Is our government incapable of keeping their nose out?

The last bit about how poorly our military are maintained surely says we cannot get involved.
We are not a superpower, we gave all that up years ago when we stopped looking after No 1.

 

This is my possibly over simplistic view, and I might well have got some of it wrong, so I am happy to be corrected.

Syria is in a state of civil war, and has been for some time. A group of rebels (and I use the word in its literal meaning, they are rebelling, not in a derogatory or judgemental sense) decided to oust their government.

The government didn't want to be ousted, and it seems a significant proportion of the ordinary citizens don't want the government ousted. A government without the support of people is nothing. Assad would have no armed forces if those soldiers agreed with the rebels.

The rebels continue pushing, and at one stage were making good progress. The government stepped up the force of their resistance, the rebels stepped up their offensive, the government further stepped up their effort and turned from a defensive stance to an offensive one, on realising that they were dealing with a bit more than a small group of irate citizens.

I agree that we should not stand back and allow women and kids to be massacred, but which women and kids do we intervene to defend? If we intervene to prevent pro-government forces from having the upper hand, will the rebel forces then only fight uniformed soldiers? History would suggest not, and we don't even need to look very far back. Just to the last Balkans war will do.

So how do you protect the women and kids, and indeed the combat worthy men who might not want a fight? Technically I'm combat worthy, being able bodied and in the right age group to be fit enough to fight but if civil war broke out here, I'd just want to go about my life. So how do we protect them?

Lets say we do, as we did with Libya. Will this send out a message to other arab states to say they too can start a civil war because its ok, when the going gets tough, the US and UK will intervene? Isn't that how Syria kicked off in the first place after we intervened in Libya? The whole uprising started with Egypt I believe. They won without our help, and then just the other day the winning side massacred 600+ protesters.

I'm not saying we shouldn't intervene, nor am I saying we should, but I do think that any action needs to be very, very carefully considered, and is going to be very difficult to justify long term, when it transpires that the resulting shift in power just meant a different group of innocent women and kids were massacred, and half the world is blaming us for doing it.

 

You hit the nail on the head C1

 

You just said it.
The fittest and strongest survive.

We aint the fittest and we definitely aint the strongest

 

I don't think it is always about fuel to be honest. The middle east is a peculiar situation. Between them, they are powerful enough to kick all our behinds, and many of them would want to, but they can't because they completely and persistently fail to unite, and we should thank our lucky stars that that's the case.

So there is a delicate balancing act. Britain and the US can't just keep popping in, creating a bit of aggro, and popping home again indefinitely, without eventually the middle east saying enough is enough. Equally we can't just leave them to it and let them practice warring and building weapons and earning money and becoming more and more powerful. So they need to be kept in a state of instability. Maybe change a regime now and then, create a power vacuum, from time to time, tell one nation that another nation said rude things about their mam, sell a few weapons and then attack them for having them etc.

I was reading something not so long ago (or it might have been a TV documentary, I can never remember my sources half the time) about the 'valiant' knights of medieval England. Apparently it was their job, they were actually paid to go about and occasionally burn someone's house or batter the odd peasant, just to keep the masses in line. It was figured by the monarchy (or the church, or both) that an angry, stressed population was easier to control than a calm and organised one. The Japanese applied the same strategy hundreds of years ago sending their samurai out to fettle the odd farmer from time to time, again to keep them under control. Times have moved on, the weapon of choice is now the aircraft or the missile instead of the sword or the staff, but the principle is the same.

The trouble is, history has also shown that it doesn't work. Sooner or later the people being held in a state of fear and instability find their fight, and the history books get a new chapter.

 

I'm not suggesting either go in or not. I thought I said that. I'm just saying it as I see it, that any intervention, if it changes anything, will just change the women and kids that get killed. Cleverer people than me might be able to work out a way to intervene without resulting in the same or greater number of deaths. I couldn't figure it out, that's for sure.

 

There is a lot of wrong going on in the world, it would be nice if we could sort it out and everybody would be friends.
But that is not going to happen.
You either go in all guns blazing and sort it or you do nothing.
(even that does not work in the middle east).

Throwing in a few cruise missiles will achieve nothing, they know troops will not be sent, (thank god), so they will just dig in and wait for us to lose interest.

 

Not really, as the reserves of oil in Syria are lower than those of the UK, less than half of Norways, and less than 1% of the reserves of either Venezeula or Saudi Arabia.

It is! Interesting reading though.

 

No decisions made, and a cabinet recall
Yet by last night Akrotiri was bulging at the seams with many many aircraft, and a Traf class boat had last Monday stocked up in Gib with some er armed requirements

We need to do something, it would be nice though if the UN although not willing to help, held a financial pot, and paid for those that do
The Russian fleet sailed from Syria last night at midnight, most probably carrying Syrian Ministers, families and Gold

Several problems with the Gas
Who did it ?
Probably due to the hinderance and time scale to access it, Syrias Government
Then again who used snipers to cut the UN inspectors visit extra short.
Syrian Gov again, or was it the Insurgents, not wanting us to find out it was AQ who did it to themselves to bring us into the conflict on their side

Then there is Russia and China who Back Syria.
We certainly do not want to kick off with them
For a start Russia can just turn our Gas and Fuel supplies OFF

We have NO Navy anymore, what ships we do have, 30% are in for refit/repair, and 20% are unfit for service
The Army, have made redundant the most experienced men
The RAF Have a good few serviceable aircraft, but would have to fly against the most sophisticated ground to air system in the world today

I suppose the Traf class boat, once it has fired its SIX Cruise missiles, can ask Syria to hang on a couple of weeks whilst it goes back to pick up some more, Once Ratheon, in Glenrothes has paid enough overtime (that started last Monday week) and managed to make some

Something needs to be done, but to who and by whom

Jack McH