Was Assad correct all along

[paranoid airbag]

Grumfutock said:

Qwert1e said:

It also occurs to me as possible that if "the west" had stayed on-side with Saddam Huusein the Middle East might have ended up better off. But we will never know.

When he kept attacking other countries and using chemical warfare on civilians it became a bit tricky to continue to "stay on-side" with him.

Hussein was sentenced for the killing of 148 noncombatants.

The My Lai massacre alone was three times that. The firebombings of Japan and Germany greater still, and we've definitely engaged in more wars, especially if you don't forget the wars where we've been involved in every way except sending personnel. And don't forget the "enhanced interrogation" we use. Or the genocides we ignored.

The moral high ground is, to put it mildly, very precarious. Excuse that behaviour as "necessary acts of war" all you want, it won't change the fact that it makes any humanitarian justification for removing Saddam look ridiculous.

Edited by paranoid airbag on Thursday 28th August 15:46

[Jimbeaux]

Qwert1e said:

Breadvan72 said:

it's what we did after the bombing stopped that mattered. Recently, we do the bombing, and then we bugger off.

Precisely.

The whole modern idea of warfare by USA and Israel, namely "stand-off and bomb" is utter and complete rubbish. All it can possibly do is create more enemies, as they have found out.

It worked in Kosovo.

[anonymous-user]

In Kosovo the UN sent troops with proper rules of engagement and set up an interim government that secured peace. The success there was not down to bombing alone.

[Grumfutock]

Breadvan72 said:

In Kosovo the UN sent troops with proper rules of engagement and set up an interim government that secured peace. The success there was not down to bombing alone.

Sorry Breadvan but there slight flaw in your plan. Troops are still there 20 years later and there is still trouble. I know because I was recruited to go and work for the NATO force there. Didn't take the job but the troops are still there, about 5,000 IIRC. Not to the same level screw up as Iraq etc I grant you but still not a perfect answer.

[Jimbeaux]

Breadvan72 said:

In Kosovo the UN sent troops with proper rules of engagement and set up an interim government that secured peace. The success there was not down to bombing alone.

No, but they did not go until the bombing had made it a quiet place. A national Guard unit from my state is set to rotate through there in 2015.

[anonymous-user]

Yes, but it has still been one of the most successful UN operations. The list of UN failures is long, of course, but Kosovo was better done than most such ventures.

[anonymous-user]

Jimbeaux said:

Breadvan72 said:

In Kosovo the UN sent troops with proper rules of engagement and set up an interim government that secured peace. The success there was not down to bombing alone.

No, but they did not go until the bombing had made it a quiet place. A national Guard unit from my state is set to rotate through there in 2015.

That is my whole point. Follow up on the bombing,as the Allies did after WW2. Just bombing alone doesn't do the job.

[Jimbeaux]

Breadvan72 said:

Yes, but it has still been one of the most successful UN operations. The list of UN failures is long, of course, but Kosovo was better done than most such ventures.

Just to help out, let me point out that Kosovo is not a U.N. operation, it is a NATO led operation. The force there is known as KFOR (Kosovo Force).

[Grumfutock]

Jimbeaux said:

Breadvan72 said:

Yes, but it has still been one of the most successful UN operations. The list of UN failures is long, of course, but Kosovo was better done than most such ventures.

Just to help out, let me point out that Kosovo is not a U.N. operation, it is a NATO led operation. The force there is known as KFOR (Kosovo Force).

Correct. I have the medal to prove it .

Also it only worked because Serbia quit Kosovo. If they had stay with boots on the ground it could of been a much different story. Nice place though if you ignored the bomb damage and mines

[anonymous-user]

Jimbeaux said:

Breadvan72 said:

Yes, but it has still been one of the most successful UN operations. The list of UN failures is long, of course, but Kosovo was better done than most such ventures.

Just to help out, let me point out that Kosovo is not a U.N. operation, it is a NATO led operation. The force there is known as KFOR (Kosovo Force).

Correct, my memory failed you, just like yours failed you the other day re Iran Air 655, eh?

