NCO Club: Off Topic Discussions => The Chambers: Political Discussion Board => Topic started by: Koen on 1 August 2011, 11:07:31



Title: Syria
Post by: Koen on 1 August 2011, 11:07:31
well, it seems that +100 killings/day by the regime was the limit to stop the no-action policy

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0801/syria.html (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0801/syria.html)

Quote
Germany calls for UN meeting on Syria

Germany has requested that the United Nations Security Council meet later today to discuss the spiralling violence in Syria.

A spokesman for its UN mission said Germany had asked India, which holds the Council presidency for August, to schedule closed-door consultations and these were likely to take place in the afternoon, New York time.

It has been reported that at least 130 people were killed yesterday as the army moved to try to quell the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.

President Barack Obama has denounced the attack on civilians and said he was appalled by the Syrian government's use of brutality against its own people.

The Syrian state news agency said the military entered Hama to purge armed groups that were terrorising citizens, an account dismissed as 'nonsense' by a US diplomat in Damascus.

The agency said eight police personnel were killed while 'confronting armed terrorist groups' in Hama.

Residents said tanks began pounding neighbourhoods of the city after attacking from several directions in a dawn assault.

Footage posted on social media showed large parts of the city covered in smoke, and panic-stricken groups surrounding the bodies of dead or wounded people in the streets as gunfire rang out. The content could not be independently verified.

Britain and France condemned the Hama assault. Italy urged a tough statement by the UN Security Council, where Russia and China have previously opposed any condemnation of Syria.

The European Union plans to extend sanctions on Monday by imposing asset freezes and travel bans on five more Syrians.

EU sanctions already target President Assad and at least two dozen officials, as well as Syrian firms linked to the military.



Title: Re: Syria
Post by: MontyB on 1 August 2011, 11:16:29
Yes well I guess it is time to sort out Assad, personally I think it is time to put boots on the ground in Libya and end that nonsense then pay a visit to Damascus.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Koen on 1 August 2011, 11:37:51
true but late........ very late  >:(


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: stoffel on 1 August 2011, 21:43:26
Several factors are decisive for the lack of actions against Syria.
The main power that has to deliver the backbone of the forces has two wars going on and allready little participation from other NATO allies ( except Germany and the UK)
We (NATO) have not the manpower nor money and stocks of ammo to wage another war.
Also consider that an attack on Syria would have a wrong effect on the civilians, they will gether behind Assad if we do, or worse we create another Iraq where Iran can try to make usage of the chaos.
After all its the big Satan attacking.
A third point is that Syria has fortified all towns and villages along its borders about every house is mined with explosives, it will be a costly dash to get across the border.
Plenty of reasons not to go there.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: MontyB on 2 August 2011, 00:11:24
Several factors are decisive for the lack of actions against Syria.
The main power that has to deliver the backbone of the forces has two wars going on and allready little participation from other NATO allies ( except Germany and the UK)
We (NATO) have not the manpower nor money and stocks of ammo to wage another war.
Also consider that an attack on Syria would have a wrong effect on the civilians, they will gether behind Assad if we do, or worse we create another Iraq where Iran can try to make usage of the chaos.
After all its the big Satan attacking.
A third point is that Syria has fortified all towns and villages along its borders about every house is mined with explosives, it will be a costly dash to get across the border.
Plenty of reasons not to go there.


Can I say "Blah" to all that?

First point:
A) I have never seen an army at war run out of ammunition or money yet.
B) I suspect there is a fair stockpile of ammunition in Iraq.

Besides I doubt any western involvement would be needed, just offer to split Syria between its neighbours and Assad would be holding elections in a week.

2) If the civilians of Syria do not want assistance from the west all the better, we don't have to do anything.

3) I am not sure fortified towns are really all that effective given that I doubt the Syrian military is really much of a threat and as such all blowing up towns will do is slow things up marginally but it will not stop Assad's departure.

In the end the west does not have to do anything more than provide a serious and credible threat to the existence of the leadership in these nations and they will become as compliant as kittens.
The first step in this process is to prove a point by finishing Gaddafi (whether by bullet or 2000lb bomb is irrelevant) and then go have a talk with the next tin pot dictator in line because I will bet a sizeable portion of my bank account that despite all the bluster and sabre rattling when their lives are on the line they will all see the light.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: stoffel on 2 August 2011, 08:26:46
Lol, the ammo thingy is very real, trust me.
Look at the UK and Holland for example, we have used a lot of our bombs and missiles.
There is a 1 milliard budget cut, do you really think we have money to buy new ones?
Its the main reason why our airforce isnt part of the bombing aircraft in Libya.

And my last point is a very hot item to, read the comments in some of the US main papers and in military journals.
I will see if I can scan some of them and post them here.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: MontyB on 2 August 2011, 23:58:33
All this is somewhat meaningless as I have yet to see a pro-Western (well non-anti-western) group in Syria asking for help and if the Syrian people are happy being shot up by their government then who am I to argue with them.

I am however convinced that the answer to all this is far cheaper than a bombing campaign you just put a price on the head of these "leaders" and then turn the screws on them with sanctions and frozen assets and eventually they will turn on each other, I am not opposed to one dictatorship replacing another just as long as they are more benevolent than the previous one.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: stoffel on 3 August 2011, 08:24:11
Maybe, maybe not.
Just see what happened in Egypt, nothing.
Everything is the same, the army still rules and soon another dictator will step forward.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Rattler on 12 August 2011, 14:30:36
Can I say "Blah" to all that?

...and maz I join him?

