Off To War ?

[icebreaker]

Honestly Clive, I really do believe that Britain's proposed involvement in Syria would be a mistake. From a purely selfish self-interest point-of-view.
The place is a hellish mishmash of tribal clans, Sunni-Shia sectarianism, multiple allegiances, civil war.
I fear British involvement will be at a cost in British lives. I hope I am wrong, sincerely.

 

[clivex]

I don't know the answer but suspect it has become too messy now. There is an argument that quick initial intervention by the west and Arab states to overthrow Assad would have maybe prevented the current situation but I can't call that

 

[Grey]

At the outset nobody even knew who the 'rebels' were, what they stood for, or even what they claimed they stood for. We still don't know much about any of them, and it seems they've been involved in a few atrocities of their own. Galumphing into Syria without this basic information would be completely foolish.

 

[Grasshopper]

'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.

Spot on.

We should deal less in moral outrage, and a little more in straightflorward practicalities.

Recent 'interventions' by the West, have left places in a worse overall state than they started. Political and/or religious oppression is just as bad now under 'democratised' states, as it was under the Dictatorships - only the persuasions of the victims have changed - and violent religious schism has tended to be a default outcome too.

We've never, for example, declared a 'War on Corruption', yet the amount of lives this costs in sub-Saharan Africa each year (either directly or indirectly) dwarfs what is happening in Syria. I'm not trivialising the latter, which is self-evidently a humanitarian tragedy - I'm merely trying to demonstrate the moral contradiction.

There is absolutely no up-side to involvement by Western powers. They will get blamed pretty-much whatever the outcome, and their recent track-record suggests that they'd leave even greater carnage in their wake.

Better that it's left alone, and that we file what's happening in Allepo in the same part of our conscience as we reconcile ourselves to avoidable famine in Africa.

 

[clivex]

Thats absolute rubbish Grass Total crap

You think afganistan and iraq were such wonderful places before the intervention? Have you heard of the taleban? Have you any conception of what saddam was up to?

No way is religous oppression "worse' now in afganistan. Ask any girl who actually goes to school now. In Iraq? Ask the marsh arabs or kurds?

its not perfect but thats a hopeless take on things

As for previous comments about "knowing whats bets for them", i think that when the alternative is the failed creed of communism, fascism, religious oppression and god awful pol pot or sudan genocidal states, i think we can point to liberal democracy and say, we are not perfect but what the fck is that?

The best example here is clearly korea. Maybe just maybe we are a little justified in pointing out to the north that one system produces samsung and the other has starving citizens eating grass... if they are lucky

 

[Grasshopper]

Thats absolute rubbish Grass Total crap

You think afganistan and iraq were such wonderful places before the intervention? Have you heard of the taleban? Have you any conception of what saddam was up to?

No way is religous oppression "worse' now in afganistan. Ask any girl who actually goes to school now. In Iraq? Ask the marsh arabs or kurds?

its not perfect but thats a hopeless take on things

As for previous comments about "knowing whats bets for them", i think that when the alternative is the failed creed of communism, fascism, religious oppression and god awful pol pot or sudan genocidal states, i think we can point to liberal democracy and say, we are not perfect but what the fck is that?

The best example here is clearly korea. Maybe just maybe we are a little justified in pointing out to the north that one system produces samsung and the other has starving citizens eating grass... if they are lucky

Afghanistan I consider to have been a legitimate target, for the reasons you yourself have given previously. Iraq is an entirely different matter, for reasons I have argued in the past.

Whether these countries are good or bad is not the point.

The fact is that every effort to 'help' these countries in the recent past, has been a failure to a lesser-or-greater extent. Just because a Marsh Arab now has a vote, doesn't change the fact that intra-Sunni/Shia violence is on the increase in Iraq, and the prisons are full of untried political prisoners; they just happen to be of a different stripe these days.

Support for the Arab Spring might make us feel morally superior, but the end-result has been a series of States little better than the Dictatorships they followed - insofar as their adherence to democratic principals are concerned at least - and where religious tolerance has taken a backward step. Ask any Coptic Christian living in Egypt.

The objectives are always to 'halt war-crimes' and 'spread democracy' - both of which are very noble desires - but the planet is a f*cked-up place, and they are far too grand to achieve in the short-term.

