PIW Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 The Syrian govt. massacred at least 75 civilians today....Surely this injustice means NATO forces will begin a bombing campaign to protect the innocent.....what's that? No oil? Ah, right. Although you're mostly right why would the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty Organisation get involved in a dispute that is too far out of the their geographical jurisdiction? Libya is on the Mediterranean sea and any refugees flood straight into Europe at the first opportunity (not all admittedly but enough to make it a cause for concern). But, I'm not trying to deflect the point from the fact that this was a poorly judged intervention (Libya). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 The Syrian govt. massacred at least 75 civilians today....Surely this injustice means NATO forces will begin a bombing campaign to protect the innocent.....what's that? No oil? Ah, right. Although you're mostly right why would the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty Organisation get involved in a dispute that is too far out of the their geographical jurisdiction? lol, like Afghanistan?! Assad is from his country's Shia minority and is masssive mates with his co-religionists in Iran, Hezbollah et al. Trying to take him down could set the whole region aflame and we wouldn't want to be mixing it with a large and well armed adversary like Syria and their backers. FFS, Europe can't get the political will and military might together to properly slap Gaddafi's third world rabble. Libya is on the Mediterranean sea and any refugees flood straight into Europe at the first opportunity (not all admittedly but enough to make it a cause for concern). Too right it's a concern, the French and Italians are already having coniption fits about a measely 30,000 Tunisian refugees, when a tidal wave of dusky types (and 100,000s of their Sub-Saharan bretheren that we paid Gaddafi 50 million a year to contain) start hitting the Riviera then some basic assumptions about the EU will be going straight out of the window. The migration issue is of direct and immediate concern to Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted May 1, 2011 Moderator Share Posted May 1, 2011 Nail firmly on head there AWOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIW Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Its not just a NATO role in Afghanistan though. Yes its NATO led but since 1999 they changed their outlook to broaden their horizon further afield than Europe alone. (Washington Treaty) But they can't/won't act unilaterally without support from other allies outside of NATO. NATO is effectively used by the US to avoid any unnecessary calls to the UN to get things done by themselves. It has become a show of force. When NATO are involved it conveys more lrgitimacy for a conflict. or, it conveys more blood lust and wanting to restore the Western world order. "Dusky types"? I presume you're being ironic but yes a flow of refugees is a concern. But I'm not too sure of your figures and i doubt you are. what are the basic assumptions about the EU that you refer to? Going back a paragraph...Europe can't get the political will and military might? Why should we? Slap Gaddafi's 3rd world rabble? Are you a Sun reader? If you are going to attempt a grown-up debate I recommend you either become better read, or increase your circle of friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 when a tidal wave of dusky types (and 100,000s of their Sub-Saharan bretheren that we paid Gaddafi 50 million a year to contain) start hitting the Riviera then some basic assumptions about the EU will be going straight out of the window.£50m seems quite cheap - last year he was after £4bn per annum or 'Europe will turn black' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 It has become a show of force. Ironically NATO involvement generally means a show of weakness from Europe. When NATO are involved it conveys more lrgitimacy for a conflict. Not really, it's more a case of NATO being a holding midfielder and waiting for the star US strikers to come on and win the game. I think the rest of the world are fairly wise to that play by now. "Dusky types"? I presume you're being ironic but yes a flow of refugees is a concern. But I'm not too sure of your figures and i doubt you are. what are the basic assumptions about the EU that you refer to? Point one, I'm very sure of the figures matey, try the last post in this thread here Point two, in the same article you will see a reference to the possible suspension of the Schengen area and thereby, the free movement of people within the EU. Fairly fundamental stuff, I'd say. Going back a paragraph...Europe can't get the political will and military might? Why should we? Slap Gaddafi's 3rd world rabble? Are you a Sun reader? It's not just a case of why should we remove him, we now have no other choice. For European future security he cannot remain in his position without creating a strategic nightmare. FWIW the Libyan army is indeed a third world rabble and I don't read the Sun, I just look at the pictures. If you are going to attempt a grown-up debate I recommend you either become better read, or increase your circle of friends. I'll take all of that under advisement, cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIW Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I wouldn't say NATO shows a lack of anything militarily from Europe as we do not have a unified armed force to deal with anything that needs multilateral engagement. Nor should we. The fact that this is a European led effort is to the credit of Europe that they can agree on something, finalise a unified position and act upon it quite quickly. I don't agree with the involvement in Libya but can acknowledge that at least. With regards to numbers than that is nothing more than scare mongering guesstimates. Most fleeing Libya will go to neighbouring African countries simply because it's close to the homes they want to return to. Yes, you will find those coming to Europe but it won't be int the high hundreds of thousands which I think you were eventually pointing towards. As for Schengen then that is a different story. I doubt many that get to Italy have visas so it is a moot point regarding their onward movement thereafter. It's the Dublin Convention that the Italians seem to be contravening. Once an asylum claim is registered in one European country then it is that country that decides on the claim. I agree that Schengen in principle middies the water and what needs to be looked at is the ID cards used for travel. Without them then the individual must stay put and it needs to be an EU ID. So rather than try and reform Schengen , which will be difficult, the EU needs to determine how those countries within the agreement can disseminate refugees equally. As it stands Germany already takes more than any other European country- including the UK- so the Italians will have to bear the brunt as it is. The