Re: Syria
 

My point is there is always a form of motivation behind these actions, if you can help yourself to resources and not pay the going rate then a country like China may do that. If there is Oil, gas etc somewhere and a civil war could affect you obtaining that resource then suddenly someone has crossed the line and the US or whoever have to dash in to be the hero.

I suppose a better word to use is agenda and these days there is always some hidden agenda.

Re: Syria
 

In a fictitious video game world, imagine there are two teams called "superpowers" who will do anything to get the edge over each other in order to "win the game" (for example obtain revenue streams from as many places in the world or tap into as many natural resources as possible, so that the other team can't have them).

So what's the best strategy for winning this game? With any real time strategy game, usually the best overall strategy is to take control of as many of the worlds resources as possible, then, slowly deplete the other teams resources by forcing attrition or other such methods. When the other team has nothing usable left, take out their defenses then take over or take out their infrastructure. If it's of no use, just leave it to rot away.

But, without a good reason, you can't just take over a country for its resources as that would be breaking international laws. To get around that you either have to engineer a situation, or if you're patient, wait until a country breaks an international law so that you're then "allowed" to get into that country and take some control.

You probably first want to look at capturing countries that are resource rich or have revenue streams (such as that gained from military equipment purchases) that benefit the other team. They would offer a "win, win" situation as while you make gains, the other team suffers losses.

So it's probably a good idea to start in volatile areas where civil unrest or wars are taking place. Why? Because if they're not already breaking some international law or other, it could be quite easy to manipulate some situation or make someone in power out to be a very bad person. Then, using propaganda, tell a story that some international laws have been broken. When a sufficient amount of public and political belief in your story has been gained, you are then allowed to perform a military intervention. Go into the country and capture as many resources and revenue streams as possible. Spend as little money as possible on fixing the problem you went there to sort out.

To make it appear that you are the team on the side of "good" you have to earn game kudos by, once in a while, helping out a very poor troubled country by sending some soldiers in to sort out their civil war or genocide issue. Tell the world about the atrocities and let them know you're helping while spending as little money on the situation as possible.

Now, wouldn't that make a great game?

Re: Syria
 

That's encouraging to hear.

I recall being on a UN mission (peacekeeping) when we came under fire. We were not authorised to return fire, absolutely nuts!

A friend of mine was in Bosnia during the IFOR process when his transport vehicle hit a mine. It bumped the vehicle over a small cliff and he and the vehicle bounced to the bottom, breaking his spine. The "local" forces refused permission for an evacuation and the IFOR superiors had to negotiate for 3 days before an evacuation was permitted. He was left there for 3 days.

Re: Syria
 

[QUOTE=bats;10874913]Is it what politicians want to be seen doing, or when what happens becomes more public knowledge? When you can ignore the wife beater next door until he beats her out on the front lawn?

Syria has had an appalling human rights record for years, under both Al Assads. There was no freedom of expression, even expats had to watch what they did abroad for fear of reprisals to their families back home. Torture and disappearances have long been inflicted on the people by this government.

.[/QUOTE

One can't help but think that perhaps the devil you know is better than the one you don't know though....I bet a number in Iraq would welcome Hussein back (not the Marsh Arabs perhaps) and my husband and I, who were in Libya for years, know many who rejoiced when Gahdaffi went, but would welcome a despotic control on a country which seems to be now run by teams of militias. Even the lovely Mubarak is out of prison now, who said no bad deed will go unpunished?

The Assads are a horrible lot, but what might come could be worse...it will just all turn into another ghastly Iraq.

Re: Syria
 

And to help us all understand..:confused:

Re: Syria
 

David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

"British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

Re: Syria
 

Good

I don't think killing 1,000's more civilians the proper way using conventional weapons is the way forward on this. Wonder if they got a plan B ?

Re: Syria
 

Funny that the former Vicar of St. Albans, the Rev. Tony Bliar, is all in favor of getting down to action. I wonder why.

Re: Syria
 

Having just retired from the British Army and having served in every major and minor theatre of operations with British involvement in that time, I feel I may be qualified to comment on this post.

