Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
willedoo

To Bomb or not to Bomb

Recommended Posts

Looks like our esteemed leadership has a bit of a dilemma since being asked to send our FA-18's to bomb Syria.

 

They quote a few legal issues (a bit of an understatement).

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/australia-considers-us-request-bomb-targets-syria-33221042

 

It could be a case of the blind leading the blind, as the US president recently admitted that they didn't really have a strategy.

 

To quote Peter Leahy in last weekend's Weekend Australian:

 

" Without a strategy and a clear view of what we want to achieve, including an end-state and exit plan, we shouldn't be making any further commitments to Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan."

 

Maybe we'd be better off under military rule; our Generals seem to be a lot smarter than our politicians. Well, most people are, actually.

 

Why can't the comedians in Canberra pluck up the courage to say "Come up with a plan first". The wives and families of our RAAF pilots deserve at least that from these clowns.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like our esteemed leadership has a bit of a dilemma since being asked to send our FA-18's to bomb Syria.

 

They quote a few legal issues (a bit of an understatement).

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/australia-considers-us-request-bomb-targets-syria-33221042

 

It could be a case of the blind leading the blind, as the US president recently admitted that they didn't really have a strategy.

 

To quote Peter Leahy in last weekend's Weekend Australian:

 

" Without a strategy and a clear view of what we want to achieve, including an end-state and exit plan, we shouldn't be making any further commitments to Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan."

 

Maybe we'd be better off under military rule; our Generals seem to be a lot smarter than our politicians. Well, most people are, actually.

 

Why can't the comedians in Canberra pluck up the courage to say "Come up with a plan first". The wives and families of our RAAF pilots deserve at least that from these clowns.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Willie they DO have a plan. The same plan they've had for generations: All the Way with the US of A.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Willie they DO have a plan. The same plan they've had for generations: All the Way with the US of A.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Willie they DO have a plan. The same plan they've had for generations: All the Way with the US of A.

Well that's what we've done for a long time. Problem these days is that the US of A , for a long time now, hasn't been very smart about how they go to war, and we'll get into more trouble than Flash Gordon if we continue to blindly follow and not have the maturity to question.

 

Most countries respect strength, not weakness. If we're going to be involved in someone else's war, we should be accepted as an equal partner in the descision making process. I don't know what the military to military contact is, but just having the the leader of the world ring up our buffoons in Canberra with a request seems a dumb way to do things.

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Willie they DO have a plan. The same plan they've had for generations: All the Way with the US of A.

Well that's what we've done for a long time. Problem these days is that the US of A , for a long time now, hasn't been very smart about how they go to war, and we'll get into more trouble than Flash Gordon if we continue to blindly follow and not have the maturity to question.

 

Most countries respect strength, not weakness. If we're going to be involved in someone else's war, we should be accepted as an equal partner in the descision making process. I don't know what the military to military contact is, but just having the the leader of the world ring up our buffoons in Canberra with a request seems a dumb way to do things.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what the military to military contact is, but just having the the leader of the world ring up our buffoons in Canberra with a request seems a dumb way to do things.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I would be very very surprised if it was just leader asking leader without any input from either military.

 

As far as having a plan goes, it sounds like a nice civilised idea but seriously how on earth can you 'plan' a whole war up to and including the exit? That would be an opponents dream, having an enemy that had a set date when they were going to leave. It would just be a matter of putting away the guns until they were gone then back to square one.

 

I don't like the idea of war. (Who does!) but these people (ISIS) are not going to leave us alone in the long run so what is the solution? IMHO we won't get out of pain in the long run no matter what we do so we might as well do our best to steady them up now.

 

Also what do we do about all these 'radicalised' individuals trying to head overseas? If they haven't committed a crime yet per se do we really want to keep them here? It looks to me like a catch 22.

 

Troubling times really. But as I said before I don't really see a way out of it without some pain. As far as politically and the question of being friends with the us of a I think either way we still need to be serious about the ISIS threat and I think at least on that front we have similar interests with the yanks so I don't see a reason to snob them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what the military to military contact is, but just having the the leader of the world ring up our buffoons in Canberra with a request seems a dumb way to do things.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I would be very very surprised if it was just leader asking leader without any input from either military.

 

As far as having a plan goes, it sounds like a nice civilised idea but seriously how on earth can you 'plan' a whole war up to and including the exit? That would be an opponents dream, having an enemy that had a set date when they were going to leave. It would just be a matter of putting away the guns until they were gone then back to square one.

