Syria

laurentian

Don't know why I keep thinking about this when thinking about Syria - but I do:

http://ep.yimg.com/ty/cdn/skyimage/pbdwords.jpg

graham.

laurentian wrote:

Don't know why I keep thinking about this when thinking about Syria - but I do:

http://ep.yimg.com/ty/cdn/skyimage/pbdwords.jpg

We need a "Like" button.

gmb

A short guide to the Middle East, which I found very enlightening....

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater

solosuperia

Why are the western politicians so keen to get involved in Syria?
Do they see it as some way of enhancing their profile, the way Margaret Thatcher did when she went to war over the Falklands.
Slightly different in that the residents wanted to remain linked to the UK and had been invaded.
Or is it just they want to be "macho".

dilemna

And while our government embarks on another war in Syria, the Argies make a dash for the Falklands and the Spanish take Gibraltar................ Perfect timing.

bianchimoon

is it not sad that the collective brains of our leaders seem to be coming to such a simplistic solution to such a complex problem

Alain Quay

What we all need to ask is 'what would we do?'


I'm no fan of Cameron, but look at these two scenarios:

1. Do nothing

2. Limited and specific action.

To do nothing invokes memories of the appeasement of Hitler, Milosovic and Karadich and the gassing of the Kurds by Saddam.

To take limited and specific action will lead to mass demonstrations across the Middle East and beyond, possible terrorsist attacks and possible limited retaliation by Iran, Hezbollah, etc. And it will embolden the Al Quaeda fighters opposed to Assad.

So, a choice between a rock and a hard place. We need to have some sympathy for those in power
who have to take a position on this issue. Not easy in an era when the media has the attention span of a gnat,
and there are complex under-currents such as the Middle East increasingly splitting along Sunni and Shia lines, etc.

So, what would I do? Either destroy a military base and/or enforce a no fly zone. I would not do anything that puts civilians at risk, or even Syrian military personnel.

Monty Dog

There are so many opposing factions in Syria that there is little credible opposition to create a stable administration - now that Hezbollah are involved under the state sponsorship of Iran, then the Saudis will support the Sunnis (including al-Qa'ida)and meanwhile the Alawites, Christian, Druze and other minorities will all take a pasting in the name of collateral damage. With Israel, Jordan and Lebanon on the borders, it'll be a humanitarian disaster that will have a significant destabilising effect on the price of oil and the global economy - this is a war that no one needs . Trouble is the whole Middle East is a complete f-up, carved-up for political expediency and appeasement after the Great War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - state borders were arbitarily created, ignoring ancient ethnic boundaries. For years, the West supported despotic regimes in the interest of 'trade' whilst quietly ignoring the abuse of minorities. Robert Fisk is one of the few authorities on the region:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 86680.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 89506.html

arran77

Seeing the way the MP's were behaving during their 'debating' of this last night didn't really sit too well after seeing those awful pictures of the children on the news

It all seems to be turning into another way for the politicians to score points against each other and the horrendous suffering of the Syrian people is almost an after thought in my opinion :roll:

bianchimoon

Democracy in action, a good decision IMO, although all arguments for and against action are valid I agree. Laughable Fox news headline "Britain snubs Obama".. was almost waiting for them to do a poll "should the US bomb Britain instead". I think the quote Britain's people prefer their humanitarian aid not to be delivered by cruise missile says a lot.

Frank the tank

On the issue of "polls" there has been a distinct lack of public opinion polls on this issue broadcast. Is that because they would probably highlight that the public are war weary and have no desire to get involved in yet another mid-east mess.

arran77

Frank the tank wrote:

On the issue of "polls" there has been a distinct lack of public opinion polls on this issue broadcast. Is that because they would probably highlight that the public are war weary and have no desire to get involved in yet another mid-east mess.

I think that's spot on, the whole Iraq thing springs to mind doesn't it, everything going on over there is obviously totally unacceptable but is war what's needed or proper humanitarian assistance?

carrock

here is the news from 1st October

Britain declares war on Syria, as there is irrefutable evidence of chemical weapons of mass destruction.

David Cameron promises to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US, particularly when it involves killing Muslims.