Firstly, I must stress that what is in the media is not necessarily the groundtruth. Most TV stations and newspapers are politically motivated, such as the BBC being very liberal or even dare I say left wing, which portrays anti UK sentiment squite obviously. The Daily Mail is a rebel rousing newspaper, appealing to the UK middle class, in the same way as Fox news in the USA. And so it goes on. They all portray a different slant on things and one should always have a balanced viewpoint and question what is being said. In this matter we have USA/ UK etc on one side saying they have proof of Assad's use on chemical weapons, the Russians and China saying he did not and some in the middle asking for proof.

My opinion now is that it would be foolhardy to start a military action without 100% proof and then only with limited stand-off surgical strikes. I suspect that we do not have 100% evidence with which to intervene. I also suspect that it would not be beyond the fundamentalist Islamist groups to launch such attacks ontheir own people to pull the west into the war. Remember Sarajevo when it was suspected that the Bosnian Muslims fired 2 mortars into their own market, killing many, just to lame the Bosnian Serbs.

To put western boots on the ground would be the wrong decision and a massive mistake.

Cheers,
Jim Out

Re: Syria
 

I suppose this news has given Syria a little slap on the wrist, made Iran feel a little less edgy, possibly calmed some in Turkey and showed others that democracy works and a more peaceful UN approach can be an option.

Well, at least until Obama unleashes his wrath and cruise missiles.

I'm wondering, though, if any of those nations are closely looking at the numbers. A quick glance at the details indicates that 49% of government representation of the democratic motherland are full of bloodlust, prefer to jump the gun and like to fill their pockets with backhanders. Probably :frown:

Re: Syria
 

I know it is a completely different situation and further away...... but I do ponder sometimes what the vote would have been in the House of Commons at key times during the 1930s I personally don't think the UK should go in ..... but history and analysis when written in the future may show that this was the time to act..... being a self appointed world police officer is expensive and we will need our troops for Gibraltar anyway :blink:

Re: Syria
 

The west will do everything it can to influence the war between rebel factions so Moslem extremists aren't in total control when it's over and that may or may not be possible. Imagine a bloc of hardcore Islamic nations composed of Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc vs moderates like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, (rich nations who still have their radicals chained to the wall) and Israel stuck in the middle with her teeth showing. How would the west treat with that much power? Ask them politely not use the bits of Sharia law we don't agree with? Do we have that right because something offends our sensibilities? When Egypt had their election the perception here was the Muslim Brotherhood was sort of like the Kiwanis or something and deserved a say in government because they'd shared the struggle and after all that is their religion, and maybe not enough moderates got out and voted, and now they're back to square one. They should be having a huge peace conference right now in Paris or somewhere with everybody represented and work out a sustainable plan for the future, because this is about every country with this sort of misguided bs religion conflict, and all Arab Spring countries might follow suit now, and respecting those of other faiths isn't a high priority. Assad is fighting for his life and I think we may see more gas attacks toward the end.

Re: Syria
 

I know that Churchill was the only one in the cabinet at the time that did want to go to war with Germany. My nan wasn't impressed when he won the Greatest Briton TV show vote, and described him as a warmonger, so there was definitely opinion back then that the UK should not have got involved.

In my opinion the US botched up their reputation big time with Iraq, even if there really is just cause to go in now, other countries just don't want to repeat what happened before.

Re: Syria
 

It's all about evaluating what might happen, isn't it? What they call a real poser, a tough question. We should be sending medical aid, not missiles.
I recommend Robert Lewis Taylor's biography of Churchill, (I've read that, Wild Bill Hickok, and W.C.Fields by him and all great).

Re: Syria
 

I haven't read past the first page of posts so I'm not sure if somebody has said anything remotely the same (sorry if it's a repeat):

As a US citizen, we are screwed either way. If we get involved, we are jerks. If we don't, we are ignoring those that need our help. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I personally don't think we should be getting involved. I do think it's horribly upsetting what is happening over there, but I also feel that getting involved may just cause more harm than good....

Re: Syria
 

A question if I may.

Normal UK House of Commons has 650 seats, Tories won 306 last election.

If we assume just for fun the Lib Dems voted against, that would still mean
at least 20 Tories didn't vote for Cameron, and/or 93 abstentions overall.

Is that about right ?

Re: Syria
 

Apparently 30 tory MPs and 7 Lib Dem MPs voted against the government.

Re: Syria
 

Where does that leave Cameron?

