Current Affairs Syria...

[peteblue]

I am assuming ofc that this new government would be one amenable to the west mate, more specifically one chosen by the US?

You think sending 500k troops - a frankly absurd number as at the height of troop involvement in Iraq the second time the US only had 166k in country. Would solve anything - besides create an absolute powder keg of US/UK/French etc troops present and active in the same country on opposing sides to the Russians, absolutely insane suggestion.

I'm also speculating that you suggest 500k troops, Russia to be kicked out and then in a country with 500k western troops in there the US go 'let's have democracy' an run an election LOL

Not checked other threads but i am guessing you aren't suggesting that we should go in Saudi or Israel to safeguard human lives and to bring democracy to those regions?

So what should we do.....

 

[bluestevon]

Come on lads, you all know what we shouldn’t do, now any chance of sharing what we should do......

Honest answer to your baiting, we should do nothing.

The Russian involvement - when the west had the chance and did nothing but make matters worse with minor meddling in the conflict, has at the very least brought a much swifter end to the conflict in the country.

Becoming involved just as the thing has almost reached the end game - which it has, is counter intuitive and will just cause the people and country to suffer more than it already has, will Russia gain from the actions they took, certainly they will do - they wouldn't have become involved otherwise, the pipeline for one was a major player in them becoming involved in the first place.

So the question then becomes - IF the west become involved at this very late juncture - then why is it doing so, and if you think it is for humanitarian reasons mate, then again i point you in the direction of Israel, Saudi and various other countries that we have done nothing against and in fact have supported, traded military hardware too and welcomed their dignitaries to the country like our closest allies.

 

[bluestevon]

So what should we do.....

Answered already that just above mate.

You are good at asking questions btw, one for you, what do you think we should do in two other situations, 1. Israel, and the 2nd - Saudi?

 

[bluestevon]

Keep ourselves firmly away from the situation and let it sort itself out rather than another well meaning intervention that leads to a power vacuum filled with murderous roving bands that really hate us?

Here's the problem mate, not having a go, but FAR too many people think that anything the US/UK etc does is 'another well meaning intervention'.

If interventions are done for such reasons, then why do we never intervene against any country which is an ally?

Ultimately like Russians or hate them, the Russian intervention in Syria will and has ensured the war will be conclusively resolved, the situation you stated you would fear will not be present because of that intervention, and 'normality' will return to the people far sooner than had it been allowed to drag on with constant 'minor' interference from the rest of the world.

Like i've said about the West, the same applies to Russia - they aren't doing it for humanitarian reasons - the average Russian doesn't give a flying one about Syria or the people compared to any other country, they have done it for geopolitical and economic reasons, to support an ally in the region - essentially the exact same reasons as when western countries get involved in other countries affairs.

 

[peteblue]

Honest answer to your baiting, we should do nothing.

The Russian involvement - when the west had the chance and did nothing but make matters worse with minor meddling in the conflict, has at the very least brought a much swifter end to the conflict in the country.

Becoming involved just as the thing has almost reached the end game - which it has, is counter intuitive and will just cause the people and country to suffer more than it already has, will Russia gain from the actions they took, certainly they will do - they wouldn't have become involved otherwise, the pipeline for one was a major player in them becoming involved in the first place.

So the question then becomes - IF the west become involved at this very late juncture - then why is it doing so, and if you think it is for humanitarian reasons mate, then again i point you in the direction of Israel, Saudi and various other countries that we have done nothing against and in fact have supported, traded military hardware too and welcomed their dignitaries to the country like our closest allies.

If you are happy that countries who have signed agreements not to use Chemical Weapons, then do actually use them, and indeed use them against their own people, then don’t be surprised to see more attacks using these type of weapons on the streets of towns and cities anywhere in the world. Once it is accepted as OK, then it’s OK for everyone......

 

[peteblue]

Answered already that just above mate.

You are good at asking questions btw, one for you, what do you think we should do in two other situations, 1. Israel, and the 2nd - Saudi?

