Hollande tells UN on Syria: ‘Enough is enough’

[Bob9]

History is a vast expanse of learning opportunities that for many reasons people do not 'learn' from.  As Einstein himself said : Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

Remember Uganda and Idi Amin - and how are things there ever since we removed that 'dictator'?  Same thing as all the other 3rd world countries where the West has involved itself, and attempted to force the introduction of 'human rights' and 'democracy' on to people that are both too uncivilised to adopt and not at all willing to embrace.  

 

It was lunacy to think it will work in Syria.   It has never worked and it never will.  People need to 'evolve' their own societies and thinking first, before they can be ready for concepts like 'law and order' and 'freedom of thought'.

 

To think that 'we' can solve 'their' problems by making them embrace 'our' values - is utterly contemptible and sanctimonious.  And it never works !!!  Sheer lunacy.

 

[craigt3365]

45 minutes ago, Bob9 said:

History is a vast expanse of learning opportunities that for many reasons people do not 'learn' from.  As Einstein himself said : Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

Remember Uganda and Idi Amin - and how are things there ever since we removed that 'dictator'?  Same thing as all the other 3rd world countries where the West has involved itself, and attempted to force the introduction of 'human rights' and 'democracy' on to people that are both too uncivilised to adopt and not at all willing to embrace.  

 

It was lunacy to think it will work in Syria.   It has never worked and it never will.  People need to 'evolve' their own societies and thinking first, before they can be ready for concepts like 'law and order' and 'freedom of thought'.

 

To think that 'we' can solve 'their' problems by making them embrace 'our' values - is utterly contemptible and sanctimonious.  And it never works !!!  Sheer lunacy.

 

Understand what you are saying.  But why is Jordan doing so well when all it's neighbors are doing badly?  Morocco is doing OK.  India has massive involvement by the West and it's OK.  Plenty more examples.

 

A no fly zone and no weapons sales should have been approved when it was brought up at the UN.  Sadly, a few countries voted against it.  We're paying the price for that now.

 

It can happen, but won't happen overnight.  And mistakes will be made.  But it's better than letting innocents be slaughtered.  We need a stronger and better UN. 

[Bob9]

Agree - there will always be exceptions - but that is down to both the local populace and the way change is made

 

Lots of bad decisions made after the first one (to interfere). Removing a dictator can and does cause more problems than it solves. We took hundreds of years to get rid of ours, and yet we still have issues too.  

 

People make money from conflict zones - they encourage involvement - then come in to take advantage. The UN will never get it right - they are part of the problem. Remember - the camel is a horse designed by a committee. What Syria (and all the others) need, is a better and stronger Dictator - less innocents will die than under any regime we can introduce.  But if we must do something - then pull out completely and let Russia take over - maybe they can do what is needed to be done.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Bob9
spelling

[LuckyNo4]

 

It is pretty much agreed that Russia was behind the bombing of the aid convoy.  What does that say about Putin?

No it isnt. Keep drinking the Koolaide.

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, Bob9 said:

Agree - there will always be exceptions - but that is down to both the local populace and the way change is made

 

Lots of bad decisions made after the first one (to interfere). Removing a dictator can and does cause more problems than it solves. We took hundreds of years to get rid of ours, and yet we still have issues too.  

 

People make money from conflict zones - they encourage involvement - then come in to take advantage. The UN will never get it right - they are part of the problem. Remember - the camel is a horse designed by a committee. What Syria (and all the others) need, is a better and stronger Dictator - less innocents will die than under any regime we can introduce.  But if we must do something - then pull out completely and let Russia take over - maybe they can do what is needed to be done. 

Brutal dictators is what's got us here in the first place.  Doesn't sound like a good idea to continue with that.  Russian bombing has created the refugee crisis.  Doesn't sound like they are doing a very good job.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-has-killed-more-syrian-civilians-assad-or-isis-last-month-report-426775

Quote

Russia Killed More Syrian Civilians than Assad or ISIS in January: Report

 

We need better options.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, LuckyNo4 said:

No it isnt. Keep drinking the Koolaide.

Yes, they are.  They were the only ones with planes in that area.  Read this entire article.  Love the part where Russia starts changing their story.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37430824

Quote

"In any event we hold the Russian government responsible for air strikes in this space given that their commitment under the cessation of hostilities was to ground air operations in places where humanitarian assistance is flowing."

