Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Do you now support military action against Syria's government?

Do you now support military action against Syria's government?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 9.9%
  • No

    Votes: 162 89.5%

  • Total voters
    181
Well the impression created in the press in recent days of military action as soon as Thursday is seemingly defunct. Things have changed instead to stuff about the UN security council not voting till they read the UN weapons inspectors report, and the UK parliament having two different votes about Syria.
 
Demo in London today, looks like quite a few people.

1174685_422587027862524_1914093338_n.jpg


946960_716629601686435_1495431611_n.jpg



Surprising number of people. There's a worldwide protest planned for Saturday I believe...
 
I think Assad using chemical weapons is the issue.
Chemical weapons are a no no.

As to the question of bombing Syria, that is broadly worded.
What about bombing Assad's capability to deliver chemical weapons?

As you seem in favour of bombing Assad what exactly do you think it will achieve? Both sides have been busily slaughtering each other for a couple of years with nothing more than 'oh dear isn't it awful' from the rest of the world. Now chemical weapons have been used it's suddenly 'oh dear now we should step in because people have been killed by chemicals and not just by standard bombs and bullets, this is terrible.'

So the U.S and their chums swan in, chuck a few missiles at some sort of ramshackle chemical weapons operation and then what? 'It's ok now, you can carry on slaughtering each other but we've taken away your chemical toys so you'll just have to go back to using normal bombs and bullets' that's how it seems to me, it's pointless. I also feel it's a suicidal civil war that's not our business to police, the only role we should be playing is getting people round the table because that's the only solution to this and pretty much every other conflict that's currently occurring in the world. Even then we should only do it if organisations such as the Arab League require any assistance, it is they who should be taking a lead in this.
 
Cruise missiles and air strikes are clearly lacking in resolve, and a sign of weakness. We ought to nuke Syria, step things up a notch.
 
If Assad has chemical weapons and the opposition is dominated by AQ types, it follows that if Assad is deposed AQ will have chemical weapons. Has some silly fuck not thunk this thru?
 
Part of a news release from The Quakers in Britain published earlier today;

''Air strikes will kill people just as surely as chemical attacks. All weapons must seem equally abhorrent if it is your family that is being killed.
Punishment for use of specific types of weapon is no justification for further acts of war or for supplying yet more weapons.''

I was thinking much the same myself.
 
WASHINGTON—In light of increased pressure on President Obama to order a military strike on Syria, leading historians and military experts on Tuesday simply pointed to the United States’ longstanding and absolutely impeccable record of successful bombing campaigns over the past 60 years. “The record clearly shows that, in every instance since the Second World War in which the U.S. government has launched strategic missile attacks on foreign soil, our military forces easily targeted enemy assailants with total precision, leaving no civilian casualties, collateral damage, or any long-term negative consequences for the affected country or region, American foreign policy, or international relations as a whole,” said Harvard University historian Dr. Michael Carmona, adding that such past U.S. bombing operations have gone particularly well in Middle Eastern countries over the last century. “Just look at the 1954 bombings in Guatemala, the 1965-to-1973 bombings in Laos and Cambodia, the 1982 bombings in Beirut, the 1986 bombings in Libya, the 1987 bombings in Iran, the 1998 bombings in Iraq, the 1998 bombings in Sudan, the 1998 bombings in Afghanistan, routine airstrikes in Pakistan since 2005, the 2007 bombings in Somalia, the 2011 bombings in Somalia, and essentially the entire American military effort in Vietnam from 1960 to 1975. Those were all executed perfectly, and led, in the long run, to the most desirable possible outcome.” All experts on the subject then agreed unanimously that, if you want to create positive and lasting change in a troubled region, change that you will one day look back on with a deep sense of confidence, pride, and assurance that you did the right thing, then bombing campaigns are almost always the way to go.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/experts-point-to-long-glorious-history-of-successf,33642
 
If Assad has chemical weapons and the opposition is dominated by AQ types, it follows that if Assad is deposed AQ will have chemical weapons. Has some silly fuck not thunk this thru?


Well quite. There's no military solution to this whatever way you look at it. The only solution is a negotiated political settlement with humanitarian aid at its heart. And even that's deeply problematic and unlikely.
 
Well quite. There's no military solution to this whatever way you look at it. The only solution is a negotiated political settlement with humanitarian aid at its heart. And even that's deeply problematic and unlikely.
More than that, it's not something that the likes of the US or UK can lead. I feel deeply sorry for the Syrian people in all this - their country is likely to be a horrible mess for a long time now. :(
 
Those were all executed perfectly, and led, in the long run, to the most desirable possible outcome.” All experts on the subject then agreed unanimously that, if you want to create positive and lasting change in a troubled region, change that you will one day look back on with a deep sense of confidence, pride, and assurance that you did the right thing, then bombing campaigns are almost always the way to go.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/experts-point-to-long-glorious-history-of-successf,33642

The US army is way beyond satire. I seem to remember Chomsky making the case that the US war in Vietnam was a success, in achieving US mid-to-long term strategic goals. This round of attacks might well lead to "the most desirable possible outcome" in terms of outcomes dreamed up by US planners.
 
