Is our government incapable of keeping their nose out?

Superb analysis Armandii.
You don't happen to have a part time job as a poltical correspondent, do you?

 

Armandii,
you are obviously very strong in your opinions which I have no problem with at all.
You have come to this debate with valuable information - as have many others.
May I please ask you, in the name of humanity and decency, have you any solution to offer?
Who was it who said "Don't come to me with the problem, only the solution?"
yours sincerely ,
Jenny namaste

 

If I see a chip pan fire, and I'm not sure what to do, but I know I must do something, so I throw water on it, what happens? In the inquest afterwards, when I'm giving my account of how the total devastation happened, I could honestly say 'well, I had to do something, I didn't have all the answers but I didn't want to leave it for others to carry the can'.

Would it not be better for me to try to make sure nobody is actually in the fire, and then let someone else come and sort the rest?

If I was in charge of our whole military, would could I do? Some ideas:

1) Send the RAF in to knock out key government targets, transport hubs, and communications. Then watch as the resulting additional hardship combined with blind panic results in more women and kids being killed.

2) Mobilise everything and everyone. Put boots and tanks on the ground and plains and helicopters in the air. Ships ready to fire missiles. Full scale war. Who would the forces fight? Most of the combatants are not uniformed soldiers. If one side commits an act of violence, wont both sides simply blame the other? How would the soldiers know who to shoot? Unless of course our soldiers become the target, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, and of course when the retaliate to defend themselves, will not both sides claim that it was civilians that were killed?

3) As per 2 but give everyone a blue helmet and a white tank, and have them do nothing but watch as was the case in the last Balkans war when UN peace keepers were ordered to do nothing while a massacre was unfolding before their very eyes. Result, the same number of people still die, and allies are shamed, and the relatives of those that died hate us for doing nothing.

4) Attempt to actually take full control of the nation. They can't sort it out themselves, so lets us just take it off them. Conquest is globally unpopular these days and as with India, it would be a timebomb of epic proportions, knowing of the inevitable carnage when the power vacuums comes when we eventually leave.

5) Do nothing yet. Tell Assad that yes we know what he authorised, but we also know that his side was attacked in the first place and we turned a blind eye to that too. Let him know that while his government is trying to suppress an uprising, conquest will not be tolerated. Ask him to call an election and ask the people to accept the result whichever way it goes, and maybe even offer to police it. Can't see that working because both factions are hell bent on scrapping.

6) Crush the Assad government, or facilitate the Syrian rebel movement in doing so, pat ourselves on the back while insisting it wasn't regime change, and walk away and leave the rebel side to carry out whatever revenge attacks they want on the defeated government side and their families.

7) As per 6 but instead crush the rebel side and let the government side carry out revenge attacks on the survivors.

* In both 6 and 7, come back a year later with to see how they're fighting amongst themselves again because they decided its not what they wanted afterall.

So, you can see that none of my ideas would work for anyone's benefit. And this is why I say things like, I don't have the answers, and let someone else work it out.

 

All too often I've seen a 'domestic' escalate into violence and if anybody else intervenes all the warring parties will turn upon them.

 

OP I totally agree. Funny isn't it how the only country in the world who has ever dropped a nuclear bomb on anyone and has stockpiles of nuclear and for all we know possibly secret chemical weapons hidden away in underground military complexes, yet they say that nobody else should have them. So the only country in the world who has a track record of not being able to be trusted with weapons of mass destruction feels they can dictate to the rest of the world. Then you have the UK who's famous for it's Empire of charging into poor countries we don't own, taking them over and making them essentially British.

USA are bullies and the UK is the bully's mate who stands behind them. Whilst I agree that nobody should have chemical weapons let alone be allowed to use them; doesn't that make us the world biggest hypocrites? All it does it make our country a bigger target for terrorism so instead of it being them getting killed it's our troops and people over here. There's no winner when it comes to war. Look at all the problems it's caused us over Iraq not to mention the billions of cost to the taxpayer and the cost of people's lives over something which isn't even our concern. After everything we've done are we any better thought of? No.

 

Intervention is fine so long as it's a joint intervention. But it seems it's always up to the UK and the USA to go in all guns blaring. We get no backing off Europe and when we do they seem happy to sit back and let us take all the flack which I think is highly unfair. Then they just sit on the fence not wanting to get involved.

