[Closed] Syria - Nice friends they have

IIRC (which I probably haven't), the resolution also called for democracy to be introduced.
So in fairness, it would have been pretty hypocritical for many of the above to have voted yes.
Just keeping their integrity 🙂

Had NATO not abused the UN resolution on Libya and used it as a carte blance for regime change there may have been a different outcome on the Syrian issue. As it is Syrians are paying the price for NATO's aggrandisment.

Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Zhai Jun, who will go to Damascus on Friday, condemned violence against civilians and called for the government to respect the people's "legitimate" desire for reform.

They have changed their tune a little?

But presumably this is also about regime change? Otherwise why demand that Assad step aside as part of the resolution?

As it is Syrians are paying the price for NATO's aggrandisment.

Right-oh. Our fault again.

In other words you agree that Assad and the Ba'ath party should cut out the violence and step down yes?

ohnohesback - Member

Had NATO not abused the UN resolution on Libya and used it as a carte blance for regime change there may have been a different outcome on the Syrian issue. As it is Syrians are paying the price for NATO's aggrandisment.

This

ohnohesback - Member
Had NATO not abused the UN resolution on Libya and used it as a carte blance for regime change there may have been a different outcome on the Syrian issue. As it is Syrians are paying the price for NATO's aggrandisment.

Think the Libyan Opposition were the ones wanting regime change.... NATO just helped. Anyway Syria is a different kettle of fish. the $4bn arms contracts with Russia will keep the ruskies in with Syria.

There was no single "Libyan opposition" - the country is now split into fiefdoms where militas run free killing and torturing.

Quite reasonable to say "Nato breached the resolution on Libya and ruined [i]another[/i] country - veto this one"

Who do you think prompted the 'opposition' to act both in Libya and Syria?

War by other means...

Meanwhile, in other news...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gOko0kt14mIk2AN-NCCz9ce4Hapg?docId=CNG.8b32ad461489ab05113fc900b5f26049.8a1

Quite reasonable to say "Nato breached the resolution on Libya and ruined another country - veto this one"

Uhuh.
Or they could say "This is a terrible situation, rather than let Nato do the dirty work, we'll demonstrate how it should be done correctly."
Well they could say that if it wasn't against their vested interests.

I suspect that much of the reason that this vote has failed is that the USA doesn't really give a monkeys about the place at the moment, and as such hasn't been applying the normal inducements to other countries to try and get them to comply.

Yes, we should just let Assad clean its back yard instead of ensuring regime chance (maybe we should have let Gadaffi quash the Libyan uprising too?) . He can't be that bad can he? he's just swatting pesky "terrorists" after all.

Such a good job we did with libya. No one died, smooth transition to democracy, stable government 🙄

Many thousands killed and the fighting and killing is still going on with detention without trial, torture and extra judical killings rife

Civil wars are quite mucky TJ, not very many have a peaceful outcome. There is no ideal resolution.

yes but there would have been no civil war if we had not intervened - we armed the militas, ecourged them and gave them air support and intel.

Do you really think Libya is a better place now?

(Reuters) - Rival militias fought a gunbattle near office buildings and a five-star hotel in the centre of the Libyan capital on Wednesday, underscoring how volatile the country still is three months on from Muammar Gaddafi's death.

A damning report by Amnesty International says that a year after the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, Libya's militias are "largely out of control", with the use of torture ubiquitous and the country's new rulers unable – or unwilling – to prevent abuses.

The report says that the "hundreds of armed militias" that took part in the overthrow of Gaddafi's regime continue to operate more or less independently of the central authorities. Since the fall of Tripoli last August, the militias have failed to disband – and now pose a serious threat to a democratic Libya.

Additionally, there is overwhelming evidence that Libya's victorious militias use torture. Thousands of detainees are being held in various prisons across the country. In at least 12 cases since October, prisoners have been tortured to death, including Omar Brebesh, Libya's former ambassador to France, who died in Tripoli last month.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/16/amnesty-widespread-torture-libyan-militias?newsfeed=true

Fair comments TJ and I'm in complete agreement. There is also a point to be made that people were going to die in Libya whether NATO got involved or not as they are in Syria currently. There was already civil war in Libya, before NATO got there.

detention without trial, torture and extra judical killings rife

I think we intervened after it kicked off. Anyway are you suggesting that the Libyans were better off under Ghadaffi? I am sure there were plenty of abuses and deaths under his regime.

