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 7th Sep 2013, 10:58
  #1281 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Broadsword, I suspect that as far as the Syrians are concerned a UN resolution or the Geneva Convention would be irrelevancies should aircrew be downed and captured by either side.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 14:09
  #1282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
PN,



I do not believe the President has any authority to order an Attack on the Syrian Government.....NONE.

The 1973 War Powers Act grants three options for the President in ordering our Military to attack.

1- In response to an Attack
2- To prevent an Imminent Attack
3- By authorization of Congress

Under our Constitution only Congress may Declare War.

The Syrians have not attacked us, and do not have the capability to do so, and have not threatened to do so.

In plain language, I am absolutely dead set against any attack against the Syrian Government by US Military forces.

I think there are many other options and considerations that need to take place first that would both be far more effective, less costly in lives (ours and theirs), and would be better received by the World community and the Islamic Nations and Peoples than an Attack of any kind.

Right now....the American People by an 8-1 or 9-1 margin agree with my position.

It is only the political elite in this country that are pushing for this War.

Last edited by SASless; 7th Sep 2013 at 16:08.
SASless is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 14:20
  #1283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,475
Received 2,599 Likes on 1,101 Posts
Nutty,

You talking about the big lump on McCain's left cheek?
Nope, mainly all around his eyes do not look his age, most of his face has a pulled taught look. May be because of his cancer treatment, but it belies his age.

Last edited by NutLoose; 7th Sep 2013 at 14:23.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 14:59
  #1284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,575
Received 18 Likes on 10 Posts
To put it another way, you tossers sound EXACTLY like the idiots who sat and watched as we sleepwalked into World War One.
Sunfish, have a gander at this article and tell us what you think:

The left's irrational fear of American intervention | Niall Ferguson | Comment is free | The Guardian

Yet the president may not be able to sustain his brand of minimalist interventionism until 2016. While all eyes are focused on chemical weapons in Syria, the mullahs in Iran continue with their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The latest IAEA report on this subject makes for disturbing reading. I find it hard to believe that even the pusillanimous Obama would be able to ignore evidence that Tehran had crossed that red line, even if it was drawn by the Israeli prime minister rather than by him.

The Iranian factor is one of a number of key differences between the break up of Yugoslavia and the breakup of countries like Syria and Iraq.

The Middle East is not the Balkans. The population is larger, younger, poorer and less educated. The forces of radical Islam are far more powerful. It is impossible to identify a single "bad guy" in the way that Slobodan Milosevic became the west's bete noire. And there are multiple regional players – Iran, Turkey, the Saudis, as well as the Russians – with deep pockets and serious military capabilities. All in all, the end of pan-Arabism is a much scarier process than the end of pan-Slavism. And the longer the US dithers, the bigger the sectarian conflicts in the region are likely to become.

The proponents of non-intervention – or, indeed, of ineffectual intervention – need to face a simple reality. Inaction is a policy that also has consequences measurable in terms of human life.
dead_pan is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 15:30
  #1285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
I have said General Dempsey and other Senior US Military Commanders have no backbone.

If this doesn't define the problem then what does?

The Military Leadership has a Moral obligation to refuse orders they know to be "Wrong".

They must stand up....and refuse....meaning by Resigning or being Fired....but stand up they should. I see it as a Duty....and a decision based upon their "Honor".

Robert H. Scales: A war the Pentagon doesn't want » The Commercial Appeal

Last edited by SASless; 7th Sep 2013 at 15:32.
SASless is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 15:48
  #1286 (permalink)  
Cool Mod
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hey guys! You are not going to get away with these kind of opinions and the way they are being put. You know better than that and that is why, if it continues, the posts will be pulled - as one has gone already. Very offensive - amongst other things.

Think before you post please. Remember those who might read such stuff.
PPRuNe Pop is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 17:12
  #1287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Syria: western activists volunteer to become 'human shields'

Syria: western activists volunteer to become 'human shields' - Telegraph

Utter fruitcakes.
Where were they when Assad was launching WP, Scuds and Sarin into the civilian areas of Aleppo?
Eclectic is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 17:31
  #1288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Eclectic
Syria: western activists volunteer to become 'human shields'

Syria: western activists volunteer to become 'human shields' - Telegraph

Utter fruitcakes.
Where were they when Assad was launching WP, Scuds and Sarin into the civilian areas of Aleppo?
It is indeed, truly difficult to understand the rationale here. Again, perhaps their actions are more politically aligned than would appear.
TomJoad is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 17:53
  #1289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fine words but that time is over. 1500+ dead by chemicals and its black dark outside. You drew the line. (If he is going to attack the clock in my house says 2149 out here). Do it and match your windy rhetoric or shut up and go to bed.
(America now sickens me beyond belief).
Pisssed and sick.
Hangarshuffle is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 18:14
  #1290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hangarshuffle claims 1500+ dead by chemicals. So easy to say - just prove it. Even the unfortunate John Kerry (who is not noted for understating the case) didn't put it that high. Lets call an end to this inflationary habit, shall we? Now pray tell us how you KNOW who was responsible.
America has been on Britain's side in 2 world wars yet you find the country to be so sickening as to be unbelievable?
Now you imply that you are inebriated I think we are quite safe in discounting anything you say.
Rosevidney1 is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 18:25
  #1291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
George Galloway: Dogs of War Slaver over Syria, Powder keg for Disaster - YouTube

