Page 2 of 166 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 2479

Thread: Syrian Civil War Developments

  1. #16
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,644
    Quote Originally Posted by dave lukins View Post
    Syrians killing Syrians, politicians tut tut...Libyans kill Libyans, we attack. The British public are asking why the disparity and are not getting an answer to satisfy them. Who said international politics was straight forward
    Amen bro


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  2. #17
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,869
    Quote Originally Posted by dave lukins View Post
    Syrians killing Syrians, politicians tut tut...Libyans kill Libyans, we attack. The British public are asking why the disparity and are not getting an answer to satisfy them.
    There's three questions being posed here..

    1) Why did we attack Libya
    2) Why aren't we also attacking Syria
    3) Why didn't we leave Libya alone like Syria

    Which one is it ?

  3. #18
    FreeGeneral Senior Contributor Big K's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Dec 06
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey
    Posts
    2,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    There's three questions being posed here..

    1) Why did we attack Libya
    2) Why aren't we also attacking Syria
    3) Why didn't we leave Libya alone like Syria

    Which one is it ?
    errrr...no oil in Syria?... oh wait..it was the freedom...of my ...ss
    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

  4. #19
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    There's three questions being posed here..

    1) Why did we attack Libya
    2) Why aren't we also attacking Syria
    3) Why didn't we leave Libya alone like Syria

    Which one is it ?
    1) Qaddafy is in Libya
    2) Qaddafy is not in Syria.
    3) Because we want Qaddafy dead.

  5. #20

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,825

    Double Edge & Lukins Reply

    "Syrians killing Syrians, politicians tut tut...Libyans kill Libyans, we attack. The British public are asking why the disparity and are not getting an answer to satisfy them. Who said international politics was straight forward"

    "1) Why did we attack Libya"
    2) Why aren't we also attacking Syria
    3) Why didn't we leave Libya alone like Syria"


    BattleFront produces an excellent near-future computer wargame called COMBAT MISSION: STRIKE FORCE which I possess. The game allows you to generate fictional battlegroups of British and U.S. Marine/Army battlegroups-either armored or STRYKER elements.

    In the game there are various scenarios to be played where we attack Syria from Iraq and the Med coast. It's lots of fun.

    Why is it so fun? Because the Syrians, unlike the Libyans, have a semi-serious army. Makes for some good fights.

    So, simply proposed, right now the west MUCH prefers easy-pickings in an oil-rich state supplying Europe with much of its energy needs over a country possessing a big army and very little developed energy resources.

    Then again, ostensibly-democratic Turkey and Iraq aren't racing to defend their muslim brothers from the alawite onslaught. And the Iranians? Forget it. They've been doing the same to their own citizens already.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  6. #21
    Colonist Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    02 Mar 08
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    The concern I have is that Britain has a long history of colonialism and imperialism so it is not exactly the right country to be interfering with other countries' affairs, especially when Britain used to rule Syria during the old days of the British Empire.
    Name a country that is?
    I question Britain's right to interfere with other countries' internal affairs on questions of morality and humanity when it has consistently failed to acknowledge or even apologize for its actions during the British Empire when it committed atrocities and actions that would be adequetly described as crimes against humanity today.
    Britain is a Democratic state. Governments of Democratic states are fluid, as are the people that live and die electing them. Juxtaposing transgressions committed on law as it exists today for acts committed before most of our grandfathers were a twinkle in their fathers eye and continuing to hold those states culpable in the present is morally illogical...
    Ego Numquam

  7. #22
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    1) Qaddafy is in Libya
    2) Qaddafy is not in Syria.
    3) Because we want Qaddafy dead.
    Sure, but that point 3 is iffy.

    MP's in the commons keep on bringing it up, asking isn't this really about regime change instead of protecting the people of Libya and so on. Only to be told that the resolutions do not explicitly authorise killing Gaddafi. And in the interests of holding onto the coalition & the Arab league they need to be strict in not looking like they want to kill him. The resolutions authorise the use of force in only three instances
    - Enforcing the arms embargo
    - delivering humanitarian aid
    - protecting the ppl from the regimes attacks

    If Gaddafi gets in the way of either of these three then he becomes fair game otherwise not. Gates said the political goal was to remove him from power. Everything is presently being done with that in mind and thats as far as it goes. Anything more will require an amendment which is uncertain atm.