In my view, the West needs to radically scale-back its expectations, in terms of of its geo-political outlook. And it needs to stop looking at things in terms of 'good' or 'bad'. The world is too complex a place for such a simple viewpoint, and we'd be better-off trying to find some common-ground, rather than continually pointing-out our differences - even if it means turning a blind-eye termporarily on some of the less pleasant aspects of certain regimes.

If you will pardon the pun, the cultural difference between the West and the near-East is fundamental, and too profound to address in such binary terms.

 

[clivex]

well it is the point because you made it ffs

but egypt is a good case in point. i am fearful for the coptics there. of course it isnt right to overgeneralise but hatred, intolerance and authoritinarism is too entrenched in too many mindsets in that part of the world (which is why the harder left here admire them so much ...)

Compare and contrast with the transition in eastern europe ...

 

[Grey]

Anywhere the US and British armies have been they have ended up by abusing, shooting, bombing, arresting and torturing people they were supposedly helping. They also end up trying to bribe, arm, feed and aid elements they were originally supposed to be opposing. It's what unavoidably happens when you send officers and soldiers into situations they don't understand sufficiently.

 

[clivex]

Im getting a bit sick of having to bring up sierra leone and kosovo again and again. And it is objectionable and not unexpectedly anglophobic (again) to single out 'british armies" with such a stupid sweeping statement

Included in that of course is the liberation of france, italy, benelux and so on. Not to mention belsen etc

And dont say "thats different" when you come out with.

Anywhere the US and British armies have been they have ended up by abusing, shooting, bombing, arresting and torturing people they were supposedly helping

Still perhaps britain should have made a pact with hitler and stood by until his death when we would have sent our condolences eh?

 

[clivex]

Just because a Marsh Arab now has a vote, doesn't change the fact that intra-Sunni/Shia violence is on the increase in Iraq

Increase? From when exactly? Its far less than we have seen in the past

Flippant and stupid remark about the marsh arabs. Its not the vote that was the issue. It was their very SURVIVAL. He was eradicating them. Pure and simple

Why is it you seem to believe that Saddam was as threatening as Nick Clegg? And the taleban were just a bunch of eastern church of england vicars?. You must be getting your news from the Guardian

 

[Grasshopper]

Forget all that waffle, clivex.

You presumably support some sort of deeper involvement by the West in Syria, so the obvious question to ask is "What do you expect it to deliver?".

Unless the benefits of involvement are expected to outweigh the drawbacks, then the only pragmatic and sensible thing to do is not get involved.

Bringing-up WW2 is one of your classic smokescreens. It has nothing to do with the current geo-political environment - they are two entirely different contexts. The one aspect of WW2 that is relevant to your argument for engagement in Syria, is the desire on the part of certain nations to "do the right thing" i.e. the moral imperative. In the WW2 scenario, Germany represented a clear and present danger to those same nations - either via direct armed-conflict, or collateral impact (which is what really brought the US into the War) - and something had to be done.

Syria represents no threat whatsoever to those countries currently looking to insert themselves into this conflict. One therefore needs to balance whether the risks (dead soldiers, financial cost, threat of a violent transition period, potential increased threat of terrorism) will outweigh the benefits (another nasty regime replaced - just another 120 to go). I just fail to see how anyone could encourage participation in Syria, given how badly recent ventures of a similar nature have turned-out.

As I said, there is no upside.

 

[High Rate]

I've said for a long time that we should now get involved in Syria.

Opposition to arming the rebels will point to the war in Iraq and all its failings, as a reason for not intervening to stop massacres from taking place in Syria. Certainly this is what the Russians are doing and a few on here too.

I wouldn't argue the Iraq war was in any way ethical or practical, but that was about regime change, Syria is about intervening to stop innocent people being massacred. To argue differently as Grasshopper is doing.... is far too generic, mainstream and academic for my liking.

I think Cameron is right on this one.

 

[Grasshopper]

Increase? From when exactly? Its far less than we have seen in the past

Fanny.

How many Sunni-on-Shia suicide attacks were there under Saddam's regime?

