Syria (merged)

metalblue said:
I'm asking if you agree with the concept of boundaries in war, such as those laid out in the geneva convention, or not? We'll get to the why.
Click to expand...
Other than in clear cases of occupation and POWs, I really don't see the relevance of the Geneva Convention. In fact, even in occupation it hasn't been useful. It sets down guidelines about collective punishments but in prolonged occupations there always are collective punishments. So, it's useful for POWs, allowing aid parcels and communications from home. They'd probably happen anyway though because even the Nazis accepted the logic of treating Allied prisoners well to prevent reprisals against German prisoners. So, it's not very useful. I certainly don't think you can enter a conflict on the basis of the humanitarian guidelines laid down in them. You'd be entering conflicts all over the world, night and day as the protections for non-combatants are so routinely violated - as they have been in Syria for the past two years by both sides.
 
I'm sure it's been said many times already in this thread but when are we going after America for the use of chemical weapons in Vietnam?

And to all those who can't wait to go to war again I admire your bravery. Please tell us all when you are joining up. We'll have a parade for you.
 
We will sleepwalk into a nightmare scenario if we intervene in Syria, leave it alone
For once in my life i agree with what a politician or his party says, well done Milliband for his stance on non intervention....for now
 
Kazzydeyna said:
I'm sure it's been said many times already in this thread but when are we going after America for the use of chemical weapons in Vietnam?

And to all those who can't wait to go to war again I admire your bravery. Please tell us all when you are joining up. We'll have a parade for your coffin.
Click to expand...

Miliband 2bh knows he has nothing to lose by going against the Tories here, he gains a much needed popularity boost which will help him in the next election.
 
Why are chemical weapons deemed worse than other methods of killing innocent civilians?

One of the earliest instances of chemical warfare was carried out by England against the Native Americans. They gave them blankets infected with smallpox or some equally nasty disease.
 
Skashion said:
metalblue said:
Fundamentally the use of conventional weapons isn't a war crime by itself, unlike a chemical weapon. It boils down to having boundaries in war as bizarre as that may seem. The red line was set by Obama 12 months ago for use of chemical weapons, it wasn't a secret, it was crossed and the US can either look weak in the region by doing nothing or not by following through on this red line. The only question remaining is which side do we bomb (well we know we will either bomb the Syrian regime or do nothing).

This will be a very targeted response, well publicised with no aim for regime change. It is designed to ensure no misunderstanding and negate the dual dangers of handing the rebels a decisive upper hand and Iran getting itchy fingers and it descends into a region wide conflict...then we would be dragged into a proper shooting war. What can not be known for sure is if Iran will feel the same as the US given their recent rhetoric of sitting back and doing nothing (thus look weak) or follow through on their threat but I suspect that they will grumble a bit but ultimately do nothing to escalate the situation further.
Click to expand...
Without logic, it's meaningless. No-one can explain to me why 335 deaths caused by chemical weapons is worse than the million plus deaths in Darfur and Rwanda, or the 100,000 deaths by conventional means in Syria caused by both sides. You can spout of meaningless rhetoric about red lines and war crimes. You can't convince me with words, only logic and evidence. I'm not someone who thinks something is wrong because it's illegal. That kind of thinking is for the feeble-minded who can't think for themselves. If there's no logic, I couldn't give a fuck. Law can be extremely oppressive if it's just unjustified words used to enforce power over other human beings.

Oh noez, what if the US appears weak? Erm, I couldn't give a fuck. I'm not looking you for an explanation of what's going on. I certainly wouldn't come looking to you for one. So let's be clear, you are not helping me understand. I understand, most likely better than you do. It isn't to do with morality or humanity. That's why intervention doesn't make sense from those perspectives.

No, I'm definitely not coming to you for explanations I wasn't looking for, and your second paragraph confirms why I know I shouldn't. You see the world from your western bubble. Syria is threat. Iran is the threat. We've got to make sure Iran knows it can't get out of line... Iran hasn't invaded anyone in three hundred years! Did Iran overthrow the elected government of the United States or Britain? No, but we overthrew Mossadegh, Did Iran impose a dictator on us? No, it didn't, but we imposed the Shah on them. Britain and the United States have engineered countless regime changes, supported countless puppets with money and arms, invaded dozens of countries in the past three hundred years. The western powers are the aggressors, are the imperialists. I know I won't be able to convince you of those facts though. Facts cannot penetrate the bubble. The west is entitled to act as it sees in its own interests and if other countries oppose that - possibly on the basis that they don't want their elected leaders overthrown and replaced by dictators, or don't want to see their economic interests attacked, or their civilian planes shot down, THEY are the aggressors. No, I won't convince you. People who only see things from their side of the fence cannot be reasoned with. My country, right or wrong; it lives and breathes.
Click to expand...

great post
 
Well done milliband my arse !, him and his breed set the f*cking example of creaping up the yanks poo tube to get into an illegal war, he`s playing politics because he has f*ck all to lose.

