Military Intervention - When to die and when not to?

[wasabi]

And good men just need to place themselves in the way, nothing more.



the UN should represent everyone and an over all sense of humanitarianism, such that we all desire to be treated the same, and to do that, you have to be able to say "if it was in my country, would we do nothing", because if you do nothing, when it happens to you, you may find no one comes to your aid either.

Maybe - but it IS another country. But we only pay token respect to that idea. The result is that inevitably we end up with some sort of watered down stupid 'peacekeeping' force. i.e. firefighting the problem rather than dealing with real issue - the regime. Either go in and deliberately change the regime or stay out. Or just arm the rebels with enough kit to blow Assad to kingdom come. Muddy objectives suck.

[BobF64]

The result is that inevitably we end up with some sort of watered down stupid 'peacekeeping' force. i.e. firefighting the problem rather than dealing with real issue - the regime. Either go in and deliberately change the regime or stay out.

Yes, but thats just how it is, if you go in changing regimes in Sovereign states, you have to expect that others will eventually do it to you.

Its why the US spends so much of its time telling others what to do, whilst doing as much as possible to protect themselves from outside influence.

[HalloweenJack]

In situations where a direct threat to us or close allies isn't at stake, like the situation in Syria, any military action we partake in should have the general consensus of the United Nations, and be part of a multi-national effort instead of being unilateral in nature.

While we all agree it's terrible what's happening in Syria the blatant hypocrisy by which the UK’s media and government choose to cherry pick particular conflicts gives rise to suspicion the powers that be have ulterior motives. Why didn’t we get involved in the Congo or Rwanda?

We shouldn’t be acting as the world police, because it’s blatantly ridiculous to suggest we could do this job and we don’t have consent to act as such from everyone else on the planet anyway.

We need to realise that “our way” isn’t the “only way”, democracy is great, capitalism less so (as recent years have shown). Unfortunately we seem to think they’re one and the same in our culture and we impose both on to everyone who will accept Western values.

Many other wealthy westernised countries with substantial military forces – Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Germany, Australia, Italy, Austria, or others like China, India, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, and many other many world players aren’t considering military intervention so why should it be left to us?

The UN needs to be given more freedom and powers above that of national governance to make decisions beyond that of nationalistic interests, and no VETO powers. Members contributing financially to be part of the decision making so it has it’s own multi-national military capability. Right now it’s just a bunch of countries arguing for their own interests, some threatening to wreck the game if they don’t get their own way buy throwing around veto threats, and a large amount of responsibility, consequence and financial avoidance for taking any action. They way it’s set-up is counter productive to decision making with any meaningful impact.

why allways the UK and the USA? why didn't we get involved when far worse GENOCIDE was happening? ^^ all as said above.

[Saracen]

Maybe - but it IS another country. But we only pay token respect to that idea. The result is that inevitably we end up with some sort of watered down stupid 'peacekeeping' force. i.e. firefighting the problem rather than dealing with real issue - the regime. Either go in and deliberately change the regime or stay out. Or just arm the rebels with enough kit to blow Assad to kingdom come. Muddy objectives suck.

But, at least at face value, the US concerns aren't about Syria directly at all, but about the principle of chemical weapons being used, something that's more of less unheard off, at least at scale, for 100 years .... with the odd exception, like Halabja.

Legally too, the position is different for regime change and humanitarian issues over the use of chemical weapons. If Syria "get away with" using chemixal weapons and ignoring US and international "red lines", every tinpot dictator everywhere is going to get that message and start making and stockpiling them. And it's then a short step to using them.

If, on the other hand, the Syrian regime are hit and hit hard, where it counts, like destroying airbases and aircraft, it'll seriously hurt them, and their ability to fight the rebels, and THAT message will ve received elsewhere too, which is that fighting a civil war won't invoke a US strike, but using chemical weapons will.

That's the logic behind the "limited" strike, and it's appealing .... if it works. Only time will tell if it does.

[HalloweenJack]

Saracen




in 2009 Israel used white phosphorus as a chemical weapons attack against a hospital - that's 3 war crimes right there


where was the outrage??


and shall we discuss FULLAJAH? in wikileaks , the US Army describe using chemical weapons in `shake and bake` missions - WP can be used as a smoke screen - but is a breach of the CWC when used to burn people out.


Churchill planned to used Mustard gas to defend the UK against a German invasion.

again in WW2 Germnay planned to use Tabun - but stopped when they believed the allies had discovered it *counter intelligence* - that wasn't true as the allies didn't get Tabun till after the war.

and as said above Halabaj and theres reports of the Russians using Novichok agents in chechnya.