[Jimbeaux]

Breadvan72 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Breadvan72 said:

Yes, but it has still been one of the most successful UN operations. The list of UN failures is long, of course, but Kosovo was better done than most such ventures.

Just to help out, let me point out that Kosovo is not a U.N. operation, it is a NATO led operation. The force there is known as KFOR (Kosovo Force).

Correct, my memory failed you, just like yours failed you the other day re Iran Air 655, eh?

I went to answer that and found the post deleted. Did the poster do that or was it a Gremlin? Anyway, one knows it is NATO and not the U.N. as they would still be trying to figure out how to to arrive there.

[TheRealFingers99]

xuy said:

Assad has always said that terrorists had invaded Syria and caused the civil war.

Any thoughts?

Only that Assad (and his dad) were always experts in acts of terrorism, proxy wars, etc. Given the mix of races, tribes, religions in Syria, perhaps exporting the tensions was one way of keeping it all (relatively) together?

[anonymous-user]

The post is still there, Jimbeaux, but to be fair it was a tad whataboutish, although to be doubly fair it was a response to a sort of inverse whataboutism.

[Jimbeaux]

Breadvan72 said:

The post is still there, Jimbeaux, but to be fair it was a tad whataboutish, although to be doubly fair it was a response to a sort of inverse whataboutism.

I feel dizzy.

[Boobonman]

ATG said:

Mr Gearchange said:

We should have learned to leave the fk alone by now.

Which is exactly what we did in Syria. How well has that worked out?

Not really, we started off by backing the wrong side (thanks Will) and condemning Assad when he said it wasn't a peoples revolution but a terrorist insurgency.

[Jimbeaux]

Boobonman said:

ATG said:

Mr Gearchange said:

We should have learned to leave the fk alone by now.

Which is exactly what we did in Syria. How well has that worked out?

Not really, we started off by backing the wrong side (thanks Will) and condemning Assad when he said it wasn't a peoples revolution but a terrorist insurgency.

If we start hitting ISIS in Syria, which we will begin soon, it will be actually helping Assad. Nothing about this can be totally clean.

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

If we start hitting ISIS in Syria, which we will begin soon, it will be actually helping Assad. Nothing about this can be totally clean.

JSOC in Syria?

[davepoth]

Jimbeaux said:

Boobonman said:

ATG said:

Mr Gearchange said:

We should have learned to leave the fk alone by now.

Which is exactly what we did in Syria. How well has that worked out?

Not really, we started off by backing the wrong side (thanks Will) and condemning Assad when he said it wasn't a peoples revolution but a terrorist insurgency.

If we start hitting ISIS in Syria, which we will begin soon, it will be actually helping Assad. Nothing about this can be totally clean.

Best case I guess is we cut him a deal - he leaves after the war is done, but he escapes the war crimes rap. Terrible, but probably the only sensible way of doing business.

[Jimbeaux]

davepoth said:

Jimbeaux said:

Boobonman said:

ATG said:

Mr Gearchange said:

We should have learned to leave the fk alone by now.

Which is exactly what we did in Syria. How well has that worked out?

Not really, we started off by backing the wrong side (thanks Will) and condemning Assad when he said it wasn't a peoples revolution but a terrorist insurgency.

If we start hitting ISIS in Syria, which we will begin soon, it will be actually helping Assad. Nothing about this can be totally clean.

Best case I guess is we cut him a deal - he leaves after the war is done, but he escapes the war crimes rap. Terrible, but probably the only sensible way of doing business.

You may well be correct.

[bennyboydurham]

Yep agreed on that ^^.

Iraq opened Pandora's box, something that rightly or wrongly Saddam had kept a lid on. He was no threat to us. So we got rid of him at vast cost and now there's no appetite to get involved again in either Iraq or Syria, even though Isis is most definitely a threat to us.

So Brown nearly bankrupted us at home, while Blair did his best to get us all blown up by angry terrorists. And yet the polls say Miliband is most likely to become PM next year, which is er, nice.