Syria air strikes

[Firestorm]

What do you see as the main benefits of having a UN chapter 7 resolution, as against the UN backing for action post Paris?

I can follow London blues argument that the terrorists won't care a jot what the UN do whether under chapter 7 or otherwise, but would like to hear your argument as to why chapter 7 is so important.

I think its going to be because without a Chapter 7 resolution the issue is allowed by the UN, as long as it complied with the various articles in Chapter 7 as opposed to the full legitimised support of the UN security council given by a Chapter 7 resolution.
I may be mistaken , but a quick read of the UN resolutions before I stuck my neck out, lead me to that conclusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

 

[A Century United]

This is the issue with the way our current government lined out their arguements. You were either pro-bombing or a "terrorist sympathiser" doing nothing. That was never the arguement of the opposition...propaganda at its finest and it seems to have worked a treat on you

Love the way you can't resist patronising people who disagree with you. I think it is legitimate to hold an opposite opinion to you without automatically being a brainless victim of propaganda.

You take as fact the contentious position that what is happening in the Middle East is solely the fault of meddling western powers, you ignore the inconvenient truth that staying out of Syria has resulted in more deaths and far more displacement than going into Iraq did, so it is clear that neither option is the "correct" one. We have to take difficult decisions whichever options we choose, and now that our indecision and hands off attitude has led to 5 years of bloodshed and given the Russians the opportunity to plunge in and defend their interests (with no respect, I might add, for the civilian population) the decisions are going to be even harder.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

What do you see as the main benefits of having a UN chapter 7 resolution, as against the UN backing for action post Paris?

I can follow London blues argument that the terrorists won't care a jot what the UN do whether under chapter 7 or otherwise, but would like to hear your argument as to why chapter 7 is so important.

As you've said yourself before now the war in Iraq was an illegal war.The reason it was illegal was that Bush/Blair didn't go to the UN and request a chapter 7 resolution (as the US did with respect to Afghanistan).

At the moment Russia is the only country that has been invited by Syria to fly in Syrian airspace.All the other countries there, including the UK, are there illegally.

A chapter 7 resolution from the UN would give carte blanche to any measures taken by allied forces in Syria.

Frankly,I don't care what terrorists think about the UN, or anything else.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/Middle_East/article826193.ece

Thought Assad gave an interesting interview in the Sunday Times at the weekend.

Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall I believe, (I actually bought a copy since we were in France for the weekend).

Edit.The Assad interview can be found in full here:-

https://syria360.wordpress.com/2015...erview-with-the-sunday-times-december-6-2015/

Btw,before anyone suggests it, let me make it clear I'm not pro-Assad.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/08/isis-foreign-fighters-iraq-syria-doubles-report

Looks like IS are more successful at getting new recruits than the British army is.

I wonder if someone could explain to me why that is so?

 

[rigsby]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/08/isis-foreign-fighters-iraq-syria-doubles-report

Looks like IS are more successful at getting new recruits than the British army is.

I wonder if someone could explain to me why that is so?

Lots of reasons, but of course blind hatred has always been a great motivator through out history (Nazis). If you want to forgive yourself for murder and rape its always best to do it in the name of religion. Fully encouraged by old men who never get to close to the action.

From a British Army point of View. Our young guy's are expected to fight with politicians in charge. Then used as scape goats when were feeling a bit guilty. Like that Marine charged with murder after a firefight in Afghanistan.

Blair travels the world making money from the war. Over £10m in book sales in the US, but of course that's reward for his support. We don't want our troops in an NHS hospital (might cause offence) yet we have closed down military hospitals. They have to rely on a charity for new legs or psychiatric help

No one ever stands up for our military they have been treated shamefully in the last 20 years

Now I have answered your post would you like to respond to post 239.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Lots of reasons, but of course blind hatred has always been a great motivator through out history (Nazis). If you want to forgive yourself for murder and rape its always best to do it in the name of religion. Fully encouraged by old men who never get to close to the action.

From a British Army point of View. Our young guy's are expected to fight with politicians in charge. Then used as a scape goats when were feeling a bit guilty. Like that Marine charged with murder after a firefight in Afghanistan.

Blair travels the world making money from the war. Over £10m in book sales in the US, but of course that's reward for his support. We don't want our troops in an NHS hospital (might cause offence) yet we have closed down military hospitals. They have to rely on a charity for new legs or psychiatric help

No one ever stands up for our military they have been treated shamefully in the last 20 years

Now I have answered your post would you like to respond to post 239.

I already have (see post 243).Firestorm's reply (post 241) is also relevant.

 

[rigsby]

I already have (see post 243).Firestorm's reply (post 241) is also relevant.

Great .... you have avoided both posts with one answer. You've used this tactic before, quoting another persons irrelevant post. Come on I know you can do better than that.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

There is NO way the UN will have involvement in Syria that is more than talks. No multi national armed force could be put together under a UN mandate. Resolutions are paper deals and worthless.
To think otherwise is dreaming.
Would the US allow anyone to command their troops? Would we? (other then a US general).

