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

Syria - The US Empire's Suez Crisis?

Wikiposts
Search
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.

Syria - The US Empire's Suez Crisis?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 30th Aug 2013, 17:11
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,084
Received 2,944 Likes on 1,254 Posts
Here's the one I struggle with. So they can be ripped apart by 7.62mm rounds, eviscerated by random 81mm mortar rounds or vaporized by air dropped munitions but somehow using CW crosses a line?
I believe they get round that moral dilemma by stating the first are targeted weapons where innocent casualties can be avoided, the latter they can't be..

Though both in this case appear to be failing miserably.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 17:11
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With respect, melmothtw, they can not be compared, The Spanish Civil War, and the mess of Bosnia.

Looking at the adage, you reap what you sow, the current situation in Syria, is, has, will be, fuelled by events that began with Iraqi, could be argued a lot earlier than that, but the West (US), moved in and under huge false pretences, duplicity, invaded a country, for regime change, and financial gain, and then raping said country of its resources. The PUBLIC, the illiterate masses, duped along the way.

Then Egypt, then Libya, now Syria, aspirations on Iran.

It has to stop.

It is tough to watch the carnage, it is tough to make decisions, but the decision to not get involved here, and join the US in its folly, is, IMO, entirely the correct one, for the UK.
maxred is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 17:14
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
melmothtw, you don't get it do you? If Assad were to win and take back all of Syria he will wipe out Al Qaeda in his country. If we had left Saddam in place there would be no Al Qaeda in Iraq. If we had left Gaddafi in place there would be no Al Qaeda in Libya.
Its our interventions which have caused this. If Assad should fall then Al Qaeda will control various parts of Syria. This puts absolute fear and terror into the minds of most Syrians who wish to keep living a secular life like the Assad regime provided them with. The enemies of Al Qaeda should be our friends ie Assad, Gaddafi and Saddam.

Besides Putin is a fairly good guy, a tough and strong leader who has done wonders for Russia. He is also good at trying to stop us in the west waging war all the time, his Chinese allies are good to!
Ronald Reagan is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 17:19
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,133
Received 173 Likes on 89 Posts
I respect your opinion maxred, though I doubt the same can be said for those Syrian civilians who will cotinue to be bombed and gassed as a result of this decision not to act.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 17:26
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,133
Received 173 Likes on 89 Posts
I've heard it all now Ronald Reagan. So Saddam, Assad, Ghadaffi, and Putin are the good guys? Sweet Jesus!
melmothtw is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 17:30
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Putin is a fairly good guy. The others are good compared to Al Qaeda!
You have to choose between Al Qaeda or Assad! Gaddafi even helped us in the war on terror but it was not enough to save him, the west allowed Al Qaeda into Libya and even launched airstrikes on their behalf! Its pathetic as is all this western talk about Syria. Sticking our noses into things which are none of our business and making things far worse.
Ronald Reagan is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 17:33
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,780
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here's the one I struggle with. So they can be ripped apart by 7.62mm rounds, eviscerated by random 81mm mortar rounds or vaporized by air dropped munitions but somehow using CW crosses a line?
Agreed - the argument that some forms of lethal weapon are less morally acceptable than others is difficult to understand when looked at dispassionately.

Some might argue that WMD do not discriminate between "civilian" and "military" targets - but that distinction has become blurred in recent asymmetric conflicts (and the other side are not always to blame) . Some might argue that WMD are strategic weapons in that they enable an attacker to inflict mass casualties with minimum risk to their own personnel - but we already do that by using drones and cruise missiles where the bearers of deadly power bear no personal risk.

I've never read a rational argument for the illegality of WMD compared to so-called "conventional" weapons which are just as indiscriminate and deadly, and which require no risk on behalf of the military personnel who deliver them.

It is not really even clear that CW should be classified as WMD. They are by no means as capable of "mass destruction" as nuclear or advanced biological weapons. At worst, in purely destructive terms, they are no more powerful than many legal so-called conventional tactical weapons.

Ironically, their only real strategic value is that they are "classified" as WMD. So as we saw in the 2003 in Iraq, their nebulous existence was "justification" to start a war that continues to cause horrific casualties to this day, and as we see today in Syria it is possible for elements of the international community to be duped into alarming attacks on entirely spurious evidence of their misuse.
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 18:09
  #28 (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: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Was Franco good or bad? Was Tito good or bad? Neither really received general acclaim by the free world but the former kept Spain neutral and the latter gave his country a fairly benign form of communism.

Who supported Giap against the Japanese?

Who was better, Batista or Castro? Who backed Castro and who backed Batista?

History is riddled with one state backing or opposing the leadership of another.

Husain and Assad both controlled and pacified their countries as indeed did Gadhafi and Mubarak.

In some way France's prosperity and stability was the result of De Gaulle's control and we know who didn't support him.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 18:14
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,133
Received 173 Likes on 89 Posts
Not sure what point you're making there Pontius. Was Hitler good or bad? Was Pol Pot or Milosovic? There comes a point where the international community has to stand up for what's right, and 'right' is not a relative concept - it is laid down in the United Nations charter to which all its members (including Syria) have signed up to.