We were not aware that ammo in NATO would onlz last for 150 sorties (as showed to be the fact vs. Lzbia) and it indeed shades an incrediblz sad light on the state of NATO (do we need it anzmore under those circumstances? I mean, running out of ammo vs *LZBIA*!!!) . The concern is real, but: Have we not paid for our ammo, or what? Where is it? Can we not pull from other NATO members like Turkez, US, Canada, Norwaz, Denmark?

And thats just one argument.

Reallz, the main issue whz The West does not intervene in Szira is because there is not oil, period. The same storz as alwazs.

It is a nother shame on us that we dont act (we European NATO members are obligated bz our constitutions btw), same as in Bosnia, in Srebrenica and Zarazewo.

Shame on us.

Rattler


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: stoffel on 14 August 2011, 21:20:50
Actually, I am dead right on that issue.

Just read the attachement.......
Matt, pay attention to the role of Germany and France in this in relation to what you wrote about sharing .



Title: Re: Syria
Post by: stoffel on 14 August 2011, 21:26:10
Our biggest problem is that the US is the only country sharing its assets with other members on a big scale.
Dutch troops in Afghanistan leant ammo from them regularly, US transport assets are used on a big scale.
And as Gates mentioned many members rely on the US for their security.

Its time to change the policy otherwise NATO is doomed and when that happens we are defenseless to whatever enemy in the world.
Specially if the US demonstrates a further urge to retire forces or retreat them from Europe ( this already happened in Germany) and I think this is certainly going to happen in the near future.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Koen on 8 February 2012, 20:35:42
report of 08/02/12: money rules  hdbng


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: MontyB on 8 February 2012, 20:55:51
Sadly what recent events in Syria has done is shown that while veto remains in place at the UN rogue nations such as Syria, Iran an Isreal will continue to do what they like while hiding behind the protection of their arms suppliers veto.

I am still convinced that if we want to fix the world the first thing that needs to be done is the removal of veto from the UN, my suggestion would be to increase the size of the security council from 15 to 30, remove veto and require a 75% support level to enact a resolution, resolutions that get more than 50% but less than 75% in the security council go to the general assembly and would require 50% to pass.

Thus the UN will represent international opinion.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Koen on 8 February 2012, 21:11:46
Sadly what recent events in Syria has done is shown that while veto remains in place at the UN rogue nations such as Syria, Iran an Isreal will continue to do what they like while hiding behind the protection of their arms suppliers veto.

I am still convinced that if we want to fix the world the first thing that needs to be done is the removal of veto from the UN, my suggestion would be to increase the size of the security council from 15 to 30, remove veto and require a 75% support level to enact a resolution, resolutions that get more than 50% but less than 75% in the security council go to the general assembly and would require 50% to pass.

Thus the UN will represent international opinion.

again and again you see the prove of 'money rules the world'... how can someone think like that?


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: MontyB on 8 February 2012, 22:58:43
Sadly what recent events in Syria has done is shown that while veto remains in place at the UN rogue nations such as Syria, Iran an Isreal will continue to do what they like while hiding behind the protection of their arms suppliers veto.

I am still convinced that if we want to fix the world the first thing that needs to be done is the removal of veto from the UN, my suggestion would be to increase the size of the security council from 15 to 30, remove veto and require a 75% support level to enact a resolution, resolutions that get more than 50% but less than 75% in the security council go to the general assembly and would require 50% to pass.

Thus the UN will represent international opinion.

again and again you see the prove of 'money rules the world'... how can someone think like that?


True but at the UN the problem remains veto, remove that and money no longer matters.

I am fully aware that removing veto will not stop groups of nations getting together to stop a resolution but at least it will stop situations where the majority want action and one country wont allow it and lets be honest here France and the UK are really no longer world powers so I am not sure they deserve the right to dictate to the world anyway and the USA, China and Russia are so corrupt and self absorbed they have no interest in what is best for the world and neither can they be trusted to do what is in the worlds best interest therefore so veto is pointless.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: FACman on 9 February 2012, 03:30:33
I am in agreement,the failure of the UN as a governing world body, was guaranteed when they inserted the right to Veto in the charter. In my eyes, the UN is no better than it's predecessor 'The League of Nations'.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: MontyB on 9 February 2012, 03:36:35
I am in agreement,the failure of the UN was guaranteed when they inserted the right to Veto in the charter. In my eyes, the UN is no better than it's predecessor 'The League of Nations'.


I am not sure I agree that it is as bad as the League of Nations but the problem is that we have left the UN's entire decision making ability in the hands of 5 countries two of which no longer have any influence on world affairs and three who are only interested in covering their own interests for the UN to function as a world body it is that power that has to be broken.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: FACman on 9 February 2012, 14:31:19
My reference to the League of Nations was strictly as that of another failure not as a duplicate. And I find our view on the subject not dissimilar.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Koen on 9 February 2012, 21:48:06
I am in agreement,the failure of the UN was guaranteed when they inserted the right to Veto in the charter. In my eyes, the UN is no better than it's predecessor 'The League of Nations'.


I am not sure I agree that it is as bad as the League of Nations but the problem is that we have left the UN's entire decision making ability in the hands of 5 countries two of which no longer have any influence on world affairs and three who are only interested in covering their own interests for the UN to function as a world body it is that power that has to be broken.

people will say that the more countries the harder the voting will get but it can't get worse that this... the UN is a big zero... it's a friendsclub where.... again.... the money rules....

remember the last voting about Palestine where the US thew their veto and it was all 'over and out'... where's the democracy in that?


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: MontyB on 10 February 2012, 01:15:07
Which is why veto must go.


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: stoffel on 10 February 2012, 13:58:24
IMy former batallion suffered 11 suicides because of the UN failure in Srebrenica. >:(