It's a bit like when we got involved in some antisocial behaviour in our street. Nobody else bothered to speak up but because we stood up for our neighbours, we ended up being targeted afterwards and it wasn't even our problem and we got no thanks off our neighbour yet got lumbered with the fallout. Wish we hadn't bothered now.

Some people are happy to sit back curtain twitching and let others take the responsibility. After a while it does instill an attitude of 'why should I bother'.

It's alright being the hero but sometimes the the ones that stay out of issues or sit on the fence get better thought of. It's not right but it should be all or nothing. Don't see why we should be the ones who always have to sort these things out then have to deal with all the hassle when other countries sit back and get better thought of.

 

I'm not opposed to the idea of intervention. Its like I said, I just think the response needs to be carefully calculated rather than a bit gung-ho. Unfortunately it looks like we're getting the latter. I caught it on the radio 2 news on the way home that Cameron is saying we're going to ignore the UN and protect people by "whatever means necessary", ie he is not limiting the scope of our response nor waiting to see even what his advisors have to say.

I know in the real world, any response will be politically motivated rather than doing just what is right, but I have this naive view of a 'war office' where very experienced, senior ranking military tacticians gather to talk right through the night, arguing, pointing at big maps, shuffling little markers about and generally working out strategy several steps ahead, so that whatever action is taken, is fast, precise and effective, and every conceivable reaction is anticipated and dealt with swiftly. Unfortunately I suspect if it was ever really like that, then that's in the past. I suspect that now it is more a case of David Cameron standing on the runway at an RAF base, pointing at the sky and shouting 'go and bomb things over there somewhere and don't come back until the journalists have got some good footage for TV'.

 

I am not one for long replies Armandii and can only think in short bursts. I go on my gut instincts: sometimes I get it wrong but most times get it right - for me.
This is an internal squabble. Syrian against Syrian. For the life of me , can anyone ever understand the mind of an Arab and the way it works? Not many in the Western world. Maybe Lawrence of Arabia came close but what difference did he make? Did he change anything? No he did not.
What does a policeman loathe getting involved in most ? A domestic. Him against her, his family against hers. The "tales ", the lies and then they all end up turning on the copper because he isn't resolving things the way they want.
Haven't we learnt from our dalliance into the affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan? They couldn't wait to see the back of us.
I think the greatest power lies in the use of modern media. Things cannot be kept secret anymore and education is the best way to bring about a peace of sorts. It will always be an uneasy peace.
I hate to watch the relentless daily news of bad, hurt and evil throughout the world Armandii but I know I am powerless to stop it on my own and I will not carry an impossible burden of guilt around with me. I have a life to live and there us only so much love and happiness I can give or expect to receive. I hope it will be enough - come my day of judgement,
shalom my friend,
Jenny

 

Armandi, the problem is WE do not know who is/was responsible
Was it Assad, we surmise this as the Syrian Gov have caused delays to let the UN in to investigate
Which I firmly believe is the clincher
But was it?
The UN visit was cut short by snipers, now was this the Syrian Gov further delaying or was it AQ Not wanting the UN to find out the gas was courtesy of AQ to get us to strike the Syrian Gov

It is OK for us to go into Afghanistan to fight AQ, But it is not OK for the Syrian Gov to fight AQ in their own country, in fact on offer is us to help AQ defeat the Syrian Gov and opening us to goodness knows what from Russia and China

Whilst the gassing of people is beyond the pale and needs action Just who do we take action on
We the public do not have enough information to make a decision

Once a decision has been made, then the UN should have a fund to pay for it Not just the good old knackered UK
One country can not get involved, three do not want to, and the remainder, go in with lives lost and foot the damn bill

What a mess

Jack McH

 

The Blair government had 'proof' that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wanted to attack before the UN weapons inspectors finished their job, so I'm amazed that Cameron and Clegg wanted to attack before the UN team in Syria has reported and rather rely upon their own a 'dossier' https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a_Reported_Chemical_Weapon_Use_with_annex.pdf

 

Well, whatever is decided, its pretty awkward now.

Russia has sent war ships to the region. We simply can't back down now even if there was ever a plan to. What a carry on.

So if Russia is officially allied to Syria, and we attack Syria, does that mean we might have to fight Russia? That would be unfortunate for all sides. No need to worry about China though. They might whine a bit but they know which side their bread is buttered on. There's several reasons why they'd have to be incredibly foolish to do anything more than whine a bit.

Its threatening to be a bit bigger than breaking up a civil war now though.

 

And that is the REALLY scary part.

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not Nostradamus suggest the 3rd great war will start in the Middle East?