Oh look. It's the junkyard show.......again.
I'm not biting. You can do one.
just as an aside who do we think is lining themselves up as Russia's New Best Friend?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/litvinenko-coroner-crucial-evidence-secret
And where exactly do they need Russia to be their new best friend?
I am generally opposed to intervening in other nation's conflicts, even though the humanitarian considerations make this very difficult at times. But clearly, Hague is not an idiot, so we are left with trying to understand the unknowns. Perhaps, the only rational argument is that the US and Russia need to ensure that Basher al-Assad attends the peace conference in Geneva. Given that recent events suggest that his position has improved recently, the US and France (so lets not isolate Hague here!) may well be trying to ensure that Geneva actually happens? But who really knows what is going on behind the scenes?
Eh why the reaction it is just a question?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_for_Syrian_Revolutionary_and_Opposition_Forces
It is not AQ led at all and it is not widely accepted for it is not true
Al-Qaeda probably doesn't exist as most people are led to believe it exists
Which is exactly what I said. 🙄
....would you agree that there's a lot of jihadists in the mix? Hezbollah for a start.
Hezbollah aren't what is commonly referred to as jihadists, for a start they're not Sunnis. Hezbollah was formed to drive the Israelis out of Lebanon, something which they achieved. And now as an ally of the Syrian regime they are fighting against the jihadists in Syria.
Which is exactly what I said. 🙄
So I take it that you totally agree with my post then 🙄
Well, seeing as AQ aren't involved/don't exist, then I can't see the problem at all. When do we start shipping the anti aircraft batteries? What could possibly go wrong?
Which is exactly what I said.
So I take it that you totally agree with my post then
You could really start an argument in an empty room couldn't you. 😆
Well, seeing as AQ aren't involved/don't exist, then I can't see the problem at all.
binners I'm not claiming there aren't Islamic extremists involved, it's just a bit too easy to bandy around loaded terms like 'Al-Qaeda' with little or no evidence.
Ernie is right about Hezbollah - they are fighting for the Syrian regime, against the rebels (including 'Al-Qaeda') that we're supporting. 😕
I never said they were not involved Binners [ they are] I questioned whether it was true that they were in charge.
Wrecker claimed it was widely accepted numerous times and then he got upset when asked for some evidence of this claim and provided none.
Well, seeing as AQ aren't involved/don't exist, then I can't see the problem at all.
Someone ought to tell Libya's neighbours that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist, I'm sure that Mali and Niger would be relieved to know that they don't have a problem.
An incredibly difficult situation which is difficult to watch as individuals let alone as nations, however the underlying secularity makes any intervention almost doomed to fail. A leader who is part of a Shia minority (from the Alawite sect which is not a majority sect of the local Shia population) which is currently ruling a predominantly Sunni population. The Shias themselves were previously persecuted by Sunnis so they don't want to relinquish the power they fought hard for (and the process by which they came to power led to regional stability following the withdrawal of French occupiers). The Sunnis want power back and are naturally secularly aligned with AQ and Saudi.
Anyone who aids Assad is seen as supporting a dictatorship (rightly or wrongly) and anyone who aids the rebels risks aiding and arming AQ.
..at least that's how I understand the situation.
[img] 
[/img]
Anyone who aids Assad is seen as supporting a dictatorship (rightly or wrongly) and anyone who aids the rebels risks aiding and arming AQ...at least that's how I understand the situation.
It's the way a lot of people understand the situation. Including apparently, Israel, Assad's great enemy.
[url= http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-official-assad-preferable-to-extremist-rebels-the-times-of-london-reports-1.524605 ]Israeli official: Assad preferable to extremist rebels[/url]
[b][i]"Better the devil we know than the demons we can only imagine if Syria falls into chaos, and the extremists from across the Arab world gain a foothold there," the official said, according to the report. [/i][/b]
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?
It might be learning from "our" mistakes in Chechnya, where "the West" ignored the mass killings and abuse of civilians, and abandoned the Chechens to rely on headcases for assistance. The result has been to provide headcases with a live-fire battlefield to train on and mythologise.
Well it seems the idiot has got his way. How would we feel if Syria started arming and supporting drug gangs in the UK?
Hezbollah are getting involved because with out Assad they are in real trouble.
So if Hague is an idiot what should he, the French foreign secretary, the US and any other of the countries be doing? It would of course be simple for countries sit back and do nothing but watch the killings. It's easy to sit back yaking on here but would you do right now that is realistic and would gain enough support to stop the fighting? If we get some workable ideas perhaps we could send them of to the UN for consideration.
He's not an idiot, he's just a politician trying to make a difficult decision. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make either of you idiots.