Superb
Ronald Reagan is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 18:29
  #1292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not scotland
Posts: 358
Received 52 Likes on 24 Posts
Rose

I don't think anybody disputes the fact that a number of people, numbering in their hundreds at least, died due to a chemical weapons attack/incident/accident. The real disputable issue at hand is who was responsible.

Now go back ten years when we rushed to war in Iraq partly based on two falsehoods. Colin Powell standing up in the UN talking about these mobile biological weapons trucks and Tony Blair saying that Saddam could launch chemical weapons at our interests within 45 mins.

The fact that Saddam used chemical weapons in the past is also irrefutable. Although the weapons inspectors could find no real evidence of lingering stockpiles of weapons, and Saddam had also sent a number of documents to the UN showing how they had disposed of said weapons, the coalition still rushed to war against public opinion and with the absence of irrefutable proof.

Fast forward 10 years with the world weary of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the proof that Al Assad's use of chemical weapons not being 100% we now find ourselves in a bit of a quandry.

I am going to stick my neck out. Yes we've heard that we did nothing while thousands of Syrians have died during this Civil War. We also did nothing in Rwanda and Darfur and many other places, as if these are all excuses as to why we should do nothing now. If 100% proof is found that Al Assad used chemical weapons against his own people then this is a red line, whether we like it or not. There are many treaties and conventions that say as much. As the self appointed world's policemen we have a duty, at times, to act. What that act is I am not clever enough to know but, if it stops Al Assad or anyone else in the future from using such weapons, then isn't this a good thing?

Last edited by Toadstool; 7th Sep 2013 at 18:32.
Toadstool is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 18:38
  #1293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
Galloway made one mistake.....he said the American Political Class (or words to that effect meaning those pushing for War) had not been stopped. He is correct in that but left off the most important word that should have been in his statement....."YET".

The American People are adamantly against this push for War, the House of Representatives will more than likely respond to that pressure by Voters....and the Senate unfortunately will probably vote with a very small majority to endorse Obama's demand for approval.

Where that leaves us is quite interesting....the Senate for...and the House Against....the People Against.....and the President for.

This is going to be a true Constitutional Crisis if Obama fails to get Congressional Approval in both Houses and convince far more of the People to support him in this......and then goes out and on his own and orders an Attack on Syria.

If you think you see turmoil now....wait till that happens!

Last edited by SASless; 7th Sep 2013 at 18:39.
SASless is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 18:59
  #1294 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
SASLess, thank you for your prior reply.

It seems to me that there are very few (any?) on this on thread advocating any military intervention.

It seems that most populations of most countries would concur with that position.

It also seems that neighbouring countries are fearful of the fall out.

Even Tony Blair says that they are repeating the mistake that he and GWB made of not considering 'what next'?

Is 'something must be done' even a practical statement? Firing missiles is ipso facto and admission that our leaders are fresh out of ideas.

Why is no one pushing for a ceasefire, a separation of combatants, and a UN Green Line?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 19:07
  #1295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
I also wonder why the International Community, including Obama, have not gone that route....having let this Civil War drag on for Two Years without any serious effort to bring it to a halt.

There have been plenty of reports of atrocities by both sides in this and no real hand wringing over those.

I wonder why the International Red Cross have not been involved in confirming the treatment of the Wounded and Prisoners and worked to ensure they are being rendered humane treatment?

Is it neither side takes Prisoners and do not treat the other sides Wounded when they take possession of the battlefield thus no need for the Red Cross to do what they normally do in situations like this?


Obama made a big point about the WMD Treaty the Syrians did not sign onto....why not the Geneva Accords on treatment of Prisoners and Wounded?

Which treaties and rules must the parties to a non-international armed conflict respect?

The parties to non-international armed conflicts are at minimum required to comply with Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and with rules of customary IHL. These rules guarantee humane treatment to each person that finds him- or herself in the power of the enemy and require that persons wounded in the hostilities, including wounded enemy fighters, be collected and cared for without discrimination.

The outbreak of an armed conflict has significant consequences on the legal obligations of those involved in the fighting, especially regarding their use of force. Indeed, IHL permits a far greater degree of force against lawful targets, though within strict limits aimed at protecting civilians, than what is allowed in situations of violence other than armed conflict.

Among the rules that the parties to an armed conflict must respect when conducting hostilities, there is the prohibition of direct attacks against civilians; the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks; the obligation to respect the principle of proportionality in attack; and the obligation to take all feasible precautions in planning and executing military operations so as to avoid as far as possible civilian casualties.

