Ship of Fools: Are the USA and UK up to their old tricks again in Syria?

Thread: Are the USA and UK up to their old tricks again in Syria? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023823

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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 ]

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Another great day for democracy and a terrible time for freedom.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.)

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

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.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

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,

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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!!

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

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.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Russia is supplying arms to Assad

Yes of course they are - how do we know? Hilary Clinton says so.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Google search. Read. Think. Then post.

[ 29. August 2012, 12:25: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Civil war March 15th

Sale of arms June 29th

Which date do you dispute?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

So we could revise the date to 11th June for the shipment.

Still well after the start of the civil war. And the Syrian army was being used to suppress protests in 2011.

I don't really see how you can argue this.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

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 ]

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

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

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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 ]

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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?

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

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 ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

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 ]

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

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." "

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

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 ...

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Aye, as you said Niteowl, because it could. Also Russia has MUCH to fear from Sunni Islamism.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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 ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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?

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

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.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

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?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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 ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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?

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

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.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

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.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

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 ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Democracy is ALWAYS bad for freedom in revolutions (France, Russia, Iran), apart from the American and countries whose revolutionized citizenry aspire to the Enlightenment, to pluralism, minority rights.

In Syria as in Egypt and Iraq and Palestine Sunni Islamic majority democracy means less minority rights. The Syrian Christian minority will go the way of the Iraqi. They are complicit in the regime that uses divide and rule. They will pay.

If anyone thinks that regime change in Saudi or Bahrain will benefit the region ...

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

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
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. [/QB]

Not sure I'd agree with you on that one; look at this...

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/timeline-deadliest-attacks-in-iraq-in-2012/

Look at the violence in Iraq in 2012. Stable and at peace? I don't think so.

Saddam Hussein was a vile dictator but in his bizarre power mad way he did bring a stability of sorts to that country. I do see him as vile and cruel BUT there was far less day to day violence than there is now.

Saul

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

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
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.
Not sure I'd agree with you on that one; look at this...

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/timeline-deadliest-attacks-in-iraq-in-2012/

Look at the violence in Iraq in 2012. Stable and at peace? I don't think so.

Saddam Hussein was a vile dictator but in his bizarre power mad way he did bring a stability of sorts to that country. I do see him as vile and cruel BUT there was far less day to day violence than there is now.

Saul [/QB]

There has been enormous social, political and economic progress in Iraq, the fact that it is plagued with violence a lot of it associated with remnants of the old regime is not really a refutation of that. Baathist rule in Iraq created The Republic of Fear in which the people lived in a state of Stalinist repression for decades - the end of that has to be a major improvement.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Democracy is ALWAYS bad for freedom in revolutions (France, Russia, Iran)

Arguably bad, but certainly not worse than the alternatives. And it is their right to have it, even if it is our bad.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's not our bad is the problem. We're reaping what we've sown. It's the appalling evils that befall minorities. In this case Christian and other sects. Sexual minorities too.

[ 30. August 2012, 21:28: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Utilitarian ethics Martin.

And, like I say, it is their right. We can't keep the oppressor in power because we are frightened of what the oppressed might do.

Although I do also worry about what they will do.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It is not good for a majority that they oppress a minority. A majority get their way and that is good ? At the acute expense of minorities ? That is in fact LESS utilitarian. Less balanced.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

So you would condemn democracy as guilty for crimes not yet committed? And anyway, what's the alternative? Saddam, Mubarak and Assad?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I think you're being a bit pernickity and purist here, Martin.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

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
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.
Not sure I'd agree with you on that one; look at this...

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/timeline-deadliest-attacks-in-iraq-in-2012/

Look at the violence in Iraq in 2012. Stable and at peace? I don't think so.

Saddam Hussein was a vile dictator but in his bizarre power mad way he did bring a stability of sorts to that country. I do see him as vile and cruel BUT there was far less day to day violence than there is now.