Nothing. Neither pose any kind of threat to the U.K. and neither are engaged in civil war and using banned substances against their own people....

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Keep ourselves firmly away from the situation and let it sort itself out rather than another well meaning intervention that leads to a power vacuum filled with murderous roving bands that really hate us?

Not really that straight forward is it? If you lived in the Sudetenland, would things have just sorted themselves out? How would that have happened? * We seem to have a dangerous cocktail at the moment of washing our hands of the mess on the ground, whilst also refusing to offer refuge for those fleeing from the mess.


*I've relatives that are still pretty angry at the international community for washing their hands of them as of no interest to Britain. We're fortunate that we haven't been occupied or oppressed in 750 years or so, but a bit of empathy for those that have might go a long way.

 

[bluestevon]

Nothing. Neither pose any kind of threat to the U.K. and neither are engaged in civil war and using banned substances against their own people....

What threat does Syria pose to the UK mate?

Israel hasn't used chemical weapons, but the have used banned weapons mate - they used cluster bombs - where is the difference, both are banned for use? The US only have over a million of them in stock and in field too though so guess it's not that serious an international law banning them...

The Saudis don't use chemical weapons - nope mate because they are using state of the art US/Uk equipment, tanks, planes, bombs and other weaponry to kill people, but hey they aren't banned so who gives a care really

Oh but the Saudis did use in Yemen last year banned cluster bombs as well, these ones where made in the good old UK btw.

The Saudis don't face a civil war because they jail, torture or behead anyone who shows any dissent mate, that a good democratic thing in your opinion?

 

[bluestevon]

Not really that straight forward is it? If you lived in the Sudetenland, would things have just sorted themselves out? How would that have happened? * We seem to have a dangerous cocktail at the moment of washing our hands of the mess on the ground, whilst also refusing to offer refuge for those fleeing from the mess.


*I've relatives that are still pretty angry at the international community for washing their hands of them as of no interest to Britain. We're fortunate that we haven't been occupied or oppressed in 750 years or so, but a bit of empathy for those that have might go a long way.

Problem is mate, the example you have just given ignores the fact that the sudetenland and the problems that led to in the eventual start of second world war was actually created by western powers decisions post first world war.

also a bit of a weird example - as the majority of people in the sudetenland welcomed the German actions - so would have completely opposed the UK/France/US becoming involved to 'save' them

 

[bluestevon]

If you are happy that countries who have signed agreements not to use Chemical Weapons, then do actually use them, and indeed use them against their own people, then don’t be surprised to see more attacks using these type of weapons on the streets of towns and cities anywhere in the world. Once it is accepted as OK, then it’s OK for everyone......

They have existed for an age, countries have had them for an age, when they have been used - most times they where used without any international interference or action as a consequence.

Millions of tons of this - 'not' a chemical weapon dropped - by our good ally in the 70's

Only country to ever use nuclear weapons 1940's - again our partner in the special relationship


So forgive us mate, if i call your pretence at humanitarian reasons utter bs.

 

[Tubey]

So there's going to be a bunch of moaning about not running the strikes through parliament today.

On one hand, I get it - I'd have preferred it too in this case, simply because the results of the attack weren't as important as sending a message. So even if they moved stuff out of the way, it wouldn't have mattered a whole lot.

That said, going through parliament is the equivalent of telling someone in a fight that you're about to throw a punch before throwing it. It's obviously not a smart thing to do.

 

[hullefc]

Nothing. Neither pose any kind of threat to the U.K. and neither are engaged in civil war and using banned substances against their own people....

Human Rights Watch reveals extent of Israel's phosphorus use in Gaza

"In Gaza, the Israeli military didn't just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops," said Fred Abrahams, a senior Human Rights Watch researcher. "It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren't in the area and safe smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died." He said senior commanders should be held to account.

Human Rights Watch called on the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, to launch an international commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of violations of international law in the Gaza war by the Israeli military and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that controls Gaza".

