Current Affairs Syria...

[peteblue]

Interesting that Pete wants to see everywhere bombed.

Don’t be silly. What would you like the U.K. to do, to actually do and how.....

 

[peteblue]

Seems you are having a bit of difficulty today.

"Give the all land, buildings and houses that were illegally taken off Palestinians back to their rightful owners. Let all the people sent into exile from Palestine return and then hold elections for a new government. Simple really".

How....

 

[hullefc]

I don’t expect the USA to attack the U.K., do you......

Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States Army in the late 1920s and early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces).[1] War Plan Red discussed the potential for fighting a war with the British Empire and outlined those steps necessary to defend the Atlantic coast against any attempted mainland invasion of the United States. It further discussed fighting a two-front war with both Japan and Britain simultaneously (as envisioned in War Plan Red-Orange)"

"All governments make 'worst case scenario' contingency plans which are kept under wraps from the public. These documents were unearthed buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C. - a top-secret document once regarded as the most sensitive on earth.

It was in 1930, that America first wrote a plan for war with 'The Red Empire' - its most dangerous empire.

But America's foe in this war was not Russia or Japan or even the burgeoning Nazi Germany.

Plan Red was code for an apocalyptic war with Britain and all her dominions.


Only came off the statute books in 1974.

 

[hullefc]

How....

I mentioned land, buildings and houses but you want .....

"So, are you advocating that we bomb Israel....any particular bits......"

 

[peteblue]

Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States Army in the late 1920s and early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces).[1] War Plan Red discussed the potential for fighting a war with the British Empire and outlined those steps necessary to defend the Atlantic coast against any attempted mainland invasion of the United States. It further discussed fighting a two-front war with both Japan and Britain simultaneously (as envisioned in War Plan Red-Orange)"

"All governments make 'worst case scenario' contingency plans which are kept under wraps from the public. These documents were unearthed buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C. - a top-secret document once regarded as the most sensitive on earth.

It was in 1930, that America first wrote a plan for war with 'The Red Empire' - its most dangerous empire.

But America's foe in this war was not Russia or Japan or even the burgeoning Nazi Germany.

Plan Red was code for an apocalyptic war with Britain and all her dominions.


Only came off the statute books in 1974.

Very old news. We even fought a war with them as well. Now my question was do you expect the USA to attack the U.K......

 

[peteblue]

I mentioned land, buildings and houses but you want .....

"So, are you advocating that we bomb Israel....any particular bits......"

So this land buildings etc, is a wish list. Now what do you want the U.K. to do that would make it happen.....

 

[hullefc]

So this land buildings etc, is a wish list. Now what do you want the U.K. to do that would make it happen.....

Land legally owned by Palestinians is not part of a 'wish' list. UN resolution 194 states that "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations"

This was voted for by the UK in 1948 but successive UK governments have ignored it. The UK is under a moral obligation to raise the issue of Palestinians returning as it was under British control. The UK can put a vote forward to implement resolution 194 and inform the Israeli government that the UN will organise for the transportation of those refugees that want to return to their land, buildings and houses.

 

[peteblue]

Land legally owned by Palestinians is not part of a 'wish' list. UN resolution 194 states that "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations"

This was voted for by the UK in 1948 but successive UK governments have ignored it. The UK is under a moral obligation to raise the issue of Palestinians returning as it was under British control. The UK can put a vote forward to implement resolution 194 and inform the Israeli government that the UN will organise for the transportation of those refugees that want to return to their land, buildings and houses.

So why has no one else done it, or is it not that simple......

 

[bluestevon]

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.

No mate i would never say that the Czechs welcomed the soviet tanks, far from the opposite, and realistically making that comparison is absolutely daft.