Saul
There has been enormous social, political and economic progress in Iraq, the fact that it is plagued with violence a lot of it associated with remnants of the old regime is not really a refutation of that. Baathist rule in Iraq created The Republic of Fear in which the people lived in a state of Stalinist repression for decades - the end of that has to be a major improvement. [/QB]

Iraq is a symbol of corrupt Western post colonial pseudo imperialism. It is a bad example to pick upon. Iraq may in some parts parts be better than it was pre 2003, but did you actually check that link on bombings in 2012? It is terrible and seems to prove the nation is still hampered by terrorist groups, some are old regime Baathists, but a number are hard line Mujahadin / Al Quaida groups.

The danger is Syria becomes a pawn in the battle between states like Russia, China, Iran, USA and France. It mustn't become a pawn in this game it needs the UK to set a decent humanitarian example, not play silly James Bond games and try to destabilise the Assad regime by MI6 dirty tricks.

Saul

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

mdijon, Sir Pellinore: I'm sure I'm oversensitive but relatively equal shares of contingent misery in a pluralist society seems more desirable than the oppression of minorities.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

In this instance it almost sounds as if you're channelling Marvin the Paranoid Android, Martin. [Biased]

My gut feeling is that, if what is in effect now a full scale civil war comes to an end with the speedy demise of the Ba'athist regime, recriminations may be able to be kept to a minimum.

The Middle East's Christians have survived for centuries. Syria's have powerful supporters in Russia (Orthodox) and the Vatican (Melkites).

A new constitution would not, I think, attempt to disempower minorities. Common sense would dictate that those Alawis who were not involved with the regime or atrocities be conciliated.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
mdijon, Sir Pellinore: I'm sure I'm oversensitive but relatively equal shares of contingent misery in a pluralist society seems more desirable than the oppression of minorities.

I don't think that's the choice. I think the choice is between a brutal dictator denying everyone their rights but favouring a minority to varying extents, versus a popular uprising the outcome of which we aren't sure of.

I don't think we have the right to rule in favour of the brutal dictator.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
mdijon, Sir Pellinore: I'm sure I'm oversensitive but relatively equal shares of contingent misery in a pluralist society seems more desirable than the oppression of minorities.
I don't think that's the choice. I think the choice is between a brutal dictator denying everyone their rights but favouring a minority to varying extents, versus a popular uprising the outcome of which we aren't sure of.

I don't think we have the right to rule in favour of the brutal dictator.

This. Along with the last sentence, we especially don't have the right to rule in favor of a brutal dictator who will slaughter the majority of the population if he has to to maintain power. We may not know the outcome of a regime change, but we at least will have the opportunity to keep world attention on the developing new government so that potential persecuted minorities aren't and a better chance of doing so if done in a transparent manner and not the arrogant one we've chosen in recent history.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

A false dichotomy I'm not making mdijon. ALL minorities suffer in such revolutions. France. Russia. Germany. Iran. Iraq.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

And Britain. Don't forget we had ours.

If there's no dichotomy, then it is simply a comment blowing in the wind. Minorities suffer with and without revolutions. Just different, sometimes overlapping, sometimes fewer, sometimes more minorities.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

Not always a fan of Robert Fisk, but this article sums up the messy nature of a civil war.

Sad to hear that Syria's minorities, like the Armenians, are beginning to get badly treated and in some cases killed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-another-week-in-the-violent-murderous-and-divided-world-of -syria-8099884.html

If Assad holds on to power it will be a bad thing, but if the FSA gain power it won't be much better.

As usual it is mainly the civilians in the middle who suffer. The war lords often seem to prosper.

Saul

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Not always a fan of Robert Fisk, but this article sums up the messy nature of a civil war.

I am usually a fan of Robert Fisk, and even if I don't agree with his take his writing and observations always seem worth noticing to me.