"White phosphorus burns in contact with oxygen and causes deep burns when it touches human skin, sometimes reaching to the bone. The weapon is not illegal itself and can be used to provide a smokescreen on the battlefield or as an incendiary weapon against a military target. However, its use is regulated even by customary international law. It must be used in a way that distinguishes between combatants and civilians and cannot be used to target civilians"

Turn the other way and not notice it because it is done by the 'good guys' the IDF.

 

[bluestevon]

So there's going to be a bunch of moaning about not running the strikes through parliament today.

On one hand, I get it - I'd have preferred it too in this case, simply because the results of the attack weren't as important as sending a message. So even if they moved stuff out of the way, it wouldn't have mattered a whole lot.

That said, going through parliament is the equivalent of telling someone in a fight that you're about to throw a punch before throwing it. It's obviously not a smart thing to do.

Warning was given prior to the attacks, to ensure no Russian would be present in the area, locations obviously needed to be presented at that time for similar reasons, the entire operation was for the cameras mate, as given the prior warning nothing would be there and no one of importance anyway as they will have been moved.

Thing is mate the parliamentary vote analogy you used would assume the other person is gonna attempt to be in a fight with you, be careful what you wish for btw, because that is the rabbit whole which at the bottom has the sign 'the smart way is to not give the public any say in governance...'

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Problem is mate, the example you have just given ignores the fact that the sudetenland and the problems that led to in the eventual start of second world war was actually created by western powers decisions post first world war.

also a bit of a weird example - as the majority of people in the sudetenland welcomed the German actions - so would have completely opposed the UK/France/US becoming involved to 'save' them

They really didn't. My in-laws are Czech and live in that area (in a town that was formerly known as Reichenbach) so it's direct from the horses mouth. You'll be telling me they were cheering the Soviet tanks on the streets of Prague next.

Sadly history is littered with examples of problems, either by trying to help or standing by and doing nothing.

 

[zzr45]

Here's the problem mate, not having a go, but FAR too many people think that anything the US/UK etc does is 'another well meaning intervention'.

If interventions are done for such reasons, then why do we never intervene against any country which is an ally?

Ultimately like Russians or hate them, the Russian intervention in Syria will and has ensured the war will be conclusively resolved, the situation you stated you would fear will not be present because of that intervention, and 'normality' will return to the people far sooner than had it been allowed to drag on with constant 'minor' interference from the rest of the world.

Like i've said about the West, the same applies to Russia - they aren't doing it for humanitarian reasons - the average Russian doesn't give a flying one about Syria or the people compared to any other country, they have done it for geopolitical and economic reasons, to support an ally in the region - essentially the exact same reasons as when western countries get involved in other countries affairs.

Not really that straight forward is it? If you lived in the Sudetenland, would things have just sorted themselves out? How would that have happened? * We seem to have a dangerous cocktail at the moment of washing our hands of the mess on the ground, whilst also refusing to offer refuge for those fleeing from the mess.


*I've relatives that are still pretty angry at the international community for washing their hands of them as of no interest to Britain. We're fortunate that we haven't been occupied or oppressed in 750 years or so, but a bit of empathy for those that have might go a long way.

Both valid points. I think the problem is that we’ve got to a point where these sort of interventions are done to sate the calls of the media - Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya were all done with a thumbs up, we’ve won in a month type of deal. Nothing ever seems to be done with any appreciation of the actual socio-cultural situations of these countries and the West tries to impart it’s values on another part of the world.

In this case Russia has actually had normalised relations with Syria for decades, so might actually appreciate the situation a bit more than the cursory glance at Wikipedia approach we seem to take.

The west has flipped so many times on who we’d actually support as well - anti Assad / Pro Assad when Isis were a threat/anti Assad again. It’s just odd and we just seem in the dark.

Agree that we should do more from a humanitarian aspect, but in terms of actually trying to dictate changes we should be looking to be far less hands on.