More than that, it's not something that the likes of the US or UK can lead. I feel deeply sorry for the Syrian people in all this - their country is likely to be a horrible mess for a long time now. :(


The UK/US could easily lead on the humanitarian aid, in fact they're big players already. All that'd need to happen is DfID and it's US counterpart to pour the money it'd spend on bombing into aid budgets and distribute to trusted aid agencies to deliver and run response programmes.
 
The UK/US could easily lead on the humanitarian aid, in fact they're big players already. All that'd need to happen is DfID and it's US counterpart to pour the money it'd spend on bombing into aid budgets and distribute to trusted aid agencies to deliver and run response programmes.
At the same time as continuing to occupy Afghanistan (and many other things)? Can't work, not without new regimes in place in both countries that make a decisive break with their past.

If the US got together with Iran to provide something, then maybe that could work.

That may sound absurd, but if the US were serious about helping, that's what they would be trying to do. And that it sounds absurd simply shows how far away we are from that kind of thing being possible.
 
Am I right recalling that Russia was asking for Syrian peace conference earlier this year, but that USUK knocked it back because they know better (i.e they lust for death)

btw there's a funny photo doing the rounds of Skull And Bones Kerry dining with Assad only a couple of years ago.
 
Am I right recalling that Russia was asking for Syrian peace conference earlier this year, but that USUK knocked it back because they know better (i.e they lust for death)

btw there's a funny photo doing the rounds of Skull And Bones Kerry dining with Assad only a couple of years ago.
Don't know, but it's absurd to even talk about some kind of 'we the UK/US' can do this as if they were not another part of the problem themselves. Russia too.
 
At the same time as continuing to occupy Afghanistan (and many other things)? Can't work, not without new regimes in place in both countries that make a decisive break with their past.

If the US got together with Iran to provide something, then maybe that could work.

That may sound absurd, but if the US were serious about helping, that's what they would be trying to do. And that it sounds absurd simply shows how far away we are from that kind of thing being possible.


It could work even with those occupations ongoing because it already does.
 
US / UK / Europe have properly bollocksed this up to the point that I can't see any good options available to anyone.

If they were going to support the rebels they should have done it from early on by supporting the FSA with the weapons needed to relatively quickly overthrow Assad, plus training needed to keep order in the ranks and in areas they controlled, finance for wages / food etc.

Instead we stood back while the Islamists piled in with experienced fighters, and a good supply of weapons and ammunition, and attracted a lot of FSA fighters across to their ranks, as lets face it, if you're going to take on a major army like the syrian army, it's best to do it with a group that has actual weapons and bullets for them.

Now the FSA and various islamist rebel groups are apparently fairly evenly matched in terms of fighters, with the FSA finally getting a fair sized arms shipment from somewhere that had been held in Turkey for ages, it looks like being at least a 3 way civil war that none of the sides is looking like being capable of winning, and a much greater chance that weapons given to the FSA will end up in islamist fighters hands either via defection, capture, or an agreement to concentrate the fight against the Assad regime and ignore their differences (until Assad falls, at which point if history is any judge, the Islamists will end up in control as the West will give up their support leaving the FSA in the lurch).

Fuck knows what air strikes are supposed to achieve, or why the countries using them are prepared to use them (apparently), but spent 2 years refusing to actually supply arms to allow the fighters to do the job themselves. I doubt anything good will come of western military attacks, though I guess at least Assad actually has some proper tanks and military kit that could get targeted, unlike AQ or Taliban, and that would have the potential to pave the way for rebels to defeat the army militarily. Question would be, which rebels.
 
US / UK / Europe have properly bollocksed this up to the point that I can't see any good options available to anyone.

If they were going to support the rebels they should have done it from early on by supporting the FSA with the weapons needed to relatively quickly overthrow Assad, plus training needed to keep order in the ranks and in areas they controlled, finance for wages / food etc.
is that what you think should've happened?
 
As you seem in favour of bombing Assad what exactly do you think it will achieve? .........

Actually I don't think I am necessarily in favour of bombing Syria.
But I am not against it on some kind of principle.
I can conceive in bombing Syria, and under some circs it could be the right thing to do.

What alarms me slightly is people who are either for or against, with a high level of certainty. I think there is a lot of grey area wrt this sort of thing.
 
