Syria

[stillresigned]

Amidst the latest round of politiking involving inter alia John Kerry and William Hague, I'm afraid I remain profoundly sceptical over the ubiquity of military action by the US. To begin with the legality and legitimacy of such an action withou Security Council approval is at best tehuous. Then just who is the US intending to attack and just what effect willl any attack have on the lives of ordinary Syrian's on whose behalf, America claims to be acting. In addition, even to the most inattentive observer it must be clear that the political situation on the ground in Syria, is extremely complex and undoutedly fractious . No scenarios have been posited post-military action to show how this will effect beneficially, Syria's citizens. Indeed to me the motication for US military action lies in an atavistic desire to be seen to actually do something. Which combined with a deep seated suspicion of Iranian involvement in the Middle East as a whole does not lend itself to the selfless desire so loudly proclaimed by the West in general and the US in particular to act in the interest of innocent civilians. In reality what I believe we see is the military-industrial complex's latest chapter in a seemigly endless story of more or less continual war.

[Norgethistle]

I would stay the hell out of Syria, it is effectively now a religious civil war and will end up with any intravention being classed as an attack on Muslims and Islam, allow the arab league of nations to police the middle east

[jaggybunnet]

i agree with the above the whole thing is a world of hurt waiting to happen.

 

the UN is a waste of time, all it is is a talking shop that in the end can be vetoed by any of the perm members. as has been proved in the past it is just another league of nations.

 

the arab league is just as bad and would argue who turn it is to switch on the kettle before they even started on the important stuff.

 

this means that the world then looks to the US and UK to do the dirty work as the worlds police force.

 

the uk and us are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[kni]

The Al Qaeda led rebels are already attacking Christians in Syria. Replacing Assad with an extreme Islamic government will could lead to genocide. At the very least, they will be subjected to violence and persecution. Any solution must protect the Christian population from being attacked. The Christians was similarly targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic extremists in Egypt but it's clear the Obama administration has learned nothing from its mistakes.

[Vladimir Archibald]

When America sees a volatile, delicate political situation it seems that it's go to solution is just to bomb it and see what happens.

[kni]

When America sees a volatile, delicate political situation it seems that it's go to solution is just to bomb it and see what happens.

 

As opposed to Russians who prefer to invade and see what happens.

[Jaggernaut]

Britain is a nasty, war-loving country; or at least too many of its political leaders love war. I detest all the military jingoism, military days, pomp etc. that are associated with the UK. When the hell did military foces day or whatever it's called appear? There was no such thing for most of my life, and now we are supposed to publicly celebrate the war machine. Cameron is seething that parliament stopped direct action this time, but just wait until he gets another chance to send in the missiles and bombs somewhere. Vote YES.

[jaggybunnet]

Britain is a nasty, war-loving country; or at least too many of its political leaders love war. I detest all the military jingoism, military days, pomp etc. that are associated with the UK. When the hell did military foces day or whatever it's called appear? There was no such thing for most of my life, and now we are supposed to publicly celebrate the war machine. Cameron is seething that parliament stopped direct action this time, but just wait until he gets another chance to send in the missiles and bombs somewhere. Vote YES.

 

No you are ABLE to show support for the armed forces, past and present who have fought and who will fight for your freedom when it was required and if required again.

 

if you dont want to be involved then fine go into what ever darkened room you live in where there is no wars or conflicts..human nature means that this will always happen,

[ian_mac]

Whole thing completely stinks, and a lot of the facts just aren't being reported.

 

Assad has the support of 70% of the population, according to a poll that was commissioned by, among others, NATO.

 

http://www.voltairenet.org/article178779.html

 

I'm not for a minute saying that Assad hasn't committed some atrocities, and he certainly isn't a "good guy" full stop but the figures speak for themselves.

 

So if the US and UK continue to back the "rebels" then they certainly are not enforcing the will of the Syrian people.

 

Secondly, I can't believe that we are taking it for granted that Assad's regime was behind the chemical attack, when it took place in one of his strongholds. Even more so when you consider that the rebels are backed by numerous terrorist organisations.

 

As per usual, our friends at the BBC and ITV are NOT telling us the full picture.

 

So in a few short years we have gone from vowing to eradicate all traces of Al Qaeda to supporting them and actively arming them when it suits us.

