Off To War ?

icebreaker

icebreaker

At the Start
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,957
Again?

The rhetoric has been pumped up considerably in the past 24 hours.
Obama states that chemical weapons have been used -- Hague agrees. (Shades of WMD's and Iraq in my opinion)..

So the first phase will be a no-fly enforcement apparently, and the supply of weaponry and "expert advice" to the Syrian rebels. Lovely. Mission Creep will surely develop with boots-on-the-ground eventually.
And all to support what is frankly an Al Qaeda franchise masquerading as freedom fighters and to underpin Sunni expansionism in the region. Not a thought for the Alawites, Christians and majority Shia's in the country who wish the Assad regime to continue. And it seems to me that the rebels are not averse to carrying out the odd massacre themselves.

I wonder how the citizens of the USA, UK and France feel about the upcoming involvement of their governments and armed forces in this conflict?
How do you feel about it?
 
Assad is a butcher and so was his father. They where just our (the west) butchers. There are elements of Al Q involved but there is a majority of people who are genuinely fighting for their own freedom. We won't see foreign troops in Syria.
 
That's the reason The Russians support the Assads.(or one of them) They where none to happy with the intervention in Libya which has made them more determined to defend their interests in Syria.
 
Last edited:
I don't see what entitlement the USA or the UK has to interfere in the internal affairs of Syria. We live in the post-imperialist era.
The past decade has seen similar interventions in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Afghanistan, none of which, it can be argued, are any better off now than they were previously.
 
We had "no right" to intervene in bosnia kosovo sierra leone or many other hell holes. The americans had "no right" to intervene in ww2 either

And when did we invade egypt ? What you on about ?
 
Thats not certain by any means walworth. Scum like joe kennedy supported the nazis of course and there were plenty of isolationists but it wasnt cut and dried. Having said that it really shouldnt have taken pearl harbour
 
clivex said:
We had "no right" to intervene in bosnia kosovo sierra leone or many other hell holes. The americans had "no right" to intervene in ww2 either

And when did we invade egypt ? What you on about ?
Click to expand...


Where does this perpetual itch to meddle in other peoples' affairs come from? No state has a right, legal or moral, to intervene unilaterally anywhere outside its own borders.
 
So if "other peoples affairs" include genocide death camps and human abuses on a grand scale then just stand asuide ? Not for me. You have to stand for something in life. Neutrality is often vacuous morality

And afganistan was a clear and very direct threat
 
No, in the end they didn't have much choice and one of the world's other great powers of the time was acting out of line at the time.

But I see no excuse for anyone to be even thinking about marching into Syria.
 
clivex said:
So if "other peoples affairs" include genocide death camps and human abuses on a grand scale then just stand asuide ?
Click to expand...
'Tis a pity the same concern doesn't exist for human abuses in countries of no strategic or economic interest, or countries which are west-leaning in their political agenda.
On the other hand, a country such is Syria is fair game, it seems. Government agitprop is already in overdrive in using dubious "evidence" to swing public opinion in favour of intervention. There is no mention of course of the inherent dangers of becoming embroiled in an unholy mess for years to come at a cost of British soldiers lives and British financial resources.
The problem is this; Syria is a member of the U.N., a legitimate sovereign entity of a country. Intrusion into its internal affairs is wrong on every level. Let alone the sheer insanity of supplying weapons to a rebel force comprised largely of Al Qaeda jihadists.
 
clivex said:
So if "other peoples affairs" include genocide death camps and human abuses on a grand scale then just stand asuide ? Not for me. You have to stand for something in life. Neutrality is often vacuous morality
Click to expand...

You can't honestly think that's what motivates these so called interventions.
 
Icebreaker. Kosovo was hardly any of those nor Sierra Leone. Too often the cynicism is overdone and too much is said by those who don't really understand all human motives. Often it's just a matter of doing the right thing because you can.