    Back to Syria, there seems to be no public availiable version of this UN draft resolution put out by UK, France & US. All we know is that it seeks to sanction about 22 members of the regime, asks for an arms embargo and freedom to deliver humanitarian aid. Just on this it does not appear to be very threatening. There is no mention of any use of military force so there won't be a NFZ and defnitely no boots on the ground.

    Yet the Russians are threatening a veto and the Arab league is divided as they have more relations with Syria than they did with Libya. I'd be surprised if the resolution on Syria passes at this stage. Might want to give it some more time.

  8. #23
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    17 May 10
    Location
    India
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by dave lukins View Post
    To that end should the Americans apologize to the Indians? Should the Chinese for Tibet? Why should todays people apologize for our forefathers? How far back in History do we need to go back before people stop saying sorry for others?
    Dave I guess we need to wait our turn, since you've just about gotten around to the Irish for now.

  9. #24
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    17 May 10
    Location
    India
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Chunder View Post
    Name a country that is?


    Britain is a Democratic state. Governments of Democratic states are fluid, as are the people that live and die electing them. Juxtaposing transgressions committed on law as it exists today for acts committed before most of our grandfathers were a twinkle in their fathers eye and continuing to hold those states culpable in the present is morally illogical...
    Not it is not. People don't really change all that much in a few hundred years. Its called the collective unconscious by Jung. Symbolic at best it may be, illogical not.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    So,should I take you still sacrifice humans on the altar of Kali?Or the Mexicans still cut the hearts of their foes?Or should I take African tribes still enslave&genocide each other?

    p.s OOPS,the last 2 get an affirmative answer
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  11. #26
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    Quote Originally Posted by vsdoc View Post
    Dave I guess we need to wait our turn, since you've just about gotten around to the Irish for now.
    I think he means the Native Americans. Just guessing.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  12. #27
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    Quote Originally Posted by vsdoc View Post
    Not it is not. People don't really change all that much in a few hundred years. Its called the collective unconscious by Jung. Symbolic at best it may be, illogical not.
    It's a shame, I actually know exactly what you're talking about, I've got a test on that on Thursday.

    The problem with your definition is it doesn't really have much to do with people changing or not. The collective unconscious is more about how we manage to survive as a society. Entrenched and encoded in our DNA are different things: History, our morals, our failures and successes, our heroes and villains, etc... What this does is allows a group of people (and humanity as a whole) to form their own community and stay within it.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  13. #28
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    17 May 10
    Location
    India
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86 View Post
    I think he means the Native Americans. Just guessing.
    No he does not. He means the real Indians. The brown variety.

  14. #29
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    17 May 10
    Location
    India
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86 View Post
    It's a shame, I actually know exactly what you're talking about, I've got a test on that on Thursday.

    The problem with your definition is it doesn't really have much to do with people changing or not. The collective unconscious is more about how we manage to survive as a society. Entrenched and encoded in our DNA are different things: History, our morals, our failures and successes, our heroes and villains, etc... What this does is allows a group of people (and humanity as a whole) to form their own community and stay within it.
    Perfect. And hence the ownership of the deeds of your father, as moral rectitude. Without that, there would be none of the strife we see in the world today. Its extremely one sided to see the son as different from his father, yet recognize that hatred and bloodshed and feuds and clashes of religions and civilizations are what we inherit from them.

  15. #30
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    Quote Originally Posted by vsdoc View Post
    No he does not. He means the real Indians. The brown variety.
    Quote Originally Posted by dave lukins View Post
    To that end should the Americans apologize to the Indians? Should the Chinese for Tibet? Why should todays people apologize for our forefathers? How far back in History do we need to go back before people stop saying sorry for others?
    I dunno, to me that sentence structure lends itself to Native Americans and what the Americans did to them a coupla hundred years ago
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Uzbekistan, and other developments in Central Asia
    By cyppok in forum Central and South Asia
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01 Aug 13,, 12:31
  2. Top Ten Chinese Military Modernization Developments
    By oneman28 in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 23 Jun 08,, 06:49
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09 Oct 07,, 17:58
  4. Iran And Possible Developments
    By Gazi in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26 Feb 06,, 16:02
  5. Syrian and Islamist?
    By tarek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19 Jan 05,, 01:46

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •