Just watching the news viewing the disgraceful backing of the war by the UK, USA and Russia, if it makes us richer I would understand even if I disagree. Even if you forget all the women and children those poor blokes running around rubble with AK47’s for sweet **** all. That amazing feeling during last years olympics is a long time ago.

Im sure some people will get rich out of it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters

Oh well at least there is a reason. Apologies for the depressing friday night topic, I just watched some young guy on tv on the floor frothing at the mouth.

It won’t be me getting rich.

In the long term, it is bound to make us as a nation richer… slowly but surely the western alliance is working towards sufficient power in the region to re-take Iran.

It will make us considerably poorer. War is an expensive business, & we pay the US for a huge proportion of our supplies.

disgraceful backing of the war by the UK, USA and Russia

I’m genuinely not trolling or anything but out of interest, what do you suggest we do? Stand by and watch?

Aren’t the Russians warning us to stay out of it?

yes just what we need a quick overseas war….

piemonster – Member
It won’t be me getting rich.
POSTED 58 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

but it might be keeping me in a job

Stand by and watch?

Yep. That’s exactly what we should do. I take it you were in favour of the Iraq invasion?

The first or second invasion?

I used to think I was on the side of the rebels (and i’m sure that thought cheered them up 😕 ) but now I feel the whole thing is so complex that there are no good guys, just lots of different shades of bad guys.

Pretty sure the US and the UK are on one side, and the damn Ruskies are on the other. Just don’t ask me who the good guys are

I used to think I was on the side of the rebels (and i’m sure that thought cheered them up ) but now I feel the whole thing is so complex that there are no good guys, just lots of different shades of bad guys.

This. The whole thing is a total mess. No idea how to fix it, but I’m pretty sure military intervention isn’t the way.

I’m genuinely not trolling or anything but out of interest, what do you suggest we do? Stand by and watch?

Yes. Absolutely, yes. This whole issue is one of tribal sectarianism, Shia v Sunni, the extreme sides of which are implacable enemies, each considering the other to be heretics, and, as such, should be put to death. Getting involved will only result in whichever side loses turning their hatred on the West. Has Afghanistan taught you nothing?
Bloody hell, we got thrashed when the British Army went in there a century or so ago, the Russians failed to learn the lessons of that fiasco, as did the Americans, giving guns to the Taliban, who gleefully accepted them to drive out the Russians, only to turn them on the Americans when the Yanks found the Taliban weren’t going to be all nice and civilised and drag their country into the 20th Century the way the Americans wanted. They’ll use the West to gain some sort of advantage over Assad, only to then try to turn Syria into an Islamist state. Look at what’s happening in Turkey.

Count Zero +1

I’m with count zero. I don’t really understand it all, but I sure as hell don’t want British lives to be lost due to it. Is it another oil thing?

It relates to oil… the petrodollar:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P02vjiEZyUs[/video]

Look at the map and you’ll see, in addition to other benefits, like a game of RISK, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were a means of flanking Iran… Russia and China’s support for Syria and Iran is in part to try and break the dominance of the dollar, which weighs the world economy in the favour of the U.S.

Here comes demoncracy hiding behind the humanitarian mask.

A young nation trying to teach the older nations a lesson in civilization. I hope this time Russian and China stick to their guns and teach everyone a lesson in minding their own business.

The world should NOT be monopolised by one single superpower but to be balanced by counter superpowers. This will keep everyone in check. Other nations should be able to govern themselves without the influence of USA.

I really do not want the life style of 90210. I mean how long can you be seen semi-naked in your entire life? Surely the elasticity is going to give at some point?

My view is that all of them are maggots (on both sides) but the good news is that they are soon going to cancel each other out naturally via chemical, biological and nuclear weapons I hope.

The world population is going to grow to 9 billion not far in the future and I suppose long pig will soon be on the restaurants menus once we have exhausted all that we can consume. No. Oh no. Technology in mass production is not going to help because we are greedy pigs. No again. No GM food technology is going to help either because it be controlled by the few with guns and ammo. The rest consume long pigs.

Oh ya … it will be United State of Mexico … Spanish will be the spoken language.

You see the developed nations will become, if not already, the largest parasites on this planet by exerting their domination on all that oppose them.

🙄

Russia in particular doesn’t want the instability spreading any more than it already has, look at the issues it had/has with Chechnya; how many hot-spots like Afghanistan have Chechen Islamists fighting there. Look at how many former Soviet satellite states end with -stan, they’re all possible Islamist targets. Turkey’s current government has an increasingly Islamist agenda, taking it away from being a secular state, hence the protests going on there.
If the US wants to start throwing its weight around in that part of the world, we should let it, stop trying to be the world’s social firefighter, jumping into every flashpoint and trying to douse the flames. It will, inevitably, end in tears. Many tears.