Although he accurately paints the messy nature of a civil war, I think the narrative of 6 of one half a dozen of the other is not what he is aiming at. That is tempting, but too simplistic. The FSA are not simply a bunch of opportunistic war-lords.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

As far as I am aware, the FSA is not going to attempt to install a new government if and when Assad is overthrown. It may function in a caretaker role though out of necessity.

Because the regime was and is so suppressive very little is known about the political groups which might participate in this government. There are some prominent Syrians abroad acting as spokespersons who all seem fairly moderate.

The continuing civil war itself is killing more and more people. Perhaps a relatively swift end to it and proper control on the ground could prevent more major bloodshed?

The practical, as against theoretical, problem is harm minimisation. Hopefully nations like Egypt and Tunisia, which have had moderate revolutions, may have some impact on the new government.

As much as I admire Robert Fisk, even he is only able to give us limited, area specific information on the conflict.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It is and it's a false one mdijon. I hadn't forgotten our revolutionS and yes tolerance was eliminated in the name of ... tolerance, in see-saw fashion. Until a tyrant could establish order with 'equal' (class-based) shares in all cases. Henry VIII, Charles II.

Minorities ALWAYS - and no exception can disprove that rule - suffer in revolutions to the point of extermination one way or another.

Tyrants exploit pluralism to avoid democracy. New democracy rapidly becomes a one-party anti-pluralist state. England (as just added to the list). Cuba. Zimbabwe.

The best we can hope for is what we've got: democracy WITHIN pluralism.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

Agree with all that's been said.

The trick now is to harness the power of jaw jaw and to get all sides to put down weaponry.

This is the £1 million pound conundrum isn't it?

Who is the ''honest broker''? I am not in all honesty optimistic. Robert Fisk is a reporter who I respect and admire, even though I don't always agree with. But that's fine, I admire the fact he gets out there and does ''old fashioned'' reporting. Good man.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americas-most-senior-general-warns-against-rash-actionon-syria-and-iran-8096 881.html

I like General Dempsey the US General, (see article above) who sensibly is cautious about involvement with Iran and Syria militarily.

My comment to the West, UK, USA etc is step back and reflect on this scenario for a bit. Yes, send humanitarian help but nothing else. Don't be like William Hague the UK Foreign Minister and start a 007 James Bond type training camp for Syrians. Bad move William that's how to get sucked into war.

I know what you're up to Mr Hague - back off.

Saul

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Minorities ALWAYS - and no exception can disprove that rule - suffer in revolutions to the point of extermination one way or another.

Minorities always suffer. I don't think democracy or revolution are worse in that regard than tyranny.

Can you argue that minorities do better under brutal dictators than under democratic rule?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I suspect, Saul, Western thinking, including that of Mr Hague, is that, if they don't aid the FSA now there is danger of defeat or overdue influence from conservative Wahhabi states like Saudi Arabia (the main funding base for Al Quaida).

It is a "devil or deep blue sea" scenario. ME realpolitik based on energy needs.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Minorities are necessary either side of lumpen 'democracy'. In Iraq and soon Syria they have been, are being and will be eliminated.

[ 03. September 2012, 19:06: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

They've been eliminated at various times of history in the UK as well. Granted Cromwell was bad time for minorities, but so was the York massacre.

Likewise in the Middle-East at various times the local Christians have been killed, from the Western crusades through the Umayyad empire's expansion, through to revolution. They haven't done all that well in Palestine either.

I don't see what point you are drawing from your observation, Martin, or what recommendation it leads to either.

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :

Personally from what I've read, my inclination is to support the Syrian government against the US and EU and the mercenary terrorist violence they are promoting in Syria. The Syrian government needs to seal their borders and prevent the terrorists and their weapons from getting in. That way we can end the violence and start negotiating Israeli withdrawal from southern Syria and Palestine.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

Tell me your last post was a joke, redderfreak.

Perhaps ironic?

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Tell me your last post was a joke, redderfreak.

Perhaps ironic?