[Noel Edmonds]

Absolutely no way should there be any military intervention in Syria.

 

There is zero substantial evidence to show that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people. Considering a UN weapons inspections team were in Syria right before the use of chemical weapons was discovered, it would have been complete madness of Assad to have used them. It is yet another blatant lie to provide grounds for justification of any intervention, akin to the infamous 'WMDs in Iraq' lie of the murderer Tony Blair's.

 

Yes, the Syrian regime is brutal and violent, and it should go. But what is it that makes this one-family-rule, democracy-crushing dictatorship any different from the one-family-rule, democracy crushing dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and the likes, countries that we are continually sucking off?

 

It is a power struggle, the US against Russia and China. A compliant Syrian regime will be of no end of usefulness to the US. So they'll likely crack ahead with this, ignorant to the deep sectarian cracks that they'll leave behind in the country, and ignorant to the fact that they are walking hand-in-hand with Al-Queda, and as such spitting in the face of the victims of 9/11 and their families, the same people they continually patronise right about this time of year. An absolute, war-mongering scum country.

[kni]

Britain is a nasty, war-loving country; or at least too many of its political leaders love war. I detest all the military jingoism, military days, pomp etc. that are associated with the UK. When the hell did military foces day or whatever it's called appear? There was no such thing for most of my life, and now we are supposed to publicly celebrate the war machine. Cameron is seething that parliament stopped direct action this time, but just wait until he gets another chance to send in the missiles and bombs somewhere. Vote YES.

 

It's not just David Cameron and Nick Clegg but Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown too.

[The Mighty Quinn]

best stayin out. not as if there's oil or anything worth stealing

Edited September 10, 2013 by The Mighty Quinn

[Jaggernaut]

No you are ABLE to show support for the armed forces, past and present who have fought and who will fight for your freedom when it was required and if required again.

 

if you dont want to be involved then fine go into what ever darkened room you live in where there is no wars or conflicts..human nature means that this will always happen,

Britain hasn't been involved in a single war for my freedom in my lifetime of almost 60 years. But it has declared war on "terrorists" (i.e. fighters fighting for their own freedom in various ex-British colonies, but probably terrorists in your eyes too), in Egypt (Suez) in Aden, Iraq, Afghanistan, to name but a few. Oh, maybe you think that killing civilians (sorry, "collateral damage") in these far-off places is indeed for our freedom? Fantasy land.ETA: I'll remain in my darkened room while you can stay wrapped up in your tattered union jack thinking fondly back to the days of the empire.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Jaggernaut

[jaggybunnet]

Britain hasn't been involved in a single war for my freedom in my lifetime of almost 60 years. But it has declared war on "terrorists" (i.e. fighters fighting for their own freedom in various ex-British colonies, but probably terrorists in your eyes too), in Egypt (Suez) in Aden, Iraq, Afghanistan, to name but a few. Oh, maybe you think that killing civilians (sorry, "collateral damage") in these far-off places is indeed for our freedom? Fantasy land.ETA: I'll remain in my darkened room while you can stay wrapped up in your tattered union jack thinking fondly back to the days of the empire.

 

Aahh i see so because we are not needed now you just want to forget them seem to remember this was said and done before both world wars and cost us dearly as we tried to catch up.

 

Briton, as with all countries has made mistakes or done stuff in good faith with bad outcomes, that is life i am afraid. Iraq was some thing that had to be done but was done with no real thought to the outcome. notice you didn't mention Bosnia or did you agree with that one, even if it was as badly thought out and allowed thousands to die because the UN was to gutless to really help

 

the UK and the US, rightly or wrongly are seen as the worlds police and people expect them to do something when things go wrong and if the don't then condemn them for being weak.

 

oh and here is a news flash for you civilians get hurt and die in conflicts, it happens, they try to minimise it but when terrorists live amongst them or fire from those areas it will happen.

 

the only fantasy land is the one that you live in where this isn't going to happen whether we are involved or not.

 

“We learn from history that we do not learn from history”

― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

 

 

and so it will continue, that's human nature for you

Edited September 11, 2013 by jaggybunnet

[The Sunnylaw Jag]

It's not just David Cameron and Nick Clegg but Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown too.

Tony Blair, the warmongering 'Middle East Peace Envoy' .

