34567890

x

Δ

Undecided there, voted "mind your manners" though. Britain recently displays an alarming tendency to do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. Works only if it's helping some reckless Bushista scheme to endear the public to plans of spreading democracy by cluster bombs. Right now even the Americans are cautious, those that count in any case. And they are right to think about this long and hard. In Syria it's indeed assholes shooting at assholes often enough. Those who refuse being happily beaten to pulp by either Assad or the rebels either fled the country or will have to face reprisals. And these guys take their reprisals damn serious. A Syrian democratic movement will for the foreseeable future consist of expats living in Europe or the States, doing the media tour from TF1 to BBC to Faux and back again. Those living in Syria will not have a realistic chance to play a significant role in shaping the country's political future. The usual suspects in matters of enforced democracy (USA, France, UK) will at the most succeed to install some regional puppet regime in the Iraq/Afghan mould, an overblown mayor of this or that, calling himself legitimated, while the country's actual affairs are handled elsewhere.  

It's probably too late by now to turn this into something remotely positive.

We keep out. Even if the navy was what it was a few years ago (when we had at least one aircraft carrier to provide support), troops and so forth it's beyond pointless. Let Obama do his thing.

"Anyone know if President Obama intends to perform background checks on the Syrian rebels before providing them weapons?"
- Sen. Ted Cruz

Anyway, my view is that in a war between Ba'athists and Al-Qaeda the West should wish both sides the best of luck and happy hunting.

Foreign interventions are not something to be taken lightly. There should be a calculated national interest and not a feel-good "humanitarian" agenda.

If the Syrians want to eat each other raw, why must that be Britain's problem?

I'm fed up of the Middle East bullshit.

In other Arab Spring news, the Egyptians are really getting the hang of this democracy thing.

There's been a lot of movement on this story since this thread was posted. Where does everybody stand now? Cameron has recalled parliament but I don't see the use - those in power have decided we need to intervene because Assad dropped the nerve gas (despite there being no conclusive evidence that he did), so to war we go. Pathetic.

Wary on going into this adventure. We don't even know if it was Assad, I'm no conspiracy theorist but have this thought 'what if it's the so-called rebels'? The Middle East's volatile enough and you wonder if we do what's next.

The Beeb is theorising about what action and the fact the US 7th Fleet could launch from one side and the 5th from the Med whilst we have our plucky sub out there ready to weigh in. A little too late perhaps.

Interesting that Obama's "red line" statement was aimed squarely at the Assad regime and no other parties. Considering the sort of looney tunes (including al Qaeda elements) that comprise the "rebels" you certainly wouldn't put it past them.

If we actually end up deposing Assad we'll probably regret it. The various "rebels" will start fighting each other and the crazies may well win.

CJB wrote:

Interesting that Obama's "red line" statement was aimed squarely at the Assad regime and no other parties. Considering the sort of looney tunes (including al Qaeda elements) that comprise the "rebels" you certainly wouldn't put it past them.

If we actually end up deposing Assad we'll probably regret it. The various "rebels" will start fighting each other and the crazies may well win.

true, another Iraq could be on the cards in a "stable" middle eastern region, I see only the looneys gaining profit in either scenario. (attack or not attack)

Ordinarily I'd probably say to stay out of it but chemical weapons are fucking awful. Send some drones in to take out military targets. I think that should be the extent of it. I don't think Obama wants the egg on his face that would come with sending in troops.

Yeah, Obama's comments suggest that he really doesn't want to commit to any action that could get dragged out the way Iraq did. I think he wants it to be swift and to the point and then over and done with.

The problem is that Assad seems to be convinced that nobody is going to do anything to stop him - after all, if he is the one responsible for droppingseveral tonnes if chemical death on the civilian population, then he did it right under the UN's noses, since an envoy was in Damascus at the time if the attack. Which suggests he doesn't think anyone - not the UN, not the Arab League, not NATO and not the US - will lift a finger against him. So if it comes down to a military intervention, he's not going to take it lying down.

Jack Wade wrote:

Ordinarily I'd probably say to stay out of it but chemical weapons are fucking awful

Yes, but it seems odd that their use was the arbitrary "red line." Far more civilians have been killed by bombs and bullets, but apparently only the ones targetted by chemical weapons were worthy of prompting intervention.

Fascinating developments over the last few days. Miliband is in a strange position now, being adamant that he didn't want to rule out war but effectively doing so, it seems, by costing Cameron the vote in the Commons. Now Obama is calling for a vote in Congress. Civil war in Syria has brought democracy...to the west?

Kind of odd and funny that, democracy has returned seems to be the gist. Bunch of letters in the Times and other papers to that effect. Words to the effect of it's no slight to Cameron, it's called democracy. Britain is back on its feet. Sort of.

Still, America has her 'oldest ally' now.

b

So I'm guessing Obama has figured out that bombing Syria to help al-Qaeda is a shitty idea so he wants the Congress to shoot it down (pun possibly intended). It's the Republicans' turn to be anti-interventionist seeing as a guy from the other team is Prez.

For those keenly wondering about the Antipodean response to the Syrian Cvil War, be assured that Obama's brown-noser, self-appointed foreign affairs expert and master diplomat, Kevin "Chink ratfuckers" Rudd will likely be replaced by someone who actually understands that we need Ba'athists and Islamists to blow each other to hell.

Tony Abbott, currently on track to win Australia's September 7 elections over centre-left Labor incumbent Kevin Rudd, described the conflict in Syria as a civil war "between two pretty unsavoury sides".

"It is not goodies versus baddies, it is baddies versus baddies and that is why it is very important that we don't make a very difficult situation worse," Abbott told ABC television Sunday morning.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/opposition-leader-tony-abbott-says-conflict-in-syria-is-just-baddies-vs-baddies/story-fnho52ip-1226708473985#ixzz2dd30nxIl


(Not meant as Monkey bait, but let's see if he takes it).

x

The lack of consistency in the West's moral outrage long predates this century.
The cynic in me does get some amusement out of seeing the same people who foamed at the mouth over Bush's rush to war in Iraq now defend Obama's similar behavior in regard to Syria. So many switch off critical thinking when it is time to rush to their ideological trenches.

No.

v

Δ

Largo's Shark wrote:

Terrifying situation. Where's the great philanthropist Tony Blair during all of the this?

Oh, you know, probably feeling the hand of history on his shoulder again before he intervenes with his quasi-humanitarian intervention policy and outmoded Christian Socialism.