No, not a joke. I meant it.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

Good grief. [Eek!]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

mdijon, there is no recommendation, nothing can be done. UnEnlightened revolutions are anti-pluralistic no matter how 'democratic'. There are those here who apparently still hope otherwise against experience.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I think what most informed people I know are hoping about the current conflict in Syria is that it will soon end with both the overthrow of the Assad regime and as little recrimination as possible, Martin.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
UnEnlightened revolutions are anti-pluralistic no matter how 'democratic'.

And so is unenlightened dictatorial tyranny. You seem to be repeating your statement and that's my response. Can you develop an argument that revolution is worse than the alternatives in regard to pluralism?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Opportunity knocks in Syria .

The West is out to pull any string and tweak any button in order to coax the whole of the Middle East into the Western Family .

'Give us your oil and we'll made you rich beyond you wildest dreams'.

It is not our intention to create a large pile of bodies in the process, but sadly this seems to be the by-product such meddling .

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

The game in Syria is a wee bit more complex, Rolyn.

Syria is Iran's only friend in the Middle East. So Tehran is assisting with weapons and some Revolutionary Guards. Hezbollah, heavily influenced by Iran, has fighters in Syria.

[ 09. September 2012, 02:38: Message edited by: Sir Pellinore ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Yes Sir Pellimore , I ageer my flippant observations re. current affairs in the Middle East don't really address the complexities of such a cauldron and conundrum as this area of the globe is.

My late father used to study news of Middle Eastern upheavals, and was much concerned about impending military invention in Iraq the year he died . Not sure what he'd make of what's happened since .

I don't study news much, but ISTM that the West is unsure as to whether the post-Sadam Arab Spring is good or bad . Syria is on the edge of the experiment and if we really wanted the rebels to win we'd be supplying them with arms and air-cover.

Is Iran becoming isolated in Arab Spring , or is it now in a position to feed nut groups and produce spoiling tactics long into the future ?

<ramble over and out> [Votive]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Not so mdijon. Tyrants who benefit from divide and rule - including the British in Iraq and the Raj and throughout the empire - need minorities to hold things in tension.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

I'm guessing the Alawites and Christians are getting their bags packed. Oh, and Al Qaeda Now a U.S. Ally in Syria.

It's all good.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

The situation in Syria is becoming more complicated and harder to read, rolyn. There appear to be some tensions amongst those fighting the government in Aleppo between secularists led by a defector from the Army and more locally based groups who are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood (which is not Al Quaida).

The Islamic Republic of Iran will, as long as it exists in its present state, continue to support Shi'ite militias such as Hezbollah.

It is a hard scenario to read. I'm hoping it doesn't become an area conflagration with Israel involved.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Not so mdijon. Tyrants who benefit from divide and rule - including the British in Iraq and the Raj and throughout the empire - need minorities to hold things in tension.

I'm really not sure that the British did a lot for minority rights in India. Perhaps the British counted themselves as a minority, and the Anglo-Indians were favoured for obvious reasons, but the overall picture of colonial rule doesn't seem positive for any group within Indian society.

It doesn't strike me as a very positive example. And the tensions that were stoked between two large groups were obviously utterly disastrous when expressed in partition.

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
UnEnlightened revolutions are anti-pluralistic no matter how 'democratic'.
... Can you develop an argument that revolution is worse than the alternatives in regard to pluralism?

There is a case for saying that, at any rate given the nature of some forms of society, enlightened dictatorship is the best form of government. Like Redderfreak, I have some (but not unlimited) sympathy for President al Assad. Until his elder brother was killed in a motor accident, he had no expectation of becoming President and little interest in politics - he had a medical degree and was just starting on a post-graduate course at the Western Eye Hospital in London. He was only 34 when his father died and he became President (they had to change the Constitution to permit him to become President at lower than the age of 40).