 

[Grasshopper]

Flippant and stupid remark about the marsh arabs. Its not the vote that was the issue. It was their very SURVIVAL. He was eradicating them. Pure and simple

Why is it you seem to believe that Saddam was as threatening as Nick Clegg? And the taleban were just a bunch of eastern church of england vicars?. You must be getting your news from the Guardian

This kind of point-missing blige is why I get so irritated with you at times.

On my interpretation of the evidence, we merely replace one set of lunatics with another when we enter into these situations. The oppressors become the oppressed, and vice-versa.

Do you seriously think most Iraqis think it's a better place now than it was under Saddam?

The Sunnis are still getting it in the rear-end under the current Shia-led administration. Only now - thanks to the weapons-disapora created during the Iraq War - they are armed and supported (in part) by extreme Islamist factions, and able to strike-back via suicide attacks on Shia mosques and districts.

I take no sides in this. Iraq looks dreadful when viewed through either of the Pre-and-Post-Saddam kalaidescopes, is my honest opinion. And I would expect pretty-much the exact same outcome in Syria; though the latter appears to have more sinister factions amongst its rebels, than even Iraq did, and could potentially be worse in terms of its wider impact.

On the day that a new Iranian President has been elected, and where olive-branches appear to be being extended between Tehran and Washington, discussing sending weapons to Syria seems to me to be a most witless thing to do.

 

[clivex]

You presumably support some sort of deeper involvement by the West in Syr

Are you unable to read? is it that difficult?

Bringing-up WW2 is one of your classic smokescreens

Bollocks. Absolute crap. Its a prefect answer to the bigoted comment by another poster who simply stated that British (and american) armies only behave in a certain manner and always have done.

I think if someone is going to make such a crass comment, bringing up the biggest ever campaign in living memory is perhaps justified?

Certainly this is what the Russians are doing and a few on here to

Of course High rate. they are involved and so is the other favoured state, Iran.

 

[clivex]

I take no sides in this. Iraq looks dreadful when viewed through either of the Pre-and-Post-Saddam kalaidescopes, is my honest opinion. And I would expect pretty-much the exact same outcome in Syria; though the latter appears to have more sinister factions amongst its rebels, than even Iraq did, and could potentially be worse in terms of its wider impac

Ok. I wouldnt argue with much of this. I sometimes wonder if that part of the world has any will at all the work constructively and abandon hatred and bigotry. Bloody shambles the lot of them

Thats a bit sudden on Iran. Come on now. We have no real idea what his policy is at this stage. But its a small step the right way.

 

[clivex]

Quote:
Originally Posted by clivex
Flippant and stupid remark about the marsh arabs. Its not the vote that was the issue. It was their very SURVIVAL. He was eradicating them. Pure and simple

Why is it you seem to believe that Saddam was as threatening as Nick Clegg? And the taleban were just a bunch of eastern church of england vicars?. You must be getting your news from the Guardian
This kind of point-missing blige is why I get so irritated with you at times.

Hardly. It simply slammed the awful observations that you had made .

Next you will be telling us that vic reeves is funny and that colin murray is likeable. At which stage medication would be mandatory

Presumably you have now looked up taleban and saddam on wikipedia and worked out the difference between getting the vote and genocide

 

[simmo]

Syria represents no threat whatsoever to those countries currently looking to insert themselves into this conflict.

Ahem. I suspect you will find that the immediate support for rebels in Syria at the outset was on an "enemy of my enemy" basis due to the well-publicised support Assad gave to the terrorist organisation, Hezbollah.

I further suspect that any intervention by the West will be very limited in nature.

Personally I'd just leave them to it, let them bomb each other, gas each other, whatever the **** they want to do.

PS - The Russians are backing Assad because they need the currency provided by him buying their weapons.

 

[Grey]

Im getting a bit sick of having to bring up sierra leone and kosovo again and again. And it is objectionable and not unexpectedly anglophobic (again) to single out 'british armies" with such a stupid sweeping statement

Included in that of course is the liberation of france, italy, benelux and so on. Not to mention belsen etc

And dont say "thats different" when you come out with.




Still perhaps britain should have made a pact with hitler and stood by until his death when we would have sent our condolences eh?

It's telling that you have to go so far back for your examples.