Northern European countries have seen the economic turmoils in the South and will not support any further concessions to weak economies by taking a high Percentage of refugees. It's a difficult one. As is what to do now we've shown ourselves to be the chancers we are in Libya. But as this plays out a jingoistic mentality of giving someone a slap is as childish as it is colonial history wishful thinking. The worlds grown up since the 19th century so should our world view point and attitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Are you a Sun reader? If you are going to attempt a grown-up debate I recommend you either become better read, or increase your circle of friends. WTF As comments go I think you need to man up an apologise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Are you a Sun reader? If you are going to attempt a grown-up debate I recommend you either become better read, or increase your circle of friends. WTF As comments go I think you need to man up an apologiseAgree, quite pathetic to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIW Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Pathetic? Someone talks about giving a slap to some dusky type and it's my choice of words that raise an eyebrow? Really? I'm genuinely staggered. The Sun reader reference was implying that in times of conflict they resort to the lowest base of nationalistic and jingoistic fervour and that was what I was seeing in the post I was replying to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I think it was said with a great deal of irony thus giving no need for the patronising 'grown up debate', 'better read' and 'circle of friends' comments plus the obligatory Sun-reader reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 The Sun reader reference was implying that in times of conflict they resort to the lowest base of nationalistic and jingoistic fervour and that was what I was seeing in the post I was replying to. 'Giving them a slap' was short hand, but nevertheless an objective assessment of what NATO is trying (in a very half arsed manner) to achieve. I could have described the objective as 'a sustained campaign of aerial bombardment to degrade the air defence assets, offensive military capability and command and control infrastructure of Colonel Gaddafi's armed forces', but that would be a bit of a mouthful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIW Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Well obviously I misjudged the intended tone of the post then. Although I still don't agree with you apologies for my mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Well obviously I misjudged the intended tone of the post then. Although I still don't agree with you apologies for my mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Well obviously I misjudged the intended tone of the post then. Although I still don't agree with you apologies for my mistake. When anyone joins a new forum it takes a while to pick up on the idiosyncrasies of individual posting styles. No apologies necessary and good to have another poster on board who is interested in this stuff... ...even when they're wrong :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 Syrian forces fire on protesters as tanks roll into Banias Syrian tanks rolled into the Mediterranean coastal town of Banias on Saturday and opened fire on demonstrators as President Bashar al-Assad continued the violent crackdown on his opponents. A day after clashes with anti-government protesters that left at least 30 dead nationwide according to activists and an eyewitness, fears mounted that the Syrian regime was planning to repeat the siege tactics it deployed in Deraa, another key opposition centre. ...more on link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlitobrigante Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 God the Syrian regime really are a bunch of utter scumbags arent they? We dont appreciate often enough how lucky we are to not live under such regimes. Seems the people, and many Western governments really believed Assad was a reformer and would change things. How wrong they were. Up untill very recently most Syrians believed Assad was not to blame for the killings and was being manipulated by other players in his government and his family. I see that myth is slowly dissapating and once it does the opposition to him will hopefully grow to a critical mass and bring in real change. Its a real shame that military intervention in Syria would pretty much set off world war 3 as they deserve an international beat down as much as Gaddafi does if not more so. The Iranian and Syrian regimes are downright nasty characters and i pray that within the next few years that the people of those countries finally suceed in getting rid of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Should America be getting involved in talks as to how the power should be swapped over? They give quite a lot of money to the Egyptian army so they will be looking for something here surely?The Americans (and us, for that matter) will be shitting themselves that this lets in a fundie Muslim regime. I'd imagine the Coptic Christian 10% of Egypt's population is a little worried about this too. lt's not exactly gone well for Christians in Iraq and Pakistan when their secular Dictators were removed so the precendents aren't good. Seems the Muslim fundamentalists are increasing their attacks on Egypt's Christian minority.. Egypt vows to tackle religious violence Egypt's government has announced a series of security measures to curb religious violence after 12 people died in clashes in the Cairo suburb of Imbaba, sparked by rumours that Christians had abducted a woman who converted to Islam. The country's army also pledged on Sunday that 190 people would be tried in military courts over Saturday's violence. The fighting was Egypt's worst interfaith strife since 13 people died on March 9 after a church was burned, and poses a new challenge for generals ruling the country since the ousting of former president Hosni Mubarak in February. More on link The Egyptian army needs to come down hard on this before it starts to spiral downwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 So moving on a few months, we have the military supressing protest in egypt, the libyan rebels now granted billions in free wealth starting to murder their own and the syrians laying waste to their own rebel towns. It would appear that the west should be freezing more assets, particulary those of the egyptian generals and the syrian govt instead of releasing assets to unelected shambles. There are unconfirmed reports of NATO bombing libyan water pipes, and then bombing the factories that maintain the pipes and then confirmed reports of NATO bombing TV stations - how does that fit with the no-lie zone policy? It all smells rather rancid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 It all smells rather rancid. Which isn't a huge surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts