Syria

tim_wand

Surely now Obamas Red line has been crossed.

Or has someone used the presence of UN inspectors in the country to create an incident to drag the UN to Action.

I' ve just seen a six year old girl die in front off me on the news ( not a UK broadcaster), One way or another someone needs to put a stop to this.

After the rightful criticism Blair et al received for sexing up WMD's to justify Iraq I can understand Hague's reticence especially as the groups opposed to Assad seem self agenda driven at best.

UN action will be near on possible to Sanction with China and Russia being on the security council whati a fucking mess.

I feel and pray for the Citizens of Syria. Not enough oil or control over the the Seuz for the UK to really give a fuck about

the playing mantis

terrible situation, but how do we know who is in the 'right' as it were. who do we take action against?

there are atrocities on both sides reported or not, but the western media is on the main anti gov. thats all well and good, as they have a questionable reocrd on many things, but democracy doesnt seem to work in this part of the world, for whatever reason, and it appears that 'strongmen' are needed in charge to stop countries decending into anarchy and chaos, egypt, libya, iraq, etc.

had the 'rebels' not rebelled this wouldnt be happening though. i dont know what is right, but i do know that these countries that have been intervened in, that were relatively stable, whether the west liked those in power or not, and whose leaders did indeed have questionably record of human rights etc, seem to be in a far worse state, and the whole of their populaces being worse off, than before intervention occurred, and the resulting situations make the world a more dangerous place for everyone.

sometimes its a case of better the devil you know.

from a purely selfish point of view, i think we would have been safer had gaddafi, mubarek, even saddam were still in charge of their respective countries, and placated by the west. these leaders were nasty especially saddam and gaddafi and responsible for atrocities, but they seemingly manged to keep order in there countries and restrict releigious extremism which potential is the greatest threat the west faces.

like it or not,

tim_wand

It comes to something when we can think that the World (Or Middle East) would be a better place if Saddam, Gadaffi and Assad were left to manage their own citizens, but unfortunately even as an ex serviceman who served in the First Gulf War I fear you are right.

It appears UK policy is based merely on which regime will allow us best access to Petro chemical resources, and our interventions are based very much on this or U.S Government policy which grabs there incumbent President the home vote.

The only consideration here should be that of humanitarianism, everyone has the right to live peacefully.

It would appear that the Middle East is embroiled in a battle which reaches back millennia between Arab and Jew or more so now Sunni or Shia and I do not think it is our place to intervene.

However I know its totally idealistic but why cant we just see one another as fellow Human Beings.

MountainMonster

tim wand wrote:

However I know its totally idealistic but why cant we just see one another as fellow Human Beings.

That would be great, however, it contradicts the practical teachings of holy books like the Koran and the Bible. We all know how good religion is for man kind, so we must leave it. :shock:

It really is a shame, as almost every conflict going on now either happens for religious reasons, or if it is a continuing battle, began because of religious reasons.

GiantMike

On the one hand....

The UN has shamefully allowed domestic politics and economics to lmit its reaction to the Syrian crisis. China and Russia have a very different approach to UK, USA and France, so nothing gets done and innocent people die at the hands of the regime. The UN needs to resolve such situations with an even-handed approach and make sure that the rule of International Law and the unwritten conventions of International Conscience are applied.

...on the other.....

What do you expect? China and Russia aren't interested in foreign intervention. The UK and USA have had a shameful record of ignoring the UN in the past and falsifying evidence of attrocities to justify an illegal war against the wishes of the UN. Hague they claims the UN should deal with Syria. We can't have it both ways. Innocents are dying in Syria because the Iraq war was handled so badly.

thegreatdivide

the playing mantis wrote:

terrible situation, but how do we know who is in the 'right' as it were. who do we take action against?

there are atrocities on both sides reported or not, but the western media is on the main anti gov. thats all well and good, as they have a questionable reocrd on many things, but democracy doesnt seem to work in this part of the world, for whatever reason, and it appears that 'strongmen' are needed in charge to stop countries decending into anarchy and chaos, egypt, libya, iraq, etc.

had the 'rebels' not rebelled this wouldnt be happening though. i dont know what is right, but i do know that these countries that have been intervened in, that were relatively stable, whether the west liked those in power or not, and whose leaders did indeed have questionably record of human rights etc, seem to be in a far worse state, and the whole of their populaces being worse off, than before intervention occurred, and the resulting situations make the world a more dangerous place for everyone.

sometimes its a case of better the devil you know.

from a purely selfish point of view, i think we would have been safer had gaddafi, mubarek, even saddam were still in charge of their respective countries, and placated by the west. these leaders were nasty especially saddam and gaddafi and responsible for atrocities, but they seemingly manged to keep order in there countries and restrict releigious extremism which potential is the greatest threat the west faces.

like it or not,

Pretty much this.