 

I don't like the idea of war. (Who does!) but these people (ISIS) are not going to leave us alone in the long run so what is the solution? IMHO we won't get out of pain in the long run no matter what we do so we might as well do our best to steady them up now.

 

Also what do we do about all these 'radicalised' individuals trying to head overseas? If they haven't committed a crime yet per se do we really want to keep them here? It looks to me like a catch 22.

 

Troubling times really. But as I said before I don't really see a way out of it without some pain. As far as politically and the question of being friends with the us of a I think either way we still need to be serious about the ISIS threat and I think at least on that front we have similar interests with the yanks so I don't see a reason to snob them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of snobbing them. It's just a matter of having the b***s to stand up for ourselves and do what our defence experts and ex miltary leaders are suggesting. That is to demand at least some sort of plan before we commit.

 

The issue with Syria is that it is a soverign country that has not invited us to undergo military operations there, unlike the case of Iraq, which has. Syria also has very poweful friends in Russia and Iran, who will be watching very closely who we actually bomb. Turkey is already bombing the Kurds, so who's next? This was supposed to be about stopping IS, not geopolitics. And that's what our government and military need to be absolutely clear about first.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of snobbing them. It's just a matter of having the b***s to stand up for ourselves and do what our defence experts and ex miltary leaders are suggesting. That is to demand at least some sort of plan before we commit.

 

The issue with Syria is that it is a soverign country that has not invited us to undergo military operations there, unlike the case of Iraq, which has. Syria also has very poweful friends in Russia and Iran, who will be watching very closely who we actually bomb. Turkey is already bombing the Kurds, so who's next? This was supposed to be about stopping IS, not geopolitics. And that's what our government and military need to be absolutely clear about first.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mess can only get worse. Numerous ancient ethnic groups with ancient animosities were held in a form of peaceful stability by tyrants. Then a dunderhead President undoes it all, unleashing generational misery.

 

One bright spot is the Kurds, impressive people who can see a glimmer of hope that they might finally get their homeland. (Gutsy Kurdish women-only brigades have had some big wins against IS. They set up a loud, high-pitched call as they attack, knowing the cowardly IS thugs believe that if they're killed by a woman they go to hell.)

 

Turkey stayed out of the mess until they were drawn in by IS atrocities against their own Kurdish minority. They responded with some token attacks on the Blood Cult, but took the opportunity to really get stuck into their old enemy the Kurds- who are the only ones keeping IS at bay. America and its allies will turn a blind eye in exchange for Turkey's help against IS.

 

It doesn't require the wisdom of Solomon to keep this mess at arm's length.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war criminals Bush, Blair and Howard created this mess by militarily taking another country apart under false pretences. Now the geniuses that run the country and the military industrial complex are saying that doing more of the same will fix the problems.

 

It seems to me that all that military intervention has done so far is act as a recruiting call for more people to join IS. There's a definition of insanity as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result". I agree that the Middle East is badly broken, but will more military action fix it, or just make us even more hated by them and create more refugees?

 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all the allied military action in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq has further de-stabilized the region and made the world a more dangerous place. So it's hard to see more of the same suddenly working by some miracle.

 

IS should never have got a leg up, but that's another issue. The problem is how to get rid of them, and the answer is simple. If we all stayed out of it, an alliance between Syria, Iran and the Kurds (with permission from the Iraqi Government), would wipe them out in three months, and the US knows that. Only problem is that it wouldn't fit the West's geopolitical template.

 

After watching IS being flicked with a wet tea towel for a year now, it's hard to see how anyone could believe we're really trying to stop them.

 

 

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... If we all stayed out of it, an alliance between Syria, Iran and the Kurds (with permission from the Iraqi Government), would wipe them out in three months, and the US knows that. Only problem is that it wouldn't fit the West's geopolitical template. ...

Correctamundo. The military industrial complex needs to foment perpetual war to keep the profits rolling and they will do ANYTHING to do that. Recently I saw an article about perfectly serviceable F-16's being rigged for remote control so that fighter pilots could shoot them down for target practice! I'll bet there were a few well oiled guffaws at the "gentlemens" clubs over that little ploy to sell more hardware.