He tried to liberalise Syria - the Damascus Spring, in which there was initially free expression on political matters and wider social questions, and hundreds of political prisoners were released, gave rise to a feeling of optimism across the Arab world. However it went too far and was eventually suppressed, with its leading participants being convicted, probably rightly, of "attempting to change the constitution by illegal means" and "inciting racial and sectarian strife".

Nevertheless, Harriet Sergeant, jounalist and Research Fellow of the Centre for Policy Studies, described Syria last month on the BBC programme Any Questions as having been, after 10 years of President al Assad’s rule, “a peaceful, tolerant, absolutely delightful country”. Members of my family and friends who have been there on holiday confirm this, one remarking on the fact that every village in the hills had its own church. Last year an armed uprising by Sunni rebels destroyed all that. The rebels are intolerant- they are estimated to have expelled 50,000 to 60,000 Christians from Homs; they are supported by jihadists from Libya, Lebanon, Algeria, Britain and other countries and also by al Qaeda; and the atrocities they have committed are as bad as any committed by the Government.

If you were President of a peaceful and tolerant country, and there was an armed uprising in part of it, what action are you supposed to have taken? It is very doubtful if negotiations would have got anywhere. Kofi Annan observed in an article in the Financial Times last month that, contrary to widespread reports, after a ceasefire was agreed on 12 April the Government’s shelling of civilian communities stopped; but there was no sustained international support, when a move towards peace might have been effective, and the rebels did not observe the ceasefire.

Of course Syria was not a democracy in the Western sense, but minorities such as Alawites, to which the ruling class largely belonged (10% or so of the total population), Christians (another 10% or so) and Druze (perhaps 3%) enjoyed cultural and religious freedom; and many will think that that is preferable to the alternative we now see or any alternative we are likely to see when this dreadful revolution and civil war comes to an end.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Oh, and Al Qaeda Now a U.S. Ally in Syria.

Good grief , no wonder the 9/11 commemoration were kept low key today . The propaganda value of that event has dropped off even more than I had imagined.

Cambodia , US backing of Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge anyone ?
Only this time were talking of an oil-rich and potentially more volatile region .

God help the Middle East if Israel and Iran go at it .

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

The phrase "not a democracy in a Western sense" is not really adequate to convey a situation where you can only vote for one party, the representatives of which then appoint a president, to be confirmed in a subsequent unopposed national referendum.

In addition, the country was under "emergency rule" for several decades, which granted the government power to order arrest and detention without trial. There were widespread reports of human rights abuses which concerned amnesty and human rights watch well before the uprising.

Given that limited form of democracy, one can imagine protests might be justified. And I would never have guessed from your post that this Assad had ordered his army to open fire on protesting civilians in March 2011.

Regarding minorities, it is worth noting that the Kurds were systematically discriminated against and denied citizenship in their own country under Assad.

And now Syrian troops routinely shell civilians in "rebel held areas" prior to their attacks. And have provided cover to militias which have slaughtered civilians and children.

I don't pretend that the opposition are without stain, there are credible reports of executions and atrocities carried out by them also. But the picture of a gentle Assad making a reasonable response to an armed insurrection is inaccurate.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

egg, I suggest the "peaceful, tolerant, absolutely delightful country" impressions quoted did not perceive the brutality which held Syria together. Surface impressions are sometimes deceptive.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Mark is just expressing his usual affection for authoritarian regimes (as he did on the Pussy Riot thread).

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
egg, I suggest the "peaceful, tolerant, absolutely delightful country" impressions quoted did not perceive the brutality which held Syria together. Surface impressions are sometimes deceptive.

Mdijon challenged us to develop an argument that revolution is worse than the alternatives in regard to pluralism. I have tried to do so. As I said, given the nature of some forms of society, especially perhaps in artificially formed multicultural countries as Iraq and Syria were after 1918, a strong hand may be needed to keep the country together for the benefit of all its citizens, yes and sometimes with a degree of armed force and even brutality. We did the same in India after the Mutiny of 1857, with lasting benefit to most Indians, and in Kenya and (with less brutality) in Malaya in the 1950s; the French did it (with less success) in Vietnam and Algeria; the North did it when the Southern States, probably quite constitutionally, tried to break away from the Union in 1861 (remember Sherman in Atlanta 1864? – it is estimated that 750,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilians died in the American civil war), and it was a long time before it could be claimed that the war had brought real benefits to the whole country.