There was no civil war in Libya before nato got there - the was small lightly armed uprising in one area that we encouraced and nursed into a full blown civil war.

Its a damn sight worse now than before. Same as Iraq.

How many more people have to die and how many more people radicalised against he west before we stop? The death toll from western military intervention in the middle east is millions and not one single country that we interfered in is better off now than before.

We backed a side for the sole reason that it wasn't Gadaffi. That's no way to choose someone to start selling weapons to/providing massive air support for (as British Foreign policy of the past 60 years should show!)

How many resolutions against Israel has the US vetoed by themselves?

And I agree with:

If given an inch you take 500 miles, you should not be surprised when in future nobody will give you half an inch. That is the context of Russian and Chinese veto of any UNSCR authorising action against Syria. The total disregard for the spirit and precise wording of the resolutions on Libya to which Russia and China agreed, has stymied the chances of future united security council action, perhaps for many years.

[url= http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/02/know-your-limits-syria/ ]Craig Murray[/url]

Sometimes things get worse before they get better...

There was no civil war in Libya before nato got there - the was small lightly armed uprising in one area that we encouraced and nursed into a full blown civil war.

I don't think so, I was under the impression that there was full on rebellion under way before the UN first admonished Gadaffi.

If there had been no intervention, and the rebellion had been crushed, what do you think the death toll under Gadaffi's reprisals would have looked like.
While the current situation is not ideal, at least Gadaffi is gone, and there is a chance of change.

TandemJeremy - Member
There was no civil war in Libya before nato got there - the was small lightly armed uprising in one area that we encouraced and nursed into a full blown civil war.

Its a damn sight worse now than before. Same as Iraq.

How many more people have to die and how many more people radicalised against he west before we stop? The death toll from western military intervention in the middle east is millions and not one single country that we interfered in is better off now than before.

The uprising may or may not have spread without help, but it would have led to terrible bloodshed. If we had done nothing there is a very good chance it would be worse still than it is now, maybe not.

Millions in the Middle East? More like tens/hundreds of millions - We have been at it since the Romans, the Crusaders. It is a rather entrenched and volitile place, always has been, probably always will be. Rights and wrongs done on both sides. Very hard to get solution, without some very fprward thinking peopel, even then far too many with entrenched views to allow compromise. Very sad.

The uprising may or may not have spread without help, but it would have led to terrible bloodshed. If we had done nothing there is a very good chance it would be worse still than it is now, maybe not.

Which is why the resolution was passed to protect civillians. Not to provide air support for rebel advances.

Which is why the resolution was passed to protect civillians. Not to provide air support for rebel advances.

I think we intervened after it kicked off. Anyway are you suggesting that the Libyans were better off under Ghadaffi? I am sure there were plenty of abuses and deaths under his regime.

Can we be sure that the Libyans are better off now? I'm far from convinced...

Given the breakdown in civil society, the absence of any rule of law, the destriuction of infrastructure and the continuing civil was with torture and murder by the militas I am certain not.

What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

wrecker - Member

"Which is why the resolution was passed to protect civillians. Not to provide air support for rebel advances."

Rebel is one word, many others are available. Che was called a rebel by many.
So, we're anti rebel and pro Assad then?
It's right that Syria can clean house without reprisal?

Che 😆

No I'm not on anyone's side. Do you know who the Free Syrian Army are funded/backed by?

ransos - Member

I think we intervened after it kicked off. Anyway are you suggesting that the Libyans were better off under Ghadaffi? I am sure there were plenty of abuses and deaths under his regime.

Can we be sure that the Libyans are better off now? I'm far from convinced...

I am far from convinced as well. The rebels/Freedom Fighters/Terrorists started it, where would it have gone without NATO help, I don't think anyone can answer that. Those that were oppressed are better off, but now they are doing the opressing. Better before or after? I don't know, but there is plenty of room for improvement.

Also from the Guardian.

[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/25/libya-not-divided-country [/url]

The great thing about comment for free is they'll invariably be an article to support a particular personal outlook 🙂

Che

What if we had an uprising against the govt here? Would you like someone to intervene or feel it acceptable for the Army to come out and start brassing everyone up?

If we had an uprising would it be right for Russia to blow up the UK airforce and to arm the rebels? say the IRA?

wrecker - Member

Che

Are you denying that? Some consider him a terrorist, some a hero. Same with the Free Syrian Army.