[Norgethistle]

Britain hasn't been involved in a single war for my freedom in my lifetime of almost 60 years. But it has declared war on "terrorists" (i.e. fighters fighting for their own freedom in various ex-British colonies, but probably terrorists in your eyes too), in Egypt (Suez) in Aden, Iraq, Afghanistan, to name but a few. Oh, maybe you think that killing civilians (sorry, "collateral damage") in these far-off places is indeed for our freedom? Fantasy land.ETA: I'll remain in my darkened room while you can stay wrapped up in your tattered union jack thinking fondly back to the days of the empire.

 

Lest we forget the past eh?? 1939 - 1945 or Kosovo where if it wasn't for intervention by British & NATO forces the genocide would have continued

 

What about the Falklands, protecting the freedom of British Citizens or what was effectively a war in Northern Ireland against terrorists (On both sides)??

[mrD]

Did jaggybunnet just quote from hegel there??

[jaggybunnet]

Did jaggybunnet just quote from hegel there??

 

[Blackpool Jags]

Did jaggybunnet just quote from hegel there??

 

 

Jaggy Bunnet: new convert to the science of dialectics, shock!

[mrD]

Jaggy Bunnet: new convert to the science of dialectics, shock!

 

i give jaggybunnet a week before quoting marx...

[jaggybunnet]

i give jaggybunnet a week before quoting marx...

 

not going to happen, well not intentionally

[kni]

i give jaggybunnet a week before quoting marx...

 

Groucho Marx?

Edited September 11, 2013 by kni

[jaggybunnet]

Groucho Marx?

 

[twinny]

Whole thing completely stinks, and a lot of the facts just aren't being reported.

 

Assad has the support of 70% of the population, according to a poll that was commissioned by, among others, NATO.

 

http://www.voltairen...icle178779.html

 

I'm not for a minute saying that Assad hasn't committed some atrocities, and he certainly isn't a "good guy" full stop but the figures speak for themselves.

 

So if the US and UK continue to back the "rebels" then they certainly are not enforcing the will of the Syrian people.

 

Secondly, I can't believe that we are taking it for granted that Assad's regime was behind the chemical attack, when it took place in one of his strongholds. Even more so when you consider that the rebels are backed by numerous terrorist organisations.

 

As per usual, our friends at the BBC and ITV are NOT telling us the full picture.

 

So in a few short years we have gone from vowing to eradicate all traces of Al Qaeda to supporting them and actively arming them when it suits us.

 

Good post.

 

Bild am Sonntag has reported that Assad was perhaps not to blame, with the Guardian repeating the story the following day providing some more insight.

[twinny]

Aahh i see so because we are not needed now you just want to forget them seem to remember this was said and done before both world wars and cost us dearly as we tried to catch up.

 

Briton, as with all countries has made mistakes or done stuff in good faith with bad outcomes, that is life i am afraid. Iraq was some thing that had to be done but was done with no real thought to the outcome. notice you didn't mention Bosnia or did you agree with that one, even if it was as badly thought out and allowed thousands to die because the UN was to gutless to really help

 

the UK and the US, rightly or wrongly are seen as the worlds police and people expect them to do something when things go wrong and if the don't then condemn them for being weak.

 

oh and here is a news flash for you civilians get hurt and die in conflicts, it happens, they try to minimise it but when terrorists live amongst them or fire from those areas it will happen.

 

the only fantasy land is the one that you live in where this isn't going to happen whether we are involved or not.

 

 

 

 

and so it will continue, that's human nature for you

 

Do you honestly believe that the UK and other western countries should have their armies primed for WWI and WWII like conflict?

 

As you allude to, the threat now is not from international invasions but from terror. Great wars are in the past and I think your Hegel quote is misplaced. Of course we must learn from history, but we must also adapt with the environment changing around us.

 

In this instance, to go in to conflict is possibly to side with terror. I have not read enough about the current situation to understand all the intricacies, but when both sides are committing war crimes, who do you march in and support? Or must the western world simply be seen to be marching in regardless of how they are influencing the conflict? Whose side are we on anyway? We've been supplying the Assad regime with the chemical weapons (or did we supply the rebels with these weapons) and lobbied the EU to remove the embargo on arms supply to Syria[n rebels] (though since the embargo was lifted it would be suicide to be seen supplying these arms).

 

To be honest, I think it would only add to embarrassment should we involve ourselves further.