Syria (merged)

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

Is this scenario either unlikely, possible or probable;
Russia wants to help Assad and tries to send a supply vessel to Syria.
The USA stop the ship and don't allow it to dock.
A catastrophic major conflict then unfolds.

Have you seen the putin's girlfriend.....he ain't going to want to end his life any time soon!

Russia now is not Russia of the 1960's....

 

[shevtheblue]

I'm not clued up on this but aren't America arming a guy who cuts out enemies organs and eats them on video to show people he means business? Sounds lovely

 

[Len Rum]

Still no-one's explained to me why I should care more about deaths caused by gas than those which aren't. Anyone going to try or am I going to have to assume there is no answer?

It's not the deaths Skash, as you well know. It's the use of an horrific and indiscriminate weapon which has been banned by international agreement due to the potentially apocalyptic consequences of it's use. We've seen what delivering it from aircraft can do in Iraq and now we've seen what small quantities delivered by rocket will do. Google what a 500lb airburst would do over a densely populated area if you want to know why I can differentiate between failing to act against savages beheading innocent kids and psychopaths gassing people. The prospect of escalation is unimaginable.

So how come the West did nothing when Sadam gassed the Kurds in 1988? Anything to do with him being our ally at the time? Blows the West's moral justification for taking action this time out of the water doesn't it?

 

[BlueHammer85]

He has a good point , you THINK military intervention will result in more lives and you THINK it will prolong the war. But you don't know that is true. Assads regime may topple and the syrian people along with Americas help may get democracy and peace. You make valid points and know the situation very well but no one truely knows what the right answer

His point is that I can't predict the future. That's not a point. However, I can make a highly educated guess based on things that are already happening, things that have happened and good old-fashioned facts. As for his assertion that this a possibly of Assad falling but Al Nusra not committing massacres? How's that going to come about that? We couldn't even stop the sectarian violence in Iraq between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds with hundreds of thousands of troops and we think we're going to avoid that in Syria without a single soldier on the ground. That's the definition of batshit crazy.

Nope I said why can't we not topple Assad, THEN deal with Al Nusra after, Iraq is on the mend, people are still dying but they have a free press, it is now democratic and an economy that is growing....it will be slow that's obvious...also lets say the British embassy blows up somewhere, are we going to do anything, to thousands of terrorists we will avoid any course of military action and they know it....We shall be told that intervention can never work. Not true – look at Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone. We will be told pessimistic crap which says Britain is unimportant in the wider world......I'm not saying I agree with intervention but I see just as much blood on the streets if we don't intervene

Come on then Skash, why is this not a possibility ?

topple Assad, THEN deal with Al Nusra after

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Still no-one's explained to me why I should care more about deaths caused by gas than those which aren't. Anyone going to try or am I going to have to assume there is no answer?

It's not the deaths Skash, as you well know. It's the use of an horrific and indiscriminate weapon which has been banned by international agreement due to the potentially apocalyptic consequences of it's use. We've seen what delivering it from aircraft can do in Iraq and now we've seen what small quantities delivered by rocket will do. Google what a 500lb airburst would do over a densely populated area if you want to know why I can differentiate between failing to act against savages beheading innocent kids and psychopaths gassing people. The prospect of escalation is unimaginable.

So how come the West did nothing when Sadam gassed the Kurds in 1988? Anything to do with him being our ally at the time? Blows the West's moral justification for taking action this time out of the water doesn't it?

Not really, that was a government from over 25 years ago. Times change. Not saying governments are not wankers still but different wankers have different ideals

 

[Skashion]

Come on then Skash, why is this not a possibility ?

topple Assad, THEN deal with Al Nusra after

I already said, you just didn't appear to notice. We couldn't even stop sectarian violence in Iraq with hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the ground, and somehow you think we can do it with ZERO soldiers on the ground? Have you totally lost your mind? You think a country as divided as Syria will avoid sectarian violence with no-one in charge and a bunch of fucking armed militants running around. Syria could be Iraq times ten. Indeed, Iraq's fucked up enough already. Know how many people have died in Iraq this month from sectarian violence? Over 1,000 dead this past month alone. That's in a country we occupied for nearly ten years. Ten years of building up Iraq's infrastructure and security and still 1,000 deaths in August just gone. Why don't we open up Pandora's box and see what comes out? Because the odds are, it can get a lot fucking worse than it is now.