Meantime, in other news, government scientist and chemical weapons expert, Professor Roy Hobbs, a noted opponent of the war, has died in a bizarre gardening accident. He apparently cut his own head off whilst mowing his lawn.

Witnesses reported seeing a white Fiat UNO that collided with his ride on mower causing it to overturn........

vinnymarsden

What I don't understand is.......up to now, in this bloody mess that is Syria's ongoing power struggle, over 100'000 people have been killed...and we, the supposed world police, the UN etc have done nothing to stop the bloodshed, oh theres been posturing, table thumping...but NO action to speak of.
Now because we believe Assad has used chemical weapons, all of a sudden we SHOULD be bombing them back into the stone age!!!
The hypocrisy is alarming to say the least...we have sat back and done NOTHING practical, while 100,000 people have been slaughtered in a cruel civil war....but now, 1400 die in a gas attack, and it's time to act!!!
Have the world's leaders had their heads up their collective ar ses for the last 2years!!!
This is purely and simply a cruel regime that has needed replacing for a long time......we just fuel their hatred of us by sitting back and doing nothing...then we "step up" when it suits us.....it all seems VERY hypocritical to me....

Frank the tank

What needs to be done is humanitarian support should be given to the neighbouring countries to help the sea of refugees. Let the warring factions get on with it. Assad is a sh1tbag but if he were deposed tomorrow who/what sort of regime would replace him?

No war is settled by the protaganists keep getting ever more arms.

It's not our war and we should keep out of it, but as I say, supply loads of humanitarian aid.

DeVlaeminck

So it looks as if Russia is willing to stand by their man, unless the West wants to get into a war by proxy with Russia is there much option other than to try and negotiate limits on Assad's actions once the conflict is over? It seems pointless arming the FSA now as surely a victory for them is out of reach.

mamba80

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19715473#p19715473]DeVlaeminck[/url] wrote:

So it looks as if Russia is willing to stand by their man, unless the West wants to get into a war by proxy with Russia is there much option other than to try and negotiate limits on Assad's actions once the conflict is over? It seems pointless arming the FSA now as surely a victory for them is out of reach.

i dont think they ll be any negotiation, Russia is going to try and put Syria back to where it was.

Wonder where all these IS and FSA will head to next ?

finchy

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19718733#p19718733]mamba80[/url] wrote:

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19715473#p19715473]DeVlaeminck[/url] wrote:

So it looks as if Russia is willing to stand by their man, unless the West wants to get into a war by proxy with Russia is there much option other than to try and negotiate limits on Assad's actions once the conflict is over? It seems pointless arming the FSA now as surely a victory for them is out of reach.

i dont think they ll be any negotiation, Russia is going to try and put Syria back to where it was.

Wonder where all these IS and FSA will head to next ?

FSA will probably stay in Syria to fight. I imagine that IS will leave a terrible legacy around the world over the next decade or so.

Russia, meanwhile, might end up in a new Afghanistan. My prediction is that this war will hurt Putin a lot.

rick_chasey

Will be plenty more refugees as a result...

slowmart

focus is on the human cost but do you honestly think that any western government is unhappy with pulling the teeth from a regional powerhouse that was Syria?

Various Muslim sects are fighting the war by proxy, Hesbollah backed by Iran supporting Assad and the Saudis supporting anyone who will limit Irans growing influence. throw in some Nationalists, Kurds, fundamentalists and opposing the rule of Assad and .....now an overtly decisive Russia deploying tactical force.

hesbollah are stretched fighting to support their sponsors war and haven't the strength to engage with the Israelis.

syria and thereafter Russian influence in the region is diminished

The issue here is self interest has snuffed out our humanity.

pinno

First of all we need to plough resources and people into the surrounding regions inundated by refugees and offer a safe haven.
Secondly, we need to stand back and let Putin get embroiled in what will be a long drawn affair that ultimately, won't have a tangibly positive outcome for Russia or Assad.
Third, Syria needs to be broken up, partitioned along 'tribal' lines and maybe the whole thing will settle down when all sides become diminished of personnel and finances.

blackpoolkev

Most commentators that deem to offer a "solution" fail to see the elephant in the room - i.e. RELIGION. This is a dispute between Islamic (Middle East) and Christian (West - predominately American) ideologies as to whose magic man in the sky is more valid.
If you take them out of the equation, the people left are just trying to get on with their lives rather than hating the other side.