What happens if the parties to a non-international armed conflict do not respect their obligations under IHL?

Each party to an armed conflict is required to respect and ensure respect for IHL by all those acting on its instructions, or under its direction or control. It must be emphasized that each party must respect IHL even of its adversary does not; in other words, the obligation to respect IHL does not depend on reciprocity.

As regards serious violations of IHL occurring in non-international armed conflicts – also known as war crimes – States must criminally prosecute persons suspected of committing such violations. Under certain conditions, alleged war criminals may also be referred to the International Criminal Court.

I should stress that the ICRC, in keeping with its special status under international law and as a neutral and independent humanitarian organization, does not in any way get involved in the investigation and trials of war crimes, this being the sole responsibility of States.

In a non-international armed conflict, are captured enemy fighters considered prisoners of war?

No. The term "prisoner of war" refers to a special status afforded by the Third Geneva Convention to captured enemy soldiers ("combatants") in international armed conflicts only. Prisoners of war cannot be prosecuted for acts that are lawful under IHL (for example, for having attacked enemy forces). In contrast, in a non-international armed conflict, IHL does not prevent the prosecution of captured rebel fighters for the mere fact of having taken up arms, although IHL encourages governments to grant the broadest possible amnesties at the end of an armed conflict, except for persons suspected of, accused of, or sentenced for war crimes.

If armed groups can be party to an armed conflict, doesn’t this give them a form of legitimacy they don’t deserve?

As is recalled in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, the mere fact that an armed group – be it labelled "criminal," "freedom fighters," "terrorist" or otherwise – is party to an armed conflict does not give it any particular status under IHL. It does, however, create legal obligations for the armed group, as for any party to an armed conflict – in particular, the obligation to ensure that its members respect IHL at all times.

But the application of IHL does not affect the sovereignty of a State or a government's right to suppress rebellion through armed force and to prosecute insurgents under its own laws.

The sole objective of IHL is to minimize suffering in armed conflict. It regulates only how the fighting takes place, and not why it occurs. In internal armed conflicts in particular, IHL imposes obligations on each side without regard to the legitimacy of those taking part in the fighting, which is governed by other bodies of law.

Last edited by SASless; 7th Sep 2013 at 19:15.
SASless is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 19:07
  #1296 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
An interesting week to come! My previous prediction was (thankfully) overtaken by public reaction in the free world, IMO.
Obama is on a limb here. He hesitated then, aquiesced to weight of political opinion about Afghanistan. I think he will not now commit to direct military action here, whether or not he gets approval. Just my opinion.

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 19:09
  #1297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator

Why is no one pushing for a ceasefire, a separation of combatants, and a UN Green Line?
most sensible question asked so far.
TomJoad is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 19:15
  #1298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why is no one pushing for a ceasefire, a separation of combatants, and a UN Green Line?
They can push all they like. Assad is winning and he has the (apparently unconditional) backing of China and Russia. It is simply not in his interest to agree to a ceasefire, until such time as he feels he might be going under.
Broadsword*** is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 19:42
  #1299 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Broadsword***
Assad is winning and he has the (apparently unconditional) backing of China and Russia.
A UN ceasefire and separation of forces requires a UN Resolution. If that is passed then the backing by China and Russia would cease.

Pushing for a cease fire is not dependent on China and Russia acquiescing, that only happens once voted in the UN. While Russia will stand up to the USA, indeed it is probably only supporting Assad because the USA is supporting the rebels, it would cease to do so if international opinion supported a ceasefire resolution.

If a resolution is passed it also means that no country can continue to back one side of the other.

The UN problem is then how to insert peace-keeping forces without first inserting peace-making forces. However it did work in Serbia.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2013, 19:52
  #1300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1500+ dead by chemicals and its black dark outside.
Wow, 1.5% of all estimated casualties were from chemicals and there is no convincing evidence to say who used them.

Why do you suddenly care about 1500 when you weren't screaming for us to go to war over the other 98,500? Why is that? There was probably an equal distribution of men, women and children killed by "conventional" means and they are just as dead as the 1500 so what, pray tell, is getting you people so all fired up?

Since we don't know for sure who used the chemicals the "excuse' that we are going in to stop potential terrorists gaining access holds no water. If the potential terrorists didn't use the weapons then weakening Assad pushes the chemical weapons into the hands of the potential terrorists. If you weaken Assad the only way to prevent the potential terrorists from getting the chemicals is to put boots on the ground, lots and lots of them. Good luck with that and, guess what, there's no knowing if the potential terrorists already have some of the chemicals and haven't used them. So the west has absolutely nothing to gain by going into Syria. Nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada...

Any action against Syria will also bring Iran and potentially Russia and China into the mix.... Do we really want to start messing with them because 1.5% of the casualties in Syria were killed in a way some of us don't like?

Final question. If O'Bummer takes any offensive action in Syria does he have to send his Nobel Peace Prize back?
Airborne Aircrew is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.