 

[Balti]

thousands of children probably tens of thousands are dying TODAY around the world from starvation

I also fail to see why this act in Syria is seemingly more important than all the other causes of death happening around the world right now and in vastly greater numbers

not to mention all the other vile regimes that we constantly fail to tackle which renders all the governments moral outrage on this issue fairly redundant in my eyes

did we learn nothing from Iraq?

stay out and focus on issues where we can actually make a positive difference

with those at home being by far the most important

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Is this scenario either unlikely, possible or probable;
Russia wants to help Assad and tries to send a supply vessel to Syria.
The USA stop the ship and don't allow it to dock.
A catastrophic major conflict then unfolds.

Neither of these 2 countries would want to enter in to a war against each other. Even when they were worst enemies tyhey knew it was a terrible idea to fight each other. Nothing has changed

 

[BlueHammer85]

<a class="postlink" href="http://news.sky.com/story/1136820/john-mccain-plays-poker-at-syria-hearing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.sky.com/story/1136820/john- ... ia-hearing</a>

 

[metalblue]

but you really can't argue it saved more lives than it took.

No, you really can, a) Japan was ready to surrender b) the USSR's entrance into the war was actually the bigger factor in accepting unconditional surrender.

I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children.

Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb.

John McCloy
Assistant Secretary of War

P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.

President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.

J. Samuel Walker

Do you believe the atomic bomb was used purely to end the war with Japan?

 

[Skashion]

Do you believe the atomic bomb was used purely to end the war with Japan?

No.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

http://news.sky.com/story/1136820/john-mccain-plays-poker-at-syria-hearing

These Tossers won't give a Flying F*ck how many soldiers or civilians get killed 'cos they'l make sure that none of their family are going (Christ ...MP's wear stab vests if they have to set foot on a council estate)


Sleep walking us into another war

 

[allan harper]

http://news.sky.com/story/1136820/john-mccain-plays-poker-at-syria-hearing

Despite being snapped by an eagle-eyed Washington Post photographer, the influential senator - who ran for President in 2008 - laughed off the matter.



I'll give that photographer 3 days before he's found dead.

 

[bluemanc]

Well that caused a fuss.
Some people trying to change History,using the Bomb on Japan DID save lives & in no way were they ready to surrender.
Saying they were ready to surrender is a huge difference from Unconditional Surrender.
Two B-29 incendiary raids over Tokyo. One of these raids killed about 125,000 people, the other nearly 100,000, how many would have died to achieve full air supremacy.

General MacArthur's staff anticipated about 50,000 American casualties and several times that number of Japanese casualties in the November 1 operation to establish the initial beachheads on Kyushu. After that they expected a far more costly struggle before the Japanese homeland was subdued. There was every reason to think that the Japanese would defend their homeland with even greater fanaticism than when they fought to the death on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. No American soldier who survived the bloody struggles on these islands has much sympathy with the view that battle with the Japanese was over as soon as it was clear that their ultimate situation was hopeless. No, there was every reason to expect a terrible struggle long after the point at which some people can now look back and say, "Japan was already beaten."
A month after our occupation I heard General MacArthur say that even then, if the Japanese government lost control over its people and the millions of former Japanese soldiers took to guerrilla warfare in the mountains, it could take a million American troops ten years to master the situation.
That this was not an impossibility is shown by the following fact, which I have not seen reported. We recall the long period of nearly three weeks between the Japanese offer to surrender and the actual surrender on September 2. This was needed in order to arrange details: of the surrender and occupation and to permit the Japanese government to prepare its people to accept the capitulation. It is not generally realized that there was threat of a revolt against the government, led by an Army group supported by the peasants, to seize control and continue the war. For several days it was touch and go as to whether the people would follow their government in surrender.
The bulk of the Japanese people did not consider themselves beaten; in fact they believed they were winning in spite of the terrible punishment they had taken. They watched the paper balloons take off and float eastward in the wind, confident that these were carrying a terrible retribution to the United States in revenge for our air raids.

