Looking at our aircraft I don't think so, we certainly wouldn't be able to crush them though.
It doesn't really matter though as we would have the USAF or Nato airforces with us if we ever did anything.
Syrian forces shell a third city.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Looking at our aircraft I don't think so, we certainly wouldn't be able to crush them though.
It doesn't really matter though as we would have the USAF or Nato airforces with us if we ever did anything.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,264
- Location
- Southampton
so you just pick and choose the bits you agree with?
Well technically if we committed the entire RAF we would have a good shot but would probably still lose in the end due to the additional support of their air defences, however I doubt even our government would be that silly, If we only sent say half the Tornado's and half the Typhoons they would be defeated by the Syrian Air Force alone. This has been discussed in depth before.
Yes I know we wouldn't go it alone but my comments were aimed at the guy who said our air force was better than theirs, it just isn't.
i thought we went through this in the other thread.
the last SDR shaped the british armed forces for 1 major conflict and 2 interventions and we didnt fund that SDR properly so we have less than that.
syria would count as a major operation, so you would have to withdraw from every other country, requip and supply large parts of the armed forces wait a while for spares to build up again and then just enter syria with no other commitments.
the intervention you propose is impossible with the forces we have now. simple as that.
no it wasnt, you said that exact same thing, 2 people disagreed and you gave no proof to back up your assertions as you have no idea what your talking about. its not as simple as looking at two competing figures on a wiki page and saying "oh well fig1 outnumbers fig2"
well said.
Last edited:
I realise im a bit late replying to this but I only just saw it. Actually it is pretty much that simple, we were talking about a straight up fight over Syria, and without even bringing their ground defences into it, the Tornado's would be totally outnumbered by better equipped but inferior planes, totally outnumbered by better equipped equal planes and totally outnumbered by better equipped superior planes, the Typhoons would only be totally outnumbered by less equipped inferior planes however it is just not odds you can win against.
The american F-22 has been brought down in mock warfare exercises by both F15 and F16 aircraft, if they can get lucky and take down the F-22 then the SU27 and MiG-29 can too, and if they can down an F22 then they can down a Typhoon.
[TW]Fox;19110258 said:
No it isn't.
If they wanted too, they could.
Neither is it an excuse for hypocrisy.
But I for one really am trully beyond giving a toss it'll never end I just want to try to remove my indirect involvement to it.
I see resolution 1973 is holding them back now too, apparently.
Woohoo, another possible invasion! How great.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,083
- Location
- Leeds/Cyprus
Aren't you happy this isn't 18th century Europe anymore? If it were then the Egyptians would invade all these other countries in order to help their revolutionary confreres, and then the liberal democratic movement that spawned the revolution would be replaced by a bloodthirsty dictatorship and eventually an Emperor who'll consolidate Egypt's rule over most of the Arab world before being defeated decades later in a bloody war spanning an entire continent!
Isn't history fun?
Isn't history fun?
Isn't this what modern physics is based around, picking and choosing?
However I do agree in this case, consistency is very important in politics and other such malarky, but it rarely happens
No, most sensible people evaluate what is said, check other sources and then base an opinion on that.
The main reason the west will not get involved in Syria is that Syria is backed by Iran to some extent. The chance for wider conflict is a very real danger. Libya, on the other hand, was already a pariah in the arab world. While they might not say it openly most Arab leaders in the area would be happy to see Kaddaffi gone.
Also a little discussed aspect of the attacks on Libya, is that Kaddaffi mentioned a number of times that he would make shipping traffic in the Meditteranean unsafe if things didn't go his way. Such threats are never taken lightly and from that point on the world turned against him. Syria, however, has wisely kept it's conflict within it's own borders.
Also a little discussed aspect of the attacks on Libya, is that Kaddaffi mentioned a number of times that he would make shipping traffic in the Meditteranean unsafe if things didn't go his way. Such threats are never taken lightly and from that point on the world turned against him. Syria, however, has wisely kept it's conflict within it's own borders.
Remember in 1917 when Britain hardly intervened the Russian revolution ?
On a more serious note, like some above posters said, Britain should not get involved in any other middle-east / asian country for the love of christ. Why do the western countries always have to look like heroes when they fail miserably ?
On a more serious note, like some above posters said, Britain should not get involved in any other middle-east / asian country for the love of christ. Why do the western countries always have to look like heroes when they fail miserably ?
Also lets be honest. Kaddaffi was going to have himself a nice little massacre in Benghazi. He was stopped at the 11th hour. Syria may be brutally repressing it's citizens, but the intent is suppresion, rather than a wholescale massacre.
I guess from some standpoints it may all appear the same, as loss of civilian life is involved, but there is still a difference in what is going on in the 2 countries.
It does beg the question: "At what level is it too much in Syria?" My guess is an actual massacre ala Srbenica, rather than what is going on now.
I guess from some standpoints it may all appear the same, as loss of civilian life is involved, but there is still a difference in what is going on in the 2 countries.
It does beg the question: "At what level is it too much in Syria?" My guess is an actual massacre ala Srbenica, rather than what is going on now.
the truth is syria is doing a very good job of not allowing information about whats actually happening from getting out of the country , foreign reporters etc arent allowed in.
its just the same as what happened in libya but we dont get to hear about it.
theres actually more amateur videos of syria protestors beeing slaughted than there was of libya
Last edited:
I believe the reports about mass graves in Syria no doubt, but what was going to happen in Benghazi was a whole different ballgame. A large scale massacre was stopped at the last minute that was going to shock the world.
All in all thou I doubt the West will get involved in Syria unless something on the level of actual genocide is committed.
All in all thou I doubt the West will get involved in Syria unless something on the level of actual genocide is committed.
I don't mean to be rude but there is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Many of the reports of civilian casualties in Libya are true however many are also exaggerations. According to our government loyalist forces kill civilians whereas the rebels and NATO protect them, in reality all three have killed lots of civilians (albeit NATO unintentionally).
The problem is that many of the rebels are not acting as soldiers they are acting as insurgents, the problem facing loyalist forces is the same one our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan faced, how do you determine the enemy when they dress/look like civilians and strike/hide from civilian groups/areas.
As far as the large scale massacre why was Benghazi going to be any different to any other rebel city taken back by loyalist forces? Gaddafi's army don't want to shell/blitz a city because that destroys it, they would much rather march in and fight but if their opponents are dug in then they would be at a distinct disadvantage. The is no point in decimating a city your trying to retake.
Benghazi has long been the "enemy capital" for Kaddaffi. Everything was pointing towards a Srebenica style massacre if the city was taken with civilians to be excuted systematically in large numbers. Sure the shelling in both Syria and Lybia amounts to the same, but it is what happens when troops can move thru a city unimpeded that counts. Do they shoot a few people to keep the rest in line? Do they make an example of larger amounts for the same purpose? Or do they just put the lot to the sword? Benghazi was leaning towards the latter. He hated those people for years and would be very happy to see every man woman and child dead.
I have to say that what is going on in Syria isn't much different in some regards, but everything points to brutal suppression, that will likely stop when the population has been battered into submission.
The difference to me is that one is killing for the sake of killing. The other is killing for the sake of suppression. You would be surprised what world leaders are willing to turn a blind eye to when an action is taken with "suppression" as the goal.