|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are the USA and UK up to their old tricks again in Syria?
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Read this story in the Torygraph.
I am concerned we seem to see Assad as all bad and the Free Syria Army as all good. The truth is much more grey and whilst I am sure the Assad regime is no respector of human rights, to undertake regime change..........yet again...........is it seem part of the post colonial syndrome for the UK and the world's policeman the USA.
Are the UK and USA up to their regime change tricks again?
Saul
[ 28. August 2012, 16:14: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Normally I'd agree with you, but with Assad's scorched earth policy where whole villages are wiped out with bombs from aircraft and tanks and even children are summarily executed - which has been verified by other Arab nations and the UN - I have no problem with supplying training and arms to the opposition. The other side may not be perfect, but they don't match the evil of Assad. Not to mention, with every other Arab spring revolution the outcome hasn't exactly been friendly to the U.S. or the West in general even when we've provided the assistance for their newly elected government. We aren't setting up colonies this time - we're allowing free elections even when unfriendly parties are elected. Arab spring has been regime changes initiated by the people of those countries, not the West for a change, even if we provide training and weapons to even the odds.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Read this story in the Torygraph.
I am concerned we seem to see Assad as all bad and the Free Syria Army as all good. The truth is much more grey and whilst I am sure the Assad regime is no respector of human rights, to undertake regime change..........yet again...........is it seem part of the post colonial syndrome for the UK and the world's policeman the USA.
Are the UK and USA up to their regime change tricks again?
Saul
I don't think that's fair. How can you blame the UK? They just do what Washington tells them to.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
It appears the Syrian opposition is unhappy with the U.S. due to our statements that the opposition is not ready to form a transitional government yet. The factions have not yet unified though they've stated they are in talks. It appears France is ready to recognize a new government even if it doesn't yet exist.
No one follows our bidding any more. Any such power we had was lost when we invaded Iraq. Europe took the lead with Libya, something the GOP was angry about but I was pleased with Obama for not jumping in and running the show. It appears France may again be willing to take the front position, though there really should be Arab nations involved and just Western nations. Arab nations have let it be known they want Assad gone but won' openly assist the opposition.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Another great day for democracy and a terrible time for freedom.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Read this story in the Torygraph.
I am concerned we seem to see Assad as all bad and the Free Syria Army as all good. The truth is much more grey and whilst I am sure the Assad regime is no respector of human rights, to undertake regime change..........yet again...........is it seem part of the post colonial syndrome for the UK and the world's policeman the USA.
Are the UK and USA up to their regime change tricks again?
Saul
It's the same old "good versus evil" American 50's comic-book mentality creeping upon us again (sorry to use that simile again, but it seemed appropriate.)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Read this story in the Torygraph.
I am concerned we seem to see Assad as all bad and the Free Syria Army as all good. The truth is much more grey and whilst I am sure the Assad regime is no respector of human rights, to undertake regime change..........yet again...........is it seem part of the post colonial syndrome for the UK and the world's policeman the USA.
Are the UK and USA up to their regime change tricks again?
Saul
I don't think that's fair. How can you blame the UK? They just do what Washington tells them to.
But there's no need for the UK to follow the US. Take, for example, the 2003 invasion of Iraq: many of the US's traditional allies, including NATO countries, didn't join in, despite intense pressure from the US. And yet somehow they have survived, and, dare I say, prospered--even Canada, whose largest trading partner is the US, and whose economy depends on the American one.
Or maybe you're being sarcastic too.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
And who is supplying arms to Assad?
I think we are getting very close to imposing a no fly zone over Syria regardless of Russia's position. It's time to level the playing field (or pitch), as it were.
France (which is no lackey of the US) has already said it is ready to commit its air forces to a partial no fly zone,
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Read this story in the Torygraph.
I am concerned we seem to see Assad as all bad and the Free Syria Army as all good. The truth is much more grey and whilst I am sure the Assad regime is no respector of human rights, to undertake regime change..........yet again...........is it seem part of the post colonial syndrome for the UK and the world's policeman the USA.
