• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Another flipping war

Syria is a tricky one. (No **** Sherlock) it isn't a player as far as oil is concerned and its production or non production onto the world market shouldn't make a difference to the price, although you can be damn sure the oil companies would use it as an excuse. Syria is most definitely not about oil as far as foreign (for foreign read US) interests is concerned. Here's the deal with Syria. It's a huge landmass in a tactically sensitive area with a despotic leader. The Zionist controlled US government wants stability in the region and regime changes within any country that has even a sniff of a threat against Israel. Assad hasn't threatened Israel recently but he has just used chemical weapons on his own people so he has to go. One way or the other his days are numbered. If a cruise missile doesn't get him next week, Mossad wil get him the week after that, or the rebels will get him.

But here's the tricky bit. US facilitated Regime change is only a worthwhile effort if the incoming regime is US neutral/friendly and Israell neutral. You can't be Israeli friendly if you are an Arab state, even if you are in bed with the Zionist US government such as Saudi Arabia and some of her satellites. the incoming regime in this case is made up of tribes with Taliban/Al Qaeda connections. As with US intervention in lots of states in that region, today's solution gives birth to tomorrow's problem.

So what will happen now ? IMO there will be a token show of force by the US. They will stop well short of trying to achieve regime change because the prospective new regime isn't any better for Israeli/US interests than the current one is. a few aspirin factories and a school blown into obvlivion ought to keep most happy for now.They will be hoping the conflict goes on for quite a bit longer with no further chemical strikes as the objective has to be to buy a bit of time for the CIA to get their mucky paws on a new and more acceptable regime.
 
Last edited:
SLH. I do understand you are stating your beliefs and are passionate about them. I respect you for that. However, your generalisation on the British Public being uncaring for the people caught up in this nasty war is IMO wrong.
 
SocketRocket said:
SLH. I do understand you are stating your beliefs and are passionate about them. I respect you for that. However, your generalisation on the British Public being uncaring for the people caught up in this nasty war is IMO wrong.
Click to expand...

I hope that you are right - but I'm not sure given the nature of quite a lot of the opinions I've heard expressed - especially those that are along the lines of no UK involvement in any circumstances - and I've heard that quite a bit.

My view is that anyone who really cares for the innocent and suffering wouldn't say that. And even many of those who say they DO care, then approve of UK involvement in intervention only with the UN approval caveat. However if we are to wait for the UN security council to sanction the military option then I fear we may be waiting a long time as Russia and China just won't go for it. Do those who so caveat their approval for UK involvement only do so knowing this? Meanwhile we stand aside and watch atrocities being perpetrated.

As far as the 'why us - not others?' argument goes. Sorry - we as a country should decide for ourselves what sort of country we are and how we react to such as Syria and not look to others to do salve our conscience, nor should we as a nation cut our conscience to suit today's fashion.
 
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
And even many of those who say they DO care, then approve of UK involvement in intervention only with the UN approval caveat. However if we are to wait for the UN security council to sanction the military option then I fear we may be waiting a long time as Russia and China just won't go for it. Do those who so caveat their approval for UK involvement only do so knowing this? Meanwhile we stand aside and watch atrocities being perpetrated.

As far as the 'why us - not others?' argument goes. Sorry - we as a country should decide for ourselves what sort of country we are and how we react to such as Syria and not look to others to do salve our conscience, nor should we as a nation cut our conscience to suit today's fashion.
Click to expand...

If we get involved without UN approval are we not guilty of war crimes too? Would it not be viewed as an illegal act? Iraq & Afghanistan were.

And the country has decided, both in parliament and via any number of polls ran by various media organisations.

I had a chat with our local MP both before the vote and afterwards. His view was that even with the UN's approval and the will of the British people we now struggle to have the capability, the standing in the middle east and are nigh on broke financially. To make a meaningful contribution in yet another conflict would damage a fragile economy further.

Personally I think the British people do care, but just not enough to get directly involved.
 
Your MP is right, our main problem is that the armed forces would struggle to have tha capability. We can thank yours and those other wasters in Parliament for that. Come 2017 the regular army will not be able to fill Wembley football stadium.
 
Old Skier said:
Sorry I did'nt think I would need to but I was thinking about conflicts in the past when our allies from across the pond either failed to join in or took some time before getting involved.
Click to expand...

Now is not the time for arm chair isolationism also happens to be something that John Kerry said yesterday - without naming names. And I don't think it is a very fair accusation to throw at the US - as they are always being accused of the opposite.

I appreciate why history is brought into discussions and arguments about such as Syria - but I am also wary of it. The Syrian situation is current and now. It is Syria in 2013 - not Iraq in 2001 or whenever. The circumstances and geo-political environment are those of today and not those of 5, 10 or 15 yrs ago and it is in the context of today that we can assess what best to do for the Syrian people and then reflect on the past for lessons that we can learn and apply to that assessment.

I am also quite keen that as a compassionate nation we should try and put 'ourselves' to one side for a moment when assessing what to do for others suffering horrors. These are horrors that though we can see and hear of through the media - we can really only imagine the reality of in our nightmares. We must not forget that death, pain and despair are real - that these are real people just like us - and that we are not watching figures and events of the past or of some horrific virtual reality.

And so we are to sit in our armchairs gathering dust waiting for Russia and China to change their immovable position and allow the UN to sanction military involvement - and as we do benighted Syrians suffer and die. And I am told that that's the will of the people.
 