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't NATO authorise the bombing of Kosovo under a chapter 7 resolution from the UN?

And wasn't it Clinton himself who refused to deploy US groundtroops in the conflict?

The first problem with the UN is that most countries wont commit any troops for action in Syria. Others like Denmark might contribute 60 or so troops but with a caveat that they can not leave their base and go on patrol (like Afghanistan). Other nations use all sorts of tricks to make sure their troops are never near the front line. So it will end up with US and British being killed yet again in the ME.

The second problem is that every military commander from any country who's troops are actually doing any fighting, will want air cover. Guess what air cover means.... air strikes.

At the moment at least a pilot can take his time to try and hit the intended target, he can even ask for confirmation or abort the mission. Of course with your own troops under fire as a pilot you have to act fast and risk collateral damage (civilians). Not to mention the fact that the first hiding place for a terrorist, from ground troops, is amongst women and children in cities and towns. Which of course means our boys and girls will have to kill plenty of innocents whilst pursuing ISIS.

So what your really saying is that you and Ken (military expert) Livingstones idea, is to kill even more innocents than anyone who has supported air strikes. Which you have always claimed increases recruitment for terror and makes

Britain more of a target.

I think it's reasonable to assume there are countries who would probably be prepared to deploy ground troops in numbers (including China and perhaps Russia) in the event of a chapter 7 resolution being passed.

You shouldn't underestimate the fact that KL was in charge of London's civil defense while Mayor,including of course,7/7.

 

[rigsby]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't NATO authorise the bombing of Kosovo under a chapter 7 resolution from the UN?

And wasn't it Clinton himself who refused to deploy US groundtroops in the conflict?



I think it's reasonable to assume there are countries who would probably be prepared to deploy ground troops in numbers (including China and perhaps Russia) in the event of a chapter 7 resolution being passed.

You shouldn't underestimate the fact that KL was in charge of London's civil defense while Mayor,including of course,7/7.[/QUOTE]

Its reasonable to assume that Russia and China will deploy the same numbers they always deploy in the ME......ZERO Chapter 7 will still require bombs.....You still have avoided explaining your self on that one.

 

[rigsby]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't NATO authorise the bombing of Kosovo under a chapter 7 resolution from the UN?

And wasn't it Clinton himself who refused to deploy US groundtroops in the conflict?



I think it's reasonable to assume there are countries who would probably be prepared to deploy ground troops in numbers (including China and perhaps Russia) in the event of a chapter 7 resolution being passed.

You shouldn't underestimate the fact that KL was in charge of London's civil defense while Mayor,including of course,7/7.

What an excellent qualification to be in charge of a ground invasion of Syria.

Good old Ken (I support firefighters) Livingstone. Yes he certainly was Mayor on 7/7. Did you know that at Tavistock Square, that's the bomb on the Bus incident where 13 people died. There was no Fire Brigade attendance for nearly 1 hour. Why, well as we all know they were very busy dealing with the 3 tube incidents.

But the What did not help was the fact that the LFB had lost 12 fire engines, all from inner London in April 2005. That's just three months earlier whilst Ken (no to cuts) Livingstone was in indeed Mayor of London.

So yes any young person who is in the military don't underestimate KL, especially as he has a nice job as chairman of a defence review. He is a like any other politician his word and integrity are worthless and he should not be trusted

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't NATO authorise the bombing of Kosovo under a chapter 7 resolution from the UN?

And wasn't it Clinton himself who refused to deploy US groundtroops in the conflict?




I think it's reasonable to assume there are countries who would probably be prepared to deploy ground troops in numbers (including China and perhaps Russia) in the event of a chapter 7 resolution being passed.

You shouldn't underestimate the fact that KL was in charge of London's civil defense while Mayor,including of course,7/7.

Very different circumstances, Russia didn't vote as they were absent for the vote which was why that "one off" non veto happened - AND I doubt Russia (or China) would be so lax about again.
Kosovo had a main ,single, known active militia (who committed their own atrocities!) so there was a ready source of insider support, plus over 80% of population were Kosovo Albanians opposed to under 20% Kosovan Serbs. General Jackson led the mainly UK ground troops who entered from Macedonia as liberators and despite some stand offs had no true fighting to do. Multi national force then came into being with area split into 5 and each administered by UK, US, Germany, France and Italy.
A million miles different from Syria.

#Iknowsomestuff!

 

[londonblue]

What an excellent qualification to be in charge of a ground invasion of Syria.

Good old Ken (I support firefighters) Livingstone. Yes he certainly was Mayor on 7/7. Did you know that at Tavistock Square, that's the bomb on the Bus incident where 13 people died. There was no Fire Brigade attendance for nearly 1 hour. Why, well as we all know they were very busy dealing with the 3 tube incidents.