In the words of Gil Scott Heron:

The Military and the Monetary, they get together when they think it’s necessary

@ Wrecker and CountZero: I genuinely wasn’t trolling and I’m not absolutely clear where I stand myself on if outside nations should intervene. What I do know is that to go in (and I would be one of those ‘going in’) would be absolutely horrendous, far more challenging than the invasion of Iraq and would probably result in far greater loss of life. However, call me naive if you want but the fact that there is such a massive loss of civilian life means that I think there’s a moral obligation not to just “stand by and watch” like you suggest.

A while back whilst in training, I did a little research into a concept called ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and came to the conclusion that at times there is a moral and ethical responsibility felt by states to protect the vulnerable. Maybe sometimes, states intervene not just for political gain but because they feel morally obliged to do so. Just a thought….

However, call me naive if you want but the fact that there is such a massive loss of civilian life means that I think there’s a moral obligation not to just “stand by and watch” like you suggest.

Not “stand by and watch” and get stuck in ourselves ?

.

…. far more challenging than the invasion of Iraq and would probably result in far greater loss of life

The loss of life resulting from our little adventure in Iraq hasn’t stopped – people are still dying everyday there. Only our news providers no longer deem it very important.

God knows who are the good guys and who are the bad guys as there now just seem to be so many factions. However something has to be done. Personably I think the other Arab / Muslim countries need a kick up the arse and told to sort it out. It’s not like we don’t sell them enough arms. Why is it up to the west to intervene. If there was a another war in Europe is it not up to the European neighbours to try and sort things out. Then again as major international country if we like it or not we have to go something.

Personably I think the other Arab / Muslim countries need a kick up the arse and told to sort it out.

They are. Saudi Arabia, that totalitarian state which despises democracy so much, and which the US and the UK likes and supports so much, is doing what it can to help the Al-Qaeda backed rebels in Syria.

Qatar, an absolute monarchy ruled under sharia law, is also doing a great deal to support the rebels.

@ernie_lynch: I never said we should get stuck in ourselves as in put British boots on the ground. There are other options that should be explored first; I think that’s what the Govt has been trying to do. However, all that seems to do is attract criticism. Therefore, the preferred option by those who criticise is to literally just stand by and watch whilst civilians get slaughtered. And personally, standing by and deliberately doing nothing is morally inexcusable.

As for the comparison to the loss of life when we went into Iraq, I was referring just to casualties suffered by friendly forces (and before anyone snaps at me for not referring to the continued civilian death toll in Iraq, I am more than aware that it’s ongoing).

chewkw – Member
I hope this time Russian and China stick to their guns and teach everyone a lesson in minding their own business.

Could just be me, but how does that work? People are either meddling in others business or they are not. In this scenario, Russia, China and US are all doing the same thing, surely? Where is the unilateral bit?

Other nations should be able to govern themselves without the unrequested influence of USA, Russia, China, UK etc.

Isn’t that better?

teamhurtmore – Member

Could just be me, but how does that work? People are either meddling in others business or they are not. In this scenario, Russia, China and US are all doing the same thing, surely? Where is the unilateral bit?

They were all supposed to stay out but somehow someone started to intervene first and then that snowballed into sucking everyone in. You can debate about who started first until the cows come back but it is a waste of time.

So I hope now they really meant what they said so as to balance each other out. Either everyone chip in with their massive fire power by proxy war or everyone stays out. Simple.

But if they all want to engage then they might as well make sure it is absolute war to the death and the mother of all wars I mean no rules whatsoever i.e. biological, chemical or nuclear etc. Total wipe out is the rule. Winner(s) take all.

Isn’t that better?

Yes. One word might change the meaning but the main idea is mind own business … ” … without the unrequested influence …”.

But West being West and history taught us that they want to shape the world in their own images by labeling others as “savages” or “barbarians” … bloody pen pushers created this term long ago …

🙄

This video provides some compelling points, lets hope it doesn’t escalate, but it pays to be aware:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZK5gRLJ9h0[/video]

Precise please 😉

Though there may be some question if the sources of the email that forms the basis for this article is reliable, considering a senior member of a UN commission of inquiry also echos these claims, it seems to hold gravity:

US Backed Plan for Chemical Weapon Attack in Syria to Be Blamed on Assad:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/deleted-daily-mail-online-article-us-backed-plan-for-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria-to-be-blamed-on-assad/5339178

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

With Russia firmly backing Assad and Putin’s past examples of playing very hardball I can only see arming the opposition with more sophisticated weapons leading to an escalation of the crisis.