Are the UK and USA up to their regime change tricks again?
Saul
I don't think that's fair. How can you blame the UK? They just do what Washington tells them to.
It seems that we have an odd idea of foreign policy; drone strikes under Obama have increased and why are we still in Afghanistan?
As far as the Assad regime being 'more evil' than the opposition (Niteowl's comment), I struggle with this one. Yes Assad and some of his cronies ARE evil and yet if the West gets involved in regime change AGAIN we risk another less than ideal scenario of other evil people getting power who are somehow 'less evil' than Assad. I don't profess to know the answer to this conundrum!
We just can't keep our hands off other countries (the USA and the UK I am mainly referring to here) can we?
Why do we try and be the world's conscience and the world's policeman? I fail to understand our busy body attitude.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Why do we try and be the world's conscience and the world's policeman? I fail to understand our busy body attitude.
I suspect it at least partly has to do with wanting to avoid the trouble spilling over into other countries.
Which can happen. I mention this partly because of a report that a particular patch of Lebanon has descended into violence as a result of the Syrian fighting, with local representatives of the same factions. And I gather the Lebanese are extremely worried that it might spread across that country more generally.
Of course, being busybodies can backfire massively. When you can trace much of the recent history of Afghanistan back to the consequences of the Soviet invasion (circa 1980?), and when there are direct links between all of Iraq's troubles and the Western reaction to the Iranian revolution (1979?), it's fairly clear that we're not all that good at predicting the outcomes of our interventions.
[ 29. August 2012, 08:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Why do we try and be the world's conscience and the world's policeman? I fail to understand our busy body attitude.
I suspect it at least partly has to do with wanting to avoid the trouble spilling over into other countries.
Which can happen. I mention this partly because of a report that a particular patch of Lebanon has descended into violence as a result of the Syrian fighting, with local representatives of the same factions. And I gather the Lebanese are extremely worried that it might spread across that country more generally.
Of course, being busybodies can backfire massively. When you can trace much of the recent history of Afghanistan back to the consequences of the Soviet invasion (circa 1980?), and when there are direct links between all of Iraq's troubles and the Western reaction to the Iranian revolution (1979?), it's fairly clear that we're not all that good at predicting the outcomes of our interventions.
In the Middle East you can trace a line of involvement by the West as far back as the Crusades! Recently the post World War 1 arrangements were significant (Sykes - Picot Agreement) and this redrew older Ottoman Empire boundaries.
The issue then (1917 - 1918) was about dividing and sharing Empire NOT self determination for Arabs. Today it is about widening people's freedoms, and allowing more people to have a say and that's what the Arab Spring was fundamentally about.
The difficulty is to try and import a full blown Western style democracy into a wholly different culture. It won't happen and maybe that's the mistake our Foreign Policy (the UK at least) has made. Iraq proves the point and is Iraq any better now than it was under a brutal dictator?
Syria was the local strong man but who knows how it might end? I just don't think the West ought to get involved, apart from humanitarian aid etc.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
We just can't keep our hands off other countries (the USA and the UK I am mainly referring to here) can we?
I still think it is all about oil. Sure Syria does not have much, but it needs to be knocked out, along with Lebanon, to get to.... IRAN!!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
It would be a sight more pertinent (though not nearly as politically correct) to ask whether Islamist extremists are “up to their old tricks” of hijacking popular unrest.
Assad is undoubtedly an arsehole, and undoubtedly part of the opposition to him comes from moderate Muslims and secularist liberals, but as with the rest of the so-called Arab Spring, Muslim hardliners are exploiting the situation and could come out on top to replace one unpleasant tyranny with another.
Analyses which I have read suggest that America’s policy of realpolitik is to work toward an anti-Shia/Alawite Sunni regime which will act as a counterweight to Iran in the region.
On the general question of interventionism and regime change, it seems as fatuous to suggest that the West should never intervene, as to suggest that it should always do so.