Last edited:
Well given the utterances of Putin last night claiming the chemical weapons attack was carried out by anti-Assad forces - I think we can kiss goodnight to any UN Security Council resolution. In any case - the Russians are never going to be party to an military intervention against Assad whatever the evidence presented - unless that is Assad himself admits culpability.

So we may as well sit back wringing our hands, anguishing over the suffering. I wonder how long it's going to go on for? 6months?, 1yr? 5 yrs? I guess it will stop being news so we won't hear or see so much about it - and pretty soon out of sight out of mind. And that's best for all in UK I think - we can focus on sorting out ourselves rather than having to bother with, or worry about, fueding Arabs in far away places.

Geneva convention? Old stuff - old issues and old regimes - so lip service to it is probably best - after all it's too difficult to enforce in today's complicated world and global economies.
 
Old Skier said:
The UN would'nt have got involved anyway in a blue beret forces kind of way. The Sec Gen has already stated that an armed response was not the way to go.
Click to expand...

Agreed - not in a blue beret way - but neither hopefully would USA and France end up with boots on the ground - and it certainly is not what the Senate or Congress would ever Ok at the momenty. But of course the UN could sanction military intervention by USA and France on behalf of the UN. But that just isn't going to happen. And without miltary pressure on Assad he is not going to move 1" in any peace or cease-fire negotions - why should he - he's got massive military power and is backed by Russia.

And of course the UN Sec Gen is absolutely right that armed response is not the way to go - but in practice with Syria it may be the only way to go.
 
You can only achieve so much with ac and missiles. Boots on the ground is the only way to achieve the end game. Libya is proving that. We have a bad record since 2001 of jumping in with both size 9's with no real exit strategy other than "we have been here long enough, we are off now, bye".

Not sure what you really think could be achieved SLH.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Agreed - not in a blue beret way - but neither hopefully would USA and France end up with boots on the ground - and it certainly is not what the Senate or Congress would ever Ok at the momenty. But of course the UN could sanction military intervention by USA and France on behalf of the UN. But that just isn't going to happen. And without miltary pressure on Assad he is not going to move 1" in any peace or cease-fire negotions - why should he - he's got massive military power and is backed by Russia.

And of course the UN Sec Gen is absolutely right that armed response is not the way to go - but in practice with Syria it may be the only way to go.
Click to expand...
As usual SLH i have a lot of sympathy with your views, but why should we interfear in this particular conflict now after sitting on the sidelines for 2 yrs??
To the families directly concerned whats the difference between the death of a loved one due to conventional ordenance (the last 2 yrs) or due to chemical attack? For them involved i fear very little.
I understand the need/frustration you feel towards the plight of the Syrian people, but where do we draw the line?
Is the Syrian conflict any more worthy than the conflict say in Sudan?
At the moment there are conflicts going on in Sudan, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Burma, Chad and Sri Lanka. Do we get involved in all these as well?
I,am sorry SLH but there is a difference between your admiral principals and sheer practicalities. As i've said before, we are not the world police.
I believe every nation as the right to self defence, but Syria is no threat to the west, despite the bleatings of the Yanks to the contrary, that is why i believe it is a matter for the UN or preferably the Arab League. This is an internal conflict/civil war, and as such i'am struggling to see any justification for unilateral intervention especially by the west.
Assad has already said he will retaliate if he comes under attack by the west. Seeing that he lacks the capabilities to attack the west directly who do you think his retaliation will be aimed at?
Get Israel involved and things could become very complicated, very quickly. At the moment his only real ally in the region are Iran, but no Arab nation are going to side with Israel if the conflict widens. Then what happens ??
 
I have thought long and hard on how a military strike by the US, UK and France would be carried out such that it would not harm more civilians and damage Syria's ability to use chemical/ biological weapons. How on earth can anyone know where they have been stored or moved to.

I also have grave concerns if the so called 'Rebels' are genuinely fighting for the betterment of the people, I have a suspicion they are radical extremists that are only looking to replace the current regime with their own non-democratic form of dictatorial rule. Maybe Russia have a point here!
 
Russia top knobs have a paranoia of another revolution. They are in constant fear of the Arab spring catching on and spreading to their area. They and the Chinese will always be against any type of regime change assisted by outside agencies.
 
blackpuddinmonster said:
...but where do we draw the line?
Click to expand...

Use of chemical weapons is in breach of the Geneva convention. Is that breach not the line being crossed?

Or are we now saying that we (the international community) will now let use of chemical weapons go if the situation is too difficult or risky or is of no real concern to us. Were such conditions written into the Geneva Converntion to absolve the international community of it's responsibilities if it franky didn't fancy the job? I don't think they were. The Geneva convention set out principles or limits on what was 'acceptable' in conflict - and it set them out for very good reasons - such weapons are because of their very nature completely indiscriminate in who they kill and impose suffering upon. - and the suffering and death is drawn out and agonisiing - no painless quick kill with these abhorences. Seems that the principles of the GC take second place to political posturing and in an institution - the UN Security council - that would have had as one of it's terms of reference ensuring adherance to the Geneva Convention.
 
Last edited:
The only reason that the USA, France and the UK ( if Cameron had his way), want to get involved in Syria is because it is the only real ally of Russia in the middle east.
Compassion for the Syrian people...crocodile tears by the Western governments while using the predicament to pursue their own agendas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kozmos
The future of golf clubs ??
17 18 19
Replies
361
Views
59K
bluewolf
bluewolf
Smiffy
Another e-bay "experience"....learn from my mistake!!
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Parmo
Parmo
Top