Syria – TIme To Act

“The conflict in Syria has reached "unprecedented levels of horror", peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has told the UN Security Council.

The UN-Arab League envoy said Syria was being destroyed "bit by bit" with grave consequences for the wider region.”

see BBC News – Syria crisis: Brahimi warns horror is 'unprecedented'.

The world should have branded the current government of Syria criminal and shut them down long ago. Economic sanctions and a trickle of aid to the rebels and refugees is not enough.

  • Shut down Syria’s airforce this week.
  • Bomb Syria with all the small arms and light artillery the rebels can handle. Throw in food and medical supplies, blankets and fuel, while you are at it.
  • Flood the refugee camps with food, water, warm clothing and heaters.
  • Forget about waiting for an opposition government to form. Call a conference for six weeks after the fall of the current regime and get on with it.

To allow the slaughter to continue is hypocritical. Either we are humane or we are not. Humane people protect the weak from bullies. Do it.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Syria – TIme To Act

  1. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson I would not say the story is false.

    Iraq Iran war. USA government authorised the use of chemical and biological weapons to prevent Iraq being over run by Iran. So keeping the butcher in power. Instead of sending peace keepers and other items in.

    The idea of send non controlled weapon drops is not much of a step up to drop chemical or biological weapons. There are other documented cases of the USA using chemical weapons to attempt to stabilise the situation.

    Reality attempt to accuse Australia of doing something like this would have you laughed at like many other countries. Difference is many other countries simply don’t authorised chemical or biological weapons full stop. USA weapon polices are a huge problem Robert Pogson.

    Even in the second gulf war the USA got caught using cluster bombs that were of forbid class due to the fact they would lay around live and hurt non combatants. Since it was cheaper to use them than disarm them.

    Are you now see why its important that you are known as non bias and don’t give away weapons when dealing with civil wars. Other wise you will end up blamed to cover attacks so be drawn into the battle.

    Yes send in protection forces that will protect areas. Yes set up no mans lands. Don’t supply either with weapons or you will become a party being blamed keeping the war going.

    USA policy to civil wars are keeping Civil wars going. Yes your base idea of give them weapons is wrong. Exactly if you are giving weapons why should you only stop at guns. Basically given weapons have you on a very slippery slope not helping the problem one bit. Give them peace keepers to train new peace keepers and protective air support if you do anything.

  2. eug must look at everything in a mirror that’s been melted or shattered.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson Assad and the rebels don’t have to be given a choice in the matter of surrendering weapons.

    Robert Pogson remember Australia hit East Timor without any UN support in fact Australia was ordered by UN security council not to go in. Australian government is not spineless when it comes to issues in our local area.

    Australia does not have enough free weapon systems at the moment to handle something the size of Syria. But with some support in funding from other countries there is no reason a automated weapon no mans land could not be deployed inside 6 months. With roll out starting in 2 weeks.

    –If the rebels had been properly armed from the beginning there would have been no influx of Iranian/Afghan/Pakistan-inspired fighters to tip the balance.–

    That is the same problem Australia had with East Timor with rebel forces in flux from Indonesia. In fact the rebel forces to over throw the election in East Timor were trained and weapon supplied by Indonesia.

    So we have a very good understanding of the problem of Syria. Australia wanted to place peace keepers in place before the election because we could see the problem coming in East Timor. But were forbid from doing so by the UN. So had to pick up a disaster zone like Syria is now. There are other island nations near us who have had outside forces problems. In the past Australia did try sending weapons. Sending weapons only makes wars worse. Anyone using a weapon in a war needs to know the rules of war and obey them. Otherwise the war will not end.

    Rebels have a very bad habit of bring forces in from other countries to fight there battles. Problem is it can get to the point that the Rebels are now controlled by those out side forces with there own plans. Once you have had the infux of non local forces its too late to drop weapons. Since dropping weapons might provide non locals with the advantage to do-mate the locals only making problem last longer.

    Robert Pogson I am not saying the current plan is working. The current plan is a failure because no one is doing anything like they should. Plan to prevent combat is required.

    Locals killing locals don’t create peace. Every local killing another local unless you kill there complete family and relations leaves behind people to hold a grudge with eye for eye attitude.

    Firearms don’t end wars. Firearms have never ended wars. Its like a fire A fire is fuel, heat, oxygen. Remove one a fire will not burn.