My belief is that, unless one gets involved in politics, which almost inevitably means opposition to the regime and which often leads to revolution, for most citizens of a plural society such as Syria, particularly for the substantial minorities I mentioned, the relatively peaceful pluralism which they enjoyed for the first 10 years of al-Assad’s Presidency was far preferable to the civil war to which the revolution, fuelled by Saudi Arabia, USA, UK et al, has led.

And no one has yet suggested what President al-Assad should have done when faced with an uprising in part of his country, even if initially (as is usually the case) it started with “peaceful protests” and the rebels did not immediately take up arms against his regime.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I'm guessing the Alawites and Christians are getting their bags packed. Oh, and Al Qaeda Now a U.S. Ally in Syria.

As they have been allied with the USA against Iran for years.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by egg:
And no one has yet suggested what President al-Assad should have done when faced with an uprising in part of his country, even if initially (as is usually the case) it started with “peaceful protests” and the rebels did not immediately take up arms against his regime.

He should have left office along with his corrupt oppressive regime. He should have instituted multi-party democracy and allowed free and fair elections. (The latter would have led to the former).

quote:
Originally posted by egg:
We did the same in India after the Mutiny of 1857, with lasting benefit to most Indians

Colonial rule was not for the benefit of the Indians. It was to ensure that the East India Trading Company could continue to make money.

Many divisions and tensions in the countries were provoked and used by the British to "divide and rule". The British had no business creating a country for the benefit of their empire, and even less business using brutality and force to hold it together.

quote:
Originally posted by egg:
and in Kenya and

Where, within a decade of the fall of Nazi Germany, Britain were running concentration camps using summary justice and torture to put down an independence movement.

Brutal rule and suppression of democracy can never be the right thing. We wouldn't tolerate it in Europe, why should we tolerate it for Africans, Indians or Arabs.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

mdijon - I agree. On everything. There is no positive case. Under tyrants everyone gets relatively equal shares of oppression, the water bed is relatively flat. Under ethnic/religious 'democracy' the majority benefit at the cost of the minorities. Sharply. The water bed has sharp deeps. The average misery stays the same, but a lot futher from the mode.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The average misery stays the same, but a lot futher from the mode.

This is where we disagree then. The average misery of independent and democratic India is much reduced compared with the average misery under colonial rule. Just ask the Indians, they'll tell you.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

egg: I don't think mdijon was inviting people to a theoretical talkfest but to a discussion of the current critical reality.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

mdijon - the road from Partition ...

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

The result of 90 years of the divide and rule policy. Hardly an argument in favour of the wisdom of colonial rule over democracy.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Who's making that ? Minorities suffer extremely at the time of merely 'democratic' revolutions.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Who's making that ?

egg was, which was where the example of India came from.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Minorities suffer extremely at the time of merely 'democratic' revolutions.

Agreed, sometimes minorities suffer at the time of revolution. Sometimes they suffer without a revolution (e.g. Jews in Europe prior to democratic change. And after democratic change, of course).

And they often suffer during non-democratic revolution (e.g. Stalin), during war and any number of other upheavals that a nation goes through.

My challenge to you up thread was whether you could show that democratic revolution is a particular danger to minorities than anything else. Otherwise your statement is a partial truth. Like saying "The sun rises every day in summer". Of course it does, but actually it does that at other times of the year too.

[ 14. September 2012, 12:32: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

As a relevant aside maybe the new UN envoy can broker a peace deal?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-new-envoy-to-meet-assad-8126170.html

Not convinced, but better jaw jaw than war war.

