each situation is different. If an ally is threatened then one might consider intervention but a civil war where no good will come of our action I say no.
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:01
  #1344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 747
AA - would the use of CW justify intervention? I know it hasn't in the past but this situation is different in that Syria may well have been put up to this, or at allowed to act in this manner, by its backers as a direct challenge to the west. You've agreed that Iran are a potential threat.
dead_pan is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:02
  #1345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Regarding the idea that the US - or the UK for that matter - should only take military action if there is a direct threat or action against said countries doesn't chime with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.


Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Again, not arguing for or against action in Syria (and not I'm suggesting that you're all a bunch of pacifist, bleeding-heart, gutless, appeasement monkies), I'm interested in how folks here would consider the situation in Europe under the Nazi boot. Should other nations stand back and tut quietly whilst millions were being gassed, shot, starved, experimented upon, etc? I'm not talking about the fact that we were already at war, I'm considering the moral arguments.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:05
  #1346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 61
Posts: 1,463
Dead pan:

until we know for sure used the weapons we are simply pointing the gun and pulling the trigger without a meaningful target.
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:08
  #1347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,309
Court,

When I see every single NATO country bellying up to the Bar with combat forces and Political Resolve I shall accept your view. Until then....I strongly object to my Country going it alone on this Fool's Errand.
SASless is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:12
  #1348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,309
TJ,

Off to the Peanut Gallery with you.
SASless is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:14
  #1349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil View Post
I'm interested in how folks here would consider the situation in Europe under the Nazi boot. Should other nations stand back and tut quietly whilst millions were being gassed, shot, starved, experimented upon, etc? I'm not talking about the fact that we were already at war, I'm considering the moral arguments.
One thing is for sure the prevailing thought from our allies back then wasn't hampered by the complex morality we have to day. Thank God for us they decided to intervene then.

Last edited by TomJoad; 8th Sep 2013 at 17:16.
TomJoad is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:15
  #1350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Originally Posted by SASless
I shall accept your view
I din't express a view, did I. I thought I'd simply stated a part of the NATO treaty and asked a question.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:16
  #1351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by Airborne Aircrew View Post
Tom:



Each situation is different. If an ally is threatened then one might consider intervention but a civil war where no good will come of our action I say no.
Thanks AA.
TomJoad is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:18
  #1352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
TJ,

Off to the Peanut Gallery with you.
As telling as ever SASless.
TomJoad is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:28
  #1353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil View Post
Regarding the idea that the US - or the UK for that matter - should only take military action if there is a direct threat or action against said countries doesn't chime with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty:

.
I may be wrong here so please correct me if I am; didn't we use Article 5 as justification for standing with the US when they went into Afghanistan post 9/11? Again I stand by to be corrected but. I think it was the only time article 5 has been invoked in NATOs history. If so, then intervention only if we are directly threatened, does not appear to be immutable - not on our past record. Without question, as others have said the ghosts of our involvement in Iraq are having a heavy influence here.

Last edited by TomJoad; 8th Sep 2013 at 17:29.
TomJoad is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:33
  #1354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: liverpool uk
Age: 62
Posts: 1,149
I may be wrong here so please correct me if I am; didn't we use Article 5 as justification for standing with the US when they went into Afghanistan post 9/11? Again I stand by to be corrected but. I think it was the only time article 5 has been invoked in NATOs history. If so, then intervention only if we are directly threatened, does not appear to be immutable - not on our past record. Without question, as others have said the ghosts of our involvement in Iraq are having a heavy influence here.
Article 5, if I remember correctly was invoked by the USA on 9/11 as the RAF deployed an E3 to the States.

Collective defence

The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

This principle is enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.

NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the first time in its history following the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
From the NATO website.

Last edited by air pig; 8th Sep 2013 at 17:38.
air pig is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:43
  #1355 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,968
Glenn Beck, Savage, Levin Join Rush in Opposing Attack

Conservative talk radio hosts are among those leading the charge in opposition to military action in Syria, offering predictions of dire consequences and criticizing President Barack Obama's strategy.

From Glenn Beck and Mark Levin to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, conservative talk show hosts lashed out at Obama's plans to attack Syria, with Hugh Hewitt one of the few voices supporting the action..........

The opposition is not confined to television and radio airwaves. The website RightWingNews conducted an email poll of conservative bloggers and found overwhelming opposition.

Of the 46 bloggers who responded, 84.8 percent answered "No" to the question of whether they thought Congress should give Obama authorization for any sort of military operation in Syria. Only 7 said that Congress should grant approval.
ORAC is online now  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 17:59
  #1356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,867
Did i get the feeling Kerry's news briefing today was an attempt to move away from Military action?
NutLoose is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 18:17
  #1357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 94
Conservative talk radio hosts are among those leading the charge in opposition to military action in Syria, offering predictions of dire consequences and criticizing President Barack Obama's strategy.
The key words here are 'conservative talk radio hosts'. If Obama said today was Sunday, those clowns would find an excuse to argue that it was not.
Broadsword*** is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 18:21
  #1358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
I'm interested in how folks here would consider the situation in Europe under the Nazi boot. Should other nations stand back and tut quietly whilst millions were being gassed, shot, starved, experimented upon, etc?
I think you might find that nasty chaps stamping into someone elses Country to steal things and be generally beastly is not quite the same as chaps stealing and being beastly inside their own Country. This may be particularly true when some of the beastliness isn't illegal inside their own Country. Just a thought.
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 18:22
  #1359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
Did i get the feeling Kerry's news briefing today was an attempt to move away from Military action?
In the interview posted on the BBC site he makes it clear that he believes that there is no military solution but he is determined that Syria must be held accountable by the international community. He makes reference to what they are now calling the crossing of an "international red line". We must wait now to see what comes out of his further meetings.

BBC News - John Kerry: 'There is no military solution'
TomJoad is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2013, 18:25
  #1360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU View Post
I think you might find that nasty chaps stamping into someone elses Country to steal things and be generally beastly is not quite the same as chaps stealing and being beastly inside their own Country. This may be particularly true when some of the beastliness isn't illegal inside their own Country. Just a thought.
So the acid test is whether the crime is not against property rather than humanity - humanity falling below the bar, surely not!. Legality by what measure ?

Last edited by TomJoad; 8th Sep 2013 at 18:30.
TomJoad 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.