Surely each issue as it comes up should be considered on a case by case basis, using criteria such as how much danger and suffering is being experienced in a situation; what the odds are of alleviating or exacerbating it by going in; whether the enterprise has the imprimatur of the UN; how much time and money and how many troops are we prepared to allow; what strategic and geopolitical factors are involved; and so on.
Whatever decision is reached will only be validated by hindsight.
The West should probably not have intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan; probably should have intervened in Darfur; and should probably have intervened a sight more decisively in the Balkans and Rwanda.
Korea is an interesting example.
The UN only approved intervention because the USSR was in a huff and abstaining from voting; the fighting was horrific; and though the South was saved from communism, it finished up under a dictatorship not much better than Kim Il-sung’s.
In time however, a prosperous liberal democracy emerged in the South which stands in maximum possible contrast to the hellhole in the North.
The salient points appear to be that this could not have been predicted fifty years ago, and that it didn’t happen overnight, as the impatient West always demands.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
And who is supplying arms to Assad?
I think we are getting very close to imposing a no fly zone over Syria regardless of Russia's position. It's time to level the playing field (or pitch), as it were.
France (which is no lackey of the US) has already said it is ready to commit its air forces to a partial no fly zone,
Russia is supplying arms to Assad, which is one reason they are objecting to any UN actions and any intervention at all in Syria. A no fly zone would pretty much level the playing field and give the innocent civilians a much better chance at staying alive as whole villages have been bombed out of existence.
It should be noted that other countries are bearing the brunt of this war (sorry, it is what it is) as there are hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled their homes when they've had the chance to get out ahead of bombing.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Russia is supplying arms to Assad
Yes of course they are - how do we know? Hilary Clinton says so.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Google search. Read. Think. Then post.
No, you think. The deals were done before the outbreak of violence in Syria - did you forget to mention that?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Civil war March 15th
Sale of arms June 29th
Which date do you dispute?
The second one, because like I said the deals were done before the conflict started - read the article carefully.
I don't know if the same can be said for the US, when they armed the rebel forces. I doubt it.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It would be a sight more pertinent (though not nearly as politically correct) to ask whether Islamist extremists are “up to their old tricks” of hijacking popular unrest.
That probably depends on what you mean by 'hijacking', secular means different things in different contexts and there are brands of secularism that don't correspond to what we call secularism in the West.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The second one, because like I said the deals were done before the conflict started - read the article carefully.
I don't know if the same can be said for the US, when they armed the rebel forces. I doubt it.
Mark, this is just grasping at straws. It is absolutely routine to stop arms shipments when conflicts begin. Russia didn't do so because they wanted to prop up the regime, not because they were "honor bound" to support the slaughter. Suggesting as you have that Hillary Clinton is the one being disingenuous here is OTT.
--Tom Clune
[ 29. August 2012, 14:18: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
The U.S. has admitted that they have been supplying weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons via the Turkish border to some of the rebel groups since civil war became became obvious. They've also been gathering intelligence through these same groups. Nothing compared to the planes, choppers, bombs and tanks supplied by the Russians to Assad. The rebels are also getting quite good at making homemade mortar rounds with plumbing pipes and other items. The U.S. and the U.N. are mulling instituting no fly zones which would go a long way to leveling the playing field.
Additional info on homemade weaponry
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Mark, this is just grasping at straws. It is absolutely routine to stop arms shipments when conflicts begin. Russia didn't do so because they wanted to prop up the regime, not because they were "honor bound" to support the slaughter. Suggesting as you have that Hillary Clinton is the one being disingenuous here is OTT.
Thanks, I hadn't worked out that that was what was meant.
Part of the reason for that is that if one reads;
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Russia is supplying arms to Assad
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yes of course they are - how do we know? Hilary Clinton says so.
That rather suggests that Mark believe the allegation is without any foundation or evidence whatsoever. Not simply that the deal was done beforehand and therefore had to be honoured. (In any case although the civil war hadn't started the uprisings were being brutally suppressed by the army back in 2011).