Leave Syria the f*ck alone to sort itself out, their people will only accept peace when they get sick of the killing BOTH sides are doing and start talking, the west imposing any kind of settlement will never be accepted.

Its a civil war, every country has had one on its way to becoming what it is now, and the bleeding hearts are barking up the wrong tree if they dont see its all about the oil and the yanks controlling it.
 
CTID1988 said:
Leave them to it, may the best side win
Click to expand...
Have to agree.

Thank fuck we didn't have anyone else butting in on ours way back when.

NB: If the baddies win, then nuke them.
 
Skashion said:
metalblue said:
I'm asking if you agree with the concept of boundaries in war, such as those laid out in the geneva convention, or not? We'll get to the why.
Click to expand...
Other than in clear cases of occupation and POWs, I really don't see the relevance of the Geneva Convention. In fact, even in occupation it hasn't been useful. It sets down guidelines about collective punishments but in prolonged occupations there always are collective punishments. So, it's useful for POWs, allowing aid parcels and communications from home. They'd probably happen anyway though because even the Nazis accepted the logic of treating Allied prisoners well to prevent reprisals against German prisoners. So, it's not very useful. I certainly don't think you can enter a conflict on the basis of the humanitarian guidelines laid down in them. You'd be entering conflicts all over the world, night and day as the protections for non-combatants are so routinely violated - as they have been in Syria for the past two years by both sides.
Click to expand...

Those guidelines are enshrined in international humanitarian law. The geneva convention was always designed as self regulating within symmetric conflicts (you deliberately bomb my hospital I'll bomb yours), however asymmetric conflicts such as Syria naturally remove this concept of reciprocity. Indeed it has been considered that the weaker combatants would more likely use tactics outside law due to this military disadvantage that they should have less obligations placed upon their compliance. What we have here is the military superior side (potentially as yet to be proven) using tactics (CW) that violate convention and where the concept of necessity would not stand, in that case reciprocity can only be executed by an external power of equal or greater force. This is very different situation to conflicts where both sides have butchered one anothers civilians and the concept of reciprocity exists, however unpalatable.
 
metalblue said:
Those guidelines are enshrined in international humanitarian law. The geneva convention was always designed as self regulating within symmetric conflicts (you deliberately bomb my hospital I'll bomb yours), however asymmetric conflicts such as Syria naturally remove this concept of reciprocity. Indeed it has been considered that the weaker combatants would more likely use tactics outside law due to this military disadvantage that they should have less obligations placed upon their compliance. What we have here is the military superior side (potentially as yet to be proven) using tactics (CW) that violate convention and where the concept of necessity would not stand, in that case reciprocity can only be executed by an external power of equal or greater force. This is very different situation to conflicts where both sides have butchered one anothers civilians and the concept of reciprocity exists, however unpalatable.
Click to expand...
You still haven't explained why lives taken by chemical warfare are more important, and you won't because you can't.

Your proposed solution as well, is to weaken Assad, without, you said, handing the upper hand to the rebels, thus returning us closer to stalemate. This will prolong the conflict and result in more lives being taken. Undoubtedly.

Therefore, I say, not only do you not have a justification for air or missile strikes, you have no justification for what they might achieve. Your proposed response to 335 deaths by gas is to ensure many many more will die by making the conflict last even longer? Ah, never mind, I'm sure the deaths will be highly conventional. Knives, bullets, fire, explosions. As long as there's no fucking gas it's all gravy.
 
Bovril said:
Not had time to read much of the thread but can imagine the usual left wing doom mongers reactions to this. How can we sit back and let a regime commit genocide again, Have we not learnt the lessons from Rwanda, former Yugoslavia etc etc ??? quite sad, disgusted in Labour who are basically acting like the Russians and practically vetoing any proposals that the current Govt. propose, when it was Blair who illegally commited murder in Iraq without any UN led mandate etc etc YCMIU !!! Blair should be taken to a war crimes tribunal for what he did.... is he not the UN envoy for middle east peace ?? and yet he is sat on a boat on holiday... I do not want to see any British blood spilt again (I have at first hand seen enough having been to Afghan lots of times) but there are kids being killed by an evil regime for fucks sake !!
Click to expand...

Is the problem that the 'evil regime' is attacking the other 'evil regime' (Al Queda backed apparently)... therefore which 'evil regime' do we put our money on?
 
Hard to take this crap seriously on Sky News, both parties more interested in scoring points.


Osborne also doing his usual routine of sitting there, smirking and sneering.
 
DavidSilvasLeftFoot said:
MeatnSpudsMCFC said:
Hard to take this crap seriously on Sky News, both parties more interested in scoring points.


Osborne also doing his usual routine of sitting there, smirking and sneering.
Click to expand...

I'm not watching as I'm at work. Are the oppposition to intervention putting up a good argument?
Click to expand...

It's Miliband, so what do you think? Either way. It makes absolutely no difference what either party thinks, if the US wants us to act, we'll bend over. All abit laughable really as whilst they debate this, RAF jets are already in Cyprus. Their minds are already made up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top