• 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

Iaing said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is the right answer.

Took a while but now it allows me to unsubscribe from this as its just like watching Magic Roundabout, talk about a dog with a bone ;)
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
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.
Click to expand...

But WHO used them ??
Logically who has the most to be gained ?
Do we believe US claims of "Intelligence" intercepts, without them sharing said proof with the world? Or do we believe Putins claims?
If we don't have a culprit we don't have a target. I don't no about you SLH, but i have yet to see any proof of guilt, only conjectuer, from both camps.
As i've previously said, show me proof that Assad used WMD and i would fully support a targeted response by the UN, but the same should also be true if it is prooved the perpetraiters were the "rebels".
Now that would be an interesting vote by the SC. Although considering our outrage at the use of chemicals, it should be a formality surely ?? :whistle:
 
blackpuddinmonster said:
But WHO used them ??
Logically who has the most to be gained ?
Do we believe US claims of "Intelligence" intercepts, without them sharing said proof with the world? Or do we believe Putins claims?
If we don't have a culprit we don't have a target. I don't no about you SLH, but i have yet to see any proof of guilt, only conjectuer, from both camps.
As i've previously said, show me proof that Assad used WMD and i would fully support a targeted response by the UN, but the same should also be true if it is prooved the perpetraiters were the "rebels".
Now that would be an interesting vote by the SC. Although considering our outrage at the use of chemicals, it should be a formality surely ?? :whistle:
Click to expand...

I dunno who used them. Mind you getting my hair cut this afternoon by a Jordania bloke (been in UK a few years). He's convinced that it was done by or on behalf of the 'rebels'. He reckons there are 20,000 Al-Quaeda in Syria and they would have few if any reservations about using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians if it meant Assad being blamed and kicked-out/defeated and increased the chance of Al-Queda getting a firm foothold next door to Israel. And I can rather believe him.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I dunno who used them. Mind you getting my hair cut this afternoon by a Jordania bloke (been in UK a few years). He's convinced that it was done by or on behalf of the 'rebels'. He reckons there are 20,000 Al-Quaeda in Syria and they would have few if any reservations about using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians if it meant Assad being blamed and kicked-out/defeated and increased the chance of Al-Queda getting a firm foothold next door to Israel. And I can rather believe him.
Click to expand...

So if we had jumped in Gung Ho and bombed the Syrian Army then we may well have been wrong.
 
In_The_Rough said:
:) Walked into that one didn't he
Click to expand...

No I didn't - do you not think I had pondered that. My point or complaint has NEVER been about actually us not going to war - or let's be more precise - about military intervention. My point has ALWAYS been about the UK government deciding to interpret the vote as ruling the UK out of ANY military intervention in Syria - regardless of evidence presented about who done it.

My concern is that the majority in the UK seem happy to stand aside after chemical weapons have been used - and that the majority of these would maintain that 'no intervention' stance regardless of any evidence and 'proof' presented - taking a holier than thou 'we must let the UN Security council sanction military invention' and 'we must seek peaceful resolution through the UN' stance. Which sounds OK until for the former you consider the probability of the UN EVER sanctioning military intervention given that Russia will never support it; and for the latter you ask why would Assad EVER negotiate a political solution with the rebels. Why would he - Assad cannot lose a civil war - he is supported by the Russians after all and Putin has stated in the last few days that as far as Russia is concerned the rebel are the perpetrators of the chemical weapon attacks and the party to be opposed and defeated. Assad has Putin's moral and military support.

And so - there we are.

What the USA and France do next week or the week after based upon whatever evidence they have been able compile we can each take a view on.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
No I didn't - do you not think I had pondered that. My point or complaint has NEVER been about actually us not going to war - or let's be more precise - about military intervention. My point has ALWAYS been about the UK government deciding to interpret the vote as ruling the UK out of ANY military intervention in Syria - regardless of evidence presented about who done it.

My concern is that the majority in the UK seem happy to stand aside after chemical weapons have been used - and that the majority of these would maintain that 'no intervention' stance regardless of any evidence and 'proof' presented - taking a holier than thou 'we must let the UN Security council sanction military invention' and 'we must seek peaceful resolution through the UN' stance. Which sounds OK until for the former you consider the probability of the UN EVER sanctioning military intervention given that Russia will never support it; and for the latter you ask why would Assad EVER negotiate a political solution with the rebels. Why would he - Assad cannot lose a civil war - he is supported by the Russians after all and Putin has stated in the last few days that as far as Russia is concerned the rebel are the perpetrators of the chemical weapon attacks and the party to be opposed and defeated. Assad has Putin's moral and military support.

And so - there we are.

What the USA and France do next week or the week after based upon whatever evidence they have been able compile we can each take a view on.
Click to expand...

Not the impression I have got. Sorry if I was mistaken;) 1-0 to Socket so far:)
 
In_The_Rough said:
Not the impression I have got. Sorry if I was mistaken;) 1-0 to Socket so far:)
Click to expand...

In which case you are mistaken. I have never advocated that we go to war with the Assad regime. I have said that on humanitarian grounds we should not have ruled out being part of military interventions against whoever perpetrated the act (Assad in my view being the most likely but not proven).

And quite simply what do we have an armed forces for these days?

If we pick and choose the conflicts we actively get involved in (even when a conflict has clear and proven breaches of the Geneva Convention), in accordance with a public opinion based upon a perception of how it might affect the UK; or how tricky or messy the situation is; or how costly it might be; or how long we might be involved - then we certainly aren't making decisions based upon any humanitarian grounds. And how many situations would only threaten UK security and not say those of the US, France, Spain or Italy - very few if any (someone tell me of one plse). And so in effect we become no different to the US that we criticise as the global policeman who only chooses to police where it feels it needs a power base and energy security - whilst ignoring teh otehr stuff.