It all smacks of a desperate attempt to grab any reason to avoid admitting having got a detail wrong. In which case any progress in the discussion becomes impossible, as we get stuck dredging through progressively more desperate points of detail.
[ 29. August 2012, 14:25: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
As far as the Assad regime being 'more evil' than the opposition (Niteowl's comment), I struggle with this one. Yes Assad and some of his cronies ARE evil and yet if the West gets involved in regime change AGAIN we risk another less than ideal scenario of other evil people getting power who are somehow 'less evil' than Assad. I don't profess to know the answer to this conundrum!
We just can't keep our hands off other countries (the USA and the UK I am mainly referring to here) can we?
Why do we try and be the world's conscience and the world's policeman? I fail to understand our busy body attitude.
Saul
I just saw this. I made the comment I did because of Assad's "scorched earth" policy where entire villages have been bombed or tanks have rolled in and soldiers have systematically exterminated entire villages down to the very last infant. This has been verified by the International Red Cross and the Arab League members. I haven't seen this duplicated on the rebel side - yet.
The U.S., the U.N. and other nations who would be in a position to assist and I'd include Syria's neighbors in that mix, have a dilemma. How much human slaughter and suffering do we stand by and watch while doing nothing? This is more than policing or being someone's conscience. It's stopping human slaughter on a very large scale. I don't believe Assad will stop until every last human left in the country who opposes his rule is dead. I've been an open opponent of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and was happy we didn't lead the action in Libya. Up until recently I was against intervention in Syria. But we have to do something to stop the massive bloodshed. Diplomacy and in general twiddling our thumbs has done nothing. We need to ensure that what we do ends there and the people of Syria are then able to have the government they want - and the rebels are a long way to being able to provide that even if Assad were gone tomorrow. Another worry. I'd prefer sanctions and a no fly zone. In the mean time we've been supplying humanitarian aid to the rebels and have in recent months begun supplying weaponry to at least give the rebels a fighting chance to defend themselves.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
If the Russians haven't imposed sanctions on Syria, there is no reason not to honour the contract. It's that simple.
Should the Russians just bow to every whim coming from Washington without question, like some nations do?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Shall we pretend the last few exchanges didn't happen then and try another tack?
So, then, now that we're in the world where actually Hilary Clinton was correct that Russia was supplying arms to the Syrian Army, and doing so at a time when they were engaged in brutal suppression of protests as well as subsequently during a civil war, your line of argument is that in fact there's nothing wrong with supplying Assad with arms.
What would be your criteria for deciding it was wrong to provide a brutal dictator prepared to use deadly force to suppress their population with arms? Any lines they should or shouldn't cross?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If the Russians haven't imposed sanctions on Syria, there is no reason not to honour the contract. It's that simple.
Should the Russians just bow to every whim coming from Washington without question, like some nations do?
Should the Russians ignore the rising tide of blood flowing from Assad's scorched earth policy using the weapons they've supplied? It's not Washington protesting, pretty much the world minus Russia that is expressing outrage at the massive slaughter. That tells me something about Putin.
ETA: You really hate the U.S. don't you?
[ 29. August 2012, 15:22: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If the Russians haven't imposed sanctions on Syria, there is no reason not to honour the contract. It's that simple.
Should the Russians just bow to every whim coming from Washington without question, like some nations do?
Mark, do you read your own posts? You were the one who strongly implied that Hillary Clinton was lying when she said that the Russians were shipping arms to Assad. Now that that has been established, instead of acknowledging the simple fact that you were wrong, you imply that that was always known by everyone, and was never really the point.
--Tom Clune
[ 29. August 2012, 15:26: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Just to add Russia's real motive for supplying the weaponry is not "honoring their contract" or even money, it's simply power hunger. From mdijon's link the Russians admit it.
""Syria is the only country in the Middle East which follows our advice, this is the country where we can exercise certain tangible influence," says Ruslan Pukhov.