 

[LuckyNo4]

19 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I'll try to find a better source, but a report just came out saying the bombing of the UN convoy was in retaliation for the coalition bombing of the Syrian troops.  The report said the Syrian troops were not in uniform.

 

Congrats to Syria and Russia for bombing a UN aid convoy.  Sick people.

a report from who? cnn propaganda machine?

[craigt3365]

18 minutes ago, LuckyNo4 said:

a report from who? cnn propaganda machine?

Russian News agency.  Must be the truth?

[Bob9]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Brutal dictators is what's got us here in the first place.  Doesn't sound like a good idea to continue with that.  Russian bombing has created the refugee crisis.  Doesn't sound like they are doing a very good job.

 

Agree - no one is doing a good job.  But the core issue remains - why is it 'our' issue at all - we should never have gotten involved in the first place.  

 

[simple1]

6 hours ago, Bob9 said:

Agree - no one is doing a good job.  But the core issue remains - why is it 'our' issue at all - we should never have gotten involved in the first place.  

 

 

In relation to Syria I ask you do you really believe that walking away at this point is going to reduce national security concerns in our home countries and promote regional stability?

 

So far as I known not one Western security agency is of the opinion that defeating Daesh or any other Salafist group will bring peace in our lifetimes, so all about minimising the potential for harm which IMO is not achieved by packing up our bags.

[Scott]

22 hours ago, Grouse said:

Well, this is all very interesting but not really relevant.

 

Hollande is correct; enough is enough.

 

I don't understand why the USA and close allies don't just declare a no fly zone over all of northern Syria. F22s and Typhoons are more than a match for anything the Russians can use.

In theory a no fly zone is a good idea, but in practice I very much doubt that it would work.   First of all, the major players have to agree and this is not a situation where that is likely.   Everyone has to be united to keep the Syrian gov't from violating the No Fly zone.   I doubt that Russia would agree to that I very much doubt that Syria would agree.  

 

The No Fly Zones worked in Iraq because the people in the north were Kurds and there was an ethnic unity in the region.   In the South it worked because the majority of the people were Shiite.   It also worked because there was a huge amount of unity among everyone against Saddam, who was pretty much isolated in his section of the country.  

 

The Turks, by the way, violated the No Fly Zone quite frequently and made bombing runs into Northern Iraq chasing PKK.   With the US planes enforcing the No Fly Zone based in Turkey, the Turks were  allowed to do as they wished.  Given their history, I can't see them allowing PKK or other groups escaping across the border into Syria and Turkey not pursuing them.  

 

I am afraid that what would happen is that there would be a massive failure.   Can you imagine what would happen if the US shot down a Russian plane, or the Russians shot down a US plane?    It could end up with a major escalation of the situation.

 

 

[craigt3365]

Sadly, the time for a no fly zone was 3 or 4 years ago.  Before Russia got entrenched.  I doubt Russia would be aggressive if NATO upped it's game and enforced this. 

 

But yes, it could get messy.

[Bob9]

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

In relation to Syria I ask you do you really believe that walking away at this point is going to reduce national security concerns in our home countries and promote regional stability?

 

So far as I known not one Western security agency is of the opinion that defeating Daesh or any other Salafist group will bring peace in our lifetimes, so all about minimising the potential for harm which IMO is not achieved by packing up our bags.

 

If the politicians have a war it ends up being a protracted drawn out affair that accomplishes very little because of all the political issues involved (compromises, agendas, vested interests, etc etc etc), and there are many many examples of a 'political war' - it all started in Korea.

 

The politicians have to decide whether there is a war and what outcome is desired - they then should hand it over the the Generals to achieve that desired outcome -with very little input as to how (eg -no nuclear weapons, no WMD).  When politicians use the defence forces as quasi-policemen in a foreigh country - the end result is inevitable. And they do it again and again.

 

Solution to problems overseas?? There are only two.  

1. Stay out of it to begin with; OR

2. Send in the Defence forces to take (whatever) out using all available and necessary forces. Then re-build afterwards.

 

Please tell me where the UN system of limited occupation and peace keeping has worked well??  I can tell you a lot more where it has not.  The UN system of police action and limited occupation, is the problem.  