I am a bit sick myself, of your constant accusations of anglophobia. The fact is that no countries have gone to war more often than the UK and the US in modern times, and perhaps not so modern times as well. That is a fact you have to accept.

And by the way, we had an interesting thread a while back about Irish neutrality in WW2 in which you backed down from the sort of knee-jerk dribble you're reverting to here. Remember?

http://www.talkinghorses.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=16723&highlight=Valera

 

[icebreaker]

Have to agree with the above post.
Clive, Britain has engaged in some sort of war in every decade of the past 300 years. Britain is the most belligerent country on earth -- perhaps in history outside the Romans. That is not anglophobia -- just a reasonable statement of fact.

Britain also has a propensity to glorify its wars and its warriors. Not a month passes but there is some commemoration of former military success or adventure. The Royal family are trotted out to partake and endorse the overt militarism inherent in such displays. Soldiers who have returned home without limbs or blinded in action are labelled Heroes for fighting some war against some developing country on another continent.
They are Heroes of course, but also deluded. Invariably these soldiers are working-class lads from the post-industrial North of England who sign up for bed-and-board and a bit of pay because there is no proper work available to them. Capitalism and its cheerleaders provide wars for them because capitalism cannot provide the jobs. And there is serious money to be made from wars too, as capitalism has astutely learned.

I find it funny-tragic that those always in favour of warmongering are those that do not and never will have to get into the trenches themselves. Did you ever fight in any war, can I ask you Clive?

 

[clivex]

Capitalism and its cheerleaders provide wars for them because capitalism cannot provide the jobs.

oh do me a favour. You really think britains economy benefitted from WW2 for instance? Unbelievable...

If it was about that alone then accepting hitlers tentative offer of a pact would have been somewhat more beneficial dont you think? the country was on its knees after the conflict. Are you not aware of that? Ever heard of the marshall plan?

fighting some war against some developing country on another continent.

Developing? Under the taleban ? Look afganistan has been done to death here and 10 years on i await the alternative to taking on AQs base. Not one hand wringer or brit/american hater has proposed anything of serious value. It was a "war" no one wanted.

Britain also has a propensity to glorify its wars and its warriors. Not a month passes but there is some commemoration of former military success or adventure

Thats bullshit. every month? since when? But sorry about remeberance day. Perhaps we should have treated those that fought the nazis in the same manner as a certain other country eh?

 

[clivex]

And by the way, we had an interesting thread a while back about Irish neutrality in WW2 in which you backed down from the sort of knee-jerk dribble you're reverting to here. Remember?

and ill refer you to to tehe above. A disgrace by any standards

It'

s telling that you have to go so far back for your examples.

Oh really? How long ago were Sierra leone and kosovo

You made a sweeping one tracked statement about british military force. You made in terms of "thats the way they are" (unlike any other army of course... bar americans)

You really think that you can make a stupid generalisation about the british attitude and manner of conflict and choose to ignore by far the biggest conflict of all?

 

[clivex]

back to main point. tend to agree in some respects simmo and "enemies enemy" is time and again........not a thoughtful approach...., shall we say

not sure about the last line though. its a long term alliance (of sorts) coupled with the usual russian anti west stance. I bet the bills are unpaid anyway

 

[Grey]

and ill refer you to to tehe above. A disgrace by any standards
You made a sweeping one tracked statement about british military force. You made in terms of "thats the way they are" (unlike any other army of course... bar americans)

The simple fact of the matter is I did not.

You are twisting what I have said. And you are trying to label anyone who wants to question military adventurism as a Brit hater.

You have no idea who you are calling an anglophobe, or what connections I may have with Britain. You are incapable of debate, all you want is to deal in ciphers and labels.

 

[clivex]

I just don't get this. Read your own post

If someone posted that "anywhere Pakistanis have been etc etc ". Yes? There would be more squealing than at a fire at a pork farm

Debate? Argued every point I disagree with. Ok we have had posters who have clearly never heard of the taleban and saddam and we have been to,d the outright lie that the uk celebrates war every month. We have also been told that war is started for "capitalist" reasons, which is at 180% to the economic facts and of course we have been to,d that Britain has only ever acted in a brutal way

I will admit garbage like that is more a case of holding head in hands rather than continuing any sort of discussion.