He was an identifiable figure with identifiable motives/goals. I was laughing at the spurious comparison.

identifiable motives/goals

Don't answer a question with a question TEEJ!

What are their motives then?

If we had an uprising would it be right for Russia to blow up the UK airforce and to arm the rebels? say the IRA?

You need a better straw man than that.

TandemJeremy - Member
If we had an uprising would it be right for Russia to blow up the UK airforce and to arm the rebels? say the [s]IRA[/s] [b]Scots[/b]?

Mmmmmm.... 🙂

Really?

Do you think this might have something to do with it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/13/syria-torture-evidence?CMP=twt_gu

So - we going to march into Saudi Arabia then? Great human rights record there

Why why why do you always avoid an debate by deflecting by using an irrelevant comparison. Want to talk about SA, start a new thread.

It is relevant though, if its about stopping abuse and torture, it should be the same for all nations, not just the ones that don't play footsie.

It's a thread about Syria!

MSP - Member

It is relevant though, if its about stopping abuse and torture, it should be the same for all nations, not just the ones that don't play footsie.

Its a thread about who voted for and against a UN resolution, and a discussion about the possible reasons behind the votes.

Its a thread about who voted for and against a UN resolution, and a discussion about the possible reasons behind the votes.

So - should we intervene in syria? No
Were those countries right to vote against the resolution? yes

Why?

1) 'cos we abused the UN resolution on libya to overthrow the governemnt and have ruined a country in doing so clearly cannot be trusted.
2) other countries - saudi Arabia for example have similar human rights records and we don't do anything there

wrecker - Member
Really?

Do you think this might have something to do with it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/13/syria-torture-evidence?CMP=twt_gu

It that what you think their motives are or what they have set out in some sort of manifesto or statement? Who's their leader?

MSP - Member
Its a thread about who voted for and against a UN resolution, and a discussion about the possible reasons behind the votes.

Quite. Russia have $$ reasons to back the Syrian Regime, all the rest have pretty despicable regimes also.

Well if its claimed the resolution is about human rights and torture, then highlighting how cosy a relationship those supporting the resolution have with a country with the appalling human rights and torture record of SA, then of course its relevant to highlight the political hypocrisy.

wallace1492 - Member

Russia have $$ reasons to back the Syrian Regime, all the rest have pretty despicable regimes also.

Whereas Saudi support for the resolution comes out of concern for the citizens of Syria and is in no way an attempt to destablise Iran's ally.

1) 'cos we abused the UN resolution on libya to overthrow the governemnt and have ruined a country in doing so clearly cannot be trusted.

I don't deny this at all, but is it fair that the Syrian people who are (undeniably) at the mercy of a pretty damn cruel regime pay for NATOs misbehavior?
Are you comfortable that the Syrian govt is killing it's civilian population?

relevant to highlight the political hypocrisy.

Why? This isn't a thread about political hypocracy.

So you only want the thread to cover points that agree with your own opinion?

We either take the view that we don't intervene, and stand by as despicable regimes abuse their people.

Or intervene where we can, and in the national interest, as after all we do not have the resources to intervene in all places, and some of them are far bigger/stronger than us.

By intervene, I mean with the backing of international support. After all not everone will agree what the outcome will be.

Without massive overwhelming power and a thought through post operation plan, anything that will be done will more than likely leave the country in a poor state - Iraq, Libya. And without having full international backing, any present day interventions will not have a fully sucessful outcome.

So lets stand idly by and do nowt....

So - should we intervene in syria? No
Were those countries right to vote against the resolution? yes

Why?

1) 'cos we abused the UN resolution on libya to overthrow the governemnt and have ruined a country in doing so clearly cannot be trusted.
2) other countries - saudi Arabia for example have similar human rights records and we don't do anything there

For clarity could you say whether those are you reasons why you would have vetoed the motion, or if you think those are the reasons the countries chose to veto the motion.

wrecker - Member
I don't deny this at all, but is it fair that the Syrian people who are (undeniably) at the mercy of a pretty damn cruel regime pay for NATOs misbehavior?

No, but was it fair the residents of Sirte who were on the end of NATO's 'misbehavior':

[img] [/img]

No just those on topic. There is no reason to diverge into why not X or Y country. Pretty much every country which veto'd the resolution has poor human rights records, an argument could be made to intervene in any of those. But this is about Syria, look at the thread title.

No, but was it fair the residents of Sirte who were on the end of NATO's 'misbehavior':

Are you comfortable that the Syrian govt is killing it's civilian population?