 

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

In theory a no fly zone is a good idea, but in practice I very much doubt that it would work.   First of all, the major players have to agree and this is not a situation where that is likely.   Everyone has to be united to keep the Syrian gov't from violating the No Fly zone.   I doubt that Russia would agree to that I very much doubt that Syria would agree.  

 

The No Fly Zones worked in Iraq because the people in the north were Kurds and there was an ethnic unity in the region.   In the South it worked because the majority of the people were Shiite.   It also worked because there was a huge amount of unity among everyone against Saddam, who was pretty much isolated in his section of the country.  

 

The Turks, by the way, violated the No Fly Zone quite frequently and made bombing runs into Northern Iraq chasing PKK.   With the US planes enforcing the No Fly Zone based in Turkey, the Turks were  allowed to do as they wished.  Given their history, I can't see them allowing PKK or other groups escaping across the border into Syria and Turkey not pursuing them.  

 

I am afraid that what would happen is that there would be a massive failure.   Can you imagine what would happen if the US shot down a Russian plane, or the Russians shot down a US plane?    It could end up with a major escalation of the situation.

 

 

 

Are we saying we dare not do anything for fear of the bear?

 

If that is so we may as well give up now.

 

I believe a resolution from the UN backed by the coalition could force this through.

 

The resolution of the Cuban missile crisis required brinkmanship, statesmanship and intestinal fortitude. Now's the time to force Russia to back down.

 

If we have to shoot down a couple of MIGs so be it. (If necessary, sink their carrier)

 

This refugee crisis is sinking Europe. I feel that if the USA were being swamped with millions of Muslims we would be seeing more robust action.

 

Certainly there are risks. However, one has to stand up to bullies. What's the matter with USA these days? Just kowtow to everyone? Don't worry, the Brits will hold your hand!

[Scott]

Just now, Grouse said:

 

Are we saying we dare not do anything for fear of the bear?

 

If that is so we may as well give up now.

 

I believe a resolution from the UN backed by the coalition could force this through.

 

The resolution of the Cuban missile crisis required brinkmanship, statesmanship and intestinal fortitude. Now's the time to force Russia to back down.

 

If we have to shoot down a couple of MIGs so be it. (If necessary, sink their carrier)

 

This refugee crisis is sinking Europe. I feel that if the USA were being swamped with millions of Muslims we would be seeing more robust action.

 

Certainly there are risks. However, one has to stand up to bullies. What's the matter with USA these days? Just kowtow to everyone? Don't worry, the Brits will hold your hand!

The purpose of a No Fly Zone is to protect civilian populations.  It's not about who is afraid of the Bear or the Eagle.   It will not work unless there is very broad agreement and support.  

 

As ISIS gets routed from it's previous strongholds, they can retreat to the No Fly Zone and re-establish themselves.   You are attempting to set up a safe haven in a country with a civil war.  

 

It's a good idea in theory, but in practice it is fraught with dangers for civilians.   So, if everyone can agree, it will work.   If everyone doesn't, it won't.   In Iraq it worked because there was agreement and a very isolated leader with very limited air power.  

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

The purpose of a No Fly Zone is to protect civilian populations.  It's not about who is afraid of the Bear or the Eagle.   It will not work unless there is very broad agreement and support.  

 

As ISIS gets routed from it's previous strongholds, they can retreat to the No Fly Zone and re-establish themselves.   You are attempting to set up a safe haven in a country with a civil war.  

 

It's a good idea in theory, but in practice it is fraught with dangers for civilians.   So, if everyone can agree, it will work.   If everyone doesn't, it won't.   In Iraq it worked because there was agreement and a very isolated leader with very limited air power.  

 

Right now Syrian civilians are being slaughtered. Let's at least give them a chance by ENFORCING a no fly zone! Unless we do this the Syrian "government" supported by the Russians will take over the country. We really don't want more refugees. 

[Scott]

I have skepticism, but certainly no objection to a No Fly Zone.  

[Scott]

This thread might be worth a read on the reception that even a limited No Fly Zone is getting:

 

 

[ddavidovsky]

Talky McTalktalk.

Wars have to work themselves out; they can't be stopped half-way. The Syrian war is mainly done anyway.

Then it will be the Kurdish war which will potentially be even more catastrophic.

Agree that unstable countries need strong leaders. Someone should write a manual for dictators though, because they always blow it.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.