"Of course, the loss of Syria will mean we will have no influence in this region at all. It has some symbolic value for the Russian authorities and the foreign policy establishment as a sign of Russia as a great power." "
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Russia cannot impose sanctions on Syria even if it wanted to. Not without NATO. NATO won't because of the UN. But a no-fly zone ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Russia cannot impose sanctions on Syria even if it wanted to. Not without NATO. NATO won't because of the UN. But a no-fly zone ...
Nato nations on the UN security council did vote for sanctions. It was essentially Russia who blocked them.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, as you said Niteowl, because it could. Also Russia has MUCH to fear from Sunni Islamism.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If the Russians haven't imposed sanctions on Syria, there is no reason not to honour the contract. It's that simple.
Should the Russians just bow to every whim coming from Washington without question, like some nations do?
Should the Russians ignore the rising tide of blood flowing from Assad's scorched earth policy using the weapons they've supplied? It's not Washington protesting, pretty much the world minus Russia that is expressing outrage at the massive slaughter. That tells me something about Putin.
ETA: You really hate the U.S. don't you?
No, but we need an honest, balanced account of what is really going on, rather than the US media's "good versus evil" version. You can write 10,000 words on what Washington wishes us to believe, but that doesn't make it any more true.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
What I mean is, I find it hard to believe that there would be a massive rising up of people who suddenly wanted to be like the US and UK, laying down their lives for the principles of democracy, yet not knowing or caring what would come of it as a result.
On this, and the other thread, the above seems to be what you are inferring. You don't believe that interfering western influence might have stirred things up?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What I mean is
That absolutely isn't what you meant when you wrote your posts above about Hilary Clinton misrepresenting arms purchases. Or what you meant about the dates of the deals. Or, when you gave up on that defence, what you meant when you suggested it was in fact fine all along for Russia to sell arms to Assad despite his brutal repression of the Syrian people.
Now you seem to be implying that the Syrian uprising is manufactured from outside, the kind of idea that only Assad could believe. This is obviously lunacy.
I would humour you with a more reasoned response, but I know whatever is said you will have some other claim to switch to, some other re-casting of what you originally said, and so we will go on with no reference to what you previously argued.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What I mean is
That absolutely isn't what you meant when you wrote your posts above about Hilary Clinton misrepresenting arms purchases. Or what you meant about the dates of the deals. Or, when you gave up on that defence, what you meant when you suggested it was in fact fine all along for Russia to sell arms to Assad despite his brutal repression of the Syrian people.
It should be quite clear that the commercial arms deals took place before the uprisings and the news article. You are twisting my words around to make them mean something I didn't. You haven't even attempted to explain what should be the real problem, which is how the uprisings began in the first place, and what the rebels are really fighting for.
[ 29. August 2012, 20:55: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Russia cannot impose sanctions on Syria even if it wanted to. Not without NATO. NATO won't because of the UN. But a no-fly zone ...
Nato nations on the UN security council did vote for sanctions. It was essentially Russia who blocked them.
Which makes sense if Russia's government is providing Assad with weaponry. Initially, I couldn't understand why Russia wasn't objecting to the extent of the conflict in Syria.
It's so horrific what's going on in Syria; those poor ordinary people slaughtered, as if their lives are not worth a thought. Not even their own leader or government have compassion enough to alleviate the bloodshed. The betrayal of the people's trust by those specifically entrusted with their welfare is awful. Where on earth can those people go; who can they turn to?
As someone posted above whenever the UK and USA (and other UN allies) get involved with foreign missions eg, Afghanistan, Iraq etc, it just seems that the 'exit' strategies, and ongoing presence of armed forces etc just gets messier and messier. While I think the US and the UK should be allies when possible, I've come to dread the jingoism that seemed to accompany past campaigns and the 'pal-iness' between them.
And yet if instability in Syria becomes an opening for more oppression and destabilizing of the wider area, is it wisdom to back off?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And yet if instability in Syria becomes an opening for more oppression and destabilizing of the wider area, is it wisdom to back off?