So we come down to the point of UK having armed forces? In truth I'd much rather we accepted that we no longer have or need to have 'global' influence or a 'global' military role. I would rather we cut our armed services cloth to fit a completely different role - and that role would be specifically and solely in the context of UN forces operations.

Of cource this would mean very significant job losses in the services and services support and supply chains all across the UK; and would impact on our exports (defence exports being a major contribution to our balance of payments). But we can't have it both ways. An expensive, modern and relatively well provisioned and supported services - with little to do - or we accept the cost and pain of massively cutting it back.
 
Last edited:
Well we didn't do anything and today we hear of Syrian Army soldiers in Aleppo - that totally destroyed city - these soldiers are shooting people - civilians as well as rebels - 82 civilians including women and children shot dead on sight. Should we be ashamed of our inaction?
 
Last edited:
And as I watch on the news the suffering in that hell on earth that is Aleppo I reflect that these poor Syrians are those very same people that so many in this green and pleasant land of ours reject - they are those people we do not want as they might impact our comfortable way of life. Remind me again - how many Syrians have we accepted of our so generous offer of accepting 20,000 - well as of 4th Sept it would seem about 3,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37268971

Such a compassionate country we are. And what of Theresa May?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...y-resists-calls-uk-accept-syrian-refugees-aid

As we hurriedly walk by on the other side of the road
 
Last edited:
Just to add some balance to the argument here. Some migrants have caused massive problems in countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany etc

Whilst we all sympathise with the many innocent people displaced by war we also have to think about some of the problems that are caused by the inevitable bad migrant population.

Many people are travelling from countries that treat women differently, have little respect for neighbours, etc. These cultural diffences are causing havoc.

Sweden is now the rape capital of the world , is that right? They deported 80,000 migrants and counting.

PM May is between a rock and a hard place no doubt. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.
 
How many have died in Iraq because of our interference? Far more I suspect. You can't interfere everywhere, countries have to sort their own problems out.

Question for you. Why are there no outcries for parts of Africa where wars are going on, atrocities happening? If you want to play world's policeman then you are going to be very busy and a lot of British soldiers will die. No thanks.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
How many have died in Iraq because of our interference? Far more I suspect. You can't interfere everywhere, countries have to sort their own problems out.

Question for you. Why are there no outcries for parts of Africa where wars are going on, atrocities happening? If you want to play world's policeman then you are going to be very busy and a lot of British soldiers will die. No thanks.
Click to expand...


Totally agree :thup:
 
I simply asked the question - 'when we see what has happened to the people of Syria - and Aleppo in particular - should we be ashamed that we decided to keep out and do nothing other than telling Assad that his actions are unacceptable. As a wealthy country do we not have a moral obligation to prevent suffering where we can even, if we cannot do that everywhere'
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I simply asked the question - 'when we see what has happened to the people of Syria - and Aleppo in particular - should we be ashamed that we decided to keep out and do nothing other than telling Assad that his actions are unacceptable. As a wealthy country do we not have a moral obligation to prevent suffering where we can even, if we cannot do that everywhere'
Click to expand...

Think the rebels holed up in Aleppo have been given a ceasefire period to pull out and retreat which they've agreed to do (otherwise they'll be dead soon), seems to be the only way to avoid more civilian population deaths in the city and is a tactic used before. Too little too late as the rebels could've perhaps left ages ago to prevent the city's obliteration but better than nothing. Assad is brutal though and in order to regain control will go to any ends to punish those who opposed him it seems, that's the nature of dictatorships.

With Iran and Russia backing Assad's Govt army and all kinds of splinter groups and factions operating in Syria armed to the teeth we the UK cannot get involved in this one on the ground imo. We can't do anything without the Yanks anyway. BJ was right to say airdrops of food and medicines wont work either, any lumbering transport planes are sitting ducks for SAMs.

UKs policy wrt Syrian refugees has with hindsight arguably been better in identifying the most needy i.e. families with old and children from refugee camps, better than Germany's open door policy encouraging mainly young males more than any other demographic. Single young males coming from a strict middle eastern culture into a liberal European one will and has ended up with nothing but trouble.

If and when Syria gets back on its feet, presumably under Assad agian, what proportion of Syrians now in European countries or refugee camps in Turkey/Jordan etc will want to go back? Very few I suspect. Assume Russia is going to pour money into rebuilding the destroyed parts of the country for whatever they want in return.

Terrible tragedy exacerbated by power, politics and religion......................as per norm.

Very little 'little Britain' can do any more. World needs to sort itself out or 'we're a' doomed' as Fraser would say.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I simply asked the question - 'when we see what has happened to the people of Syria - and Aleppo in particular - should we be ashamed that we decided to keep out and do nothing other than telling Assad that his actions are unacceptable. As a wealthy country do we not have a moral obligation to prevent suffering where we can even, if we cannot do that everywhere'
Click to expand...

When you say "we" who do you actually mean? The politicians, the general public, my pet cat?
 
Beezerk said:
When you say "we" who do you actually mean? The politicians, the general public, my pet cat?
Click to expand...

Your pet cat - if that is a euphemism for the UK government with the support of the UK public.

And I am thinking of 2013 - when this discussion opened as intervention was being debated in parliament - and before all hell broke loose in Syria.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I simply asked the question - 'when we see what has happened to the people of Syria - and Aleppo in particular - should we be ashamed that we decided to keep out and do nothing other than telling Assad that his actions are unacceptable. As a wealthy country do we not have a moral obligation to prevent suffering where we can even, if we cannot do that everywhere'
Click to expand...

No, we shouldn't feel ashamed.
 
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