An horrific way to end a War it really was,but as i said the bottom line is it saved 100's of 1,000's of Allied soldiers lives.

 

[stonerblue]

Well that caused a fuss.
Some people trying to change History,using the Bomb on Japan DID save lives & in no way were they ready to surrender.
Saying they were ready to surrender is a huge difference from Unconditional Surrender.
Two B-29 incendiary raids over Tokyo. One of these raids killed about 125,000 people, the other nearly 100,000, how many would have died to achieve full air supremacy.

General MacArthur's staff anticipated about 50,000 American casualties and several times that number of Japanese casualties in the November 1 operation to establish the initial beachheads on Kyushu. After that they expected a far more costly struggle before the Japanese homeland was subdued. There was every reason to think that the Japanese would defend their homeland with even greater fanaticism than when they fought to the death on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. No American soldier who survived the bloody struggles on these islands has much sympathy with the view that battle with the Japanese was over as soon as it was clear that their ultimate situation was hopeless. No, there was every reason to expect a terrible struggle long after the point at which some people can now look back and say, "Japan was already beaten."
A month after our occupation I heard General MacArthur say that even then, if the Japanese government lost control over its people and the millions of former Japanese soldiers took to guerrilla warfare in the mountains, it could take a million American troops ten years to master the situation.
That this was not an impossibility is shown by the following fact, which I have not seen reported. We recall the long period of nearly three weeks between the Japanese offer to surrender and the actual surrender on September 2. This was needed in order to arrange details: of the surrender and occupation and to permit the Japanese government to prepare its people to accept the capitulation. It is not generally realized that there was threat of a revolt against the government, led by an Army group supported by the peasants, to seize control and continue the war. For several days it was touch and go as to whether the people would follow their government in surrender.
The bulk of the Japanese people did not consider themselves beaten; in fact they believed they were winning in spite of the terrible punishment they had taken. They watched the paper balloons take off and float eastward in the wind, confident that these were carrying a terrible retribution to the United States in revenge for our air raids.

An horrific way to end a War it really was,but as i said the bottom line is it saved 100's of 1,000's of Allied soldiers lives.

so because the US was taking a battering on the battlefield, dropping bombs on civilian women and children (please not 'civilian' is the operative word here) killing hundreds of thousands was legitimate was it?

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

Well that caused a fuss.
Some people trying to change History,using the Bomb on Japan DID save lives & in no way were they ready to surrender.
Saying they were ready to surrender is a huge difference from Unconditional Surrender.
Two B-29 incendiary raids over Tokyo. One of these raids killed about 125,000 people, the other nearly 100,000, how many would have died to achieve full air supremacy.

General MacArthur's staff anticipated about 50,000 American casualties and several times that number of Japanese casualties in the November 1 operation to establish the initial beachheads on Kyushu. After that they expected a far more costly struggle before the Japanese homeland was subdued. There was every reason to think that the Japanese would defend their homeland with even greater fanaticism than when they fought to the death on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. No American soldier who survived the bloody struggles on these islands has much sympathy with the view that battle with the Japanese was over as soon as it was clear that their ultimate situation was hopeless. No, there was every reason to expect a terrible struggle long after the point at which some people can now look back and say, "Japan was already beaten."
A month after our occupation I heard General MacArthur say that even then, if the Japanese government lost control over its people and the millions of former Japanese soldiers took to guerrilla warfare in the mountains, it could take a million American troops ten years to master the situation.
That this was not an impossibility is shown by the following fact, which I have not seen reported. We recall the long period of nearly three weeks between the Japanese offer to surrender and the actual surrender on September 2. This was needed in order to arrange details: of the surrender and occupation and to permit the Japanese government to prepare its people to accept the capitulation. It is not generally realized that there was threat of a revolt against the government, led by an Army group supported by the peasants, to seize control and continue the war. For several days it was touch and go as to whether the people would follow their government in surrender.
The bulk of the Japanese people did not consider themselves beaten; in fact they believed they were winning in spite of the terrible punishment they had taken. They watched the paper balloons take off and float eastward in the wind, confident that these were carrying a terrible retribution to the United States in revenge for our air raids.