VmanF3

Leave them to it.

It's gone on long enough in the Middle East, it's not going to improve within any intervention. Sad but true.

There will never be any peaceful solution in that region unless many factors change.

It saddens me to think that humanity is so screwed up, but I am resigned to the fact that I can doing absolutely nothing at all about it. What's even more tragic, is that I'm starting not to care.

the playing mantis

what would people do when someone kicks of against israel? its bound to happen at some stage (or israel kicking off against someone themselves) when that happens there going to be huge problems.

as soon as it does, most arab countires will join in against them, and its hard imo to see the US just standing by even if israel kicks it off by acting unilaterally. the interesting thing is how would russi and china act. you would have to think that russia would support israel to a greater or lesser extent and thus side with the yanks? and if they do where does this leave china? and what should the UK do?

i for one dont want to be about when this happens.

MichaelW

the playing mantis wrote:

what would people do when someone kicks of against israel? its bound to happen at some stage (or israel kicking off against someone themselves) when that happens there going to be huge problems.

Israel is far more reluctant to "kick off" than people imagine. Soldiers vote, soldiers parent's vote and warmongering can get the government kicked out at the next election. It takes something major for Israel to "kick off", like kidnapping a group of soldiers to hold as hostages, or a bunch of bombs or rockets falling on civilians.
When they do decide to go to war, a bad result can get the government kicked out of office. There is no good result to be had in Syria. Most Israelis: citizens, military and government, want a quiet border. Even the Syrian citizens in Israel (yes there are Syrian citizens who live under Israeli rule in the Golan) are grateful that they live is a peaceful zone. They have to be careful what they say because they all have relatives living in Syria.

the playing mantis

doesnt really answer the question. getting all defensive of israel and whether it war mongers is not really relevant to the point. regardless of who starts it 9i dont care, but its bound to happen eventually) what the heck will happen when it does.

markhewitt1978

Obama made his red line in the expectation they wouldn't cross it. However it's painfully clear the Americans are going to do nothing. Recent experience has taught them not to do anything without UN backing, but UN backing is impossible as long as Syria and China are friends of Russia. So nothing has been done and nothing will be done.

bisoner

MichaelW wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

what would people do when someone kicks of against israel? its bound to happen at some stage (or israel kicking off against someone themselves) when that happens there going to be huge problems.

Israel is far more reluctant to "kick off" than people imagine. Soldiers vote, soldiers parent's vote and warmongering can get the government kicked out at the next election. It takes something major for Israel to "kick off", like kidnapping a group of soldiers to hold as hostages, or a bunch of bombs or rockets falling on civilians.
When they do decide to go to war, a bad result can get the government kicked out of office. There is no good result to be had in Syria. Most Israelis: citizens, military and government, want a quiet border. Even the Syrian citizens in Israel (yes there are Syrian citizens who live under Israeli rule in the Golan) are grateful that they live is a peaceful zone. They have to be careful what they say because they all have relatives living in Syria.

+1

Not exactly what the media reports but there are plenty of arabs living quite happily in Israel. I'm sure given the choice, they would much prefer to live in a much safer and more democratic place than those countries they are surrounded by.

To also think my wife went to Syria about 9 years ago - carrying our first child at the time. I only never went because I was stuck in Lebanon with food poisoning on the day.

the playing mantis

again you missing the point, its not a debate about who starts it, its about what will happen, re our and the rest of the worlds involvement.

BigJimmyB

tim wand wrote:

Surely now Obamas Red line has been crossed.

Or has someone used the presence of UN inspectors in the country to create an incident to drag the UN to Action.

I' ve just seen a six year old girl die in front off me on the news ( not a UK broadcaster), One way or another someone needs to put a stop to this.