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recently I saw an article about perfectly serviceable F-16's being rigged for remote control so that fighter pilots could shoot them down for target practice! I'll bet there were a few well oiled guffaws at the "gentlemens" clubs over that little ploy to sell more hardware.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2431571/F-16-takes-flight-WITHOUT-pilot-Boeing-converts-ageing-fighters-drones-U-S-Air-Force-target-practice.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was a couple of years ago, Scott, that they started changing over from F-4 target drones to the F-16.

 

I think their stated reason at the time was to have a more modern target. Good for business as well, but I don't know how many they actually hit. One good thing is that they won't shoot any more Phantoms, but I guess a lot will be scrapped anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so Abbott wants to turn Syria into a free fire zone for the RAAF and SAS? Another policy failure

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like foreign policy is still made with a Cold War mentality. That was 20 years ago. Maybe it's time to forget about creating client states. Stop funding, arming and training rebel groups, and just move on.

 

That business model doesn't seem to be working. Working with one dictator would probably be better in the long run than creating a million rebel/terror groups. It's like we're boxing ourself into a corner.

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all ready to implode with Wahabi, Shiite, and Sunny at loggerheads with each other and Iran a real wild card. The Kurds have been dispossessed of their country since the borders of the region were re arranged by the west and Turkey is leaderless after the last elections. It is hard to see how we could legitimately get in and out on defined terms and objectives. Haven't we learned not to get into endless unwinnable situations? I fail to see how OUR current LAW allows us to go there. The decision is probably already made . Baaaaa. Nev

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all ready to implode with Wahabi, Shiite, and Sunny at loggerheads with each other and Iran a real wild card.

You're probably quite right there, Nev. We might have only seen the tip of it.

 

This is the Eastern Gulf region as I see it:

 

All America's loyal allies (excluding Israel) in the region are Sunni.

 

IS is Sunni

 

Iran is Shiite

 

The minority Iraqi government is Shiite

 

Assad's Syria is Shiite related

 

Russia's main influence in the region is Iran and Syria which they would like to maintain, and possibly increase to other countries.

 

Iran, for it's own security, would like to maintain influence in Syria and extend that to Iraq. The previous Iraqi leadership was getting very friendly with Iran and Russia, then all of a sudden, IS showed up. Goodbye Iraqi leader, hello new approved guy.

 

America would like to extend it's influence to the entire region. Iran is in the too hard basket for the US, but they would like to control Iraq and Syria to contain Iranian and Russian influence.

 

Sunni Gulf States would like to see Syria as a Sunni state, to enable oil to be pipelined via Syria to Turkey.

 

But I could just go on and on, there's no end to it, just one big chess game. Unfortunately for Syria, they're just a pawn in all this. There's talk (probably just a conspiracy theory) about a looming US/Russian deal. You give up Assad, we give you the Donbass.

 

Back to aviation - Syria received six MiG-31 interceptors from Russia a few days ago, after the US descision to invade Syria's border with air strikes. Maybe a little message there from President Putin - bomb IS, but stay away from Syrian Government forces. I think the MiG's are upgraded to a reasonably capable level.

 

To quote Jane's on the Syrian MiG-31's:

 

"In particular, the MiG-31's NIIP N007 S-800 SBI-16 (RP-31) Zaslon or Zaslon-A electronically scanned phased-array fire-control radar (NATO codename 'Flash Dance') affords it an impressive beyond-visual range capability, enabling it to see airborne targets out to a range of 108 n miles (200 km; 124 miles) in a clutter-free forward sector, or 48 n miles (90 km; 56 miles) to the rear. It is capable of tracking 10 targets and attacking four simultaneously. Coupled with this radar, the MiG-31's R-33 (NATO codename AA-9 'Amos') or R-37 (AA-X-13/AA-13 'Arrow') long-range air-to-air missiles afford it a highly potent beyond-visual range (BVR) air-to-air capability."

 

Syria sounds like a good place for us to stay out of.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an edit for the above post - the Syrian MiG-31 interceptors have been on order since 2007, but the delivery seems relevant to the current situation there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also what do we do about all these 'radicalised' individuals trying to head overseas? If they haven't committed a crime yet per se do we really want to keep them here? It looks to me like a catch 22

Let them go, get rid of em especially if they are going to wear a Black Hat and don't let them back in. If its a white Hat well each one on its own merit. (Baddies always wear Black Hats). But who are the Baddies, IS sure but a bit of a triangle going on.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...