    War also has rules.
    1) Opportunity. To fight a war you might have the Opportunity to kill each other. The method to remove Opportunity to this is no man lands and peace keepers. Think north and south Korea they are still on paper at war. Due to the no man land between them the death rate due to war is basically zero.
    2) Weapons/Ammo. Remove weapons fighting a war with high death rates gets very hard.
    3) Humans. Yes this one you don’t want to have to counter. Without humans most war would stop.
    4) Outside countries operating with external motive. This is why is critical that any weapon or force sent in to assist in stopping a war is heavily policed and that rules of war that most countries have signed to are fully obeyed they are to prevent civilian deaths.

    Not acting also provides Opportunity and fuels the battles. Sending more weapons alone in also fuels the war. You send more weapons in if you really are expect that end result is most of the population will die in pointless in fighting.

    Most USA gang violence is eye for eye. Worst Australia gang violence is eye for eye mostly stops when a complete famaly is killed. In a war there are too many people left behind who will be wanting revenge. We still have people from the second world war wanting revenge for what happened to there relations on the reviving end of weapons.

    Afghanistan is the mess it is today because USA and others thought by sending more weapons would improve the problem. Taliban was an force that was not native to Afghanistan before the USA and others started sending in weapons to fuel rebels against the Russians.

    Giving guns to Rebels causes big problems. Since when they win. The forces that were in power now become Rebels themselves so you are stuck in a never ending cycle of violence. Sending in peace keepers and setting up no mans lands stop the violence it might take a few hundred years for the parties on both side to get over the pain the violence has left.

    Australia plans are always to break the cycle of violence. We want peaceful countries. By the way the USA behave we very much believe USA wants war.

    Robert Pogson there is no short term fix to wars. Anyone who has the idea they have a short term fix is fooling themselves. Sending in guns is a stupid short term fix that helps no one.

    Robert Pogson
    –Elimination of weapons is not on. Assad will not surrender one rifle.–
    Wrong goal. Just like killing Butcher of Iraq has not stopped his forces keeping the battle going. Some of those are still killing USA soldiers in Iraq. Or killing the head of the group that did 9/11 has not stopped them.

    Giving up is exactly what you must force. Not of Assad but of his followers. A single lone nutter is not much of a problem if no one supports them.

    Please note I said Giving up not Surrender. You don’t need them to become slaves to the victor. You just need them to give up the will to keep on killing each other.

    Yes force in Syria is most likely required. The force required is not more guns. Its like aircraft to remove armed units from the ground and air from either side. Its force to provide secure locations for refuges to go so they can start living a normalise life. Yes its important to attack both sides for doing the wrong things.

    To break the spirt you can completely forget about the front lines. Who is going to go forwards to war if they know there is a safe place to stay. This is part attacking the human element. Only people who are not going to back down when there is a safe place to be is either too mentally scared or are insane. Both groups long term good of the country can be better off dead than alive. Yes it one of the hardest is excepting that some people who are alive now in these warzones are past saving.

    Most import thing to stop war is remove the need for people to go to war to protect their relations.

  4. oiaohm wrote, “How can you be sure any weapons you drop in will end up in the hands of sane people.”

    Yeah, like the current plan is working…

    This is the excuse that delayed USA taking much action. It’s for the Syrians to decide the outcome. If the rebels had been properly armed from the beginning there would have been no influx of Iranian/Afghan/Pakistan-inspired fighters to tip the balance. The present situation was created by that delay. Further delay only makes the outcome worse.

    Elimination of weapons is not on. Assad will not surrender one rifle.

  5. eug says:

    Belgian MP Laurent Louis has told the Belgian parliament:

    “Our states grant themselves the right … to overthrow legitimate leaders.

    “There has been Iraq and Afghanistan….and Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, where … our country has been ‘first in line’ to participate in crimes against humanity, in each case overthrowing progressive and moderate regimes and to replace them with Islamist regimes…

    “This is exactly what is currently happening in Syria where Belgium is shamefully funding the arming of the Islamist rebels who are trying to overthrow Bashar Al Assad…

    “Under the appearance of good actions, we only intervene to defend financial interests in a complete neo-colonialist agenda.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson
    –Bomb Syria with all the small arms and light artillery the rebels can handle.–
    Exactly the move I expect from a USA or near by idiot.

    This is how you make an Afghanistan. How can you be sure any weapons you drop in will end up in the hands of sane people. Sorry even if the person is sane to start with after fighting they can become mentally insane. More weapons is not the solution. Less weapons is.

    You want to copy what Australia did in East Timor.

    Yes first requirement is close the airspace. You got that correct. –Shut down Syria’s airforce this week.–

    Next following Australia model is Helicopter Gun Ships and fighters to weed out any armour on the ground and any snipers. Don’t bother about friend of foe at this point basically. Anyone armed and firing at the front line is an automatic target.

    Basically Declare a no mans land between the two groups. Anyone crossing into that area will be engaged.