After the rightful criticism Blair et al received for sexing up WMD's to justify Iraq I can understand Hague's reticence especially as the groups opposed to Assad seem self agenda driven at best.

UN action will be near on possible to Sanction with China and Russia being on the security council whati a ******* mess.

I feel and pray for the Citizens of Syria. Not enough oil or control over the the Seuz for the UK to really give a fark about

You last line says it all.

tiredofwhiners

The Guardian Blue print for Freedom of Syria.

1. Guardian reports oppression of people in Syria
2. Guardian readers demand action now.
3. UN says no mandate, no consensus
4. Guardian readers incensed at loss of human life - demand action
5. Governments, tired of the wet lefties marching on the streets, put even more sanctions on Syria
6. Guardian complains about sanctions not working.
7. Countries put even tougher sanctions on and consider invasion
8. Guardian readers object to warmongering by other countries and march on the streets demanding peace
9. Syrians wonder who the Guardian readers are and why they aren't here with guns actually doing something useful.
.
.
.
199. Country is invaded under a UN resolution
200. First Guardian "Stop the War campaign"
201. First person hurt/injured/killed
202. Guardian demand return of military and a cease fire
203. Locals in Syria wonder whose side the Guardian readers are on
204. War continues, incumbent regime collapses, victory assured
205. Locals start reprisals against regime leadership - embarrassed silence from Guardian readers
206. Locals demand money to rebuild country
.
.
.
250. Money provided and locals spend it on weapons and building a tribal structure with warlords all over
251. First peacekeeper killed by locals while trying to stop corruption
252. Guardian readers demand to see the evidence that an invasion was justified
253. Guardian readership demand war reparations
254. Local demand repayments for the damage done to the country in freeing it of (the original) tyranny.
.
.
.
300 Developed countries think, scr*w the lot of them and pull out, leaving them a total lawless mess, Ad nauseum.
.
.
.
301. Some one figures out that if we ignore step 199 to 300, the outcome is just the same and a darn sight cheaper and who cares what the hypocritical Guardian readers think - the locals in Syria don't so why should the UK ?

This is why we should stay well clear of any war which isn't in our own self-interest. Screw the rest of them as they would do it to us without thinking.

It is however really dreadful and Assad should be hanged at the earliest opportunity.

Frank the tank

thegreatdivide wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

terrible situation, but how do we know who is in the 'right' as it were. who do we take action against?

there are atrocities on both sides reported or not, but the western media is on the main anti gov. thats all well and good, as they have a questionable reocrd on many things, but democracy doesnt seem to work in this part of the world, for whatever reason, and it appears that 'strongmen' are needed in charge to stop countries decending into anarchy and chaos, egypt, libya, iraq, etc.

had the 'rebels' not rebelled this wouldnt be happening though. i dont know what is right, but i do know that these countries that have been intervened in, that were relatively stable, whether the west liked those in power or not, and whose leaders did indeed have questionably record of human rights etc, seem to be in a far worse state, and the whole of their populaces being worse off, than before intervention occurred, and the resulting situations make the world a more dangerous place for everyone.

sometimes its a case of better the devil you know.

from a purely selfish point of view, i think we would have been safer had gaddafi, mubarek, even saddam were still in charge of their respective countries, and placated by the west. these leaders were nasty especially saddam and gaddafi and responsible for atrocities, but they seemingly manged to keep order in there countries and restrict releigious extremism which potential is the greatest threat the west faces.

like it or not,

Pretty much this.

Yep, pretty much that. Sh1t as it is.

PhunkyPhil

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Obama made his red line in the expectation they wouldn't cross it. However it's painfully clear the Americans are going to do nothing. Recent experience has taught them not to do anything without UN backing, but UN backing is impossible as long as Syria and China are friends of Russia. So nothing has been done and nothing will be done.

What do you suggest the Americans do?? They can invade a foreign country with out backing from the UN and that isn't going to happen.

Do we really want to see our troops enter another country which is already beyond repair? It's a total waste of our resources and we would have our troups fighting with terrorists.

ballysmate

tiredofwhiners wrote:

The Guardian Blue print for Freedom of Syria.