But the What did not help was the fact that the LFB had lost 12 fire engines, all from inner London in April 20005. That's just three months earlier whilst Ken (no to cuts) Livingstone was in indeed Mayor of London.

So yes any young person who is in the military don't underestimate KL, especially as he has a nice job as chairman of a defence review. He is a like any other politician his word and integrity are worthless and he should not be trusted

I assume you mean 2005? Otherwise you're Dr Who and I claim my £5.

 

[rigsby]

I assume you mean 2005? Otherwise you're Dr Who and I claim my £5.

Your quite right. I obviously had in mind the year I will expect to see a straight answer from Tangled.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Your quite right. I obviously had in mind the year I will expect to see a straight answer from Tangled.

My friend you are just in a long line of people who feed this sad sack his ego - by all means fill ya boots but ultimately you lose the will if you follow me.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

My friend you are just in a long line of people who feed this sad sack his ego - by all means fill ya boots but ultimately you lose the will if you follow me.

Don't be so hard on yourself: your posts aren't that bad.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Blimey. They've just released the figures this year, from January til September, and they show record figures for terror arrests, with 315 suspects arrested. 39% were actually charged, which is again worrying, and one in six were women.
They also just announced that there were seven major plots to kill, that were foiled.

This is before this 'Shall we bomb Syria' vote. So it goes to prove that we are under attack, and will be attacked, no matter what happens in Syria.

 

[Bielzibubz]

That's a good point that's not been made loudly enough in my opinion. The bombing in Syria is not instigating a war in and in turn terror on our streets. It was here anyway and had been for months. Sitting back and doing nothing whilst waiting for this magical Chapter 7 UN resolution, which in all likelihood would never happen anyway, is just not and never was an option.

And whilst I'm typing I'll ask this again for those that have sidestepped the question before. Given that a Chapter 7 resolution was never on the cards anyway (well, I assume so) what would the solution be to the IS problem. And don't give me this not dealing in hypotheticals crap. All assumptions and unknowns are hypotheticals and we all make decisions on a daily basis based on them.

TUIB in particular. Lets assume with a high degree of certainty a Chapter 7 won't happen. What is your answer then given that air strikes are, in your opinion, a complete no no and ground troops can't operate without them and air support?

 

[Bkdside]

Love the way you can't resist patronising people who disagree with you. I think it is legitimate to hold an opposite opinion to you without automatically being a brainless victim of propaganda.

You take as fact the contentious position that what is happening in the Middle East is solely the fault of meddling western powers, you ignore the inconvenient truth that staying out of Syria has resulted in more deaths and far more displacement than going into Iraq did, so it is clear that neither option is the "correct" one. We have to take difficult decisions whichever options we choose, and now that our indecision and hands off attitude has led to 5 years of bloodshed and given the Russians the opportunity to plunge in and defend their interests (with no respect, I might add, for the civilian population) the decisions are going to be even harder.

I certainly do not think those that have fallen for the governments propaganda as brainless, it is a very very powerful tool used by some of the most intelligent and powerful people on the planet.

My point was the way the government set about their argument...which basically read "you are either with us or against us (terrorist sympathiser). Those use of words were not a slip of the tongue from the PM, they were pre-planned thought out words aimed to scaremonger and breed further hatred and divide between not only the House by also the general public. He had many opportunities to apologies or backtrack but decided against it and therefore stuck by what he said.

As a side note, I thought it was very sad how quickly the whole house (opposition included) where laughing and joking within seconds of the decision being made as they left the House. A sad day for our country.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

That's a good point that's not been made loudly enough in my opinion. The bombing in Syria is not instigating a war in and in turn terror on our streets. It was here anyway and had been for months. Sitting back and doing nothing whilst waiting for this magical Chapter 7 UN resolution, which in all likelihood would never happen anyway, is just not and never was an option.

And whilst I'm typing I'll ask this again for those that have sidestepped the question before. Given that a Chapter 7 resolution was never on the cards anyway (well, I assume so) what would the solution be to the IS problem. And don't give me this not dealing in hypotheticals crap. All assumptions and unknowns are hypotheticals and we all make decisions on a daily basis based on them.

TUIB in particular. Lets assume with a high degree of certainty a Chapter 7 won't happen. What is your answer then given that air strikes are, in your opinion, a complete no no and ground troops can't operate without them and air support?

I've never ruled out air strikes as long as they're part of a chapter 7 resolution.

You can't be sure that a chapter 7 resolution won't happen until one nation (at least) has applied for it and is turned down.What then? Let's wait and see.

In about a year or so's time, I imagine you (and others) will have come round to the conclusion that air strikes without boots on the ground won't work.Which is where most of those who are opposed to the war are right now.

The problem with Syria is that no-one (including Russia) has an end game or an exit strategy worked out.