That was my question above - at what point do we stand by and idly watch mass slaughter of innocent civilians in a scorched earth effort to put down opposition and I'll point the question at those who hate U.S. and U.K. interventions - and as I stated above I've been one who has objected to our most recent ones from before they began. I am at the point where I don't think we can just stand by and wait for someone else to do it. The "someone else" always seem to be waiting for us to do it. It's pretty much damned if do and damned if we don't in the court of public opinion.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Read this story in the Torygraph.
I am concerned we seem to see Assad as all bad and the Free Syria Army as all good. The truth is much more grey and whilst I am sure the Assad regime is no respector of human rights, to undertake regime change..........yet again...........is it seem part of the post colonial syndrome for the UK and the world's policeman the USA.
Are the UK and USA up to their regime change tricks again?
Saul
I don't think that's fair. How can you blame the UK? They just do what Washington tells them to.
You really can't stand the United States, can you? The question remains, if you don't want the United Kingdom to conduct its foreign policy in tandem with the United States, why do you keep electing politicians who will do so?
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It should be quite clear that the commercial arms deals took place before the uprisings and the news article.
The original question was, "who is supplying arms to Assad".
If you want to throw in implications about morality, such as "who is wrongly supplying arms to Assad", that is entirely your own doing. And it led to a massive merry-go-round. Don't conflate the question currently being asked with the question/assertion you think is going to follow it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Read this story in the Torygraph.
I am concerned we seem to see Assad as all bad and the Free Syria Army as all good. The truth is much more grey and whilst I am sure the Assad regime is no respector of human rights, to undertake regime change..........yet again...........is it seem part of the post colonial syndrome for the UK and the world's policeman the USA.
Are the UK and USA up to their regime change tricks again?
Saul
I don't think that's fair. How can you blame the UK? They just do what Washington tells them to.
You really can't stand the United States, can you? The question remains, if you don't want the United Kingdom to conduct its foreign policy in tandem with the United States, why do you keep electing politicians who will do so?
That's easy to answer. Like the US we have a two party system, where both parties' main concern is to please big corporations, and foreign policy is pretty much the same for both. It is prettymuch impossible to "democratically" vote for anything different, despite all the rhetoric.
Both parties boast about their radical liberalising of social policy and morals, but business and foriegn policy is sacrosanct and cannot be changed.
[ 30. August 2012, 05:51: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It should be quite clear that the commercial arms deals took place before the uprisings and the news article.
Fine, since you bring it up again let's go back onto the arms shipments rather than pursuing whatever you currently think "the real question" is.
I'm unclear what you think the dates were. Uprisings began in spring 2011. The civil war began in March 2012. The actual shipment seems to have taken place early June 2012, and the implication is that there had been regular arms deals before then.
I can't see the defence. What do you think the exact dates were?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Fine, since you bring it up again let's go back onto the arms shipments rather than pursuing whatever you currently think "the real question" is.
I'm unclear what you think the dates were. Uprisings began in spring 2011. The civil war began in March 2012. The actual shipment seems to have taken place early June 2012, and the implication is that there had been regular arms deals before then.
I can't see the defence. What do you think the exact dates were?
errr... no. Nice try, but you first talked about dates for arms sales, now you've changed it to arms shipments.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Actually you brought up the topic of the date of the deal rather than the shipment. The original word was "supply".
But nevertheless, lets have some dates. When was the deal done and when did the supply take place?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Interestingly, France seems to be the most keen to validate the free Syrian army (whatever that is) and it's allies.
It proposes a no fly zone and recognition for them as a government in waiting. President Hollande is saying this clearly and it is worrying.
This is worse than being neutral; the free Syria groups are no pro democratic front. The more the country fights and destroys it's infra structure more ordinary people suffer.
A robust UN peace plan backed by the Arab League must be a way forward with an immediate cease fire.
The British subversion tactics of Assad as outlined by Hague are a disaster. If anything we should be providing field hospitals and emergency shelters - not supporting tin pot military rebel groups who are in some cases Mujahadin type fighters who hate the West.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
[ Iraq proves the point and is Iraq any better now than it was under a brutal dictator?