Unfortunately what you are suggesting reminds me of a repulsive piece in the guardian that was tweeted around. It labeled the USAs hurricane relief effort in Haiti as and invasion and imperialism. Yes. Really
 
Last edited:
Not the answer grey. Evasive frankly. If you do not believe that countries should not operate militarily except in self defence then you cannot also have agreed with the USA,s liberation of Europe. Or even Britain taking any action to hold back the nazi tide from beyond our shores
 
What's the problem grey? Yugoslavia and some interventions in Africa were precisely that

As for the others, been there too often but afganistan was clear self defence for the west. There was no option there. Libya was arguably stopping greater human catastrophic and Mali was simply turning back a force that would have brought about oppression on a frightening scale.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Icebreaker. Kosovo was hardly any of those nor Sierra Leone. Often it's just a matter of doing the right thing because you can.
Click to expand...
Clive, imperialist capitalism has never done the right thing out of altruistic motives. It engages in foreign adventures for power, wealth, and influence only. (Occasionally it will try to fool its followers with the insultingly patronising line that it intervenes in another country's affairs to "save the natives from themselves").

Kosvo == geopolitically and strategically important following the break-up of the old Yugoslavia.
Sierra Leone == Diamond mines, and major producer of titanium and gold.
 
The bombing of Yugoslavia certainly was not a positive intervention.

Generally speaking when outside military powers wade into these situations, even when doing it with good intentions, they do so thinking they know it all and very soon become part of the problem rather than the solution.
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
'Tis a pity the same concern doesn't exist for human abuses in countries of no strategic or economic interest, or countries which are west-leaning in their political agenda.
On the other hand, a country such is Syria is fair game, it seems. Government agitprop is already in overdrive in using dubious "evidence" to swing public opinion in favour of intervention. There is no mention of course of the inherent dangers of becoming embroiled in an unholy mess for years to come at a cost of British soldiers lives and British financial resources.
The problem is this; Syria is a member of the U.N., a legitimate sovereign entity of a country. Intrusion into its internal affairs is wrong on every level. Let alone the sheer insanity of supplying weapons to a rebel force comprised largely of Al Qaeda jihadists.
Click to expand...


It's the real world though isn't it? Strategic and economic interests will play a part of course but my point is, not always

The rebel force is certainly not largely aq.. That's a fact.. Far from it and aq is very unlikely ever impose its will on a population which is in Islamic terms a long way from the fundamentalist world view. The calculation, which was buggered up in Iraq, is how quickly this can be achieved and that's also a big risk of course

Would you have been against "intrusion" in Iraq if saddam had carried on with his seeming intention of eradicating the Kurds?
 
clivex said:
It labeled the USAs hurricane relief effort in Haiti as and invasion and imperialism. Yes. Really
Click to expand...
Off-topic, but here's a little yarn that in a way illustrates the cynical relationship between corporate self-interest on one hand and corporate image-building PR on the other.

I should be careful what I say because the individual at the centre is well-known for his litiginous inclinations.
Anyway, there is a billionaire fella in Ireland who won the mobile phone licence in dubious circumstances ( verified by the subsequent Moriarty tribunal -- payments were made to a government minister to secure the licence).
This same individual is also the owner of the largest mobile phone company in Haiti -- Digicel.

A charitable organisation -- Haven -- was set up in the aftermath of the Haiti hurricane disaster. This Haven organisation is large, has it's own website and large profile. The chairman of Haven is Leslie Buckley -- the vice chairman of Digicel.
Haven has been lauded by Bill Clinton and many others. Digicel in Haiti has contributed millions to the coffers of the individual outlined at the beginning of this post. At the same time, millions have been donated to the Haven funds by the general public.

So there you have it; capitalism gives a little (in this instance at no cost to itself), and receives much in return in terms of business and influence.
 
That's bollocks icebreaker. Student bedsit rubbish and frankly no conception of trade and economics

You think that diamonds from Sierra Leone are essential to the west? Come off it. And you think that whatever vile regime that took control would simply refuse to trade in its biggest currency earner?

Come off it

Kosovo vital to what? You are kidding aren't you? As a buffer between Serbia and its intended invasion of Italy or something?

Western states could simply sit on their hands and let any dictator do what they want and often they do. But trading and backing a country such as Sudan and its racist genocide would perhaps be crossing the line. Ask non western china. Or perhaps not eh?
 
Back
Top