There wasn't 3m Ethnic Russians there for starters such as there was Germans, mainly concentrated in the area of the Sudetenland, the parliamentary elections in 35 - well prior to the annexation/invasion, the largest party in both senate and the Chamber was the German Sudetan party - which was funded by the Nazi party in Germany, the ethnic breakdown of the country was over 30% of the 10m population German, again mainly settled in the Sudetenland region. The party set up by Germans opposing Hitler in Germany received around 10% of that vote. If you look at the regions with the vast majority of German population - those figures voting for the GSP rises to over 90% of all votes.

I never said that the Germans where welcomed into the country as a whole, but the region known as the Sudetenland and especially in regions such as you described - there was a vast amount of support for them and yes the where welcomed.

As for your family (wife's) recollections, i can't comment - besides for the observation that sometimes memory clouds over time and sometimes it's easier in insight to not think your friends and neighbours welcomed into the country someone such as Hitler.

 

[bluestevon]

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.

Hard to actually disagree with much you say there mate in honesty, British foreign policy has for a long time been dictated by whats good for Britain, or rather what is good for the politicians who happen to be in charge of the country at that particular moment, the three things that very rarely align are what is good for the country involved, what is good for Britain and what is good for the British political classes, and when there is a conflict, can bet your house on the latter being the one which is the chosen option.

 

[bluestevon]

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.

Hard to actually disagree with much you say there mate in honesty, British foreign policy has for a long time been dictated by whats good for Britain, or rather what is good for the politicians who happen to be in charge of the country at that particular moment, the three things that very rarely align are what is good for the country involved, what is good for Britain and what is good for the British political classes, and when there is a conflict, can bet your house on the latter being the one which is the chosen option.

 

[peteblue]

I see the Syrians and the Russians are holding up the OPCW inspections.....spring cleaning I expect....

 

[bluestevon]

Syria, in itself, poses no threat. The fact it is producing chemical weapons that could fall into other hands and the fact that if allowed legitimises chemical weapons is a threat to the U.K.

You obviously have some concern over Israel and Saudi Arabia, in terms of threat to the U.K. there is none....

Then why is the country allowing the sale from UK companies of chemicals known to be needed in the production of chemical weapons to countries known to be willing to use them mate?

this has happened not once but in several different countries now including Syria

For a country who assumes a lot in terms of assigning blame in foreign policy decisions, thinking a country which has used chemical weapons and buys ingredients from UK companies for those chemicals is using them for altruistic purposes and not the prior one is a bit naive - or more rationally - they simply don't care what they are being used for until it is politically advantageous to do so?

The nationalities of the 9/11 bombers was 15 of the 19 where Saudis mate, 2 from the UAE, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese (strangely no Iraqis or Afhgans in there)
Bin Laden was also Saudi - whose father and family are very closely connected to the House of Saud.

The propping up and support of atrocities inside Saudi Arabia has to a great extent led and fueled the extremist feelings in Arab countries

Israel - the wests tolerance and support of numerous human rights violations, murders, flouting of international laws, and the blocking of any pressure on them being able to be exerted by the UN or in sanctions by the US/UK steadfastly sticking with vetos etc, has also fuelled extremism in the region and beyond.

Would you not say that the continued support - blinding support despite any actions they commit, does not represent a threat to the UK/US etc?

 

[bluestevon]

How....

Heres a start mate, without the support and supply of arms and political veto's in the UN/Security council, Israel would be forced to start listening

Stick massive sanctions on the country, target high profile Israelis who support the government with the same types of sanctions Russian oligarchs are being and in the past have been hit by.

See how long Israel flout human rights, kill civilians and effectively do what they feel when they start running out of parts for their state of the art army/air force.

Without the US support and protection - Israel would have no choice sooner or later than to come to the table to negotiate

 

[tsubaki]

And do what....

With regards to Syria?

i) only use force where it can actually do some good for us, not in order to appear to have done something
ii) support the people who have fought for us over there (ie: the SDF) and oppose any attempts to abandon them
iii) come up with a negotiation process that doesn't have preconditions that make it impossible to acheive