1. Guardian reports oppression of people in Syria
2. Guardian readers demand action now.
3. UN says no mandate, no consensus
4. Guardian readers incensed at loss of human life - demand action
5. Governments, tired of the wet lefties marching on the streets, put even more sanctions on Syria
6. Guardian complains about sanctions not working.
7. Countries put even tougher sanctions on and consider invasion
8. Guardian readers object to warmongering by other countries and march on the streets demanding peace
9. Syrians wonder who the Guardian readers are and why they aren't here with guns actually doing something useful.
.
.
.
199. Country is invaded under a UN resolution
200. First Guardian "Stop the War campaign"
201. First person hurt/injured/killed
202. Guardian demand return of military and a cease fire
203. Locals in Syria wonder whose side the Guardian readers are on
204. War continues, incumbent regime collapses, victory assured
205. Locals start reprisals against regime leadership - embarrassed silence from Guardian readers
206. Locals demand money to rebuild country
.
.
.
250. Money provided and locals spend it on weapons and building a tribal structure with warlords all over
251. First peacekeeper killed by locals while trying to stop corruption
252. Guardian readers demand to see the evidence that an invasion was justified
253. Guardian readership demand war reparations
254. Local demand repayments for the damage done to the country in freeing it of (the original) tyranny.
.
.
.
300 Developed countries think, scr*w the lot of them and pull out, leaving them a total lawless mess, Ad nauseum.
.
.
.
301. Some one figures out that if we ignore step 199 to 300, the outcome is just the same and a darn sight cheaper and who cares what the hypocritical Guardian readers think - the locals in Syria don't so why should the UK ?

This is why we should stay well clear of any war which isn't in our own self-interest. Screw the rest of them as they would do it to us without thinking.

It is however really dreadful and Assad should be hanged at the earliest opportunity.

+1

In an ideal world, the strong powerful nations should be able to stand up for the oppressed, but the UN has shown itself to be totally useless time and time again.
History and David Starkey, remind us that liberators soon become despised as occupiers.

dmclite-3.0

Leave them to it unfortunately. We need to get away from being a part of Team America (F**K Yeah !) and trying to police the middle east and beyond. Iraq, Afghanistan and now potentially Syria, what a pile of crap. Extremists already hate us and target us, why, with some good intention, intervene and make our international regard even worse. Maybe Switzerland or France or Germany could step up ?

Just had enough of the UK politicians deciding wars on behalf of all of us, its crap.

Frank the tank

I hope Cameron and co don't make the same mistake as previous PMs. We don't need to get involved in all this sh1t. At the rate we're going if anyone were to declare war on the UK what's left of our armed forces will be to busy fighting other peoples battles to defend us. :roll:

Chamac

Looks as if we are inviting ourselves into another country's war yet again, we seem to be totally hooked on these military adventures and never seem to a clue how to disengage. We will be wrapped up in this siht for years now.

dilemna

Dropping a load more US bombs on Syria in an attempt to bring down Assad is only going to kill tens of thousands more people. What's the difference if people are killed by gas or explosives? They are still dead. US and the rest need to send in special forces to capture or kill Assad and his cronies thus minimising loss of civilian life. Trouble is civilians loyal to Assad might pitch in to fuel a sectarian war as feared. Who supplied the Assad regime with chemical weapons?

hipshot

tim wand wrote:

I' ve just seen a six year old girl die in front off me on the news ( not a UK broadcaster), One way or another someone needs to put a stop to this.

Problem is when we bomb other countries it actually involves killing six year old girls , amongst others. Don't believe the armchair general tripe about surgical strikes. This is high explosives hitting populated areas.

What no one seems to mention is the other side is Al Qaeda, remember them? There is no evidence yet that they didn't orchestrate this horrible attack in order make the war, which they are losing, international - which is what they have wanted all along.

tim_wand

What's the difference if people are killed by gas or explosives?

Despite the collateral damage caused in the past, and the probability that any Caches of Chemical weapons will be hidden amongst or close to civilian populous and the fact that their destruction will also cause their indiscriminate dissemination.

The difference is that of all forms of Warfare , Chemical weapons are specifically designed and targeted to kill indiscriminately large populations of non-combatants and not military targets.

Their use is specifically outlawed in several drafts of the Geneva Convention as long back as 1925 and Co-signed by Syria in 1968.

They have broken international law, we may not even need a UN sanction in this case.