    Air drops of food and medical supplies, blankets and fuel. No weapons. Send forces to secure key areas like hospitals. Set-up secured refuge camps protected by Mil force with allowance to open fire on any hostile force.

    Then at the end of this that is about 3 weeks. Call for talks. Note that the intervention force has avoided taking anyone side. You aggressive you have been targeted. Non aggressive will not be engaged.

    Of course in some places where the Australian plan has been followed the no mans lands are still policed by the UN even today by normal police forces from any other country other than the two counties on either side of the boarder. Since the differences between the two groups are not resolvable. But there is no more war.

    Stop civilian deaths remove the weapons. Block resupply. Provide peace keepers so talks between the different parties can get under way.

    Once they are talking then re-setup the countries police force and mil. Basically to have a mess like Syria the current police and mil of that country has failed. We don’t know fully how. Fastest way to fix is kill them off or have them stand down and start over. Hopefully weeding out bad training, corruption and everything else that has caused them to fail to protect the people.

    The current Syria Mil and Police no longer have enough trust of the people to be a effective Mil or Police any more.

    This is what Australia has worked out. Every island handled this way the battle time is about 6 months.

    Problem is this only works if you don’t have stupid idiots attempting shock and awe. You must not attempt to force either side to surrender. They have the right to fight for their rights. They just don’t have the right to fight at the risk to civilians. If they want to sort it out by boxing matches or other items where civilians are out the combat Australian forces would let them do it.

    Yes a live fire war game for dominance of the country would be allowed. The international rules of war clearly state you are not to involve non combatants where you can.

    Australian Mil attempts to obey the UN rules of war to the letter. Yes UN rules of war do in fact forbid helping either side with arms but countries like Russia China and the USA disobey this making matters worse.

    Robert Pogson think about this what if I was to spread heavy weapons inside the USA. What stops street gangs in particular cities getting there hands on them and taking over. Answer nothing. You dumped a stack of weapons in there with no effective control on where they are going.

    Fully automatic weapons are even forbid inside the USA to be used by general public. Funny enough they are not 100 percent forbid in Australia if you have high enough armourers license and never store them at home.

    Robert Pogson if you are going to drop any form of weapon in. Drop Area Denial Weapon System from Metal Storm between the two groups set to auto shoot.

    This now makes the Area Denial Weapon System there new enemy. The thing will destroy tanks. It gives both parties a reason to talk because victory by force by either party has been removed.

    Advantage of dropping a Area Denial Weapon System in you risk none of your own solders. If they get over run you just self destruct them and deploy more.

    Also makes it hard to blame anyone when what shot them was a merciless machine because they went to close to it.

    Most important thing is don’t pick sides. You are there to establish peace not choice who is going to win. When you go in with the objective you are going to pick a side sooner or latter the population will turn against you.

    Go in with the objective of stopping fighting by disarming and blocking means to engage. Let there own diplomatic sort out the rest. Now if one side end up dead because they keep on engaging your forces that is not your fault as long as you were not internally hunting them.

    Yes lot of the comments in Afghanistan about Australian forces sitting on backside drinking coffee instead of hunting the enemy is because the Australian forces are doing the right thing. Declare a no mans land and wait for your enemy to come to you. Yes around particular towns there are declared no weapon zones anyone carrier a weapon in there is to be shot without question.

    In Syria there are old roman ruins people have retreated to. These could simply be declared no weapon zones and due to placement they are quite defend-able if air-force is removed from sky.

    Syria has lot areas that you can establish highly defend-able refuge camps even possible rebuild some of the old roman cities.

    If Assad and the rebels want to kill each other the UN can still decide to allow this and protect the non combatants.

  7. Der Balrog says:

    Most of Syria’s oil was exported to EU countries, I believe. For the US it’s therefore just not very interesting economically. And no European country will bloody its hands, as they just couldn’t care less. France has only gone to Mali because their uranium comes from there.

    You can’t count on the world security council, either. They’ll discuss, discuss, discuss … and at the end Russia and/or China will veto anything. And let’s not forget that Russia supplied and supplies Assad with weapons.

    That’s a bad mixture right there. Economically it’s always easily justifiable to do nothing at all, because countries don’t want to spoil their relationship with Russia and/or China. Russia supplies gas and oil to many countries, China supplies electronics.

    So the endless fight by proxy — the US bolstering the rebels, Russia bolstering Assad — will continue. So will useless diplomacy.

    I guess newspapers are more interested in the supposed pregnancy of Assad’s wife. I wouldn’t put it beyond them to print a picture series once the baby’s born.

Leave a Reply