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.

Which has nothing at all to do with Saudi Arabia.

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.

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’:

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’:

Where did I say it was?

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

no. Nor that other countries do so

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 could 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.

Germany 1945? Japan 1945? OK, so they dabbled outside their borders and were punished for it. But example is that it took massive overpowerment, and a very well thought out post war plan to ensure that the countries did not descend into chaos, something that was badly lacking in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya was an arms length intervention. Plus there was a vertually united world behind it.

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 ruler 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.

All quite different though (I know; I went to all of these places) as is Saudi Arabia. FYR was a bunch of countries/religions/cultures forced together. SL was just **** carnage, and something I hope never repeated (also not a UN or NATO tasking). All of these situations are so different that comparisons are futile IMHO.

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?