Here it comes: Syria
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: UK, VN, TW.
Age: 60
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
I think parliament got it right - the case for intervention, and what the results would be, was never made
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
But you miss the point.
Britain votes out governments, it does not vote them in.
Cameron is pretty useless anyway.
Originally Posted by NutLoose
It could have been taken out of the Overseas Aid Budget 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, to paraphrase, you're saying "It's just w*g on w*g - who gives a $hit?"
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
What's the REAL Reason the US Is Attacking Syria? - YouTube
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
What's the REAL Reason the US Is Attacking Syria? - YouTube
Last edited by Stuffy; 30th Aug 2013 at 13:50. Reason: addition
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.
Let us hope the diminution is not fatal one day.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Washington Post: Shamed into war? 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
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
Last edited by ORAC; 30th Aug 2013 at 16:20.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No SANE person would surely vote that complete pri*ck Milliband in?
Grimweasel, I''ve edited your quote for you below....
No SANE person would vote.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,831 Likes
on
1,209 Posts
“I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life.”
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: inside the train looking onto the platform.
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So thats a few OOA's turned off then! Oh no its defence diplomacy now is it.
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...........
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do honestly 
feel a bit for cmd.
Unlike the last ****
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
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.
feel a bit for cmd. Unlike the last ****
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
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.
Last edited by glad rag; 30th Aug 2013 at 18:23.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
I ,like that Article piece - Washington Post: Shamed into war? By Charles Krauthammer.
I hope people in the US take note.
I ,like that Article piece - Washington Post: Shamed into war? By Charles Krauthammer.
I hope people in the US take note.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,831 Likes
on
1,209 Posts
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
- See more at: Spectre of Blair haunts Syria war | Alex Thomson's View
How ironic, mind you I could understand the reluctance to carry on, I mean where would we have housed all the prisoners?
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 30th Aug 2013 at 18:47.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - Syria chemical weapons attack killed 1,429, says John Kerry
"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.
"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.