An horrific way to end a War it really was,but as i said the bottom line is it saved 100's of 1,000's of Allied soldiers lives.

so because the US was taking a battering on the battlefield, dropping bombs on civilian women and children (please not 'civilian' is the operative word here) killing hundreds of thousands was legitimate was it?

Of course it was ;) Their bombs were Terror bombing, ours and those of our allies were Morale bombing.

There is obviously a huge difference lol ;)

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Well that caused a fuss.
Some people trying to change History,using the Bomb on Japan DID save lives & in no way were they ready to surrender.
Saying they were ready to surrender is a huge difference from Unconditional Surrender.
Two B-29 incendiary raids over Tokyo. One of these raids killed about 125,000 people, the other nearly 100,000, how many would have died to achieve full air supremacy.

General MacArthur's staff anticipated about 50,000 American casualties and several times that number of Japanese casualties in the November 1 operation to establish the initial beachheads on Kyushu. After that they expected a far more costly struggle before the Japanese homeland was subdued. There was every reason to think that the Japanese would defend their homeland with even greater fanaticism than when they fought to the death on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. No American soldier who survived the bloody struggles on these islands has much sympathy with the view that battle with the Japanese was over as soon as it was clear that their ultimate situation was hopeless. No, there was every reason to expect a terrible struggle long after the point at which some people can now look back and say, "Japan was already beaten."
A month after our occupation I heard General MacArthur say that even then, if the Japanese government lost control over its people and the millions of former Japanese soldiers took to guerrilla warfare in the mountains, it could take a million American troops ten years to master the situation.
That this was not an impossibility is shown by the following fact, which I have not seen reported. We recall the long period of nearly three weeks between the Japanese offer to surrender and the actual surrender on September 2. This was needed in order to arrange details: of the surrender and occupation and to permit the Japanese government to prepare its people to accept the capitulation. It is not generally realized that there was threat of a revolt against the government, led by an Army group supported by the peasants, to seize control and continue the war. For several days it was touch and go as to whether the people would follow their government in surrender.
The bulk of the Japanese people did not consider themselves beaten; in fact they believed they were winning in spite of the terrible punishment they had taken. They watched the paper balloons take off and float eastward in the wind, confident that these were carrying a terrible retribution to the United States in revenge for our air raids.

An horrific way to end a War it really was,but as i said the bottom line is it saved 100's of 1,000's of Allied soldiers lives.

so because the US was taking a battering on the battlefield, dropping bombs on civilian women and children (please not 'civilian' is the operative word here) killing hundreds of thousands was legitimate was it?

Wasnt everyone just bombing everyone during WW2 though. Civilian or military?

 

[Blue Maverick]

Look,they had to nip it in the bud or lots more would have died ;)

 

[metalblue]

Do you believe the atomic bomb was used purely to end the war with Japan?

No.

Me neither, and we are in good company. So my next, predictable question, is do you think having the bomb has helped maintain peace especially between Russia and the US? Much harder to answer I appreciate but you get where I am going with this.

 

[Skashion]

Me neither, and we are in good company. So my next, predictable question, is do you think having the bomb has helped maintain peace especially between Russia and the US? Much harder to answer I appreciate but you get where I am going with this.

Yes and no.