Wants to send arms to the moderate rebels in Syria, the man is an idiot.
Really? So given that the other side won't go to talks, you want them to fight with sticks and stones? Or just die?
The man is very, very late.
It's got absolutely nowt to do with us! Have we really learned so little from all such previous foreign policy catastrophes?
By all means send humanitarian aid, but I can't think of any conceivable benefit of sending more arms into a region evacuated by anyone with a brain and a sense of self-preservation, leaving it populated almost exclusively by complete head cases! Let 'em get on with it!
Pigface +1
We should have learnt not to arm AQ (which its widely accepted the Syrian rebels are). It'll bite us in the arse.
Keep our noses well out.
So given that the other side won't go to talks
What's your source ? According to the BBC, and a few other news agencies, the Syrian government is prepared to attend peace talks in Geneva.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22672715 ]Syria confirms role in Geneva peace conference[/url]
Moderate rebels? And the difference between these and terrorists?
Ah yes, timing.
Search 'mujahideen' then 'taliban'...
Proxy war against Hezbollah/Iran/Russia - what could possibly go wrong?
[i]grum - Member
Proxy war against Hezbollah/Iran/Russia - what could possibly go wrong? [/i]
Indeed.
Humanitarian aid, unquestionably. More weapons? No.
limp wristed springs to mind
China is also quite an important player who can't be simply ignored.
[url= http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-05/27/c_132411924.htm ]China willing to join Geneva talks on Syria[/url]
Much of the problems concerning the international response to the crises in Syria stems from the fact that both Russia and China felt they were wrong footed over Libya, which of course they were. The West far from remaining neutral as agreed at the UN, heavily supported one side in the Libyan conflict. The newly installed Western backed government in Tripoli immediately cancelled contracts with the Chinese. Although ironically Western companies are now pulling out as post-Gaddafi Libya is proving to be too dangerous for them.
Without expressing an opinion on this one, who exactly bankrolls weapons purchases by "rebels"? I don't imagine the kind of stuff they need comes cheaply - are they supplied on credit or what?
He is an idiot and it's a completely ludicrous idea. They seem just as bad as each other, have we learnt nothing from the other mistakes we've made?
This means HMG have decided Assad is doomed so we'd better get cosy with whoever is most likely to be running the country and placing the contracts in future years.
When is this country going to stop sticking its oar in on others affairs. Is Hague really saying that the 'moderate' rebels can't get hold of arms in a region of the world that is absolutely dripping with them!! Madness!! What really worries me is that we seem to be getting ready for a new conflict just as we are getting ready to leave Afghanistan.
globalti - MemberThis means HMG have decided Assad is doomed so we'd better get cosy with whoever is most likely to be running the country and placing the contracts in future years.
Nail on the head.
william hague, small man syndrome, David Cameroon away on holiday, so he sticks his hands up and runs screaming rubbish to who ever will listen,nobody is though.
back in your box hague
To be fair to the man, he knows arms dealing and he's always been strong on this (surprisingly small yet very loud) export market to anyone with money.
We should have learnt not to arm AQ (which its widely accepted the Syrian rebels are)
Is it is widely accepted by everyone?
I am not denying that the rainbow coalition of opposition includes Islamic extremists including AQ but it is false to suggest this is all they are or that it is widely accepted.
Difficult call tbh given the external and internal players as it is between a rock and a hard place
Watch an illegitimate govt brutalise its people or join in to make it better [ which it is unlikely to do in the short run]and risk making it even worse
Reading between the lines it seems that the US has decided that between AQ and Iran, AQ is the lesser evil. Hague is being used as a mouthpiece for this. I think Uncle Sam is trying not to be seen as meddling, and us, France etc are doing their bidding.
**** that.
If America don't like it, they can go. Otherwise they can sort out their own problems.
Oh Jy, I thought it was established that AQ are pretty much running the show now.
Isn't the discussion about arming the rebels just a lever to ensure that Assad starts to participate in the formal talks?
To OP,
Yes, he is ...
Unlike the previous wars in Iraq & Libya where there was no strong support for the regimes but this time things might be very different and someone is going to cry ...
I mentioned this earlier in another thread.
chewkw - MemberBefore we solve our own problems what is this with the govt(s)(UK & France - now trying to drag EU into the war) wanting to intervene in the Syrian internal conflict?
Shouldn't the govts put all their efforts in solving their own societal problems first? What a bunch of busy bodies trying to arm the opposition? [b]The problem will come back to roost[/b].