Re: Syria
 

Good Question, don't really think it's a resigning matter though. just means we will sit on the sidelines. I do suspect it's someting that is due to the 'weapons of mass destruction' fiasco that Blair had, and that MP's just don't want that to come back to bite them. Gas was certainly used, but there is no proof who used it, could even have been the rebels, and helping a disparate group that contains a few thousnd Al Queda militants is not really something we want to do.

Re: Syria
 

Tne news footage last night of victims of yesterday's napalm attack might influence some other nations. Napalm's legal. The French are saying their options are still open.

Re: Syria
 

France appear to be up for a fight

Re: Syria
 

Wont the weapons never used from WW2 be a bit out of date by now :rofl:

Re: Syria
 

The 'mercans will have to adjust their francophobe specs.

Re: Syria
 

At least the joint force coalition will have a good choice of cheeses available for their breakfast baguettes ;)

Re: Syria
 

They shot down a mig in Libya, remember?

Re: Syria
 

And white tablecloths ready to surrender at the ready ! :rofl:

Re: Syria
 

I look forward to Fox News calling the Brits "beer-swilling surrender monkeys".

Re: Syria
 

"Warm beer swilling surrender monkeys" surely?

Re: Syria
 

:sneaky:You won't be able to buy/get them from France. It used up all white surrender paraphernalia many moons ago.

Re: Syria
 

Ahem. Not that I think France is correct in its current stance, but could you point out any other country at all which is presently supporting the mad Americans?

Oh, the irony.

Re: Syria
 

Australia and Turkey.
Oh, the irony.

Re: Syria
 

I suppose I should have said relevant country. Turkey is relevant I admit, but I've heard nothing about their present position on this. Perhaps you're better informed than I am?

Australia is likely even less relevant than Canada, which is very hard to believe.

No. I'm afraid that the US alone are the ones making total twats of themselves this time, with unforeseeable, but most probably disastrous consequences for the rest of us.

I think the lesson here is that, despite one's enthusiasm for Obama some years ago, no US President can actually control the military-oil-industrial complex.

Another lesson is that nobody ever learns from their mistakes.

Sad really. Ah, well.

Re: Syria
 

Bet the Peace Prize committee are choking on their porridge.

Re: Syria
 

I expect they're still choking on Kissinger.

Re: Syria
 

So it would seem. It's just a google away you know. How 'alone' the US is will depend on if they act unilateraly or not and on how many countries chime in or not after the UN decides what to sanction and that might take weeks. With permission to use Greek and Turkish airbases and French materiel support they don't need any other help to launch stand-off raids against Syria. As a member of NATO and the only neighbouring country that's actually been attacked by Syria during this revolution, Turkey has the right to ask NATO to come to it's defence, but at present their plan seems to be to step in and try to keep order after Assad is overthrown. Since a million needy refugees from Syria are camped out in southern Turkey they're anxious to get things settled. There seem to be more variables and possible shifts in the balance of power than in most conflicts. As Assad said, this could inflame the entire region.
HTH

Re: Syria
 

But to what end?

Re: Syria
 

My guess is the president is motivated by the latest polls as well as righteous indignation over nerve gas. There's supposed to be a live update from the UN any minute now on CBC news so maybe things will change. The UN press conference is on, question session beginning. Definition of mandate, etc. It's getting good! The US official line is they're sending a 'message', those allied with Syria call it provocation, and the end ultimately is to try and influence the outcome of the revolution so Al Quaeda isn't in power when it's over.

Re: Syria
 

Looks like he wants to get his hands dirty on this one, just needs a little prod i think, another gas attack should do it

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/wo...service=mobile

Re: Syria
 

Obama will be making a statement next, I think they said at 1:15ET. It's hard to imagine a target that wouldn't be moved by now. Think he just wants to give Putin the finger? Well, he says they can go ahead any time they want, but he's going to get congress to debate and vote on it soonest, even though he claims he already has authority. Playing heavily on outrage and resolve, I think public opinion is the unspoken element he's waiting for. While evoking the image of the UN as a world order built out of the ashes of war, he makes no mention of seeking sanction from it before acting.

Re: Syria
 

I think he's nuts. He's about to start a regional war and nobody seems to realize it. F-ing maniac.