But in answer to your question, I suppose it don't matter how you've been unlawfully killed if you ve been killed which is why our politicians are striving hard to find a response which isn't unlawful (Unfortunately and undoubtedly though it wont be one that doesn't involve further killing.)

mr_goo

It is sad to say but the countries of the Middle East possibly need a dictator to run it. One only has to look at the fallout from the Arab spring. The political vacuum created by the removal of the Wests' perceived despots has only resulted in the proliferation of Islamic extremism and tribal factions.
It is uncomfortable to write this, but I cannot help but think that the removal of Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak and Ben Ali has resulted in a very unstable region. The security services of the West now understand that this has lead to security threats on our homeland that cannot be tracked.

markhewitt1978

It looks like action is now going to be taken. My question is why Britain has to become involved every time. I mean the likes of France don't involve themselves every single time, so why does Britain? Is it some throwback to the idea that we are somehow still a world power? We really aren't and we can't afford to pretend that we are.

mr_goo

markhewitt1978 wrote:

It looks like action is now going to be taken. My question is why Britain has to become involved every time. I mean the likes of France don't involve themselves every single time, so why does Britain? Is it some throwback to the idea that we are somehow still a world power? We really aren't and we can't afford to pretend that we are.

Agreed. Our military is in the worst state of flux ever. Force numbers being reduced. Assets being cut etc, etc. Even the US has only recently allowed the USAF to start non operational flights again due to the budget cuts. How can we afford to do this? Why don't the Saudis sort it out. They have the money. They now have the largest Typhoon fleet in the world, because we in the west cannot afford anymore.

solosuperia

My worry is that any action taken by the US and UK + France etc. i.e. The West could forment just more trouble in the region. Saudi on one side, Iran on the other. Israel would be involved, throw in Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban and Al Qaeda just to mention a few.
Don't misunderstand me I abhor the killing of civilians, but even more could suffer if the West got involved.
I have heard that so much of the trouble in the region stems from the way the borders were drawn up after WW1.
No account of Sunni or Shia factions taken into account.

Phil Fouracre

All too depressing, we're off to war again, let's show these coloured people how morally superior we are. By George, we used to have an empire, you know, now we're a morally and financially bankrupt country. Please can someone tell me the difference between Tony Blair and David Cameron, 'cos I certainly can't.

Biscuiteer

The trouble is that Cameron's just been photographed on holiday looking all fat and rubbery ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23809574

and he can't think of any better way of restoring his sexy, macho, heroic-figure-of-destiny image than by going to war, because the alternative - going on a diet - is just to horrible for him to contemplate.

Joking aside, I don't see why we should get involved in this. Our own military capabilities have been reduced to the point that the our only contribution to a stand-off attack, perhaps half a dozen of both Tomahawks and Storm Shadows, will be so small compared to the American contribution to the attack (yesterday a chap from RUSI estimated that we had 6 Tomahawks in the Med compared to the American's 400 or so) as to be strategically insignificant and also out of all proportion to the anger and hate that will be heaped upon us by the Muslim "street" for participating that it's just not in our interest to get involved.

There's also the news emerging today that the chemical attack, while now certainly Syrian was more of a balls-up and a breakdown in their chain of command than it was the intentional start of a prolonged chemical war.

Plus for the first time in years there's a situation where Al-Quaeda and every wannabee jihadi are streaming into to Syria not to fight western troops and bomb western civilians, but to do battle against the Syrian army and those other paragons of unpleasantness, Hezbollah. Yes that's right, the arch-enemies of the West and Israel are now putting all their energies into fighting against each other, yet our Dear Leader has decided that the best course of action is join in!

A more useful thing to do, I believe, would be to divert a substantial portion of our large and often frivolously-spent aid budget to the genuinely useful cause of helping Syria's neighbours deal with the huge refugee problem they've found themselves with. Beyond that, just let the various warring factions get on with it.

markhewitt1978

Biscuiteer wrote:

There's also the news emerging today that the chemical attack, while now certainly Syrian was more of a balls-up and a breakdown in their chain of command than it was the intentional start of a prolonged chemical war.

In which case a single night of missile and air strikes to their launch infrastructure would be enough 'punishment', after which if they don't use chemical weapons again that should be that. But that, rarely is that.