With Russia firmly backing Assad ….

It’s worth remembering that is a fairly recent development, previously Russian backing has been very far from “firm”.

Putin Puts More Distance Between Russia and Assad

“we aren’t a defender of the current Syrian leadership” and said Moscow wants “a democratic regime in Syria based on the expression of the people’s will.”

The Russian position has shifted as it has become clearer what the opposition to Assad actually comprises of.

Even Boris Johnson has broken rank with his own party this weekend claiming “We can’t use Syria as an arena for geopolitical point-scoring or muscle-flexing, and we won’t get a ceasefire by pressing weapons into the hands of maniacs.”

And I’m sure that it is this harsh reality which explains some of the support that Assad undoubtedly enjoys in Syria – for all his faults living under the Jihadists must be a considerably less attractive option.

The UK and US governments however still desperately cling to this deeply flawed and ridiculous logic that opposition to Assad can’t be worse than Assad, whilst ignoring all the evidence which suggests otherwise.

I an getting more convinced that the UK and US governments position is becoming like the Israeli one. Israeli prefers Assad to the Al-Qaeda backed rebels but is just pleased to see both sides killing each other. Certainly the UK and US governments appear to be doing what they can to prolong the conflict.

However something has to be done.

Why? Why should we be under any obligation to do anything at all? Its their civil war. Seems like there are quite enough people getting their oars in already. Just let them get on with it.

And supply some humanitarian aid for the refugees

If you think the situation is bad at the moment, then what do you think Israel is going to do if the rebels/islamist nut-jobs look like getting their hands on Assads huge Russian supplied arsenal?

As far as I can see there are only two positions that are morally defensible.

1. Zero intervention beyond humanitarian aid – Its Syria’s civil war after all so lets just stay out of it.
2. Direct intervention – If Assad’s regime is evil and needs to be removed then we pick a side and actively intervene – boots on the ground.

Option 2 would be an absolute disaster. Our recent adventure in Libya doesn’t bear comparison – Syria has a much better equipped military and doesn’t have a handy coastline to park an aircraft carrier off of. Direct intervention would also likely widen the conflict to Lebanon and Iran.

So that leaves us Option 1

A halfway house of supplying arms to rebels is a horrible compromise. It solves nothing and just creates a level killing field. Given that Saudi and Qatar seem keen on supplying arms anyway why does the West even want to be involved? Is it a purely political ploy to spite Russia? The Russians won’t want to appear soft and will just supply more sophisticated weapons to the Syrians. Escalation of the conflict will become more and more likely.

It looks like a game of realpolitk being played out with the lives of Syrians. We should have no part in it

It’s not just the russians they want to spite. It’s the Iranians. Iran is not currently on Mericas christmas card list.

a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against the largely Sunni rebellion

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html

Looks like Iran is not keen on option 1.

It’s a disaster.

Whatever might be said about Assad – most of it probably justified – Syria has been a commendably secular society for centuries, tolerating Sunni, Druze, Maronite Christians and numerous other denominations.

I can’t see any of it ending well.

Getting rid of dictators that we happen not to like worked really, really well in Iraq.

two positions that are morally defensible.

1. Zero intervention beyond humanitarian aid – Its Syria’s civil war after all so lets just stay out of it.
2. Direct intervention – If Assad’s regime is evil and needs to be removed then we pick a side and actively intervene – boots on the ground.

What so only do nothing or invade are moral?

As Hague said on Radio 4[ and I actually agreed] it is a civil war and it needs a political solution. in order for that to happen and for there to be peace you need people alive on the opposition to do the peace or you will be left with extremists on both side – assad and al quaeda..picking a side then may be slightly more tricky

I think trying to maintain the status quo is a bit odd tbh but i can see why they dont want to do nothing and they realise that ground troops is never going to happen and would likely provoke Russia hence they only have this option [ or nothing]

And I’m sure that it is this harsh reality which explains some of the support that Assad undoubtedly enjoys in Syria – for all his faults living under the Jihadists must be a considerably less attractive option.

Not all the opposition are Jihadists* , it is not even close tbh so it is a distortion to the point of not true to say the choice is either assad or jihadists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218

* they are a rag tag bunch for sure and they do have some jihadists amongst them obviosly and they may fight afterwards as well for this but it is nto a war between jihadists and assad though both are fighting

Binners it is a hard choice tbh whether to stand buy and do nothing or intervene and make it worse

the givt is really between a rock and a hard place and neither option is that great tbh