General Chat

A mix of opinions .....

I agree, in degrees, with all the comments (but could do without the History lesson).

But Servicemen & women are, in such matters, apolitical.

They, especially today, know the risks and the likelihood of deployment on Operational duties. And they will all be well briefed on the reason why they are going.

Merlin - you seem to have 'forgotten' Northern Ireland .... ?

Anyone asked them (Tommy, Tar or Brylcreem) what they think ?

As I said previously, If you want to fight go and do it, not send our troops to do it for you, they are for (Supposedly) the defense of the realm,not to be at the beck and call of any MP.who has never been in a firefight and never will be.So don,t be so quick to send other peoples Sons and Daughters to do the work you,re not prepared to do yourselves.**M**.

typical Rollo

War is a disaster for winner and loser alike.

I used to love Aleppo it was one of my favorite cities. Now the centuries old souk has been smashed to smithereens and the social unity of Syria along with it.

This is not some tinpot country far far away of which we know nothing it is part of the cradle of civilisation. Before the current civil war the standard of living in Syria was quite good, education excellent ( inc girls ) but all within the iron grip of the Ba'ath. All the best air routes to the Gulf and India lay across Syria.

As with so many states the roots of Syria's misery lie in the colonial administrations, in this case France. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 Britain and France divied up the Middle East between them. Britain got Jordan, Iraq, Iran as puppet states plus Kuwait and the Gulf States as "protectorates". Didn't that turn out well ?

France got the Lebanon and Syria. During ww2 the Vichy French fought a vicous war with the Brits.

The Alawites are a real bunch of misery from the hills along the Turkish border and around Latakia, the port Russia is so keen to hang on to. The French decided that the Alawites were the daddy.

During ww2 Michel Aflaq established a political movement called the Ba'ath or Arabic renaissance. It was anti-colonial, nationalist, socialist and very authoritarian. This movement took power in 1963 by a coup led by Hafez al Assad, Bashir's father an Alawite. A short while before another Ba'thist, Saddam Hussein ( remember him ? ) had come to power in Iraq by a bloody coup.

All very well but most of the population of Syria is Sunni Muslim and the never ending boot of the Alawites has not gone down well. In 1982 Hama, a provincial city, was destroyed by Syrian armed forces with a loss of 40 000 lives. Nothing was said in the west. My then girlfriend, a TEFL teacher, escaped by the skin of her teeth.

So Bashir and the Ba'athists have form.

Encouraged by "the Arab Spring" the Sunnis tried to have a spring of their own. No dice. Peaceful protest was ruthlessly put down and inevitably escalated into civil war. Quite possibly a robust UN intervention could have succeeded but was blocked by the Russians.

As it is now the ordinary people of Syria are at the mercy of this tyrant in a country which has become the football of big power politics, crucial to Iranian and Russian objectives of dominating the Middle East. Without the key piece of Syria these plans are going nowhere.

It is perfectly possible that a wrong move at this time could set off a general conflagration right across the Middle East from Bahrain and Iraq to the Lebanon and Israel. That is why the west is being so cautious.

Meanwhile millions of people in Syria are stuck in a living hell so we can be nice and comfy in the West.

Anybody who thinks the outcome of this war had nothing to do with the UK and will not affect the daily lives of everybody in Europe is living in dreamland.

To begrudge the Syrians some means of defense against Assad is not only wrong but stupid as the slack will be ( and is ) taken up by Al Quaeda. I cannot think of any way of spending a lot of the foreign aid budget right now than helping the million refugees and providing medical services into Syria itself.

All the rebels is need are SAM missiles. As the Arab states have decided to openly arm the rebels regardless of what the UN, EU or Putin may think the EU had better get its digit out if it does not want to be dealing with a hostile post Assad state. At least the UK seems to have grasped that fact.

Boots on the ground ? Why. what for ? The only Brits who would have any idea of what to do are being made redundant lol.

Over the centuries when people have had to choose between freedom and peace they mostly choose freedom even if it means fighting a war. Why should Syria be any different ?

Even now Assad could surrender and go off to live in exile with his minions and their vast ill gotten gains. He cannot win the war. As it is something extremely nasty is likely to happen.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/08/winners_and_losers_of_syrias_civil_war

:-( cry the beloved country

Absolutely spot on RamblingRose

I don't know what will happen, or what might be being planned....

but I would say one child's death is one too many...they don't choose...soldiers do have a choice. Assad will destroy the whole population regardless of innocence or guilt rather than give way,

I would hope if the boot were on the other foot, someone would help and not just turn away. ( yep I know that's simplistic...but it's true just the same)

"it's a civil war that the rebels started just because they see other people having a civil war in other countries"

I think that is a little simplistic and would love to know what it is based upon.

Assad is hanging on by his fingertips and if we send troops in, so what? It is what they are paid to do and if some die then again, that is their job however dreadful it is to their loved ones. Although some see us trying to "police" the world, surely it is a good thing if we stop some of the bloodshed and anguish currently being caused by a few thugs to millions.

OFTG,

Yes i have read between the lines for quite some time now that the government will be sending troops to Syria and not just for training the rebels.

But like JBA says we should mind our own business and 1 British soldier to die is one too many and we shouldn't go into Syria or anywhere when it's a civil war that the rebels started just because they see other people having a civil war in other countries.

The rebels won't win the civil war in Syria in my opinion.

I think it was Vegetius who said that If you want peace, prepare for war.

The trouble with that is once you have started preparing for one you may not be able to avoid ending up in one, a bit like trying to bring to a stop a large oil tanker traveling at full knots on the high seas :-(

I don,t think so, I feel that these Politicians who make these statements should first experience Battle,then perhaps, just meybe, they will have second thoughts about sending our troops to do their fighting for them. It is not our job to police the world,even though some Polititions think it is so they can Grandstand. :-|

why dont Great Brittain just mind their own
and let them get on with it
to be honest i am sick to hear of our young men dying
to save countries
that dont give a monkeys about their own people yet alone ours

one dead british soldier is one to many in my book :-( :-(

Does anyone else think that the recent tone of our government and that of the US and other European countries, in regards to the situation in Syria worrying ?

I do, don't ask me why, just sort of reading between the lines, I think troop intervention may be on the horizon.

The Foreign Secretary has said today that the UK will provide, armoured vehicles, weapons, body armour, and expert advice, to the rebels, question is will it stop there :-(