[Saracen]

why allways the UK and the USA? why didn't we get involved when far worse GENOCIDE was happening? ^^ all as said above.

It's not always the UK and US. It's not this time. It looks like it will be the US, probably will be France. Other middle east states appear to be happy to either provide bases, or at least overfly rights. Turkey wants the US to go further, and actually do regime change, which the US very clearly ruled out.

Why the US?

They're about the only ones with the military capability to do it. That's why. With very limited exceptions, if they aren't in, or at least supporting it, it doesn't happen because it can't happen.

Why the UK, or France, etc? Well, because the US appreciate a bit of military help, but mainly, because it provides a LOT of political cover. And a lot of countries have been involved in either Iraq or Afghanistan, albeit on a much smaller scale and far less prominently, so it sure isn't just the US and UK.

[Saracen]

Saracen




in 2009 Israel used white phosphorus as a chemical weapons attack against a hospital - that's 3 war crimes right there


where was the outrage??


and shall we discuss FULLAJAH? in wikileaks , the US Army describe using chemical weapons in `shake and bake` missions - WP can be used as a smoke screen - but is a breach of the CWC when used to burn people out.


Churchill planned to used Mustard gas to defend the UK against a German invasion.

again in WW2 Germnay planned to use Tabun - but stopped when they believed the allies had discovered it *counter intelligence* - that wasn't true as the allies didn't get Tabun till after the war.

and as said above Halabaj and theres reports of the Russians using Novichok agents in chechnya.

Germany "planned" to use chemical weapons ... but didn't. Churchill "planned" to use chemical weapons, but didn't. See the difference?

As for the hospital incident, there was plenty of outrage. But .... as I said, use of chemical weapons "at scale". And where is the evidence even that it was intended as a weapon, not an obscurant?

How many people died, compared to the 1400+ from that single latest Syrian incident?

Is everything perfect in all this? No. Am I saying I think a US attack is right? No. So I'm not going to defend everything that does or does not happen as some kind of proxy US spokesperson.

But to compare UK or German plans, that didn't actually happen, in the middle of a world war, 70 years ago, to what a country's leader is allegedly doing to his own people, right now, is silly.

[HalloweenJack]

Fullajah then - USA used WP as a chemical weapon


edit:

so you think Israel using chemical weapons is `ok` then when not many are killed....

[wasabi]

Fullajah then - USA used WP as a chemical weapon


edit:

so you think Israel using chemical weapons is `ok` then when not many are killed....

That clearly isn't what he said. Straw man arguments on here again - sigh.

There are a million shades of grey on this whole issue. You could class tear gas as a weapon if you wanted to push extremes. Or mace....

We have to be very careful here if we continu
e to push the boundaries of intervention into internal affairs of sovereign states.

[Firejack]

The only Military Intervention I want to see from the UK is the use of our armed forces (with other nations) to patrol the borders and stop all arms shipments from entering Syria.

We have the likes of Saudi Arabia plus Oman supplying weapons to the rebels and Iran plus Russia supplying weapons to the Assad regime. Absolute madness.

It strikes me that no one in Syria will be willing to talk for as long as that have bullets to fire at each other.

[Saracen]

Fullajah then - USA used WP as a chemical weapon


edit:

so you think Israel using chemical weapons is `ok` then when not many are killed....

Where did I say that? Don't put words in my mouth.

The question us when ANYONE does something like this, when is military action justified? If reports are correct, this is the 14th instance of Assad's forces using chemical weapons, and by FAR the biggest. And directly and overtly against civiluan areas.

Any offensive reaction has impkications, and the US has shown great reluctance to do anything in response, to get involved at all. Even if allegations about that hospital are correct and WP was used as alleged, it's very different from what's happened here. Which is why, finally, after repeated warnings, the YS appears likely to act.

As for Fallujah, again, a very different situation. The US use of WP, against combatants, is not illegal, especially when used as a non-contact psychological weapon. And you yourself mentioned "shake and bake" references on Wikileaks as evidence of US use of chemical weapons, when in fact, that term us actually evidence of the opposite.

You do know what it means, don't you?

You use the shake bit psychologically, to rattle opponents, NOT as an incendiary. Then, when they run, you hit them with the "bake" bit, that being conventional high explosives.

So-called evidence of "burned" bodies were claimed by a film-maker to be evudence of chemucal burns, but independent forensic pathologists looking at that footage described the damage as inconsistent with chemical burns, but consistent with normal decomposition.

So, what we have is unsupported allegations by a film-maker with an agenda, no opprtunity to confirm what damage was caused to the bodies, or by what, or even when, and expert independent forensic opinion that disputes the allegations in the film.