Saul [/QB]
I was not in favour of the Iraq War (number 2) but there is a simple answer to your question - yes Iraq is considerably better off now than it was under Saddam Hussein.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I think the long and incredibly brutal Ba'athist regime in Syria pushed most opposition groups underground, so we have very little idea who the Free Syrian Army and its leaders are.
There are, I am sure, Salafis and Al Quaida fighters involved in the struggle against the regime, as I am sure there are Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah fighting for it.
My gut feeling is that the main opposition is fairly moderate to sane conservative Sunni Muslim. I am hoping they will embody the traditional Syrian Sunni tolerance towards Christians.
There is no doubt in my mind that Bashar Assad and the vicious clique who support him will fall.
Turkey - an incredibly powerful country in the area - and America seem to now be backing the opposition. I think this is a wise choice and may moderate the outcome.
If Russia drops Assad it might well keep its base in Tartus and be able to protect the Christians.
Outsiders can pull the carpet out from under the Ba'athists by denial of supplies, particularly weapons, to the regime. If Russia stops this it could prove fatal. Iran would be unable to take up the slack.
Fears of what will happen to the regime's chemical weapons could spark outside intervention.
For the sake of the Syrian people I would not want the sort of direct intervention which happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. The chemical weapons could be secured/neutralised without major involvement. This would help the opposition as would neutralising the Syrian Air Force. Once this is done Assad and his cronies are done. I would not regret their passing. It has been a brutal and repressive regime, and, as the Australian government seems to have given it at least tacit support over the years, I am ashamed of my country in this regard. I think we in the West need to rethink our support for regimes like this.
Of course this brings up our continued support for non-democratic governments in places like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc. I think their days are also limited.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Interestingly, France seems to be the most keen to validate the free Syrian army (whatever that is) and it's allies.
It proposes a no fly zone and recognition for them as a government in waiting. President Hollande is saying this clearly and it is worrying.
This is worse than being neutral; the free Syria groups are no pro democratic front. The more the country fights and destroys it's infra structure more ordinary people suffer.
A robust UN peace plan backed by the Arab League must be a way forward with an immediate cease fire.
The British subversion tactics of Assad as outlined by Hague are a disaster. If anything we should be providing field hospitals and emergency shelters - not supporting tin pot military rebel groups who are in some cases Mujahadin type fighters who hate the West.
Saul
The U.S. issued a statement immediately France's stating the rebels are not a cohesive group and not ready to put in place a functioning government and we will not recognize them at this time.
Also, we are and have been supplying large amounts of humanitarian aid.
Sir Pellinore's post makes a good deal of sense. There will be a lot of if's, but if the Arab League can get involved, if a no fly zone can be instituted and if the Assad regime's grip on power can finally be broken and if the West can keep their fingers out of things once Assad is gone, it can have a good outcome. The Arab League is speaking out for regime change, which is a start, aside from France the West and specifically Nato are presently for providing defense support and humanitarian aid without direct military intervention on our part and I am encouraged by the fact that we've all pretty much stayed out of Libya's business. We should, though, render any aid needed and asked for by the interim or newly formed government to prevent anarchy or Al Queda from seizing an opening.
[ 30. August 2012, 11:07: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Sir Pellinore's post makes a good deal of sense.
I agree. The history of intervention and non-intervention is chequered in both directions. It seemed to me that Iraq and Afghanistan were a disastrous decisions, but on the other hand it seemed very wrong to have allowed the Rwandan genocide to continue without intervening. Yugoslavia was a successful intervention.
The jury may still be deliberating in Libya, but given the scale of the slaughter that was threatened in Benghazi, and that the country has not subsequently descended into worse killing, there may be some justification.
It seems to me that deciding that intervening is always wrong or always right is too simplistic.
If there is a reason that many radicals in the Middle-East hate the West, it may be that we have a terrible history of propping up corrupt dictators for our own ends, rather than thinking about what is right. I also think that the time will come for similar outcomes in Saudi, Bahrain and other "allies" of the West.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