rick_chasey

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19719424#p19719424]blackpoolkev[/url] wrote:

Most commentators that deem to offer a "solution" fail to see the elephant in the room - i.e. RELIGION. This is a dispute between Islamic (Middle East) and Christian (West - predominately American) ideologies as to whose magic man in the sky is more valid.
If you take them out of the equation, the people left are just trying to get on with their lives rather than hating the other side.

a) choosing what you believe in spiritually is a human right

b) how would you propose a "solution" to your so called "problem" ?

pblakeney

Can anyone tell me who the "good" guys are, and why?

If not, we should stay out and help the refugees.

Unfortunately, these Countries are a Western construct so we do bear some responsibility.

mr_goo

Q. Who do the 'West' think they are to criticise Russian military action in the Middle East?

mamba80

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19719451#p19719451]PBlakeney[/url] wrote:

Can anyone tell me who the "good" guys are, and why?

If not, we should stay out and help the refugees.

Unfortunately, these Countries are a Western construct so we do bear some responsibility.

FSA, so called moderates are little better than Assad, look what these people did to Gaddafi ? sodomised with a gun barrel, beaten tortured and shot...is that moderate behavior?

How can we help millions of refugees? they are either in Syria or live in other countries, that are fed up of helping them, there people need jobs, education, healthcare - they heading our way, like it or not.

We have stayed out of Syria for 4 years and its just getting worse, at least Putin will end it one way or another, once the fsa are defeated, he ll go after IS.
NATO/US has been shown to be weak and ineffectual, Camerons answer to Russian threats is to send 100 yes 100 troops to the baltic states and the NATO sec general admitted that even if a Turkish jet was shot down by Russia, there is nothing nato can do......

We should support russia, support assad and try to bring syria back towards the secular state it once was.

mr_goo

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19719484#p19719484]mamba80[/url] wrote:

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19719451#p19719451]PBlakeney[/url] wrote:

Can anyone tell me who the "good" guys are, and why?

If not, we should stay out and help the refugees.

Unfortunately, these Countries are a Western construct so we do bear some responsibility.

FSA, so called moderates are little better than Assad, look what these people did to Gaddafi ? sodomised with a gun barrel, beaten tortured and shot...is that moderate behavior?

How can we help millions of refugees? they are either in Syria or live in other countries, that are fed up of helping them, there people need jobs, education, healthcare - they heading our way, like it or not.

We have stayed out of Syria for 4 years and its just getting worse, at least Putin will end it one way or another, once the fsa are defeated, he ll go after IS.
NATO/US has been shown to be weak and ineffectual, Camerons answer to Russian threats is to send 100 yes 100 troops to the baltic states and the NATO sec general admitted that even if a Turkish jet was shot down by Russia, there is nothing nato can do......

We should support russia, support assad and try to bring syria back towards the secular state it once was.

Well said Mr Mamba.
If there was a similar free army fighting the Cameron regime, they too would be regarded as terrorists by the incumbent government.

rolf_f

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18524081#p18524081]Frank the tank[/url] wrote:

. Assad is a sh1tbag but if he were deposed tomorrow who/what sort of regime would replace him?

Well d'uh. Obviously a nice moderate president presiding over a fairly elected democratic government with a permanent end to civil war and terrorism. That's what usually happens isn't it?!!

DeVlaeminck

The more I read about the situation the more I agree that we should just let the Russians get on with it and try and negotiate limits on the Assad regime's brutality. It's clear that if Assad falls we are left with a power vacuum, further civil war and probably another space into which extreme Islamists can move.

mr_goo

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19719530#p19719530]Rolf F[/url] wrote:

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18524081#p18524081]Frank the tank[/url] wrote:

. Assad is a sh1tbag but if he were deposed tomorrow who/what sort of regime would replace him?

Well d'uh. Obviously a nice moderate president presiding over a fairly elected democratic government with a permanent end to civil war and terrorism. That's what usually happens isn't it?!!

Well that all worked out perfectly for Libya, Iraq and Egypt then didn't it?
Democracy and the Middle East doesn't seem to work.