Saul

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

Sadly, I think the FSA and its supporters will be extremely wary of any projected meeting and cooperation with the regime such as a truce. Bashar Assad is possibly not someone they will trust as there is a feeling he is a captive to the old intransigent hard-liners of the regime.

I think the civil war, as it now is, will continue.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

mdijon - my apologies for reacting as if I were the 'target'. Your dialectical requirements of me are fine and I'm sure I'm not up to them and I more than suspect that your rhetoric is altogether superior too.

Everybody - the vast majority - does badly under tyrants. Agreed. Although of course they benefit too: when the king was a hard bastard England invariably prospered. While it mourned. I believe Henry VIII had fifty thousand killed under his reign. It was said that not a family didn't mourn in it. Yet we still benefit from, live in his kindgom.

I propose that tyrants like Assad, Saddam, the British Empire use and elevate minorities beyond their own to divide and rule. Play them off against each other, create class hierarchies, whatever.

But what has inoculated me against optimism, except in the VERY long run (it takes centuries of economic development) is the consequences of revolution on minorities. On God's justice. On tolerance. Pluralism. Scores are settled, real or imagined. Scapegoats are found. This happens in ALL social disruption, especially under tyrants. Love grows cold. In the name of justice, equality these are lost. As there is no brotherhood for the other.

Post-Saddam Iraq was the vilest modern example I have encountered, the way Christians, including Assyrians and other minorities - Yazidis - were murdered out of hand. The former by the Sunni who also attacked the less powerful Shia majority and the latter by the previously persecuted Kurds.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia in the name of identity - democracy - was just as vile. The breakup of the Soviet empire. On and on.

Can the kingdom be advanced through this? Despite it? I suppose so. I hope so. Europe's convulsions have led to pluralism either side of the Atlantic.

The appalling acute suffering of revolution is perhaps worth it even in humanist terms, even within a lifetime, as in South Africa. Perhaps it is even the way to the kingdom.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Sadly, I think the FSA and its supporters will be extremely wary of any projected meeting and cooperation with the regime such as a truce. Bashar Assad is possibly not someone they will trust as there is a feeling he is a captive to the old intransigent hard-liners of the regime.

I think the civil war, as it now is, will continue.

SP

what do you think about US and UK foreign policy in this region?

I am no supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups, but you can understand that they must see the USA as an ''enemy''? I don't agree the US is the ''great satan'' but I can understand why they see this as the case.

The recent US diplomat killed in Libya was an Arabophile; he wanted to reach out to Libyans and yet the wider picture meant he died in a land he wanted to reach out to. Burnt to death by hard line Islamic militants (we think).

For my money there is always going to be an intrinsic hatred of the USA simply because the US government and it's citizens broadly support the existence of Israel - it's as simple as that.

However, the Iraqi 2003 war was a terrible mistake IMHO as was and is the Afghanistani ''adventure''.

I posted the OP because the US and the UK seem to want to be the world's policeman.

I just hope British Foreign Minister William Hague can see sense and keep out of Syrian interventionist type actions.

I pray to God he sees sense. He is training FSA operatives to rebel (via James Bond style training) and I think this is a bad move personally; it is yet more Western intervention and manipulation. We don't need it and we should not accept it IMHO.

Saul

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I more than suspect that your rhetoric is altogether superior too.

You damn me with faint praise, sir. I'd prefer the substance to the rhetoric. But actually, thanks kindly.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I propose that tyrants like Assad, Saddam, the British Empire use and elevate minorities beyond their own to divide and rule. Play them off against each other, create class hierarchies, whatever.

I agree. And therefore the lifting of the tyrant allows many groups to settle scores, as you describe. However, in this instance I argue it is not the democratic revolution per se that is the problem, it is what was stored up in animosity and grievance before the revolution.