Last edited by melmothtw; 30th Aug 2013 at 18:20.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 18:26
  #30 (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: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
mel, I am on your side. The UN is a 'new' organisation. The point is that the side that we support may not be the best side in he long run.

It is arguable that Hitler rescued Germany from its post WW1 armistice, that Franco avoided being on the losing side in WW2, that Tito prevented Stalin's boot. None of these achieved what they did through democracy but they did bring stability.

Giap was supported by the US as was Castro. The UK, OTOH supported Batista, or at least preferred him as a least bad option.

Of the other, the west treated with them again as least bad options.

Are we right to interfere? May be. The point is though that while the International Community stands up for human rights the 'International' community does not take action. Action is left to just one country with a little support from a very few others.

Having taken action is the outcome (or has the outcome) been better than before?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 18:36
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The point which is missing here, is factual evidence of who unleashed the CW.

In the Kerry press conference of today, there are no FACTS, on this, only assertions and an assumption, that it was the Governemnt forces.

Look, we all know the CW were used. That is abhorrent, but the whole nasty situation is abhorrent, with civilians being killed and maimed by all manner of 'weapons'. The whole region is now an almighty F**k up.

As I said earlier, you tend to reap what you sow..

Lets not do it again, although it appears highly likely that is what exactly what is going to happen.

Cruise missiles, lets hope the GPS guidance is up to speed.
maxred is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 19:12
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,133
Received 173 Likes on 89 Posts
No one is missing that point maxred, it's just that most can see it for the red herring it is.

To suggest the rebels gassed their own people to garner international support is obfuscation of the same order as that which saw the UN refuse to intervene in Bosnia for years on the basis that it had no 'proof' as to which side was actually sending the shells into Sarajevo (this despite Canadian peacekeepers being stationed at the airprort just yards from some of the Serb guns that were doing the firing).

It's just a convenient excuse to do nothing that serves no one but Assad.

Last edited by melmothtw; 30th Aug 2013 at 19:14.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 19:44
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 558
Received 22 Likes on 16 Posts
Are all the rebels muslim extremists?

Last edited by t43562; 30th Aug 2013 at 19:44.
t43562 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 19:47
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, but if you think the less extremist elements will hold the reigns after Assad falls, I think you seriously need to reappraise.

The best they will get is a fractured unstable country, unwelcome to westerners, with multiple and differing parties in control.

But like the best we can hope for in Afghanistan post pull out.

Yeah, whoop! Success!

Or not....


Do you really want to be supporting these animals?
Chechnya...


http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/0...raphic-images/

Syria, shooting unarmed and injured Syrian tankies....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aea_1377610601

Or how about eating human organs, because "that's what they did in 600 AD, and I had no choice"?
Abu Sakkar: Syrian Rebel Cuts Out and Eats Soldier's Heart In Ghastly Propaganda Video

Go ahead. Support salsafists. Same mutters we have been hunting down since before 9/11 and I don't see a reason why we should stop turning them into cactus food now.

Last edited by VinRouge; 30th Aug 2013 at 20:11.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 20:03
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 558
Received 22 Likes on 16 Posts
So anyone who isn't extreme in one way or another will lose at least partially because nobody supports them.
t43562 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 20:03
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,746
Received 79 Likes on 41 Posts
Originally Posted by t43562
Are all the rebels muslim extremists?
It's very likely that the majority of the 'rebels' aren't even Syrians.....
GeeRam is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 20:10
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
T43652, that's got nothing to do with the immediate security of the uk. Not my problem, not the UKs problem. Fortunately, a majority of democratically elected MPs agreed last night.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 20:22
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,300
Received 523 Likes on 218 Posts
It looks like the US Empire has a new best friend, quite a change for the cheese eating yellow bellied surrender monkeys. Or is it just the usual French desire to demonstrate their weaponry to the world's markets? Whoops, got a bit cynical at the end there
They were our first "Best Friend" as you might recall....unlike another bunch who teamed up with the Germans against us.

Oddly, the last time your Prime Minister lost such a vote....it was when he wanted to pick a fight with us.

Amazing how the World turns ain't it?
SASless is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 21:30
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by melmothtw
There was no vital US interest at stake in Europe in the 1940s.
That's why they, quite sensibly, waited for Hitler to declare war on them before they joined in.
MG23 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 21:34
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We've had two and a half thousand years and spilt endless amounts of blood in our own countries to get democracy to where it is now, programmed into the western brain and culture as an inaliable right. Yet we expect people to whom it is an alien concept both politically and culturally to embrace it literally overnight. Are we all insane?

What's happening in Syria is appaling from both sides, however they need to sort out their own problems, or at the most let the Arab nations of that area sort it out. We cannot understand the mindset of these people so how can we sit and pontificate on what is good or not good for them? And do we have the right?

For the hand wringers and 'something must be done' brigade may I remind you that less than 20 years ago some 800,000 (some put the estimate as high as a million) Rwandan men, women and children were literally hacked to death. 500,000 of those were murdered in just 100 days. That's 5,000 per day or 208 an hour, every hour of every day for 100 days. It was the most successful genocide of the 20C. We just sat and watched it happen. Or were those human's lives somehow less worthy?

Edit: Changed Sudan to Syria, slip of the brain there.

Last edited by thing; 30th Aug 2013 at 21:41.
thing is offline  


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.