"How would we feel if Syria started arming and supporting drug gangs in the UK?"
That's not much of an analogy.
Does this mean the russians are allowed to ship Hinds over there now?
Mr Hague told the House of Commons: "We have in place a European Union arms embargo on Syria."We discourage anyone else from supplying arms to Syria.
So if Hague is an idiot what should he, the French foreign secretary, the US and any other of the countries be doing?
Putting some effort into the coming Geneva peace talks ? Rather than talking about arming "the moderates" when they knows damn well that the best and most effective fighters, and obviously the ones most likely to get their hands on any available weapons, are the crazies in Al-Qaeda.
It's fine to bang on about ending the violence, as Britain repeatedly has, but rather hypocritical to support and encourage one side.
And why is it such a good idea to supply weapons now rather than 2 years ago when apparently it wasn't a good idea ? If supplying weapons to the rebels is going to win the war for them then it should have been done a long time ago and saved countless of needlessly lost lives. But of course it won't, it will just prolong the violence and killing. Britain and a few other western countries don't appear to want the war to end. Supplying weapons to the rebels should keep it going.
It's fairly likely that the UK has sold Syria all sorts of weapons in the past, including chemical weapons. Why stop now? If there's money to be had in war, then isn't that good for the UK economy?
Syria is a big market for British goods, technology, education and expertise. On the whole the multinationals have avoided investing there because of the dodgy nature of the politics, which means that Syrian-owned industries are strong; my own company has done very well indeed out of the market in the last thirty years. I've attended a couple of the very private Businessman's Briefings at the British High Commission in Lagos and you'd be amazed at the depth of understanding our overseas missions have of their countries and the quality of the connections. These are the people who feed back information to the Foreign Office and one of the jobs of the Foreign Secretary is backing the right horse in a conflict like this so that we get the lion's share of the business when control is re-established. Hague is no idiot, far from it - he's a very astute bloke and I've the greatest respect for him.
No, he's a ******* idiot. And a dangerous one at that.
I don't think that William Hague is an idiot. But unfortunately for him, he actually has to make decisions which carry heavy consequences, rather than just consequence-free ranting on forums about how stupid everyone but us are.
johnhe - Spot on.
But unfortunately for him, he actually has to make decisions which carry heavy consequences
Not for him they don't.
you'd be amazed at the depth of understanding our overseas missions have of their countries and the quality of the connections. These are the people who feed back information to the Foreign Office and one of the jobs of the Foreign Secretary is backing the right horse in a conflict like this
You clearly are unaware of much of the consequences of UK foreign policy since the end of World War 2. From the British backed overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran, to the financing and arming of Osama bin Laden.
.
I don't think that William Hague is an idiot. But unfortunately for him, he actually has to make decisions which carry heavy consequences, rather than just consequence-free ranting on forums about how stupid everyone but us are.
That Tony Blair was a clever man, who thought he knew better than everyone else, and he ended up puting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Dozens die everyday now, but we mostly ignore the embarrassing mess that we left there.
I don't think he's an idiot. I think our foreign policy is deeply cynical though, and he is an instrument of that.
Re: the OP... Goes without saying IMHO.
Re: the rest of the discussion, its about influence in the region and energy resources. Assad is pro Russian, whereas the Saudis are pro US kind of thing, so its actually a whole hullabaloo about scant resources. Ever so easy to get all chintzy about the innoncents being slaughtered, but I wouldn't mind betting that a good few subscribers to this thread would turn a complete blind eye, if by supporting one side to muller the other, your annual energy bill were to stop going up.
I wouldn't mind betting that a good few subscribers to this thread would turn a complete blind eye, if by supporting one side to muller the other, your annual energy bill were to stop going up.
That's quite an insult to suggest that some people on this thread care so much about energy bills that they wouldn't be bothered about innocent people being slaughtered if stopped them going up - which of course it wouldn't.
Care to name who you think these people might be ?
but I wouldn't mind betting that a good few subscribers to this thread would turn a complete blind eye, if by supporting one side to muller the other, your annual energy bill were to stop going up.
Whilst I dont agree with all the posters on here it is pretty low to suggest anyone would tolerate death and murder to simply achieve a lower energy bill.
I dont want anyone to die so i can save a tenner tbh and i doubt anyone on here does right or left
Care to name who you think these people might be ?
I'd wager every single person who moans about high fuel prices. As long as those dying were swarthy foreigners who follow a brutal and twisted ideology which is a threat to our freedom, then what's the problem? As long as the killing is kept out of sight and mind, then it doesn't matter.
Care to name who you think these people might be ?