I don't know what the US did or didn't do at Fallujah. Nor do you. And, in the absence of impartial investigation at the time, we no doubt never will. None of it justifies what's been done in Syria, by whoever did it.

There is ample evidence of what's been done in Syria. Who did it is harder. The US say they are sure, with "high confidence", and they've laid out their basis for saying it.

My personal view is that IF they are telling the truth, then a punitive strike is justified, morally and legally, to try to prevent it happening again. I don't know, and at this point have no opinion, if they are, ither than to say I suspect the international community are likely to want to see claims backed up. IF the US strikes based on it. So, I'd be surprised, especially post dodgy-dossier, if Kerry et al were willing to go formally on the record with specifics unless they can back them up.

What interests me is the way this was done. When I heard what Kerry said, my first thought was that the claims, short of evidence, were a trap for Putin. If so, he's walked right into it, by dismissing it as "utter rubbish".

So now, it seems to me, either Kerry/Obama or Putin are going to come out of this looking like idiots, in the court of worldwide public opinion.

Either the US has the goods to back up their claim, and Putin is going to look like a fool. Or they don't, or won't produce it, and Kerry/Obama are going to look like fools .... and liars.


So, looking into my crystal ball, I'd expect now that two things will happen :-

1) Sometimexsoon, the US strikes. Carefully, and in a way designed to hurt the Assad regime but not civilian bystanders, if at all possible, but they'll strike.

When? Dunno, but soon. Maybe tonight. But in any event, in the next few days.

2) Once that happens, but probably not before, we'll get some of the evidence, short of compromising intelligence services to do it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they strike tonight, but I also wouldn't be shocked if it happened during the G20 meeting. Given Russia's support for Assad, I wouldn't be at all shocked if Obama embarrassed Putin by making a broadcast describing their basis for acting, in some detail, while in Russia at that meeting. Though it ought to make their next meeting distinctly frosty, if not positively Arctic. After all, given Snowden, relations are pretty cold aldeady.

[HalloweenJack]

lets carry on with this since you seem to support the use of WMD`s - but only when they are used on *** *****


the use of chemical weapons by the USA is a total breach of international law


you do understand what the CWC is? White Phosphorus , when used as a SMOKE SCREEN is legal


using it to burn people out of a bunker in a `shake and bake` mission is ILLEGAL

you do understand the difference? or does reading the daily mail everyday killed off too many brain cells?


but that's ok as from your own words your fine with killing people with chemical weapons.

the rebels could sure use you in there army.

[BobF64]

where was the outrage??

I think there was a certain amount of outrage, just not very publicly, too much fear of being branded as anti-Semitic or incurring the wrath of the US for speaking out against Israel.

[kalniel]

There was a huge amount of outrage.

[peterb]

lets carry on with this since you seem to support the use of WMD`s - but only when they are used on `rag heads`.


the use of chemical weapons by the USA is a total breach of international law


you do understand what the CWC is? White Phosphorus , when used as a SMOKE SCREEN is legal


using it to burn people out of a bunker in a `shake and bake` mission is ILLEGAL

you do understand the difference? or does reading the daily mail everyday killed off too many brain cells?


but that's ok as from your own words your fine with killing people with chemical weapons.

the rebels could sure use you in there army.

I'm not quite sure who you are aiming this post at, or is it just an indiscriminate use of 'posts of mass derision"? Whatever - tone it down or the HEXUS peacekeepers and insulting post inspectors might be taking a closer look... OK?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I wouldn't be surprised if they strike tonight, but I also wouldn't be shocked if it happened during the G20 meeting. Given Russia's support for Assad, I wouldn't be at all shocked if Obama embarrassed Putin by making a broadcast describing their basis for acting, in some detail, while in Russia at that meeting. Though it ought to make their next meeting distinctly frosty, if not positively Arctic. After all, given Snowden, relations are pretty cold aldeady.

I would probably say the Eastward expansion of NATO,the missile shield(and rejection of Russian involvement in it) and the arming of Georgia are among the things which have already chilled relations with Russia,plus the Libyan situation,where both Russia and China tacitly allowed the no fly zone,which soon turned into a full blown NATO operation,made them loose face somewhat which made things worse.

The whole lack of cooperation in Syria is somewhat down to this,and I suspect things are going to get worse before they get better.

I think the west has thought Russia was the same weak country it had become in the 1990s,but poking the reviltalised bear has made it grumpy,very grumpy indeed.

Whatever said and done, good work Dubya,as he set the ball rolling,one of many great things he started!

I feel sorry for Obama,as the poor chap had to inherit all the crap the previous one help generate.