Removing the tyrant is often like removing the lid of a pressure cooker. Unfortunately the only alternative, leaving the tyrant in power, is leaving the lid on and keeping the pressure building. The cooker will burst sooner or later, and better there is a hope of democracy and a better future than no hope under the tyrant.

Further, keeping the lid on might prevent the explosion, but it doesn't stop the chronic, less explosive discrimination that occurs in the meantime. Saddam Hussein is an example where his genocidal persecution of the Kurds was less remarked on on a world stage than the problems that followed his removal. Although Iraq is a particular example because of the prolonged occupation (rather than autonomous rule) which followed, and the prolonged insurgency and a host of other problems which deserve their own threads.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I think anyone connected with Al Quaida is a dangerous and potentially lethal nutter, Saul.
Many Islamic scholars have spoken against them.

The current situation in Syria would seem to be a situation where I think the West may need to provide logistic and training support to legitimate members of the FSA not affiliated with extremist religious groups. A no fly zone, or other means of protecting the FSA from the Syrian Air Force, would, as in the case of the Kurdish region in Iraq or Libya, be good.

I have little doubt the regime will fall. The Syrian National Council http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_National_Council and the Free Syrian Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army appear to be secular. The Muslim Brotherhood, as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, is not Al Quaida.

It is important the West give no support to Al Quaida or their affiliates. The FSA are very careful to whom they give weapons.

Any direct Western military intervention would be unwise apart from securing and destroying the regime's chemical weapons and rendering them inoperative.

The Arab world, including most Arab Christians, is anti-Israel. Recent events in Israel and areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority have not done much to convince Arabs and Muslims that Israel wants a just peace there.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I think anyone connected with Al Quaida is a dangerous and potentially lethal nutter, Saul.
Many Islamic scholars have spoken against them.

The current situation in Syria would seem to be a situation where I think the West may need to provide logistic and training support to legitimate members of the FSA not affiliated with extremist religious groups. A no fly zone, or other means of protecting the FSA from the Syrian Air Force, would, as in the case of the Kurdish region in Iraq or Libya, be good.

I have little doubt the regime will fall. The Syrian National Council http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_National_Council and the Free Syrian Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army appear to be secular. The Muslim Brotherhood, as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, is not Al Quaida.

It is important the West give no support to Al Quaida or their affiliates. The FSA are very careful to whom they give weapons.

Any direct Western military intervention would be unwise apart from securing and destroying the regime's chemical weapons and rendering them inoperative.

The Arab world, including most Arab Christians, is anti-Israel. Recent events in Israel and areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority have not done much to convince Arabs and Muslims that Israel wants a just peace there.

SP

my concern is that you seem to get a ''Pandora's Box'' happening. A bad regime is overthrown and the new regime is as bad if not worse.

I agree with you about Al Quaida, but how can the West be sure it is helping those that won't turn around and bite them (like the Mujahadin in Afghanistan during the USSR occupation - armed by the West and they developed into a monster in many cases).

Saul

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
A no fly zone, or other means of protecting the FSA from the Syrian Air Force, would, as in the case of the Kurdish region in Iraq or Libya, be good.

It won't happen. Russian and China of course wouldn't go along, but more importantly it would provoke Iran; who as we know is sending in arms and people through Iraq. Sen. Kerry's answer to our utter lack of influence now with Iraq is to effectively threaten them with the equivalent of "double secret probation".

It's also interesting that this all seems to be emboldening the PKK. I guess the Turks didn't expect that, though I'm not sure whey they wouldn't have.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

As I said, Saul, I hope the new regime will be pluralistic. The Syrian National Council certainly is and has Christian members. It was never a case that all Christians supported the Ba'athists. The religious leaders had to pledge support to the regime and be shown to practice it but there were always dissenters from that policy.

The FSA, whose leadership cadre are all ex-Syrian Forces, is very careful who they arm. They are not a confessional force per se. The Muslim Brotherhood, who are not Al Quaida, is an element the FSA is careful of over-arming.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0