Nope, I'm not about to get pulled into a debate about a specific point in a general argument.
However, what I will say is that the simple fact is that everyday all of us in the West benefit very directly from the projection of power, diplomatic, financial, or military onto those less powerful than ourselves. Pretending to get into your high chair over it really is a bit wet. There are no end of ways to combat that situation, but the truth of it is most of us, myself included don't bother, and even those that do, don't bother nearly enough to be taken seriously.
It would be naive to ignore the fact that most areas of policy (domestic and foreign) involve elements of compromise and few areas lend themselves to "clean outcomes." Foreign policy is particularly complex as there are the complexities of the country/countries involved plus the wider geo-political contexts which become particularly cloudy. In many cases, the results become a choice between the better of two evils rather than a perfect, categorical solution.
As I said earlier, there is likely to be considerable unknowns in this case especially the nature of the (hidden) agreements that will exist between US/Russia for example. Even if they appear to be on different sides they will be communicating directly with each other. That is why, IMO part of the UK/French stance is driven indirectly by the desire to force Assad to the Geneva talks.
The death idea may be OTT, but the basic (less extreme) idea behind it may still be valid. We routinely ignore abuses of human rights, unethical policy stances etc across all aspects of our lives. The world is a messy place and for all the moral arguments routinely put forward (fairtrade, tax etc) most are still happy to buy support retailers who abuse both, hence the apparent success of the companies involved.
But on the death idea - there is a constant, equally messy choice. Accept human suffering and death when it is "none of our business" (?) or make it our business. Both involve compromises, surely?
Preventative measures from Russia;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22688894
I wonder if the Hinds will follow?
There seems to be little mention of the activities of Iran in this, they look to be involved also. I would not like to be one of the government ministers from any country who has to find a way through this lot with all the various interests. What at least seems to be right at the moment (from my blinkered western media fed view) is for Assad to step down, get then get some sort of negotiated new government in place. It may take the threat of more weapons for the rebels for Assads side to see that it's now un-winable(is that a word) for them but that is a gamble that all sides understand and I reckon UK/France/USA may have there bluff called on this. Whatever happens there is going to be a lot more horrific incidents and many more dead people.
Assad is pro Russian, whereas the Saudis are pro US kind of thing, so its actually a whole hullabaloo about scant resources.
How do you square that with the fact Syrian oil production is insignificant on a global scale and was (pre-crisis) estimated to hit zero net exports by the end of the decade? Your analysis is too reductive.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2013/may/28/eu-lifts-arms-embargo-on-syrian-rebels-live-updates ]Seems Russia is pro-Assad too...[/url]
How do you square that with the fact Syrian oil production is insignificant on a global scale and was (pre-crisis) estimated to hit zero net exports by the end of the decade? Your analysis is too reductive.
READ!
[u]its about influence in the region[/u] and energy resources
johnhe - MemberI don't think that William Hague is an idiot. But unfortunately for him, he actually has to make decisions which carry heavy consequences, rather than just consequence-free ranting on forums about how stupid everyone but us are.
The illogical/irrational decision is not difficult to avoid if he wants to but since he is in a position of power he should consider the matter thoroughly without jumping to conclusion so soon. What's the hurry anyway?
As Mr Hague is now the "Dear Leader" his action can be interpreted as:
1. Reckless disregards of the future consequences for us. i.e. we may now be a fair target for another group of people because we got involved.
2. Taking side when there is no such need to. i.e. UK could actually become the mediator (together with Russia etc) rather than taking side. (yes, I know the Russian wants to control oil etc ...)
3. Being hypocrite - probably related to point 2 ... before the internal conflict the UK was seen singing the song of praise for the regime, but turn her back immediately when there is a slight hint of change in the air. A bit like grab whatever is there first by being in there first.
4. Arming the opposition will only prolong the consequences because other superpowers will be dragged in to support the other side.
5. Whatever you can think of ... such as arming the rebels means weapons falling into wrong hands that inevitable be used against us again ...
6. Being nosey ... yes, I know everyone is staking a claim on whatever resources there is but the action makes us feel like beggars rushing into bits and pieces ...
There you go some reasons to see things different from Dear Leader wannabe ...
🙄
Jeez, when you look at all the players in this, Assad, Iran, Saudi, Russia, US, Hezbollah, Israel, AQ, it's nigh on impossible to see anyone on the moral high ground, let alone anyone worth giving weapons to.
I feel really sorry for all the normal innocent Syrians who just want to get on with their lives. 🙁
Israel's defence minister signals that its military is prepared to strike shipments of advanced Russian weapons to Syria
Ace.
