PPRuNe Forums - Here it comes: Syria

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - Here it comes: Syria (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/513470-here-comes-syria.html)

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NutLoose (Post 8037805)

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'

Quote:

Originally Posted by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU (Post 8037836)

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 ?

Quote:

until we know for sure used the weapons

Now you're beginning to sound like Putin. We will never know for sure, however the evidence is pointing pretty strongly in one direction, with scant if any in any other.

I wonder if the no military solution is because Putin has inferred that they will get involved ?

Here's pretty good article by Russian 2-star Army PVO general on Syrian AD and its potential vs NATO strike

Íàöèîíàëüíàÿ îáîðîíà / Ãåîïîëèòèêà / ÏÂÎ Ñèðèè: ñïàñåíèå èëè èëëþçèÿ?

Use your browser auto translate.

Quote:

I wonder if the no military solution is because Putin has inferred that they will get involved ?

He's done more than inferred - he pretty much said as much at the end of the G20. He was always going to back Assad, it was just a matter of how far. Now we know.

This looks like our Cuba moment...

Tom:

Quote:

He makes reference to what they are now calling the crossing of an "international red line".

That's him trying to pull O'Bummer's arse out of the fire... Without a sensible plan etc. he was stupid to have made that statement. But, funnily enough, he made it anyway.

Back in 1963, Hans Morgenthau was quite vocal in his opposition to the Vietnam War has this to say about the Government's push to become engaged. It holds to the current situation. Bold Text is my doing.

Quote:

The Constitution assigns to Congress the right to declare war. How can Congress discharge this function if its members and the citizens who have elected them are precluded from discussing the merits of the issues that might lead to war? The Constitution implies that Congress has a choice in the matter of war. How can it make that choice if neither it nor the people it represents have the right to debate the issues? To say that the most momentous issues a nation must face cannot be openly and critically discussed is really tantamount to saying that democratic debate and decision do not apply to the questions of life and death and that, as far as they are concerned, the people have given carte blanche to one man. Not only is this position at odds with the principles of democracy, but it also removes a very important corrective for governmental misjudgment. –HANS MORGENTHAU, APRIL 3, 1965

General H. R. McMaster, in his book "Dereliction of Duty" ends his account by saying the following:

Quote:

The War in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on the front pages of the "New York Times" or on the College Campuses. It was lost in Washington, D.C., even before Americans assumed sole responsibility for the fighting in 1965 and before they realized the Country was at War;indeed, even before the first American Units were deployed. The disaster in Vietnam was not the result of impersonal forces but a uniquely human failure, the responsibility for which was shared by President Johnson and his principle military and civilian advisers. The failings were many and reinforcing: arrogance, weakness, lying in the pursuit of self-interest, and above all, the abdication of responsibility to the American People.

I maintain we are seeing exactly the same thing happen right here before our eyes. Obama and his military and civilian advisers are repeating those same mistakes in order to support a failed Presidency all the while ignoring the Will of the People.

Now he's done it!

Threat to a NATO Ally....rally all of NATO, recall Parliament.....muster the Horse Guard....Tally Ho! Chaps!;)

You really are an excitable chap SASLess. Ask the staff to leave the lights on in your room tonight:E

Quote:

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.

I'm against intervention in Syria because there are no clear "good" guys. Both sides have shown murderous intent and a rebel victory would spell the end for all sorts of minorities who could survive only in the relative stability of Assad's police state, so it's certainly not a clear-cut "intervene to save the xxx people from genocide". When there is no obvious right answer, the case for respecting the will of the international community is much stronger.

In Courtney's example there is one protagonist setting about a genocide, but with no threat of counter-genocide from the other side. There is thus a much clearer moral imperative to intervene on the side of the victims, and while achieving international consensus is never likely to be 'easy', it would surely have been more straightforward than in the Syria example. We saw this in the Balkans, where the Serbs showed un-reciprocated genocidal intent.

So, I think it's perfectly possible to have a consistent moral viewpoint that leads one to be pro-intervention in some cases, and anti-intervention in others. There's no black and white in this argument!

Edited to add: The "good" side will never be whiter-than-white; the trick is to see through the actions of rogue elements and identify the true intent behind each side's actions.

Tom:

SAS is one of the least excitable chaps around... ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airborne Aircrew (Post 8038016)

Tom:

SAS is one of the least excitable chaps around... ;)

Must be the underpants then tonight - he's maybe got them on too tight.;)

Which one is he?

Nice article, except it relates to an incident on 2nd Sep I believe. Also typical media photo grab - get me a picture of two Typhoons.

One is a T1 the other an F2 and neither is armed.

Have we the budget to arm them?

Quote:

SAS is one of the least excitable chaps around

At the rate he's going he'll soon only be seeing his own posts. Still, at least he'll be happy (hopefully he won't disagree with something he posted earlier and send himself off to the 'Peanut Gallery').

BTW I'd be amazed if he's reading this as its a dead cert I would have crossed one of his red lines in the past (my joke about Barbara Bush for starters ;))