I know as sure as can be from previous experiences that anything we do to intervene will make the situation worse. Libya, Iraq. Afghanistan

For clarity could you say whether those are you reasons why you would have vetoed the motion, or if you think those are the reasons the countries chose to veto the motion.

Both

No just those on topic. There is no reason to diverge into why not X or Y country. Pretty much every country which veto'd the resolution has poor human rights records, an argument could be made to intervene in any of those. But this is about Syria, look at the thread title.

Ok can you just list what you feel is relevant to the politics behind the voting and what isn't, just so we can all confirm your beliefs.

Someone tries to stop the derailment/meandering of the thread and the dummy gets spat.

Teej; are we comfortable then, that not UN/NATO intervention [i]could[/i] effectively mean an end to revolutions?
Modern weaponry is so devastating that no group of civilians could hope to overthrow an effective military without some help.
Dictators and despots could certainly sleep safely if so.

not quite sure what yo mean wrecker. it seems from experience that any attempt to overthrow governments from the outside even with some internal support leads to endless civil war and fractured countries, there is no examples of intervention to overthrow a government that has internal support being successful.

Yugoslavia was differnt in that the government had collapsed and we went in to restore stability and even then it was disticntly mixed. Romania overthrew their government as it had no support left inside the country quickly and easily

gaddaffi still had significant internal support which is why it took so long ans such an amount of outside assistance.

so basically no - I think there is no chance of Western intervention in Syria improving the situation at all while the Government has the support of a significant amount of the population. Once it loses that support it will collapse

Tunisia.

it seems from experience that any attempt to overthrow governments from the outside even with some internal support leads to endless civil war and fractured countries, there is no examples of intervention to overthrow a government that has internal support being successful.

South Africa?

But apart from that agree that military intervention in Syria (and Libya, Iraq) is/was unsupportable (outside full UN resolutions). Although would find it more than a little hard to look a citizen of Homs, Bengazi, Sarajevo etc in the eye and say that.

not quite sure what yo mean wrecker. it seems from experience that any attempt to overthrow governments from the outside even with some internal support leads to endless civil war and fractured countries, there is no examples of intervention to overthrow a government that has internal support being successful.

I was more talking about the other way around; when the population want change but cannot do it without help.
Maybe the world will be more stable without uprisings?

Looks like we've just got to wait until the troops mop up the rebels then.

Someone tries to stop the derailment/meandering of the thread and the dummy gets spat.

Quite the opposite, your spitting your dummy out because you don't want to discuss any of the background politics that don't support your view of the events.

there is no examples of intervention to overthrow a government that has internal support being successful.

Civilisation sure has come a long way!

For TJ, no matter how hideous a government, no matter the brutality they mete out to their population there is never ever justification for outside (ie Western) intervention.

I seem to remember the Libyan rebels were the bad guys in TJs world, Gadaffi was unarguably the rightful [s]ruler[/s] owner of the country.

So sorry your side lost that one Jeremy.

For TJ, no matter how hideous a government, no matter the brutality they mete out to their population there is never ever justification for outside (ie Western) intervention.

I think it's more pragmatic than that: we shouldn't intervene unless we can be confident of achieving better outcomes for the population than they would have if we do nothing. As TJ points out, experience suggests that we're not doing too well.

To be fair, TJ has a good point.
It must be asked, if not for things like this what is the point of the UN and NATO?
If they can't be trusted to alleviate civil problems like this, are they fit for purpose?
What is being suggested is that we just mind our own business and let countries deal with their problems as they seem fit.

I know as sure as can be from previous experiences that anything we do to intervene will make the situation worse. Libya, Iraq. Afghanistan

I'm not sure if the situation is worse in any of those countries. I'm not sure it's any better on average either though, just different people abusing power.

Bosnia was a success. As was Kosovo. And Sierra Leone.

And I'm not actually advocating we get involved militarily in Syria, I think you have to be very careful about buying a good guy/bad guy storyline. The press love a simple narrative. I'm just glad our government said at the UN yesterday that Assad is a nasty sonofabitch, that's all.

Bosnia was a success. As was Kosovo. And Sierra Leone.

Yes all different and all examples of succesful liberal Western intervention.

to arm the rebels? say the IRA?

no they could just fund them for years like the Americans did

So who should stop all the killings of civilians? Just leave them be? and say pah, its Natos fault for the last time they tried to intervene?