What alarms me is how easily some people are capable of supporting yet another escalation of conflict given the historical record that shows all it does achieve is the brutal deaths of thousands of innocent people.
 
What alarms me is how easily some people are capable of supporting yet another escalation of conflict given the historical record that shows all it does achieve is the brutal deaths of thousands of innocent people.

If there is an injustice happening, locally to you, and you have the ability to intervene and remedy the situation, should you not intervene?

It was right imho that British soldiers went to the Balkans to protect Muslims against the Serbs. It was not well executed by us or the UN, but the sentiment was right. Protect the innocent, take on the bullies.

Why otherwise do we have a military? What is the point of the military if not for such tasks!
 
I agree that the injustice and killing must stop, but to be honest why is it always the countries of Nato and the west that push themselves forward as custodians of justice and embroil us into a conflict that should be being policed by a UN that can actually achieve a goal and not be handicapped before it starts by bureaucracy and red tape.
Turkey has one of the largest armies in the world, Iran, India, Indonesia, Russia and China are more than capable of providing capable troops to stop the conflict.
But British forces are being made redundant, we cannot feed the people of this country, we have failing education, health services, housing and transport. Yet we can suddenly find billions to fund our participation in a conflict that will only result in yet more fanatics joining a cause to terrorise and attack British people who in all probability are against our involvement.
 
The UK/US could easily lead on the humanitarian aid, in fact they're big players already. All that'd need to happen is DfID and it's US counterpart to pour the money it'd spend on bombing into aid budgets and distribute to trusted aid agencies to deliver and run response programmes.
How would a humanitarian aid program help to resolve the conflict? How could aid be delivered inside Syria with a full blown civil war going on? And Assad wouldn't allow it unless his side got the aid. It would help the refugees who've fled the country but would have no effect inside the country.
 
US / UK / Europe have properly bollocksed this up to the point that I can't see any good options available to anyone.

If they were going to support the rebels they should have done it from early on by supporting the FSA with the weapons needed to relatively quickly overthrow Assad, plus training needed to keep order in the ranks and in areas they controlled, finance for wages / food etc.

Instead we stood back while the Islamists piled in with experienced fighters, and a good supply of weapons and ammunition
Exactly. As I've been saying, a Libya type operation was needed at the beginning. I'd like to see Assad's forces hit but by the time of strikes Assad will have dispersed & hidden personnel & equipment so any missile strikes would blow up abandoned buildings & bases. They would be mainly symbolic pinprick strikes & achieve little or nothing except degrading his air force. Assad would then claim victory & the war goes on. The wimpy West waited too long.
 
If there is an injustice happening, locally to you, and you have the ability to intervene and remedy the situation, should you not intervene?

It was right imho that British soldiers went to the Balkans to protect Muslims against the Serbs. It was not well executed by us or the UN, but the sentiment was right. Protect the innocent, take on the bullies.

Why otherwise do we have a military? What is the point of the military if not for such tasks!

I don't think Kosovo was that simple. Rather, what seems to have happened was that one set of bullies was installed in place of another, and a fresh set of innocent people were victimised:

Elements of the KLA are also responsible for post-conflict attacks on Serbs, Roma, and other non-Albanians, as well as ethnic Albanian political rivals. Immediately following NATO's arrival in Kosovo, there was widespread and systematic burning and looting of homes belonging to Serbs, Roma, and other minorities and the destruction of Orthodox churches and monasteries. This destruction was combined with harassment and intimidation designed to force people from their homes and communities. By late-2000 more than 210,000 Serbs had fled the province; most of them left in the first six weeks of the NATO deployment. Those who remained were increasingly concentrated in mono-ethnic enclaves, such as northern Mitrovica, Kosovo Polje, or Gracanica.
Most seriously, as many as one thousand Serbs and Roma have been murdered or have gone missing since June 12, 1999. Criminal gangs or vengeful individuals may have been involved in some incidents since the war. But elements of the KLA are clearly responsible for many of these crimes. The desire for revenge provides a partial explanation, but there is also a clear political goal in many of these attacks: the removal from Kosovo of non-ethnic Albanians in order to better justify an independent state.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/kosovo/undword.htm
 
Incredibly, many people still buy into the notion that the west is a force for good/democracy promotion/peacekeeping etc

...Rather than outrageous terrorists on an unmatched scale. The rhetoric of Kerry over the last few days has been astounding, just ploughing on with his talk of innocent deaths and whatnot, seemingly safe in the knowledge that the public will forget the constant stream of war crimes perpetuated by the US state. Sadly this type of outlandish propaganda is still clearly effective, as ably demonstrated above.
 
Back
Top Bottom