This concept of self appointing world police will back fire in future when, again, we are going to ask the same question again why this happens here again ...
If they arm the opposition then the others can also arm the other side.
Talking about creating Demo[b][u]n[/u][/b]cracy ...
Any advance on who pays for arms for the rebels? (Just curious)
It's like a pay day loans thing. That money doesn't get written off, repayment is expected (in kind) once the new regime is in place.
All those contracts the new libyans cancelled with the Chinese went to their new friends.
Doesn't a lot of the funding for hardline extremist organisations, of the type operating in Syria, generally come from Saudi?
So how do they pay? From a numbered account in a Swiss bank?
once had the opportunity to discuss nothing of value with young Bill and his then welsh girlfriend on a flight from leeds bradford.. seemed half decent bloke and may be the only shot at a statesman we currently have in british politics..
They do some very attractive 0% finance deals on anti tank weaponry at the moment Bravissimo.
I think it's probably more of a large-bundles-of-cash based economy 😉
The Saudi might be providing financial support but is there a need to be a loud mouth to broadcast to the world that UK is getting involved? Even if Saudi is providing financial aid at least they do it silently whereas UK (not even the US) is openly asking to arm the opposition. What a tool ...
No wonder everyone hates us. 🙄
My mate is an IT toubleshooter paid silly money by the DWP (which is Hague's actual responsibilty) and idiot is the least offensive term he'd use to describe him
[quote=kimbers said]My mate is an IT toubleshooter paid silly money by the DWP (which is Hague's actual responsibilty)
Wouldn't that be the Secretary for Work and Pensions (IDS) rather than the Foreign Secretary (Hague)?
It'll all end in tears.
The dwp's IT systems have been a shambles for a good 10 years ever since John Prescott was specifically cautioned against the proposed changes to existing systems by Microsoft's Enterprise Consulting team - they have advise to the DWP and ODPM that the changes to accommodate tax credits were complex, open to fraud and would be costly and difficult to administer . That advice was pretty much spot on as it turned out so I'm not sure it's fair to blame IDS for the mess that the last lot left.
As for Hague, he was a pretty exceptional strategy consultant at McKinsey and is still held on high regard by those who worked with him - he's certainly no idiot and I rather suspect could run rings round most people.
Oh Jy, I thought it was established that AQ are pretty much running the show now.
It's not even widely accepted that Al-Qaeda actually exists - certainly not in the way it's portrayed in the media.
http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006DFED.htm
It's not even widely accepted that Al-Qaeda actually exists
Erm, I think it is.
It certainly seems that the U.S., E.U., Russia,and China are all fairly deeply if indirectly involved in the conflict. Israel and Iran are more directly involved The losers in all of this will be Syrian. It is proxy conflict.
Erm, I think it is.
Read the link, or try one of Jason Burke's books on the topic. It's a convenient label for all sorts of disparate groups.
You need to be careful with media 'facts' that 'everyone knows' without seeing any actual evidence.
No doubt an umbrella organisation, they still definitely exist.
Erm, I think it is.
you planning on referencing anything you say or just saying it ?
PS I was first 😉
The people involved in what is termed "Al-Qaeda" clearly exist - they are not a figment of anyone's imagination. Al-Qaeda probably doesn't exist as most people are led to believe it exists, ie, as a disciplined organised structure with a central leadership. It's a very loose association of like minded people. The Al-Qaeda label was really applied by the US/CIA as they needed to call it something, and mujahideen was no longer deemed appropriate as it would remind people that they were originally armed, trained, and financed, by the CIA. But [i]it is[/i] widely accepted that Al-Qaeda exists, even if they don't actually have card holding members, if it wasn't widely accepted that they exist grum, you probably wouldn't have relied on a 10 year old article.
IMHO
Oops top Tory mix up they are both droners and I'm tired
Im sure there was a time when our media portrayed Assad as a moderate
I can't see that the when the war is eventually over Syria will be in a better place than it was then after so many years of protracted war and so many involved parties
You want me to provide a source saying AQ exists?
Is that the best you've got? 😆
Instead of bickering about whether they exist or not, would you agree that there's a lot of jihadists in the mix? Hezbollah for a start.
Hezbollah have always recieved political support from Syria so they have always been there and their primary aim is to reclaim occupied land from Israel.
No I was hoping you would reference the claim they were in charge in Syria actually. How many times would you like me to ask before you get it? You know that though
As it is widely accepted I assume there will be quotes from say heads of govt, the UN and recognised experts rather than just you.
