William Hague is an idiot
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?Posted 4 years agowreckerMember
Preventative measures from Russia;
I wonder if the Hinds will follow?Posted 4 years agomtMember
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.Posted 4 years agokonabunnyMember
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.Posted 4 years agoBerm BanditMember
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.
its about influence in the region and energy resourceschewkwMember
johnhe – Member
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.
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 …
🙄Posted 4 years agoBazzMember
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. 🙁Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘William Hague is an idiot’ is closed to new replies.